Editorial Policy

Last Updated: March 16, 2026

Donald Trump Class Action is committed to producing journalism that is accurate, fair, transparent, and useful to our readers. This Editorial Policy outlines the standards and processes that govern our content creation, review, and correction procedures. Every member of our editorial team is expected to uphold these standards in their work.

Editorial Standards

Our editorial standards are built on the principles that have guided responsible journalism for decades, adapted for the digital media environment:

Accuracy: Every factual claim in our content must be verified against reliable sources before publication. When a fact cannot be independently verified, we note the uncertainty and identify the source of the claim.
Fairness: We present information in context and seek to represent multiple perspectives when covering contested issues. We do not advocate for specific political positions in our news and analytical coverage.
Transparency: We disclose our methodology, sourcing, and any limitations in our reporting. When we rely on anonymous sources, we explain why the source cannot be identified and what steps we took to verify the information.
Independence: Our editorial judgments are made by our editorial staff without interference from advertisers, business partners, political organizations, or legal entities. No outside party has editorial control or approval rights over our content.
Accountability: We stand behind our work and correct errors promptly. We do not delete or silently alter published content — corrections and updates are documented transparently.

Fact-Checking Process

Our fact-checking process is an integral part of our editorial workflow and applies to all published content, not just articles labeled as fact-checks:

Pre-publication verification: Before any article is published, the writer verifies all factual claims against primary sources. This includes confirming dates, case numbers, financial figures, legal citations, and quotations.
Independent review: A fact-checker or editor who was not involved in writing the article reviews the content for accuracy. This reviewer cross-references key claims against the original sources and flags any inconsistencies.
Legal and technical accuracy: For content involving legal analysis, settlement details, or policy descriptions, a reviewer with relevant legal or policy expertise confirms the accuracy of technical statements and terminology.
Source documentation: We maintain internal records of sources for every factual claim in our published content. These records enable us to respond to reader questions and correct errors efficiently.

Corrections Policy

We take errors seriously and correct them promptly and transparently:

Minor corrections (typos, formatting errors, broken links) are fixed without a formal correction notice, though we update the article’s “last updated” date.
Factual corrections are accompanied by a correction notice appended to the article that identifies the error, states the correct information, and notes the date of the correction.
Significant corrections that materially affect the meaning or conclusions of an article are accompanied by a prominent correction notice at the top of the article. If a fact-check rating is changed due to new information or an error, we note the change and explain our reasoning.
Retractions are rare but will be issued if an article is found to contain errors so fundamental that the piece as a whole is unreliable. Retracted articles are marked clearly and remain accessible in our archive for transparency.

To report an error, please contact us at [email protected] with the article URL and a description of the issue. We review all correction requests within two business days.

Sourcing Standards

Our sourcing hierarchy prioritizes reliability and verifiability:

Primary sources: Court documents, government records, official filings, regulatory dockets, and original data are our preferred sources. We link directly to these documents whenever possible.
Official statements: Press releases, official reports, and on-the-record statements from authorized representatives are used to represent organizational positions.
Expert analysis: Commentary from recognized experts — attorneys, academics, policy analysts — provides context and interpretation. We identify experts by name and relevant credentials.
Reporting by other outlets: When citing reporting by other news organizations, we verify the underlying facts independently whenever possible. We credit the originating outlet with a link.
Anonymous sources: We use anonymous sources sparingly and only when the information is newsworthy and cannot be obtained on the record. We require that at least one editor knows the identity of the source and that the information is corroborated by at least one other source or document.

Conflict of Interest Policy

All editorial staff and contributors are required to disclose any personal, financial, or professional relationships that could create a conflict of interest with respect to their coverage assignments. Specific requirements include:

Staff may not cover companies, law firms, or organizations in which they have a financial interest
Staff may not accept gifts, travel, or other benefits from sources or subjects of coverage
Freelance contributors must disclose all relevant affiliations before their content is assigned or accepted
The Editor-in-Chief is responsible for reviewing disclosed conflicts and making assignment decisions that avoid even the appearance of bias

Editorial Independence

Our editorial content is produced independently of our advertising and business operations. This means:

Advertisers have no input into editorial decisions, including which topics to cover, how to cover them, or what conclusions to draw
We do not publish advertiser-influenced content as editorial content. Any sponsored or paid content is clearly labeled as such
Our advertising team does not share advertiser identities or campaign details with the editorial team in ways that could influence coverage
We will cover newsworthy stories about our advertisers with the same standards we apply to any other subject

How Articles Are Reviewed

Every piece of content published on donaldtrumpclassaction.com passes through a multi-step review process:

Writer self-review: The writer reviews their draft for accuracy, clarity, fairness, and completeness before submission.
Editorial review: An editor reviews the draft for editorial standards compliance, including headline accuracy, source quality, balance, and overall quality.
Fact-check review: A fact-checker or second editor verifies key facts against primary sources.
Legal/technical review: When applicable, a subject-matter expert reviews content for technical accuracy.
Final approval: The Editor-in-Chief or a senior editor gives final approval before publication.

This multi-layer process is designed to catch errors, biases, and omissions before content reaches our readers. While no process is perfect, we believe this approach represents a meaningful commitment to editorial standards and earning our readers’ trust.

Contact

Questions about our editorial policies and standards can be directed to [email protected].