Fact Check: Karoline Leavitt’s Claims That Democrats “Pander to Terrorists, Illegal Aliens & Violent Criminals”

In a recent public comments, Karoline Leavitt made sweeping accusations: that Democrats “cater to pro-Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals,” that House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning Hamas after October 7, and that Democrats “open borders,” support soft-on-crime policies like cashless bail, and generally betray the interests of law-abiding Americans. Below is a point-by-point fact check of those claims, assessing where evidence supports or contradicts them.

1. Claim: “House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning Hamas after October 7”

What we know: Leavitt asserted that “House Democrats voted against a resolution condemning Hamas” following the October 7, 2023 attack. Evidence & context: I was unable to locate a credible record of a House resolution in late 2023, widely reported, where a majority of House Democrats voted against condemning Hamas. No major coverage or Congressional record confirms that broad claim as stated. There are occasional roll calls in which some Democrats vote “no” or “present” on certain foreign policy resolutions, but sweeping statements that “House Democrats refused to condemn Hamas” as a bloc are not supported by the accessible public record. Verdict: Unsubstantiated / misleading. If such a vote exists, it has not been clearly documented in major records or media.

2. Claim: “Democrats cheered on pro-Hamas radicals while they hijacked America’s college campuses and harassed Jewish students”

What we know: This is a more general and qualitative claim; it implies that Democratic leaders publicly supported or condoned pro-Hamas activism on U.S. campuses, especially when protests targeted Jewish students. I found no credible evidence that prominent Democratic leaders or the Democratic Party officially “cheered on” pro-Hamas radicals in U.S. universities. Major news sources covering pro-Palestinian protests often report tensions, and at times clashes, but not wholesale endorsements from party leadership. Some Democratic lawmakers have been criticized by activists or constituents for their positions (or silence) during campus protests, but that is not equivalent to formal endorsement of radicals. Verdict: False or exaggerated. There is no documented proof that Democrats, as an institutional party, publicly cheered radical activism on U.S. campuses.

3. Claim: “Democrats opened our borders and allowed tens of millions of illegal aliens … because they view them as future voters”

What we know: Leavitt’s statement conflates border policy, immigration enforcement, and political motives. Immigration data & flows: While illegal border crossings and undocumented population estimates have been topics of debate, there is no credible evidence that “tens of millions” of illegal aliens were admitted or allowed in recently under Democrat control solely to create a voting base. Policy stances: Democrats generally advocate for immigration reform, pathways to legalization, and enforcement with due process. For example, in August 2025, the New Democrat Coalition released an Immigration & Border Security Framework proposing fair enforcement, deportation for felons, modernization, and legal pathways. That framework explicitly states that undocumented immigrants who commit violent crimes or fail to gain legal status should be deported under current law. newdemocratcoalition.house.gov Verdict: Misleading / partially false. While immigration remains a contentious issue, the claim that Democrats “opened borders” to facilitate mass illegal immigration for electoral gain is unsupported by the policy documents and data currently available.

4. Claim: “Democrats coddle violent criminals and support soft-on-crime policies like cashless bail”

What we know: Leavitt invokes “soft-on-crime” critiques, particularly around “cashless bail” policies that release defendants without bail, even if they are accused of violent offenses. Cashless bail controversy: The White House has itself published commentary accusing so-called “cashless bail” policies of enabling repeat violent crime, citing examples from New York and D.C. of dangerous individuals released without bail who reoffended. However, it’s important to note that the legal systems that adopted such policies vary by jurisdiction and party control. Also, many cashless bail reforms include risk assessment mechanisms, not blanket release. Some Democrats have supported reforms to make the criminal justice system more equitable, which critics call “soft.” But that doesn’t necessarily mean they uniformly support unchecked releases of violent criminals. In Washington, D.C., federal proposals have been introduced to end or modify cashless bail mechanisms. Verdict: Partially true / context-dependent. There is evidence that some jurisdictions with Democratic influence have adopted bail reforms, and some released individuals have reoffended. But the claim that Democrats broadly “coddle violent criminals” over-simplifies a complex and jurisdictionally varied set of policies.

Our Take

Karoline Leavitt’s statements mix grains of truth with broad exaggerations and unverified claims. There is evidence in public discourse that bail reform and immigration debates are contested and divisive, and that some released defendants have reoffended. But the sweeping picture she paints of Democrats as a party that actively pander to terrorists, illegal aliens, and criminals, is not supported by the available records or public policies.