Pentagon Implores Civilian Workers to Join ICE “Volunteer Force” ⁠28%

By Noah Hurowitz⁠74% Austin Campbell⁠62%

3/20/2026, 6:47:17 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Framing Effect, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 20.4% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 465 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (14,914 of 20,516 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

The Pentagon has put out a call to its civilian employees to volunteer with the Department of Homeland Security as the embattled agency enters its second month without funding and weathers a public relations crisis over its brutal immigration enforcement tactics. 
As email dated Thursday compares immigration enforcement to fighting wildfires and other disaster response and implores civilian employees and contractors to “step up for our country’s next challenge.” 
Those who volunteer “will directly support the operations of U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and U.S. 
Customs and Border Protection (CBP) as they work to ensure a safe and orderly immigration system,” reads the email, listed as from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness. 
“To date, participants have helped ICE and CBP develop concepts of operation, provide logistics support, and managed enforcement activities that enhance public safety.” 
ICE and CBP have faced a wave of public backlash in recent months, as immigration operations have terrorized communities across the country and killed two civilians in Minneapolis. 
President Donald Trump fired DHS Secretary Kristi Noem earlier this month, and in February, Congress triggered a partial government shutdown by letting DHS funding lapse while Democrats request reforms. 
A photo of the memo, which was first reported by Military Times, appeared Thursday afternoon on an unofficial Facebook page for Air Force personnel. 
A spokesperson for the Department of Defense did not respond to The Intercept’s request for comment, but the email’s details match those of an earlier department press release published March 11. 
The Pentagon’s current call for DHS support appears to be a re-up of an earlier ask for volunteers made last August. 
At that time, Michael A. 
Cogar, the deputy assistant defense secretary for civilian personnel policy, expressed pride in civilians joining the efforts of DHS. 
“This is a national security problem, and our civilians have the critical skill sets to support DHS in their mission,” Cogar said in August. 
“We’re proud that our civilians are already willing to sign up.” 
The memo sent out Thursday claimed that more than 900 people had submitted applications so far to take part in the details, but did not specify how many people have been deployed. 
The March 11 press release claimed that around 200 civilians had deployed as part of the program. 
The email linked to a page on USA Jobs, a clearinghouse for federal job opportunities. 
The page, titled “Volunteer Force,” advertises a salary range of $25,684 to $191,900 per year. 
A list of potential volunteer duties include data entry, operational support, assisting ICE and CBP with managing the flow of detainees, and logistical planning. 
The Pentagon has taken an active support role in DHS activities since the beginning of Trump’s second term, when Trump declared a national emergency on the southern border and authorized the armed forces to deploy there. 
Pentagon spending on border security has been the subject of controversy over the past year. 
In December, Democratic lawmakers accused the Trump administration of siphoning at least $2 billion from the Pentagon’s budget and prioritizing hard-line border initiatives and political stunts over its traditional focus on national security. 
Spokespeople for DHS, ICE, and CBP did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 5.8%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 5.1%Noah Hurowitz: 3.2%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Noah Hurowitz: 10.8%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect12.8%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.8%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 20.4%Noah Hurowitz: 13.4%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias20.4%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 2.4%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 2.6%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Noah Hurowitz: 3.6%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.5%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.2%Noah Hurowitz: 7.9%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization11.2%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 7.3%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 3.4%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.1%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.1%Noah Hurowitz: 3.2%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal5.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.7%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 20.4%Noah Hurowitz: 11.0%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice20.4%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 1.5%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 6.6%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Hurowitz: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech403writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness • 10 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness • 7 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness • 34 words • 0.0% coverageOffice of the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMichael A. Cogar • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMichael A. Cogar • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDemocratic lawmakers • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Democratic lawmakers

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words23% of attributed speech41% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+80.6 ptsWriter: 19.4%Democratic lawmakers: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.