Trump wages war on California insurance giants over wildfire payouts while teasing probe: ‘Horrendous companies’ ⁠82%

By Daniel Farr⁠69%

4/1/2026, 3:35:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Emotion, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 41% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 922 faulty-reasoning hits from 288 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (4,081 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.40% of the article peer group.

President Trump took aim at insurance giant State Farm and other providers by accusing them of abandoning Southern Californians devastated by last year’s wildfires. 
In a scathing Truth Social post on Tuesday, Trump singled out State Farm, calling the company and others like it “horrendous” for failing homeowners who had faithfully paid premiums for years. 
“People have been paying them large premiums for years, only to find that when tragedy struck, these horrendous companies were not there to help!” 
the president wrote. 
Trump said he has tasked Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin with producing a report that lists which companies acted “swiftly, courageously, and bravely” to honor their legal obligations, and which ones fell short. 
“The names of some surprise me, but in the world in which we live, nothing really surprises me!” 
he added. 
Trump added that the government was “looking into this matter as we speak.” 
“State Farm, and others, should get their act together, and treat people fairly,” he wrote. 
The Post contacted State Farm for comment. 
His post comes amid his ongoing feud with California state leadership, particularly Gov. 
Gavin Newsom, whom he has repeatedly blamed for the fires’ destructive impact. 
In January, Trump issued an executive order aimed at fast-tracking LA’s rebuilding a year after the wildfires. 
Trump pointed the finger at Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass for the slow rebuilding of homes ravaged by the Pacific Palisades and Eaton fires, two of the most destructive in city history. 
The president has cliamed state environmental policies, like water restrictions to protect the endangered delta smelt, made firefighting harder, while failed permitting and local bureaucracy slowed rebuilding. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.4%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.3%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Daniel Farr: 4.7%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Daniel Farr: 12.8%California Post: 10.3%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.2%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 41.0%Daniel Farr: 17.4%California Post: 16.0%Negativity Bias41.0%This article: 22.2%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias22.2%This article: 8.3%Daniel Farr: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error8.3%This article: 4.2%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Daniel Farr: 0.9%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 3.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 5.9%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.2%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.3%Daniel Farr: 3.0%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority16.3%This article: 11.8%Daniel Farr: 1.5%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma11.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.8%Daniel Farr: 3.9%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization10.8%This article: 4.5%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring4.5%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.5%Daniel Farr: 8.2%California Post: 8.9%Appeal to Emotion29.5%This article: 6.3%Daniel Farr: 0.6%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 25.0%Daniel Farr: 2.2%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)25.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.8%Daniel Farr: 0.8%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof12.8%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.4%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.4%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.0%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.1%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.3%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.3%Daniel Farr: 2.6%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote8.3%This article: 5.2%Daniel Farr: 1.8%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 29.9%Daniel Farr: 12.2%California Post: 13.1%Biased Writer Voice29.9%This article: 8.3%Daniel Farr: 1.6%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination8.3%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.4%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 3.8%California Post: 3.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Daniel Farr: 0.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

288 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers51%attributed speech142writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageThe Post • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 33 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
139 attributed words95% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.1 ptsWriter: 41.5%Donald Trump: 19.4%19.4%Unattributed Quote-16.9 ptsWriter: 16.9%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-16.9 ptsWriter: 16.9%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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