BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.9% saturation with 301 hits. Analysis detected 1,684 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,210 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.1% and a BS Rank of 44% (11,981 of 21,203 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.50% of the article peer group.

An expansive inquiry by the Department of Homeland Security’s inspector general into the handling of contracts under the agency’s former secretary, Kristi Noem, is scrutinizing her senior adviser Corey Lewandowski’s interactions with companies seeking federal business, according to multiple people familiar with the investigation. 
The inquiry comes as administration officials have fielded complaints from companies about their dealings with Mr. 
Lewandowski, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions. 
They and others familiar with the inquiry spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation. 
Among the companies that complained, the people said, is Palantir, the data analysis and technology firm whose services have been used broadly by the Homeland Security Department, including for a new program to help track individuals for deportation. 
The focus of the investigation by the inspector general, Joseph V. 
Cuffari, who was nominated to his post by President Trump in his first term, reflects the widening fallout from Ms. 
Noem’s rocky tenure. 
Mr. 
Trump abruptly fired her last month amid criticisms of an expensive advertising campaign that prominently featured her. 
The inquiry deepens the questions about the latitude she granted to Mr. 
Lewandowski, a special adviser who was not an official government employee and was supposed to serve in a limited capacity. 
A spokesman for Mr. 
Cuffari’s office declined to comment, noting that it does not confirm or deny any potential ongoing investigation. 
Palantir did not respond to requests for comment. 
A statement released by Mr. 
Lewandowski’s office said he was not aware of any outreach from the inspector general and denied any impropriety in his dealings with companies. 
“Contracting decisions rest with authorized officials at D.H.S.,” the statement read. 
“When $15 billion has been saved for American taxpayers, he recognizes that entrenched interests may be resistant to the reforms which were executed.” 
The Homeland Security Department did not respond to requests for comment. 
Mr. 
Trump has grown increasingly frustrated by the attention that Ms. 
Noem and Mr. 
Lewandowski have drawn, according to people familiar with his views. 
The president’s anger grew when photos were released last week showing Mr. 
Lewandowski accompanying Ms. 
Noem at a diplomatic meeting with leaders from Guyana. 
Ms. 
Noem is now in a new role as a special envoy for the Shield of Americas, a new coalition of countries in Latin America and the Caribbean. 
It is unclear how the investigation could affect her tenure. 
The White House declined to comment, as did the State Department. 
The ouster of Ms. 
Noem from the Homeland Security Department was supposed to put to bed a year of controversy that has engulfed the agency, which has been driving Mr. 
Trump’s effort to fulfill his pledge to conduct mass deportations of undocumented immigrants. 
The inspector general’s inquiry comes as the agency is seeking to move on with a new leader in Markwayne Mullin, the former Republican senator from Oklahoma who was sworn in as secretary last week. 
So far, Mr. 
Mullin has struck a different tone as secretary, keeping a low profile as he navigates a congressional fight over funding for the agency. 
And the new secretary is already moving to distance himself from his predecessor. 
In private, Mr. 
Mullin has been supportive of the independent investigation into Ms. 
Noem’s time at the department, in part to make clear who was accountable for any potential wrongdoing that could emerge, according to officials. 
And on Wednesday, he reversed a policy instituted by Ms. 
Noem that required every contract over $100,000 to be personally reviewed by her, the agency said in a statement to The New York Times. 
“This will streamline the contract process and empower components to carry out their mission to protect the homeland and make America safe again,” the agency said. 
Mr. 
Cuffari, who was confirmed to his position in 2019, is one of the few remaining inspectors general after Mr. 
Trump fired or demoted many of them in his second term. 
Mr. 
Cuffari clashed with Ms. 
Noem when she was leading the department, and he told Congress earlier this year that D.H.S. officials had blocked him from accessing critical information and databases needed for his investigations. 
Ms. 
Noem said at the time that Mr. 
Cuffari was seeking overly broad access to department information. 
Mr. 
Mullin already has said that he will work with the inspector general’s office, according to a D.H.S. official. 
The inspector general’s inquiry is intensifying the spotlight on the tight grip that Ms. 
Noem and Mr. 
Lewandowski had on contracts inside the agency, and the concerns among homeland security officials that Mr. 
Lewandowski was trying to enrich himself through his role, as The Times previously reported. 
Mr. 
Cuffari is also examining the actions of people with potential connections to Mr. 
Lewandowski in various agencies throughout the department, which encompasses immigration enforcement, the Transportation Security Administration, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the Secret Service and the Coast Guard. 
NBC News has reported that Mr. 
Lewandowski demanded payments from GEO Group, a major contractor that runs private detention facilities, based on its business with the Homeland Security Department. 
Adam Trigg, a lawyer for Mr. 
Lewandowski, has denied that. 
“Mr. 
Lewandowski adamantly denies ever demanding any payment or compensation from any potential, former or current government contractor,” Mr. 
Trigg said in a statement last month. 
As part of Mr. 
Cuffari’s examination, the existence of which was previously reported by CNN, D.H.S. officials have been instructed to preserve all emails and communications pertaining to contracts, according to two officials. 
The inspector general is scrutinizing a wide range of activities, including the actions of Kara Voorhies, a contractor at FEMA who worked closely with Ms. 
Noem and Mr. 
Lewandowski, court filings indicate. 
Lawyers for the department told a federal court last week that the agency was not in possession of Ms. 
Voorhies’s government-issued phones, which had been placed under an inspector general “preservation notice” some time before March 20. 
Ms. 
Voorhies could not be reached for comment. 
The Wall Street Journal previously reported the inspector general’s focus on her work. 
Ms. 
Voorhies is no longer employed at FEMA or the Homeland Security Department, the filing said. 
She left the agency in mid-March, according to two people familiar with her departure. 
Before joining the disaster agency last year, Ms. 
Voorhies had worked since 2014 for Crest Investment Company, a Houston-based financial firm, most recently as chief financial officer, according to an archived version of her since-deleted LinkedIn page. 
While at FEMA, she was involved in varied aspects of its disaster work, including contract and grant reviews, according to three people familiar with her work. 
Emails shared with The Times show Ms. 
Voorhies was among a small group of FEMA leaders copied on approvals of contracts, including for search and rescue teams in the days after deadly July 4 floods in Texas, as well as requests for employee travel during the ongoing partial government shutdown. 
Last month, Antoine McCord, the Homeland Security Department’s chief information officer, sent an email to FEMA employees reminding them of department policy and federal law requiring preservation of “electronic messaging records,” according to a copy obtained by The Times. 
The rules apply to emails, Signal messages, texts and “any tools used to communicate for work,” the message said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.1%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.3%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias1.1%This article: 1.7%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias1.7%This article: 7.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.9%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 5.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.2%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 2.1%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias2.1%This article: 0.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.2%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 8.9%Hamed Aleaziz: 6.6%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.1%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias2.1%This article: 3.7%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.9%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 24.9%Hamed Aleaziz: 13.0%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias24.9%This article: 6.4%Hamed Aleaziz: 4.3%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias6.4%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.5%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect0.8%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.6%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.9%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias7.6%This article: 2.4%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 2.2%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority8.8%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.1%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.3%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization1.1%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.3%Hamed Aleaziz: 2.0%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion6.3%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.1%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.8%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.7%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof2.8%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Hamed Aleaziz: 1.4%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.9%Hamed Aleaziz: 2.0%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.8%Hamed Aleaziz: 5.5%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote21.8%This article: 2.4%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.6%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 2.9%Hamed Aleaziz: 2.7%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%Hamed Aleaziz: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

1210 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.6%attributed speech1,203writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Trigg • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Trigg

0%flagged-word coverage
7 attributed words100% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-21.9 ptsWriter: 21.9%Adam Trigg: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Adam Trigg: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Adam Trigg: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%Adam Trigg: 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.