NPR⁠84%

A federal judge in D.C. declines to block Trump's executive order on voting by mail ⁠11%

By Hansi Lo Wang⁠0%

5/28/2026, 11:13:55 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 71 hits. Analysis detected 597 faulty-reasoning hits from 525 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 27.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠11% (18,907 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 89.30% of the article peer group.

A federal judge has declined to temporarily block President Trump's executive order that calls for restricting voting by mail. 
The ruling released Thursday by U.S. 
District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump nominee based in Washington, D.C., leaves in place — at least for now — an executive order on voting that tests the limits of the president's power under the Constitution. 
A separate, 2025 executive order on voting was halted by courts. 
The latest executive order, issued March 31, calls for the Department of Homeland Security to work with the Social Security Administration to create lists of adult U.S. citizens in each state, and to send those lists to state election officials. 
It also calls for the U.S. 
Postal Service — a federal agency that's independent of a president's administration — to come up with lists of eligible voters and to only deliver mail-in ballots to people on those lists. 
"The Court recognizes that the Postal Service may ultimately issue a final rule that directly affects Plaintiffs or their members, or that the Government may develop State Citizenship Lists that omit specific individuals due to particularized flaws. 
Plaintiffs may, of course, renew their motions if and when those future actions occur. 
Until then, however, Plaintiffs cannot show that preliminary injunctive relief is warranted," Nichols wrote about the decision not to block the order. 
Nichols' ruling comes as another federal judge is preparing to issue a ruling in the coming weeks for a similar set of lawsuits based in Boston. 
Since Trump signed the order, it's been unclear whether and how it would actually affect mail-in voting, which has been taking place for state primaries in this year's midterm election. 
In early May, the administration said in a court filing that federal agencies were still deliberating how to carry out the order. 
Acting U.S. 
Attorney General Todd Blanche later told a Senate Appropriations subcommittee that the Justice Department is working with other agencies to "make sure" the order's goals are implemented. 
Democrats, voting rights groups and almost two dozen states, plus Washington, D.C., have filed five lawsuits challenging the order. 
They argue that Article I of the Constitution gives state legislatures and Congress — not the president — the power to set rules for federal elections. 
Their lawsuits also contend that Trump's order directs USPS to make rules about election mail that would overstep the mailing agency's authority. 
Trump, who himself voted by mail in Florida in March, has said he issued the order to stop illegal voting by noncitizens in federal elections, which reviews and research have found to be incredibly rare. 
While there are voters across the partisan divide who rely on mail-in voting, more registered Democrats than Republicans say they voted by mail in the last national election in 2024. 
The new court ruling on Trump's order comes out of the three lawsuits filed in federal court in D.C. 
A decision on a similar request to block provisions of the order may come out of the two Massachusetts-based lawsuits as soon as early June. 
Edited by Benjamin Swasey 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 2.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.6%Hansi Lo Wang: 16.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.1%Framing Effect12.6%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.8%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.4%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 5.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Hansi Lo Wang: 12.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 11.3%Negativity Bias13.5%This article: 6.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 6.9%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error6.9%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 3.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 2.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.5%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.7%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.7%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 5.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.1%Appeal to Authority12.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 4.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 6.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 4.4%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.6%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.7%Bandwagon3.6%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 7.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.1%Hansi Lo Wang: 2.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.1%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.1%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.1%Personal Incredulity6.7%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.0%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.3%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.3%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 7.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.9%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.0%This article: 9.7%Hansi Lo Wang: 5.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 3.1%Biased Writer Voice9.7%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 1.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 6.2%Goats and Soda (NPR): 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.4%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hansi Lo Wang: 0.6%Goats and Soda (NPR): 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

525 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers23%attributed speech405writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageCarl Nichols • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageCarl Nichols • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words29% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Unattributed Quote-12.6 ptsWriter: 12.6%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%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…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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