Trump-Loving Crypto Super PAC Finally Backs a Democrat: Ritchie Torres ⁠20%

By Matt Sledge⁠63%

6/19/2026, 9:09:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Genetic Fallacy, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 27.6% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,046 faulty-reasoning hits from 604 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠20% (17,050 of 21,165 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.60% of the article peer group.

A crypto super PAC that has praised President Donald Trump and previously endorsed an all-Republican slate of candidates has finally found a Democrat it can get behind: New York Rep. 
Ritchie Torres. 
The Fellowship PAC dropped $300,000 on Monday to boost Torres in the final days of his reelection primary campaign, funneling its ad spend through a firm co-founded by Trump’s former top crypto adviser. 
The super PAC’s largest funder is Cantor Fitzgerald, the investment bank helmed by the sons of Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick. 
Torres is not expected to face serious opposition in the June 23 primary in New York. 
The sole public poll of the race put him far ahead of his leading opponent, former Democratic National Committee vice chair Michael Blake. 
Torres, the Fellowship PAC, and Blake did not immediately respond to requests for comment. 
The spending is another sign of bond between crypto firms and Torres, a member of the key House Committee on Financial Services who has been one of the industry’s most vocal Democratic supporters. 
Torres was a co-founder of the Congressional Crypto Caucus. 
Still, the primary intervention still comes as something of a surprise given that, in the past, the Fellowship PAC only doled out campaign funds on behalf of Republicans. 
Reporting on its creation, the New York Times described the PAC as “more aligned with the Republican Party and President Trump than Fairshake, which is the dominant, pro-crypto super PAC.” 
The PAC signaled support for Trump in a press release announcing its creation in September, praising him for putting “America on the path to become the global crypto capital.” 
In the months since then, however, the odds that Republicans will control the House after the midterm elections have dimmed. 
The Fellowship PAC, which spends on ads rather than giving directly to campaigns, put Torres’s picture on its endorsement page in recent weeks, according to an archive of its website. 
Other candidates the group has endorsed include Sen. 
Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, R-Texas, in their Senate races. 
Big Crypto Bucks for Shoo-in 
The Fellowship PAC is not the only crypto campaign organization spending on behalf of Torres. 
Protect Progress, which is affiliated with the juggernaut crypto super PAC Fairshake, buoyed the Bronx Democrat with nearly $1.4 million in advertising. 
The two super PACs are aligned with different factions of the crypto industry. 
The Fellowship PAC’s chair is the vice president of regulatory affairs for Tether, a massive stablecoin company that is trying to break into the U.S. market after years of scrutiny over its use by money launderers, including terror groups. 
Although Tether has not donated directly to the Fellowship PAC, the PAC received $10 million from the financial services firm Cantor Fitzgerald, which is the custodian of billions of dollars of U.S. 
Treasury bills on behalf of Tether. 
Lutnick, Trump’s commerce secretary, stepped down as the head of the banking firm and divested his assets to join the Cabinet. 
The media buy on behalf of Torres was made through Nxum Group, which was co-founded by Bo Hines, a former Republican congressional candidate who served as the executive director of Trump’s Council of Advisers on Digital Assets last year. 
Hines is the CEO of Tether U.S., the American division of the El Salvador-based firm. 
Protect Progress and Fairshake, meanwhile, have been funded by the crypto exchange Coinbase and the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz. 
Fairshake and its affiliates have spent money on both sides of the aisle, although it was criticized in 2024 for helping tip the Senate in favor of Republicans. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Matt Sledge: 2.8%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Matt Sledge: 2.4%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 8.6%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.6%This article: 3.3%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Matt Sledge: 11.2%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Matt Sledge: 1.5%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias7.9%This article: 18.0%Matt Sledge: 11.8%The Intercept: 12.4%Negativity Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.5%This article: 6.5%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.8%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Matt Sledge: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias10.1%This article: 6.3%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect6.3%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.7%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.9%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Matt Sledge: 2.9%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.0%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Matt Sledge: 5.8%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 6.3%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.1%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.1%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.6%Matt Sledge: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.8%Matt Sledge: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.8%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 12.9%Matt Sledge: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy12.9%This article: 4.6%Matt Sledge: 2.6%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 2.0%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 27.6%Matt Sledge: 8.3%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice27.6%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 4.8%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matt Sledge: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

604 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.0%attributed speech574writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.1 ptsWriter: 29.1%New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.9 ptsWriter: 4.9%New York Times: 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.