FBI Tried to Flip Anti-ICE Protesters Into Informants 7%

By C. Frances0% Noah Hurowitz74%

6/20/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 14.2% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 650 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,040 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 23.3% and a BS Rank of 7% (19,131 of 20,452 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 93.50% of the article peer group.

John Mark Rozendaal was just trying to play music. 
On May 29, along with scores of others, Rozendaal responded to calls on social media to gather outside of Delaney Hall, the immigration detention facility in Newark, New Jersey. 
The privately run U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility had, in recent weeks, become the site of daily protests, spurred by a detainee hunger strike against alleged ghastly conditions inside. 
When Rozendaal went to Delaney Hall, he took his cello with him. 
“I consider music to be a de-escalatory thing to do,” he told The Intercept. 
“I sat down on the concrete barricade facing north and started to play.” 
That night, however, the scene outside Delaney Hall quickly took a violent turn. 
New Jersey State Police and ICE agents issued a dispersal order and began to clear protesters from the area by force  with officers deploying chemical weapons and charging protesters on horseback. 
“As I played, I saw this wall of plastic riot shields and cops in tactical gear advancing,” Rozendaal recalled. 
“There were tear gas canisters flying overhead. 
I could see horses behind the riot shields, flash-bangs. 
So it was quite dramatic.” 
Moments later, Rozendaal was arrested by the New Jersey State Police and, according to an arrest report viewed by The Intercept, charged with one count of obstructing law enforcement. 
The charge was minor  but a week later, things took a strange turn when Rozendaal received a call from the FBI. 
“The agent said, ‘We’re calling because you were arrested at Delaney Hall,’” Rozendaal told The Intercept. 
(The FBI declined to comment.) 
In the following minutes, Rozendaal said the agents asked if he would be willing to provide the FBI with information on protesters that they described as “anybody planning to go to Delaney Hall with not the right intentions.” 
“So, I mean, they were asking me to inform,” Rozendaal said. 
Rozendaal is not the only Delaney Hall protester to receive a call from the FBI. 
In the weeks since arrests began stacking up at the protests  approximately 90 people have been arrested so far  at least half of those taken into custody have received calls from federal agents looking for information, according to Benjamin Van Meter, a deputy public defender with the Essex County Public Defender’s Office who represents a number of protesters facing charges. 
Van Meter lodged a complaint with authorities over the matter, claiming the FBI contact with his clients violated their constitutional rights. 
The phone number used to contact Rozendaal, according to call history logs reviewed by The Intercept, is registered to the FBI’s New York field office and is posted online as an anonymous tipline. 
Rozendaal said he rejected the offer immediately and, when the agent attempted to question him further, invoked his right to remain silent, ending the conversation. 
The FBI has a long track record of trying to turn protesters, political dissidents, and ethnic and religious minorities into informants. 
The strategy, which is still commonly used today, can serve agents by both collecting information while stoking distrust among members of political movements and religious communities, according to Amol Sinha, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s New Jersey chapter. 
“With every major protest movement in United States history, there have been attempts at infiltration and attempts to disrupt them and to sow discord,” Sinha said. 
“The FBI has repeatedly been on the wrong side of history every time they’ve tried these tactics of infiltration.” 
Sinha said it was important for anyone approached by federal agents to remember their right to remain silent and to ask for an attorney to be present for any questioning. 
“Unless the FBI produces a warrant, you have the right to refuse entry,” Sinha said. 
“You certainly have the right to stay silent and to demand a lawyer. 
You are not under any obligation to speak to them about anything  especially if they are charging you with a crime.” 
Samuel Becker, another protester facing local charges after an arrest outside Delaney Hall, told The Intercept he too got a visit from federal agents in the days following his arrest. 
“The FBI would rather intimidate and punish the people protesting outside of Delaney Hall than investigate the physical, sexual, and psychological violence that ICE agents and their auxiliaries are inflicting on detainees across this country every day,” Becker said. 
Van Meter, the public defender, wrote a letter to Robert Frazer, the U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, and two high-ranking FBI officials in New York and New Jersey, demanding that the FBI stop their attempts to question his clients without an attorney present. 
(The Department of Justice did not respond to a request for comment.) 
“These attempts at contacting our clients at their homes and by phone violate their right to counsel and we ask that you immediately cease and desist from all attempts to question or interrogate our clients without their counsel present,” Van Meter wrote in the letter, dated June 9. 
“Any further efforts to question our clients are a continued violation of their constitutional right to counsel and our office remains ready to seek all available relief under both state and federal law.” 
In a statement to The Intercept, Karen Paff, a spokesperson for the New Jersey Office of the Public Defender, said Van Meter and his colleagues were simply looking “to ensure that the rights of our clients are respected.” 
“When law-enforcement officers seek to question individuals who are represented by counsel about matters within the scope of that representation, it is our responsibility to notify the appropriate agencies that counsel has been assigned and that any such communications must comply with the law,” Paff said. 
“This is not a new or case-specific practice. 
It is a routine part of our responsibility to clients in any matter where represented individuals may be approached for questioning.” 
For Rozendaal, the intent of the FBI agents who sought him out seemed to go beyond just fishing for information. 
“I think the real intent is to divide us, to make us scared to talk to each other, too scared to talk in general, scared to go to Delaney Hall,” Rozendaal said. 
“It won’t work.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%C. Frances: 3.0%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.4%C. Frances: 1.9%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic1.4%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 1.8%C. Frances: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.3%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%C. Frances: 6.1%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect8.7%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.3%C. Frances: 0.4%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.3%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.6%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%C. Frances: 5.3%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 3.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 2.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 2.7%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 1.8%C. Frances: 1.3%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority1.8%This article: 3.8%C. Frances: 1.6%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma3.8%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.4%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.2%C. Frances: 6.0%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization14.2%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 4.2%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.2%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 2.3%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.0%C. Frances: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal6.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.1%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.1%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 1.0%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 1.5%C. Frances: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection1.5%This article: 2.8%C. Frances: 2.7%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice2.8%This article: 2.9%C. Frances: 0.3%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 3.4%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%C. Frances: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1040 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers66%attributed speech357writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 38 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Van Meter • 62 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 41 words • 0.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 19 words • 0.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 30 words • 100.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 15 words • 0.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAmol Sinha • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Becker • 30 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Becker • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Van Meter • 48 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Van Meter • 33 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Paff • 38 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Paff • 46 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Paff • 8 words • 0.0% coverageKaren Paff • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Mark Rozendaal • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samuel Becker

57%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words10% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Samuel Becker: 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.