Trump’s Decision To End Deportation Protections Is Not Racist, Supreme Court Rules 81%

By Will Upton0%

6/25/2026, 8:19:45 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 826 faulty-reasoning hits from 337 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.7% and a BS Rank of 81% (4,175 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.90% of the article peer group.

The U.S. 
Supreme Court ruled Thursday that President Donald Trump’s administration’s move to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for certain illegal immigrants was not “overtly racial,” and further, that “The TPS statute bars judicial review of non-constitutional claims.” 
Writing for a 6-3 majority, Associate Justice Samuel Alito held that the respondents  ostensibly two groups of unnamed Syrian and Haitian illegal immigrants who enjoyed deportation protections under a Biden-era TPS order  and the lower courts who ruled in their favor “offer no sound theories to overcome the plain meaning of the judicial-review bar.” 
However, Justice Alito goes on to address the argument made by the Haitians that the Trump administration’s decision to end TPS protections is challengeable as a constitutional claim, as the decision was allegedly based on racial animosity. 
(RELATED: Biden-Appointed Judge Blocks Trump Admin From Ending Deportation Protections For Haitians) 
“Ironically, respondents themselves offer a race-neutral explanation for the Government’s action: namely, that the current administration, which has terminated every TPS designation that has come up for renewal, simply opposes the TPS program as it has been implemented in the past,” Alito writes. 
“None of the cited statements by either the President or the Secretary was overtly racial, and in substance all expressed policy views that could rest on race-neutral justifications.” 
The TPS program has existed in various forms since the passage of the Immigration Act of 1990. 
Over the past decades, the program  initially created to grant temporary deportation protections to illegal immigrants whose home countries have become too dangerous or unstable for them to be returned to  has faced allegations of abuse, with critics arguing deportation protections have been extended for some illegal immigrants well beyond what is considered reasonable. 
Throughout 2025, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) moved to end Biden-era extensions of TPS for several national origin groups of illegal immigrants, with groups from Haiti and Syria moving to sue the Trump administration over the revocations. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.8%Will Upton: 3.7%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Confirmation Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Will Upton: 4.2%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Availability Heuristic16.6%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Will Upton: 13.1%The Daily Caller: 10.4%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.0%Will Upton: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.3%The Daily Caller: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 33.2%Will Upton: 13.4%The Daily Caller: 8.2%Negativity Bias33.2%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Will Upton: 1.6%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Will Upton: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias16.6%This article: 8.3%Will Upton: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 1.6%Halo Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.3%Will Upton: 2.0%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Recency Bias11.3%This article: 3.6%Will Upton: 0.4%The Daily Caller: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Will Upton: 1.7%The Daily Caller: 1.1%Ad Hominem16.6%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.7%Will Upton: 4.7%The Daily Caller: 4.6%Appeal to Authority10.7%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 1.0%The Daily Caller: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 2.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.6%Will Upton: 4.8%The Daily Caller: 6.3%Hasty Generalization16.6%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 9.8%The Daily Caller: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 12.8%Will Upton: 3.3%The Daily Caller: 2.1%Begging the Question12.8%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 3.0%The Daily Caller: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.9%The Daily Caller: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 1.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.3%Will Upton: 2.9%The Daily Caller: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.3%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 23.4%Will Upton: 11.4%The Daily Caller: 2.2%Unattributed Quote23.4%This article: 16.6%Will Upton: 5.1%The Daily Caller: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection16.6%This article: 3.6%Will Upton: 7.4%The Daily Caller: 8.5%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 3.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.0%The Daily Caller: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 13.6%The Daily Caller: 5.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Will Upton: 0.5%The Daily Caller: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

337 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers60%attributed speech135writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 56 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 43 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Samuel Alito

100%flagged-word coverage
164 attributed words81% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Quote-first Misdirection+34.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Samuel Alito: 34.1%34.1%Unattributed Quote-0.4 ptsWriter: 26.7%Samuel Alito: 26.2%26.2%Biased Writer Voice-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%Samuel Alito: 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.