Show the Numbers: Conservative Watchdog Sues Trump’s DHS for Concrete Deportation Count 58%

By Fred Lucas0%

7/8/2026, 10:35:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Politically Right Leaning Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 1,187 faulty-reasoning hits from 604 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.9% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,192 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

A conservative watchdog group has sued the Department of Homeland Security seeking data on the “actual” number of deportations of illegal immigrants. 
The Oversight Project filed two lawsuits this week in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information Act, claiming that “inflated” deportation counts have enabled some Republicans to push softer immigration policies. 
“In order for deportation public policy choices to be appropriately informed, we need ACTUAL DEPORTATION DATA,” Jeff Clark, the vice president of litigation for the Oversight Project, posted on X Wednesday. 
In order for deportation public policy choices to be appropriately informed, we need ACTUAL DEPORTATION DATA. 
This why we brought two suits yesterday in order to get that information for the American people. https://t.co/w3c9MPPbPl pic.twitter.com/DiJwCjUIIn 
- Jeff Clark (@JeffClarkUS) July 8, 2026 
“This why [sic] we brought two suits yesterday in order to get that information for the American people,” added Clark, a former assistant attorney general and the former acting administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs during President Donald Trump’s first term. 
The Department of Homeland Security did not respond to an inquiry for this story by publication time. 
The Oversight Project notes that the Mass Deportation Coalition, of which it is a member organization , has also called for transparency. 
“Deportation numbers should be publicly available and accompanied with meaningful metrics and data to support them. 
It used to be this way and restoring transparency would build trust and excitement in the progress along the way,” Mike Howell, president of the Oversight Project, said in a public statement. 
It’s possible to surpass the deportations of President Dwight Eisenhower, Howell said. 
“With strong data, the public will be able to both understand what is happening and also what could be happening,” Howell added. 
“This is particularly important as we measure activity related to worksite enforcement, which is the key pillar of a mass deportation program and largely how President Eisenhower did it and why he still holds the record that I hope President Trump beats.” 
The Oversight Project is calling for the deportation numbers to be released with the same transparency and regularity that the government releases other numbers, such as the monthly jobs report. 
In May, the Oversight Project sent eight targeted public records requests to the agency and announced its “Two Commas Compliance Tracker,” aiming to update the tracker with accurate deportation numbers. 
The DHS did not respond to the requests, so the Oversight Project then filed two separate lawsuits to compel the department to produce the documents. 
One of the lawsuits sought records to justify the Department of Homeland Security’s claim from January that more than 3 million illegal immigrants had left the United States—675,000 of them removed by DHS, and an estimated 2.2 million self-deporting. 
The Oversight Project contends its actions are backing up one of Trump’s core campaign promises to “carry out the largest deportation operation in American history.” 
The group also points to White House border czar Tom Homan telling the Washington Examiner in May 2026, “we need to be transparent, because my concern was if we’re not transparent, show the American people what we’re doing, who we’re arresting, then we’ll lose faith of the American people on immigration enforcement and historic level.” 
The Oversight Project contends the information should already be available, noting that Immigration and Customs Enforcement published a report covering deportations from fiscal years 2020 through 2024. 
Further, in the DHS budget request to Congress, the agency asserted it removed and returned 442,637 aliens in fiscal year 2025. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.6%Fred Lucas: 12.4%Daily Signal: 6.2%Confirmation Bias8.6%This article: 9.9%Fred Lucas: 3.7%Daily Signal: 0.7%Anchoring Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 2.6%Daily Signal: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.0%Fred Lucas: 1.5%Daily Signal: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 1.9%Daily Signal: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Fred Lucas: 11.3%Daily Signal: 8.5%Framing Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.2%Daily Signal: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Fred Lucas: 0.7%Daily Signal: 0.5%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.9%Fred Lucas: 4.6%Daily Signal: 1.2%Optimism Bias10.9%This article: 7.0%Fred Lucas: 1.0%Daily Signal: 1.3%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 13.4%Daily Signal: 9.1%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Fred Lucas: 5.4%Daily Signal: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 1.9%Daily Signal: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.5%Daily Signal: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Fred Lucas: 2.4%Daily Signal: 3.4%In-Group Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.2%Daily Signal: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.2%Daily Signal: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Fred Lucas: 1.2%Daily Signal: 1.3%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 1.2%Daily Signal: 3.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.3%Fred Lucas: 10.7%Daily Signal: 4.6%Appeal to Authority23.3%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 1.9%Daily Signal: 2.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.5%Daily Signal: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.8%Daily Signal: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 10.4%Daily Signal: 9.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 1.2%Daily Signal: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.1%Fred Lucas: 1.2%Daily Signal: 0.8%Bandwagon9.1%This article: 24.5%Fred Lucas: 11.6%Daily Signal: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion24.5%This article: 5.1%Fred Lucas: 2.5%Daily Signal: 2.2%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 12.3%Fred Lucas: 4.5%Daily Signal: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.3%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 7.0%Daily Signal: 1.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.0%Fred Lucas: 5.1%Daily Signal: 2.5%Anecdotal2.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.6%Fred Lucas: 2.9%Daily Signal: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.6%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.0%Daily Signal: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.1%Fred Lucas: 2.8%Daily Signal: 2.7%Unattributed Quote5.1%This article: 2.6%Fred Lucas: 1.8%Daily Signal: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 3.6%Fred Lucas: 2.9%Daily Signal: 9.7%Biased Writer Voice3.6%This article: 2.6%Fred Lucas: 2.2%Daily Signal: 3.9%Indoctrination2.6%This article: 0.0%Fred Lucas: 0.2%Daily Signal: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 20.2%Fred Lucas: 8.4%Daily Signal: 10.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias20.2%This article: 8.1%Fred Lucas: 1.6%Daily Signal: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.1%

604 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers50%attributed speech302writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Clark • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJeff Clark • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJeff Clark • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMike Howell • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMike Howell • 12 words • 0.0% coverageMike Howell • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMike Howell • 42 words • 100.0% coverageOversight Project • 30 words • 0.0% coverageOversight Project • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageOversight Project • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageOversight Project • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike Howell

100%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words36% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Politically Right Leaning +20.7 ptsWriter: 18.2%Mike Howell: 38.9%38.9%Biased Writer Voice-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Mike Howell: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Mike Howell: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Mike Howell: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-5.3 ptsWriter: 5.3%Mike Howell: 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.