BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.1% saturation with 251 hits. Analysis detected 1,912 faulty-reasoning hits from 596 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 77.1% and a BS Rank of 85% (3,220 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.80% of the article peer group.

There are more than 250,000 noncitizens illegally registered to vote in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Nevada, according to newly released data from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). 
President Donald Trump addressed the nation Thursday night, announcing the release of a tranche of election material, including how China carried out “what is believed to be the largest compromise of election data in history, resulting in China's illicit acquisition of 220 million U.S. voter files.” 
It was also announced that the DHS reviewed public voter files in “states that have not utilized the SAVE system” and found “over 250,000 non-citizens are illegally registered to vote.” 
The DHS says that “election officials in California, Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Nevada have been notified” and that the department is expanding its investigation into other states as well. 
DHS also pointed out states that have been “proactive” and “utilized” the SAVE database, which allows local, state, and federal government agencies to verify an individual’s immigration status. 
The Trump administration granted states free and direct access to the database. 
Those states include Georgia, Ohio, Tennessee, Texas, North Carolina, Idaho, Alabama, Missouri, Louisiana, and Kansas  all of which found both noncitizens and deceased persons on their voter rolls, according to DHS. 
In those states deceased registrants numbered more than 400,000, and nearly 30,000 noncitizens were illegally registered, according to DHS. 
Noncitizens registering to vote and voting in federal elections is already illegal, though there is no real enforcement mechanism. 
Currently, prospective voters check off a small square box on a federal registration form attesting under penalty of perjury that they are U.S. citizens. 
In other words, the honor system. 
The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act  which Trump urged Congress to pass in his Thursday night speech  would add teeth to this largely toothless law by requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. 
[READ NEXT: Noncitizen Says She Voted In Multiple Georgia Elections: ‘They Gave Me A Paper To Sign’] 
Notably, noncitizen voting is not actually “rare” and does happen often. 
Forty-one noncitizens cast a ballot in North Carolina in 2016. 
Pennsylvania discovered 11,198 noncitizens on its voter rolls in 2019, according to The Washington Times. 
A Chinese college student cast an illegal vote in Michigan in 2024 despite being a noncitizen. 
(His vote was ultimately counted since ballots are secret; once a vote is cast and tabulated, it is impossible to determine *who* cast the ballot.) 
A 2024 Georgia audit found 20 noncitizens registered to vote  nearly half of whom cast ballots in past elections, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 
Oregon’s secretary of state similarly found nine noncitizens who had voted in past elections after discovering “more than 300 noncitizens were erroneously registered to vote,” The Federalist previously reported. 
Without the SAVE America Act, the mechanisms available that *could* be used to check for citizenship status aren't reliable. 
The Help America Vote Act (HAVA) requires states to check information about newly registered voters in federal elections against information stored in the state's motor vehicle administration database. 
Individuals can provide either the last four digits of their Social Security number or their driver's license number. 
But neither of those documents necessarily confirms citizenship since noncitizens can obtain both driver's licenses and Social Security numbers. 
In fact, in California, prospective voters who lack both of those forms of identification can slip through HAVA and instead provide low-security proof of identity  not citizenship  like a gym membership or utility bill to register to vote. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.1%Brianna Lyman: 12.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Brianna Lyman: 5.7%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 2.7%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 1.1%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Brianna Lyman: 17.5%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Brianna Lyman: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 8.2%Brianna Lyman: 1.8%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 42.1%Brianna Lyman: 14.3%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias42.1%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 1.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 3.4%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 1.2%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 2.0%Brianna Lyman: 1.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 4.2%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.4%Brianna Lyman: 6.9%The Federalist: 5.1%Appeal to Authority14.4%This article: 3.2%Brianna Lyman: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 6.7%Brianna Lyman: 1.7%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope6.7%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 36.2%Brianna Lyman: 13.9%The Federalist: 11.3%Hasty Generalization36.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.7%Brianna Lyman: 8.4%The Federalist: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 9.6%Brianna Lyman: 4.5%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question9.6%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 2.4%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 3.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 2.7%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division2.7%This article: 15.3%Brianna Lyman: 6.0%The Federalist: 2.7%Anecdotal15.3%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.3%Brianna Lyman: 3.9%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.3%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 29.7%Brianna Lyman: 5.8%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote29.7%This article: 10.6%Brianna Lyman: 4.1%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.6%This article: 26.7%Brianna Lyman: 23.4%The Federalist: 19.9%Biased Writer Voice26.7%This article: 3.2%Brianna Lyman: 3.6%The Federalist: 5.3%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Lyman: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Brianna Lyman: 18.5%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.4%This article: 6.4%Brianna Lyman: 0.4%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.4%

596 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers58%attributed speech252writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) • 12 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 46 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 30 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 28 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 32 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Homeland Security (DHS) • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThe Washington Times • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageAtlanta Journal-Constitution • 25 words • 0.0% coverageOregon’s secretary of state • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
96 attributed words28% of attributed speech82% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+47.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 47.9%47.9%Quote-first Misdirection+41.2 ptsWriter: 6.7%Donald Trump: 47.9%47.9%Biased Writer Voice-40.1 ptsWriter: 40.1%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning +39.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 39.6%39.6%Attempt to Sell a Product +39.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 39.6%39.6%Indoctrination-7.5 ptsWriter: 7.5%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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