After Birthplace Citizenship Ruling, China Won’t Need Hackers To Meddle In US Elections 100%

By Jordan Boyd75%

7/17/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 96% saturation with 429 hits. Analysis detected 2,912 faulty-reasoning hits from 447 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (3 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

One of the biggest revelations from President Donald Trump’s declassified election document dump on Thursday night was a report indicating the Chinese Communist Party acquired and exploited American voter data to influence the 2020 election. 
One FBI information report released alleged China manufactured tens of thousands of fraudulent drivers’ licenses using data harvested “from millions of TikTok accounts” to ensure noncitizen “Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic” to the authoritarian regime could send mail-in votes for Joe Biden in 2020. 
The allegation is alarming, but not as alarming as the fact that, over the next few decades, China could hack U.S. elections without ever breaking a law, risking punishment, or even raising the eyebrows of the intelligence community. 
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent birthplace citizenship ruling, the CCP doesn’t need to manufacture fake IDs to sway votes in favor of Democrats. 
All China has to do to take advantage of America’s elections is to use the birth tourism industry to manufacture babies who are entitled to real American IDs as soon as they are born in the U.S. 
China is already a known top exploiter of the U.S. birth tourism industry. 
One 2024 report claimed Chinese nationals made up 41.7 percent of the surrogacy contracts between foreigners and American women between 2014 and 2020. 
During that same time period, foreigners’ use of the American birthplace citizenship surrogacy scheme increased by 78 percent. 
At that rate, the CCP could ballot-harvest an entire generation of Americans who are sold to any foreigner rich enough to rent a U.S. woman’s womb, get that baby’s U.S. paperwork, and whisk the child back to be raised in China. 
Because the Supreme Court ruled that if an infant is born on magic U.S. dirt, that child will be entitled to all of the rights of an American child, including the right to cast a ballot as an overseas citizen voter, even though he is susceptible to indoctrination and weaponization by Xi Jinping’s communist regime. 
The CCP has already proved it can infiltrate American universities, installing spies posing as students and professors to steal U.S. research and trade secrets. 
According to a series of declassified memos from an unnamed “sensitive government agency,” China also “had developed capabilities” ahead of the 2020 election to “encourage,” among other hot-button issues, violent demonstrations such as Black Lives Matter riots on both social media and in corporate media. 
Birthplace citizenship promises China the opportunity to prime political interference in children even younger than college students and online-addicted teens. 
For the CCP, violating America’s sovereignty starts in the cradle  no TikTok user data harvesting required. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.6%Jordan Boyd: 7.8%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.2%Jordan Boyd: 6.6%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic19.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.2%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias21.3%This article: 28.9%Jordan Boyd: 10.0%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect28.9%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 37.4%Jordan Boyd: 5.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias37.4%This article: 41.2%Jordan Boyd: 10.3%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias41.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.6%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 2.4%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.1%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.2%Jordan Boyd: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias15.2%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.7%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 38.3%Jordan Boyd: 7.2%The Federalist: 5.1%Appeal to Authority38.3%This article: 6.7%Jordan Boyd: 0.6%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 30.4%Jordan Boyd: 5.6%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope30.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 35.6%Jordan Boyd: 12.0%The Federalist: 11.3%Hasty Generalization35.6%This article: 10.1%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring10.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 24.4%Jordan Boyd: 14.7%The Federalist: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion24.4%This article: 21.5%Jordan Boyd: 4.4%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question21.5%This article: 9.4%Jordan Boyd: 4.4%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.3%Jordan Boyd: 1.3%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof16.3%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.2%Jordan Boyd: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division9.2%This article: 15.0%Jordan Boyd: 4.0%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal15.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.8%Jordan Boyd: 2.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.8%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 8.3%Jordan Boyd: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading8.3%This article: 8.3%Jordan Boyd: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy8.3%This article: 39.8%Jordan Boyd: 4.1%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote39.8%This article: 21.7%Jordan Boyd: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection21.7%This article: 96.0%Jordan Boyd: 18.2%The Federalist: 19.8%Biased Writer Voice96.0%This article: 54.8%Jordan Boyd: 14.0%The Federalist: 5.3%Indoctrination54.8%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Jordan Boyd: 13.2%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Boyd: 1.2%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

447 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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