Intel Agency Assessed China Planned To 'Encourage' Violent BLM Riots To Hurt Trump In 2020 87%

By Breccan F. Thies55%

7/18/2026, 9:37:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 53.3% saturation with 265 hits. Analysis detected 2,138 faulty-reasoning hits from 497 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.5% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,903 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.70% of the article peer group.

The Chinese planned to stoke Black Lives Matter riots and other social unrest in 2020, using the corporate media to launder the narrative in order to tank the election for President Donald Trump, according to documents released by the White House on Thursday. 
Intelligence summaries from 2020, which were apparently hidden from the president at the time, show that the Chinese planned on “encouraging violent demonstrations and looting to increase the appearance of social unrest” ahead of the election, and to “exploit U.S. societal fissures and vulnerabilities,” in part by “alleging that White people hate Black people.” 
The Chinese were interested in “inciting demonstrations and marches as evidence of racial divides; increasing the level of conflict between police and anti-racism activists; and feeding any sense that U.S. law enforcement resents USG and people of color,” according to one intelligence summary from a “sensitive government agency." 
The document stated that “China had developed capabilities to project themes on these topics into social media (Tiktok, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and others), as well as mainstream media through a variety of overt and hidden influencers and media contributors.” 
In other words, the documents highlight the potential that the corporate media fueling race riots and unrest in 2020 were either knowingly pushing Chinese propaganda to alter the election, or were too dense to realize it. 
The media encouraged demands for a “racial reckoning,” corporate capitulation to the BLM mob, billions in damages from burning American cities to the ground, and the degradation of institutions in order to unevenly apply the law on racial grounds, apparently in line with the wishes of the Chinese government. 
Some in the media, however, appeared to not only advance Chinese propaganda, but also to orchestrate cover for the Chinese once people started to catch wind. 
In September 2020, The Heritage Foundation highlighted the possibility of Chinese influence in the BLM riots. 
Heritage noted that 95 percent of the riots were linked to BLM and pointed out evidence that Chinese activist groups were funding them, stating, “The U.S. government should connect the dots and investigate the extent of the Chinese Communist Party’s support for the Black Lives Matter organization and the riots.” 
One month later, when the argument started gaining steam  and only a few weeks out from Election Day  Axios dutifully ran the headline “Right-wing media falsely ties Black Lives Matter movement to Beijing.” 
Axios explicitly supported the BLM riots. 
CEO Jim VandeHei encouraged his staff to join them and said the company would pay for bail if they were arrested and medical bills if they were injured. 
“We proudly support and encourage you to exercise your rights to free speech, press, and protest. 
If you’re arrested or meet harm while exercising these rights, Axios will stand behind you and use the Family Fund to cover your bail or assist with medical bills,” he said in an email to staff. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.1%Breccan F. Thies: 7.4%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 1.2%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.9%Breccan F. Thies: 3.3%The Federalist: 3.5%Availability Heuristic20.9%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 1.1%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Breccan F. Thies: 1.5%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias10.9%This article: 40.4%Breccan F. Thies: 12.5%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect40.4%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.5%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.6%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 42.1%Breccan F. Thies: 8.2%The Federalist: 12.4%Negativity Bias42.1%This article: 5.6%Breccan F. Thies: 1.6%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.6%This article: 17.1%Breccan F. Thies: 2.3%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error17.1%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.1%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 3.8%The Federalist: 3.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 1.6%The Federalist: 2.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Breccan F. Thies: 2.1%The Federalist: 2.2%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.8%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias7.0%This article: 3.2%Breccan F. Thies: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.0%Breccan F. Thies: 2.5%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem7.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 2.3%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 53.3%Breccan F. Thies: 8.5%The Federalist: 5.0%Appeal to Authority53.3%This article: 7.2%Breccan F. Thies: 2.0%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma7.2%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 1.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 33.6%Breccan F. Thies: 8.6%The Federalist: 11.4%Hasty Generalization33.6%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.9%Breccan F. Thies: 7.9%The Federalist: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion9.9%This article: 3.0%Breccan F. Thies: 2.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Begging the Question3.0%This article: 9.9%Breccan F. Thies: 2.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.9%This article: 7.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque7.0%This article: 18.7%Breccan F. Thies: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof18.7%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.4%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.2%Breccan F. Thies: 2.3%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.9%Breccan F. Thies: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 7.2%Breccan F. Thies: 0.3%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy7.2%This article: 20.5%Breccan F. Thies: 3.3%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote20.5%This article: 10.9%Breccan F. Thies: 2.8%The Federalist: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.9%This article: 37.0%Breccan F. Thies: 9.9%The Federalist: 19.7%Biased Writer Voice37.0%This article: 9.9%Breccan F. Thies: 3.3%The Federalist: 5.2%Indoctrination9.9%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 0.2%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Breccan F. Thies: 11.7%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Breccan F. Thies: 0.9%The Federalist: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…7.2%

497 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers26%attributed speech367writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageHeritage Foundation • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageJim VandeHei • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJim VandeHei • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJim VandeHei • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Heritage Foundation

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words38% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-50.1 ptsWriter: 50.1%Heritage Foundation: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-27.8 ptsWriter: 27.8%Heritage Foundation: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.7 ptsWriter: 14.7%Heritage Foundation: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Heritage Foundation: 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.