Not Everyone at ICE Went Along With Trump’s Order to Reinstate Vehicle Stops 25%

By Karl Loftus23%

7/25/2026, 10:10:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 16.7% saturation with 137 hits. Analysis detected 996 faulty-reasoning hits from 819 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,616 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.90% of the article peer group.

Less than two weeks ago, following a pair of fatal shootings by immigration officers in Texas and Maine, U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement ordered a halt to vehicle stops nationwide. 
The directive was initially passed down through ICE field offices on the evening of July 13  just hours after the Maine shooting  followed by an official agencywide memo that made the rounds the next morning. 
Then, on July 15, President Donald Trump took to his social media platform Truth Social and directed ICE to resume its vehicle stops, presumably reversing the orders announced the day before by ICE internal leadership. 
“The president says one thing but in reality we all follow established policy.” 
Despite Trump’s apparent reversal of the ICE directive, immigration enforcement officers in at least 4 so-called areas of responsibility  ICE’s regional jurisdictions  did not resume vehicle stops, according to officials who spoke with The Intercept. 
“I follow policy that comes down the appropriate channels,” said one ICE official, who works in a southern regional office and requested anonymity to avoid retaliation. 
“The president says one thing but in reality we all follow established policy.” 
A second ICE official, who operates in the Western U.S., told The Intercept, “Following the orders of the guys I’ve worked with in the field and have my back vs the head of an administration that treats me like a meme? 
It’s a no brainer.” 
Three other ICE whistleblowers from areas of responsibility in the Midwest, South, and Northeast also told The Intercept that vehicle stops did not resume in their areas of responsibility over the past week. 
Now, however, a new official vehicle stops policy has been passed down through the proper channels at ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations division. 
An internal agencywide email, sent on July 22 and obtained by The Intercept, ordered the resumption of vehicle stops, with new guidelines that change how deportation officers will engage with vehicles moving forward. 
“ERO law enforcement officers are authorized to conduct vehicle stops,” says the email. 
“Officers must continue to coordinate with their immediate supervisors regarding any enforcement activities.” 
Killings in Maine and Texas 
The pair of deadly ICE shootings, just six days apart in the second week of July, both involved officers traveling in and engaging with vehicles. 
The killings  of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Texas, and a Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine  sparked nationwide outrage and catapulted ICE back in to the news cycle . 
ICE quickly came under pressure from both the public and government officials to hold the officers involved in the shootings accountable and offer more transparency about ICE’s tactics when engaging with vehicles. 
One glaring issue that arose was the fact that, according to the Department of Homeland Security, the officers involved in both shootings were not wearing body cameras. 
ICE Officers at Maine Shooting Scene Were Wearing Body Cameras. 
They Were Not Turned On. 
In the case of the Maine shooting, The Intercept previously reported, officers on the scene were wearing multifunctional devices designed to work as body cameras, but they were unable to record video on the devices because they didn’t have a required cloud-based subscription service. 
The new ICE vehicle stops policy addressed the apparent failure in Maine and Texas to capture the incidents on video. 
Now, according to the new policy, at least one officer involved in a vehicle stop must be wearing “an issued and activated body worn camera.” 
The rollout for ICE body cameras, however, is proceeding slowly. 
About half of ICE officers have been issued cameras, according to DHS, with the other half to receive them in the next two months. 
Officers will then need to complete a training process with the body cameras before they can use them in the field. 
Gutted Training Standards 
Starting in summer 2025, in an effort to ramp up deportations, the Trump administration implemented an accelerated ICE training and hiring spree that lasted until June 30, 2026. 
During that time, ICE hired more than 12,000 new recruits and cut more than 40 percent of its basic training curriculum . 
Among those new recruits, according to The Atlantic , was the ICE officer who allegedly pulled the trigger in the Maine shooting. 
The new ICE policy distributed on Wednesday now lists training as a requirement for officers making vehicle stops. 
“The officer or officers conducting the stop must have successfully completed an ICE-administered vehicle stop training,” the guidance says. 
The policy guidance says that ICE officers may make vehicle stops in cases of criminal arrests or while executing search warrants, but only when a certified member of a Special Response Team  ICE’s equivalent of SWAT  conducts the stop. 
The post Not Everyone at ICE Went Along With Trump’s Order to Reinstate Vehicle Stops appeared first on The Intercept . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.7%Karl Loftus: 4.0%The Intercept: 5.3%Confirmation Bias16.7%This article: 2.7%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias2.7%This article: 10.7%Karl Loftus: 4.4%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 3.1%Karl Loftus: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic3.1%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.5%Karl Loftus: 0.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias0.5%This article: 1.6%Karl Loftus: 7.3%The Intercept: 9.2%Framing Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.0%Karl Loftus: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias1.2%This article: 14.0%Karl Loftus: 10.4%The Intercept: 12.3%Negativity Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Karl Loftus: 1.7%The Intercept: 1.7%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.1%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Karl Loftus: 2.9%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 1.3%The Intercept: 2.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.2%Karl Loftus: 5.5%The Intercept: 3.4%Appeal to Authority8.2%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.1%Karl Loftus: 5.1%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.5%Karl Loftus: 4.6%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion12.5%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.2%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.4%Karl Loftus: 5.0%The Intercept: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.4%This article: 3.2%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque3.2%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Karl Loftus: 2.0%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.3%Karl Loftus: 1.9%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.3%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.2%Karl Loftus: 5.5%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote8.2%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 2.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.0%Karl Loftus: 2.6%The Intercept: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice5.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.3%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 1.2%The Intercept: 6.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Karl Loftus: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

819 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers4.0%attributed speech786writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageImmigration and Customs Enforcement • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageThe Atlantic • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Atlantic

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words67% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Unattributed Quote-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%The Atlantic: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%The Atlantic: 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.