Raw Story⁠93%

Leaked report shows Trump admin knows of threat that may send 'shockwaves' through economy ⁠78%

By Alexander Willis⁠88%

7/6/2026, 11:52:27 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 76.9% saturation with 233 hits. Analysis detected 1,364 faulty-reasoning hits from 303 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,711 of 20,882 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.40% of the article peer group.

While the Trump administration has gone all in on an emerging technology, a leaked internal report from the Treasury Department revealed Monday that officials are well aware of the “significant risk” it poses, a risk that could “send shockwaves throughout the entire economic system,” NOTUS reported. 
That emerging technology is generative artificial intelligence, with the companies leading its development receiving significant support from the Trump administration, such as when President Donald Trump signed an executive order last December to block states from enacting their own laws to regulate the technology. 
And yet, even as it champions GenAI companies, the Trump administration's own Treasury Department appears well aware of the risks that support carries, according to the draft report obtained by NOTUS. 
“Career Treasury analysts found that AI firms are more deeply entrenched in the U.S. economy than their dotcom predecessors and pose significant risk to the entire system if financial conditions change, productivity goals are missed or various choke points stymie growth,” NOTUS’ report reads. 
“A downturn in the AI market would send shockwaves throughout the entire economic ecosystem, the analysts wrote." 
Should AI companies struggle financially, Treasury analysts predicted that “stock markets, private credit markets, companies financing data center buildouts, cloud providers, chip manufacturers and utilities would all feel the effect,” according to NOTUS review of the report. 
“AI investors are taking risks so significant that much of the financial system now rests upon AI meeting expectations for productivity gains and profitability,” NOTUS’ report reads. 
In public, the Trump administration has “shown nothing but bullishness toward the AI industry,” NOTUS’ report reads. 
It’s created an AI Action Plan aimed at speeding the building of GenAI data centers, repealed Biden-era regulations around AI, and publicly backed major AI projects. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.0%Alexander Willis: 6.7%Rawstory: 7.7%Confirmation Bias31.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Alexander Willis: 7.1%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic27.4%This article: 14.5%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic14.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.6%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.4%Alexander Willis: 18.7%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect23.4%This article: 8.9%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion8.9%This article: 23.1%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.1%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 76.9%Alexander Willis: 27.6%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias76.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 14.5%Alexander Willis: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias14.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.2%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.6%Alexander Willis: 2.8%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 3.8%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.0%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 38.6%Alexander Willis: 4.1%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority38.6%This article: 10.2%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma10.2%This article: 5.6%Alexander Willis: 1.1%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope5.6%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.2%Alexander Willis: 8.0%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization12.2%This article: 14.5%Alexander Willis: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring14.5%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.2%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.2%Alexander Willis: 11.2%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.5%Rawstory: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.3%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 8.6%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division8.6%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 6.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 23.4%Alexander Willis: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)23.4%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 53.1%Alexander Willis: 7.5%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote53.1%This article: 10.2%Alexander Willis: 5.8%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection10.2%This article: 38.9%Alexander Willis: 13.4%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice38.9%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 2.0%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 7.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alexander Willis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

303 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker29%attributed speech215writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageNOTUS • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageNOTUS • 27 words • 100.0% coverageNOTUS • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

NOTUS

100%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+22.8 ptsWriter: 46.5%NOTUS: 69.3%69.3%Biased Writer Voice-11.6 ptsWriter: 42.3%NOTUS: 30.7%30.7%Quote-first Misdirection-14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%NOTUS: 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.