AP News⁠53%

Justice Department activates untested court for ‘alien terrorist’ deportations ⁠26%

By ERIC TUCKER⁠35%

7/19/2026, 1:40:05 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 6 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 34 hits. Analysis detected 180 faulty-reasoning hits from 144 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38% and a BS Rank of ⁠26% (16,222 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.10% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration has filed a first-ever petition to a secretive and dormant court created 30 years ago to consider government requests to deport so-called “alien terrorists” from the United States. 
The Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established in 1996 but had never received a petition until this past Wednesday, when the Justice Department filed an application seeking the removal of an individual whose name is withheld from the single-page document posted on the court’s website. 
The court has been dormant since its creation, having received — until last week — no applications and conducting no hearings, according to a summary posted on the Federal Judicial Center website. 
It is comprised of five judges selected by Chief Justice John Roberts. 
The petition was first reported by Court Watch, an independent news site. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.3%AP News: 2.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Eric Tucker: 2.4%AP News: 2.7%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.1%AP News: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.8%AP News: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Eric Tucker: 8.4%AP News: 8.0%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Eric Tucker: 11.8%AP News: 9.6%Negativity Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%AP News: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.0%AP News: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%AP News: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.3%AP News: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.6%AP News: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.2%Eric Tucker: 2.3%AP News: 3.7%Appeal to Authority22.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.2%AP News: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%AP News: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.2%AP News: 2.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.6%Eric Tucker: 4.5%AP News: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion23.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.4%AP News: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%AP News: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%AP News: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.0%AP News: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%AP News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%AP News: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%AP News: 2.0%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.6%AP News: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 23.6%Eric Tucker: 6.9%AP News: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice23.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%AP News: 0.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.8%AP News: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%AP News: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%AP News: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

144 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers31%attributed speech100writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Judicial Center • 32 words • 0.0% coverageChief Justice John Roberts • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words73% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-34.0 ptsWriter: 34.0%Federal Judicial Center: 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.