BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Unattributed Quote, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 740 faulty-reasoning hits from 449 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 53.9% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,290 of 21,204 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump's deployment of National Guard troops to the nation's capital is being extended by more than two years and will last until the end of his term. 
The Pentagon confirmed the extension in an email Thursday, saying the mission will continue until Jan. 20, 2029, “or until terminated by the President.” 
The deployment was set to expire at the end of this year after previously being extended. 
The deployment in Washington, D.C., has been contentious since Trump issued an executive order in August 2025 to deal with what he called a crime emergency, calling up the Guard and additional federal law enforcement officers. 
The administration has said crime has rapidly fallen since then, although local officials have argued that crime was already going down before Trump ordered 2,500 troops into the city. 
During their deployment, Guard members have responded to medical emergencies, assisted with arrests, helped with snow removal and carried out beautification projects. 
“Taxpayers are paying more than a million dollars a day to have them walk around,” Phil Mendelson, chairman of the District of Columbia Council, said in April, adding that “the presence of armed soldiers on American streets is not a good look.” 
Deployments to other cities have ended or been paused by courts in California and Illinois, while more limited operations are ongoing in cities including New Orleans. 
But in Washington, Guard members still walk city streets and patrol metro stations, tourist attractions, neighborhoods and parks. 
A Guard member was fatally shot and another was wounded in November after authorities said a man drove from Washington state to D.C. and opened fire outside a subway station three blocks from the White House. 
Spc. 
Sarah Beckstrom, who was killed, and Staff Sgt. 
Andrew Wolfe were deployed from West Virginia. 
Because the city of Washington is a congressionally established federal district, Trump has much greater influence over the police and D.C. 
National Guard, which he can control directly. 
This has enabled him to sidestep the legal challenges he has faced in some states. 
While the Guard members do not make arrests, the Trump administration has argued their support to the broader mission has helped reduce crime. 
The White House said in April that 12,000 arrests have been made by a joint task force since operations began, including 62 known gang members, and thousands of illegal firearms were seized. 
But officials disagree over how much credit the deployment can be given in Washington, a heavily Democratic city. 
Figures have shown that crime was already on the decline before, although those figures sparked an investigation after claims arose against local police that they may have been manipulated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Associated Press: 2.2%WJCL: 0.0%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Associated Press: 3.1%WJCL: 0.0%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WJCL: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.1%WJCL: 0.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Associated Press: 7.2%WJCL: 0.0%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WJCL: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%WJCL: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WJCL: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.1%WJCL: 0.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.5%WJCL: 0.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.6%Associated Press: 8.8%WJCL: 0.0%Negativity Bias29.6%This article: 5.1%Associated Press: 2.0%WJCL: 0.0%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 4.7%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.7%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Associated Press: 1.1%WJCL: 0.0%In-Group Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WJCL: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Associated Press: 2.4%WJCL: 0.0%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.4%WJCL: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.3%WJCL: 0.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Associated Press: 3.4%WJCL: 0.0%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WJCL: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 2.7%WJCL: 0.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.4%WJCL: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.4%Associated Press: 4.7%WJCL: 0.0%Appeal to Emotion9.4%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.6%WJCL: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.9%Associated Press: 2.3%WJCL: 0.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.9%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.1%Associated Press: 0.4%WJCL: 0.0%Burden of Proof7.1%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WJCL: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WJCL: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 1.8%WJCL: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WJCL: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.2%Associated Press: 1.2%WJCL: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.2%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Middle Ground4.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.0%WJCL: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.1%WJCL: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.7%Associated Press: 1.3%WJCL: 0.0%Unattributed Quote14.7%This article: 14.7%Associated Press: 1.2%WJCL: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection14.7%This article: 12.5%Associated Press: 3.0%WJCL: 0.0%Biased Writer Voice12.5%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.7%WJCL: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.8%WJCL: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.2%WJCL: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Associated Press: 0.5%WJCL: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

449 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers16%attributed speech375writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePhil Mendelson • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageThe White House • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Phil Mendelson

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words57% of attributed speech76% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.6 ptsWriter: 6.4%Phil Mendelson: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+93.6 ptsWriter: 6.4%Phil Mendelson: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Phil Mendelson: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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