Truthout⁠74%

Haley Stevens’s Palantir Consultant Scandal Draws Attention to Her Record on ICE ⁠81%

By Sharon Zhang⁠79%

7/24/2026, 6:50:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Authority, and Anchoring Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 25.1% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 907 faulty-reasoning hits from 570 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,296 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.40% of the article peer group.

Up until this week, House representative and Democratic Senate candidate Haley Stevens’s campaign shared a mutual consultant with far right tech surveillance company Palantir, new reporting reveals, bringing renewed attention to Stevens’s record on ICE as she faces a contentious race against Abdul El-Sayed in Michigan. 
*Drop Site News*’s [Ryan Grim reported](https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/palestine-israel-west-bank-settlers-nablus-hormuz-oil-leak) [on Thursday](https://x.com/ryangrim/status/2080361328439411059) that the consultant, Caitlin Legacki, was consulting for Stevens’s communications outfit while also “secretly” consulting for Palantir. 
Legacki was “one of Stevens’ key spokespeople,” as local outlet *Michigan Advance* [wrote](https://michiganadvance.com/2026/07/23/stevens-campaign-parts-ways-with-consultant-after-palantir-work-comes-to-light/). 
After Grim reached out to the campaign for comment on Legacki’s dual appointment, they terminated her and said that Stevens was “unaware” of her work for the tech giant. 
Legacki is also a senior fellow at conservative Democrat-aligned think tank Third Way, [Grim reports](https://x.com/ryangrim/status/2080368539920154859). 
The campaign also replied with a statement touting Stevens’s record on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 
Palantir has [been central to](https://www.aclu.org/news/privacy-technology/palantir-deportation-roundup) ICE and the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) mass deportation efforts. 
Among other collaborations, ICE [granted Palantir](https://www.wired.com/story/ice-palantir-immigrationos/) a $30 million contract last year to build out a surveillance program to track the movements of immigrants. 
“Haley believes ICE is out of control, putting Michiganders in danger, and needs an immediate overhaul. 
That’s why she’s voted against giving them another cent without serious reforms, including prosecuting any ICE agents who commit crimes and abuse their power, forcing ICE agents to wear proper ID and prohibiting them from wearing masks to conceal their identities, and taking away their $75 billion slush fund,” the campaign said. 
However, Stevens has previously come under fire for her record on ICE. 
In February, Stevens visited a Michigan ICE jail where an immigrant who was being detained, Nenko Gantchev, died. 
After the visit, she praised the facility for employing women — a comment that was [mocked online](https://x.com/stephensemler/status/2075396657886216412). 
“Of note, there is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today and explained, on the intake process, how important it is to treat people with humanity,” Stevens said, *Michigan Advance* [reported at the time](https://michiganadvance.com/2026/02/17/michigan-congresswomen-get-no-answers-on-baldwin-ice-facility-death-during-visit-and-tour/). 
“And that obviously really stuck out to me, because some of the things that we are witnessing before our eyes, in our neighborhoods, in our streets, is really a lack of humanity.” 
Stevens has [also been criticized](https://migrantinsider.com/p/haley-stevens-voted-to-fund-and-thank) for [being one](https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025158) of 75 Democrats who voted for a resolution that expresses “gratitude to law enforcement officers, including U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement personnel,” after an attack at a mall in Boulder, Colorado last year. 
“Congresswoman Stevens said she’ll stand up to ICE, all while she took talking points and advice from a compromised corporate apologist now revealed to be a key advisor in Trump’s deportation machine,” said a spokesperson for El-Sayed’s campaign, Roxie Richner, in [a statement](https://abdulforsenate.com/2026/07/breaking-haley-stevens-shared-key-campaign-spokesperson-with-ice-contractor-palantir/). 
“Perhaps it’s why Stevens voted to thank and fund ICE. 
Abdul has been clear and consistent on his stance since 2018: Abolish ICE.” 
Stevens — who was first elected to Congress by primarying incumbent Rep. 
Andy Levin [with the help of](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jul/29/pro-israel-lobby-aipac-andy-levin-democratic-races) AIPAC, in 2022 — is locked in a fierce race against former public health official and progressive candidate El-Sayed. 
AIPAC has poured [nearly $30 million](https://www.cbsnews.com/detroit/news/aipac-michigan-senate-primary-stevens-abdul-el-sayed/) into backing Stevens in the race, making it the pro-Israel PAC’s largest-ever investment into a single race, and amounting [to nearly double](https://x.com/ryangrim/status/2080036158092849554) the Democratic National Committee’s entire war chest for 2028 so far, Grim pointed out this week. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%Sharon Zhang: 7.6%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 11.9%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias11.9%This article: 13.3%Sharon Zhang: 4.8%Truthout: 3.4%Availability Heuristic13.3%This article: 2.3%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 13.5%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 10.2%Sharon Zhang: 21.3%Truthout: 12.2%Negativity Bias10.2%This article: 2.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 6.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.2%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 4.4%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem7.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.5%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.8%Truthout: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Sharon Zhang: 10.1%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.9%Sharon Zhang: 11.4%Truthout: 8.8%Appeal to Emotion11.9%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 1.7%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question1.8%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.9%Truthout: 3.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)1.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof9.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.7%Anecdotal3.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 3.2%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.1%Sharon Zhang: 3.0%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote6.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.2%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 25.1%Sharon Zhang: 15.2%Truthout: 9.5%Biased Writer Voice25.1%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.9%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 8.6%Truthout: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

570 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech393writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Grim • 25 words • 100.0% coverageMichigan Advance • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Grim • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageHaley Stevens • 39 words • 0.0% coverageHaley Stevens • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRoxie Richner • 43 words • 0.0% coverageRoxie Richner • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roxie Richner

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words30% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-36.4 ptsWriter: 36.4%Roxie Richner: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+18.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Roxie Richner: 18.9%18.9%

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.