BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.2% saturation with 506 hits. Analysis detected 4,147 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,073 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 91.8% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,107 of 20,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.60% of the article peer group.

Things have changed since the last major No Kings protests, in October 2025. 
Back then, an estimated 7 million people poured into the streets to protest against the Trump administration; this Saturday, at more than 3,000 events planned nationwide, the crowds are likely to be even bigger. 
In part, that’s because the Trump administration keeps pursuing more and more unpopular agendas, often with a sadism and indifference to popular opinion that becomes prominent in the news. 
In January, ICE agents in Minneapolis killed two protesters  first Renee Good on 7 January and then Alex Pretti on 24 January  who were in the streets trying to obstruct the agency’s kidnappings and voice their opposition to the Trump administration’s ethnic cleansing program. 
The two dead Americans were among the thousands who have become enraged at ongoing revelations of the extent and cruelty of Trump’s mass kidnapping, detention and ethnic cleansing program, which has swept up tens of thousands of men, women and children. 
Then, on 30 January, roughly 3m files related to the dead paedophile sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein were released by the Department of Justice under a law passed by Congress, providing further details about Epstein’s extensive connections with members of the financial, academic and media elites  prominently including members of Trump’s cabinet and extended circle. 
One document, first withheld and then released by the justice department, contains a woman’s allegation that she was sexually abused by Donald Trump under Epstein’s auspices when she was a child. 
(The White House denies the claim.) 
In March, Trump launched a disastrous and seemingly impulsive war of choice in Iran, killing a few prominent Iranian political leaders (and no small number of schoolgirls and other civilians), but which has failed to approach his administration’s stated goal of regime change. 
Trump has offered meagre and conflicting rationales for the war, which has drawn comparisons to the disastrous 2003 invasion of Iraq  a war Trump built much of his own early political reputation on being willing to condemn. 
Meanwhile, the war has sent fuel prices soaring and is already inflicting harm on consumers. 
Not that people have much disposable money to consume with, anyway: the economy is continuing to lose jobs as the Trump administration prioritizes handouts to the wealthy, lavish spending on immigration enforcement, and investment in the AI sector over American workers. 
“The No Kings protests will show the human faces behind Trump’s disastrous approval rating” 
Which of these acute injustices and ongoing catastrophes will be the focus of outrage at this weekend’s edition of the mass anti-Trump street demonstrations? 
It is hard to say. 
Like the Women’s Marches during the first Trump administration, the No Kings Marches that have emerged during his second have become a repository for a vast spectrum of anti-Trump grievances. 
There will be people there who oppose his deportation regime, people who have been hurt by his cuts to federal programs or his attacks on medicine and universities, people who oppose war in principle, people who oppose wars in the Middle East from bitter experience, and people who are simply angered by the staggering new cost of gas. 
There will be people who are angered at Trump’s rapid and reckless expansion of executive power  blessed by the Republican-dominated supreme court  and there will be people who are offended by his corruption and self-dealing, by his hostility to green energy, by his history of alleged violence against women, and by his tiresome narcissism and personal vulgarity. 
There will be, in short, every possible objection to Trump along the left-liberal spectrum of American politics represented in the streets on Saturday; name any objection to Trump from this camp that you can imagine, and someone at a No Kings protest this weekend will be holding it aloft, on a handmade, cardboard sign. 
It is a frequently lobbed criticism of No Kings, as it was of the Women’s Marches, that these sorts of vast public demonstrations of broad anti-Trump feeling suffer from being overly inclusive and insufficiently precise. 
And it is true that the No Kings marches have no demands, as such: they are more expressions of the passion and size of the anti-regime feeling in the United States than a meaningful program to leverage that feeling for specific political ends. 
But it is not true that the breadth of the coalition of the No Kings movement means that that coalition cannot be wielded in the service of more specific policy changes. 
In demonstrating the vastness of American popular discontent and the intensity of ill will toward the political right, the No Kings protests will show the human faces behind Trump’s disastrous approval rating; they will give politicians, ahead of the looming November midterms, a sense of the wisdom, or lack thereof, in following Trump’s political lead. 
In 2024, after Trump eked out a victory in the presidential election and won the popular vote for the first time, many commentators assumed that his return to power represented a dramatic and permanent cultural shift: that the culture wars were over, and that the right had won. 
But in reality, much of Trump’s support in 2024 was weak and noncommittal, his famous diehard fans less central to his support than their legend makes it seem. 
The No Kings protests are an opportunity to demonstrate  to politicians, to the media, and to America itself  that this country also contains large swaths of liberal and left-leaning people, people who dare to imagine that they matter as much to what this country is as the conservatives do. 
Nor will the No Kings marches be the end of the popular demonstration of anti-Trump sentiment. 
It is true that there are some protesters who will walk a few miles and go home, their cardboard signs put away, their sense of civic duty fulfilled. 
But it is also true that many of those who attend, some of whom have been activated to politics for the first time, will meet other impassioned people there; that they will be recruited to new forms of organizing and new means of engagement, and will begin to look for new and more consistent and ongoing ways to enact their values locally, on the ground, in a country that sometimes seems to be turning away from them. 
That, too, is a victory. 
Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Moira Donegan: 11.5%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Moira Donegan: 5.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.7%This article: 5.4%Moira Donegan: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 7.1%Moira Donegan: 2.9%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 3.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Moira Donegan: 10.6%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.2%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 1.7%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Moira Donegan: 3.9%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias11.8%This article: 11.3%Moira Donegan: 5.2%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias11.3%This article: 38.6%Moira Donegan: 32.0%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias38.6%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 6.5%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 5.5%Moira Donegan: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias5.5%This article: 9.8%Moira Donegan: 4.7%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 2.4%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.2%Moira Donegan: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Moira Donegan: 12.3%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem10.6%This article: 7.7%Moira Donegan: 4.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man7.7%This article: 4.2%Moira Donegan: 3.2%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority4.2%This article: 4.0%Moira Donegan: 1.9%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma4.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 6.1%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.8%Moira Donegan: 9.7%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization14.8%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.0%Moira Donegan: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon5.0%This article: 23.7%Moira Donegan: 16.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion23.7%This article: 0.5%Moira Donegan: 1.4%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.5%This article: 24.2%Moira Donegan: 4.9%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)24.2%This article: 0.6%Moira Donegan: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.6%This article: 27.4%Moira Donegan: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof27.4%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.8%Moira Donegan: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division3.8%This article: 10.9%Moira Donegan: 2.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal10.9%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.2%Moira Donegan: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.2%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Moira Donegan: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.1%Moira Donegan: 1.7%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy5.1%This article: 24.6%Moira Donegan: 4.3%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote24.6%This article: 1.3%Moira Donegan: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 47.2%Moira Donegan: 51.0%the Guardian: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice47.2%This article: 17.9%Moira Donegan: 4.4%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination17.9%This article: 21.9%Moira Donegan: 30.9%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias21.9%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Moira Donegan: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1073 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers6.3%attributed speech1,005writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageThe White House • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 59 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 77 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageMoira Donegan • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Department of Justice

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words81% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B+82.1 ptsWriter: 17.9%Department of Justice: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+79.8 ptsWriter: 20.2%Department of Justice: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-49.7 ptsWriter: 49.7%Department of Justice: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-19.1 ptsWriter: 19.1%Department of Justice: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.4 ptsWriter: 1.4%Department of Justice: 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.