The language of the American presidency doesn’t apply to Trump 87%

By Robert Reich0%

5/25/2026, 11:00:24 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Begging the Question, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 49.6% saturation with 357 hits. Analysis detected 1,224 faulty-reasoning hits from 720 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.8% and a BS Rank of 87% (3,014 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

Words matter. 
When describing a government, they inevitably carry moral weight. 
Over the past 16 months, Trump and his appointees have so profoundly undermined the United States government that different words should be used to describe them than have been used to describe all previous administrations. 
To begin with, they shouldn’t be called an “administration” at all. 
They should be referred to as a regime. 
A regime flagrantly defies court orders, as have Trump and his appointees. 
In February 2026, a federal judge, appointed by George W Bush, identified some 200 orders from the district of Minnesota that ICE had defied, concluding that it had “likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence”. 
A regime also vilifies judges who rule against it and demand their impeachment, exactly as the Trump regime has done. 
A regime usurps a legislature’s powers to declare war, issue tariffs and appropriate public funds  which is what the Trump regime has done to Congress. 
A regime seeks to stifle speech and silence criticism in universities, law firms and the media  again, precisely what the Trump regime has done. 
Secondly, this regime is not headed by a “president,” as the constitution of the United States and America’s laws and history have designated the head of the executive branch of the US government. 
To put the term “president” before Trump’s name defiles the constitution. 
More than 300,000 federal workers have left their jobs under Trump, including tens of thousands who were fired. 
He has fired inspectors general who are charged with holding political appointees accountable. 
He punishes whistleblowers who protest against abuses. 
He attacks marginalized groups and foments bigotry. 
He is openly persecuting political opponents. 
He has doled out pardons to convicted felons who are political supporters or financial contributors  including a Honduran president who smuggled 400 tons of cocaine into the US, and January 6 seditionists. 
He has sent federal troops into states and cities headed by Democratic officials. 
These are not the actions of someone whom the constitution defines as president of the United States. 
Thirdly, Trump and his regime’s disregard for law is so monumental that it negates what we have come to understand as a “government of laws”. 
A better word for it is lawless. 
Consider that by the end of January, eight people had died in their dealings with ICE this year. 
Thirty-two people died last year in the custody of ICE. 
That’s more than in the preceding 20 years. 
People only suspected of being in the US illegally have been detained or deported by masked and armed immigration agents, without a hearing. 
People suspected of smuggling drugs have been murdered by the US military in international waters, in violation of international law. 
Meanwhile, Trump is accepting gifts from foreign powers, in open violation of the constitution. 
He has blatantly promoted his family’s crypto business and implemented policies favorable to it. 
He has sued the Internal Revenue Service for $10bn for allegedly leaking information about his past tax returns to the media. 
In response, his justice department is offering to set up a $1.8bn slush fund to compensate people deemed to have been unfairly convicted  including, perhaps, the 1,500 people who attacked the US Capitol on 6 January 2021. 
The justice department is also dropping IRS audits of Trump and his family. 
All of this goes way beyond specific illegal acts. 
A different term should be used to describe what Trump and his regime are doing to the law. 
They are lawless. 
Finally, the true test of a successful president of the US and his (eventually her) administration is not how much power he accumulates or how much he gets done. 
The real test is how much better off are the American people and how much stronger is our democracy. 
By these measures, Trump and his regime are not just lawless. 
They are a catastrophe. 
Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. 
He is a Guardian US columnist and his newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com. 
His new book, Coming Up Short: A Memoir of My America, is out now in the US and in the UK 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.8%Robert Reich: 15.0%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Robert Reich: 4.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 3.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.1%Robert Reich: 5.8%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect26.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.5%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.7%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Robert Reich: 17.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias15.1%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 3.1%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 5.2%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 3.3%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.7%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 5.1%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 2.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.4%Robert Reich: 5.9%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.4%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 2.1%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 11.5%Robert Reich: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning11.5%This article: 49.6%Robert Reich: 16.1%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization49.6%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.1%Robert Reich: 11.4%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion2.1%This article: 15.7%Robert Reich: 5.2%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question15.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 5.2%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.4%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 3.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.7%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.4%Robert Reich: 24.6%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice1.4%This article: 11.0%Robert Reich: 3.5%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination11.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 13.7%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Reich: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Robert Reich: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.9%

720 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

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

Analysis

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