MS NOW⁠95%

Why John Roberts didn’t write the ‘one little sentence’ Trump wants on tariffs ⁠44%

By Jordan Rubin⁠0%

3/26/2026, 8:22:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Quote-first Misdirection, and Negativity Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45% saturation with 136 hits. Analysis detected 563 faulty-reasoning hits from 302 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠44% (12,259 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 56.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump keeps struggling with the Supreme Court’s tariffs ruling against him — and his statements on the matter still misunderstand what the ruling said and why. 
That was evident when he spoke on Wednesday at the National Republican Congressional Committee’s annual fundraising dinner in Washington. 
On top of continuing his tirade against Justices Neil Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett, two of his appointees who ruled against him — “They sicken me,” the president said — Trump remains confounded by the fact that the government must refund the tariff money it illegally collected. 
He complained that the 6-3 ruling from February, authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, “didn’t want to put one little sentence that all money taken in up ’til this day doesn’t have to be paid back.” 
It’s true that the majority didn’t address refunds. 
That led Trump’s other high court appointee, Brett Kavanaugh, to observe in dissent that the court “says nothing today about whether, and if so how, the Government should go about returning the billions of dollars that it has collected from importers.” 
But the president should keep in mind, or be informed by his staff, that government lawyers had acknowledged that refunds would issue if the Supreme Court were to deem the tariffs illegal. 
For example, in convincing the lower courts not to halt the tariffs while litigation proceeded toward the justices, government lawyers wrote that there’d be no harm to plaintiffs because, if the administration were to lose in the end, then plaintiffs “will assuredly receive payment on their refund with interest.” 
Having now lost the case, no one in the government can be surprised that it must go through a refund process — certainly not the leader of the government. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.6%Jordan Rubin: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias9.6%This article: 11.9%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 21.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%Jordan Rubin: 14.8%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias24.8%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 4.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 3.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 7.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 11.9%Jordan Rubin: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity11.9%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 27.5%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection27.5%This article: 45.0%Jordan Rubin: 8.4%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice45.0%This article: 10.6%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination10.6%This article: 45.0%Jordan Rubin: 5.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias45.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

302 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers25%attributed speech225writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBrett Kavanaugh • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words47% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+79.1 ptsWriter: 20.9%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-60.4 ptsWriter: 60.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-60.4 ptsWriter: 60.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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