Dem senators working on bill that would force Trump to divest from digital assets 34%

By Hannah Nightingale68%

7/31/2026, 1:40:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Hasty Generalization, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 109 hits. Analysis detected 700 faulty-reasoning hits from 462 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.6% and a BS Rank of 34% (17,322 of 26,004 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.60% of the article peer group.

Democrats are pushing to add language to a cryptocurrency bill that would crack down on President Trump’s ability to profit from his digital assets, forcing him to either divest or place them into a blind trust. 
Democrats in a bipartisan group of senators are working on a counterproposal to a White House-approved ethics provision unveiled by GOP senators this week as part of a new draft of the Clarity Act. 
The bill states states, “to provide for a system of regulation of the offer and sale of digital commodities by the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to amend the Federal Reserve Act to prohibit the Federal reserve banks from offering certain products or services directly to an individual, to prohibit the use of central bank digital currency for monetary policy, and for other purposes.” 
Democrats have said that they will not accept language that the bill is solely enforceable by the Department of Justice, Politico reported. 
In an interview, Senator Ruben Gallego said the GOP-led proposal is “not a serious effort.” 
“Whatever piece of sh*t they sent back to us, that was not a serious effort. 
I can’t imagine that that’s a serious effort  after all the work that we’ve done with our Republican colleagues, that they would take the months and months of work and somehow interpret that and turn around and think what they offered was even remotely close,” he said. 
The latest proposal from the GOP came from an agreement between GOP Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno. 
Gallego and other Democrats have been negotiating for months with Lummis, Moreno and the White House on an ethics provision, however, talks stalled over the role state attorneys general should play in enforcing the bill. 
Gallego said he was working with Senator Thom Tillis and other Republicans on a counteroffer. 
“We are still in this fight. 
We are going to send back language.” 
Tillis said that while the White House-approved language “was good,” it still needed to get 60 votes in the chamber. 
“The baseline, I think, falls short of what some of the Democrats want. 
We have to have one final discussion with the White House to see if a couple of other things that look reasonable to me are acceptable to the president.” 
Lummis said on Friday, “This bill literally requires President Trump to divest his digital asset holdings or put them in a blind trust. 
It's becoming painfully clear some of my Democrat colleagues would rather let consumers lose everything if a crypto exchange fails and posture for the midterms than pass market structure legislation with unprecedented ethics standards covering the President, VP, Congress, and the Federal Judiciary.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 7.3%The Post Millennial: 6.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Hannah Nightingale: 0.3%The Post Millennial: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 3.4%The Post Millennial: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.9%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.2%The Post Millennial: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.6%Hannah Nightingale: 9.8%The Post Millennial: 10.8%Framing Effect13.6%This article: 5.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.6%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Loss Aversion5.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.2%The Post Millennial: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.5%The Post Millennial: 0.6%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.1%The Post Millennial: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Hannah Nightingale: 1.6%The Post Millennial: 0.9%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 23.6%Hannah Nightingale: 11.3%The Post Millennial: 9.2%Negativity Bias23.6%This article: 10.4%Hannah Nightingale: 1.2%The Post Millennial: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias10.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.1%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.3%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.7%The Post Millennial: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.9%The Post Millennial: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Hannah Nightingale: 2.7%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Ad Hominem3.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.3%The Post Millennial: 1.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.9%The Post Millennial: 2.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 22.1%Hannah Nightingale: 4.0%The Post Millennial: 2.0%False Dilemma22.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.5%The Post Millennial: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.7%Hannah Nightingale: 5.5%The Post Millennial: 4.9%Hasty Generalization19.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.2%Hannah Nightingale: 10.7%The Post Millennial: 4.8%Appeal to Emotion3.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.1%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.3%The Post Millennial: 1.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.9%The Post Millennial: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.6%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.7%The Post Millennial: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.9%Hannah Nightingale: 2.4%The Post Millennial: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Hannah Nightingale: 0.4%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Middle Ground6.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.1%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 2.4%The Post Millennial: 1.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.2%Hannah Nightingale: 2.2%The Post Millennial: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 3.2%Hannah Nightingale: 6.1%The Post Millennial: 4.7%Biased Writer Voice3.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 1.9%The Post Millennial: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.0%The Post Millennial: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Hannah Nightingale: 2.3%The Post Millennial: 5.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Hannah Nightingale: 0.3%The Post Millennial: 0.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

462 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers51%attributed speech228writer words
Selected voice

Cynthia Lummis

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words28% of attributed speech52% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Politically Right Leaning +65.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cynthia Lummis: 65.2%65.2%

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.