Kagan Puts Trump's Most Inflammatory Remarks About Haitians Into Supreme Court Record 64%

By Brianna Tucker0%

6/25/2026, 9:51:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and False Dilemma, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 34.5% saturation with 143 hits. Analysis detected 1,174 faulty-reasoning hits from 414 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.2% and a BS Rank of 64% (8,073 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.10% of the article peer group.

Justice Elena Kagan put President Donald Trump’s most racist and inflammatory remarks over the last decade about Haitians into permanent record Thursday, blasting her conservative colleagues on the bench for refusing to “put them in print.” 
On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 majority to allow the Department of Homeland Security to end Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 350,000 migrants from Haiti and Syria, delivering a landmark win for the Trump administration. 
In a blistering dissent in the Mullin v. 
Doe case, writing for the liberal minority, Kagan quoted Trump directly and noted remarks the conservative majority found too “repellent” to include. 
“The evidence they have offered includes statements by the President so repellent and racially inflected that the majority declines to put them in print,” Kagan wrote. 
Her dissent included when Trump said: 
Haitians “probably have AIDS.” 
Haiti is a “shithole” country. 
Haitians are “poisoning the blood” of America. 
“like a death wish for our country.” 
Other statements resurfaced by Kagan included when Trump confirmed at a 2025 rally the remark he made during his first term, saying, “Why is it we only take people from shithole countries” like “Haiti [and] Somalia” and “Why cannot we have some people from Norway [and] Sweden?” 
Justice Samuel Alito had written in the majority opinion that none of Trump’s or former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s statements were “overtly racial” and that opposing TPS or describing difficult conditions in Haiti didn’t necessarily reflect racial bias. 
The opinion acknowledged Haiti’s poor economic conditions directly, writing that “poverty and deprivation are no reflection on character,” but the majority concluded the statements fell short of proving discriminatory intent. 
“In offering the cited statements as proof that the termination of Haiti’s TPS termination [sic] was motivated by race, Miot respondents seek to capitalize on the statements’ heated language,” Alito wrote, referring to Fritz Emmanuel Lesly Miot, one of the lead plaintiffs in the case. 
Kagan’s dissent was a direct rebuttal to his assertion. 
Where the majority referred only vaguely to “cited statements,” Kagan named them, printing the remarks plaintiffs had claimed as evidence of racial discrimination by the Trump administration, and that her colleagues had declined to put on the record. 
“One factor among many is enough when the factor is racial to presumptively establish an equal protection violation,” Kagan wrote. 
Kagan was joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in her dissent. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 2.4%AP: 3.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Brianna Tucker: 1.2%AP: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.8%This article: 11.4%Brianna Tucker: 5.7%AP: 2.8%Availability Heuristic11.4%This article: 7.2%Brianna Tucker: 1.8%AP: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 25.1%Brianna Tucker: 23.2%AP: 9.9%Framing Effect25.1%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Brianna Tucker: 0.4%AP: 2.4%Pessimism Bias1.7%This article: 29.0%Brianna Tucker: 16.4%AP: 13.5%Negativity Bias29.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Brianna Tucker: 2.4%AP: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error9.4%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Brianna Tucker: 10.0%AP: 2.2%In-Group Bias5.3%This article: 7.0%Brianna Tucker: 5.6%AP: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.4%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Brianna Tucker: 2.4%AP: 1.5%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%Brianna Tucker: 2.7%AP: 2.9%Ad Hominem10.9%This article: 9.2%Brianna Tucker: 5.0%AP: 1.0%Straw Man9.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 20.8%Brianna Tucker: 5.2%AP: 1.9%False Dilemma20.8%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.4%AP: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.0%Brianna Tucker: 4.0%AP: 6.5%Hasty Generalization1.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 20.5%Brianna Tucker: 13.5%AP: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion20.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.2%Brianna Tucker: 3.6%AP: 0.6%Burden of Proof7.2%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.2%Brianna Tucker: 0.3%AP: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.2%This article: 34.5%Brianna Tucker: 8.6%AP: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)34.5%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.4%Brianna Tucker: 4.6%AP: 2.7%Unattributed Quote18.4%This article: 17.6%Brianna Tucker: 5.8%AP: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection17.6%This article: 17.9%Brianna Tucker: 16.5%AP: 12.7%Biased Writer Voice17.9%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 14.0%Brianna Tucker: 11.5%AP: 4.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brianna Tucker: 0.0%AP: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

414 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers56%attributed speech184writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageKagan • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 5 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 7 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 47 words • 100.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 39 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 30 words • 0.0% coverageSamuel Alito • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageKagan • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words30% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+96.7 ptsWriter: 3.3%Trump: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+67.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 67.1%67.1%Biased Writer Voice-40.2 ptsWriter: 40.2%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%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.