DHS Investigators Weigh Criminal Referral of Corey Lewandowski: Report 20%

By Kathryn Wilkens41%

7/11/2026, 12:52:43 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 22.2% saturation with 78 hits. Analysis detected 442 faulty-reasoning hits from 351 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.5% and a BS Rank of 20% (17,007 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.20% of the article peer group.

AP Photo/Josh Reynolds 
Investigators with the Department of Homeland Security have uncovered evidence suggesting former Trump advisor Corey Lewandowski may have improperly influenced the awarding of government contracts during his time at the agency, according to a Friday report from The Wall Street Journal . 
The Journal reported that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and White House officials have already been briefed on the inquiry, with investigators now considering whether to refer the matter to the Justice Department for possible criminal review. 
According to the article, the investigation remains active, a referral is not expected in the immediate future, and Mullin’s department is cooperating. 
Lewandowski, who served as President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign manager, worked as an unpaid senior advisor to then-Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem before both were ousted from the department earlier this year. 
Although he served as a “special government employee,” the Journal reported that Lewandowski wielded unusually broad authority inside DHS, including involvement in personnel matters and contracting decisions. 
According to sources cited by the outlet, investigators are examining numerous contracts approved during Noem’s tenure and are looking into the extent of Lewandowski’s role in those decisions. 
The report said some department officials were surprised by how directly involved he appeared to be in the contracting process, with people familiar with the approvals saying Lewandowski personally signed certain contracts despite not serving as a full-time federal official. 
In a statement to the Journal , a representative for Lewandowski disputed the allegations, saying he denied issuing contracts while at DHS and that he had not been contacted by investigators regarding the ongoing inquiry. 
A White House spokeswoman referred the Journal’s request for comment to DHS, while a DHS spokeswoman declined to comment. 
DHS Inspector General Joseph Cuffari leads the probe, with a spokesman for his office telling the Journal that the office follows “a longstanding policy of neither confirming or denying specific investigations,” but pointed to previously announced audits examining DHS contracting practices. 
The post DHS Investigators Weigh Criminal Referral of Corey Lewandowski: Report first appeared on Mediaite . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.1%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.6%Mediaite: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.8%Mediaite: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Kathryn Wilkens: 8.9%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect10.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.0%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 12.0%Mediaite: 14.6%Negativity Bias11.4%This article: 10.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.5%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 22.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.3%Mediaite: 3.6%Appeal to Authority22.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 9.6%Mediaite: 7.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.6%Mediaite: 6.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.4%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.8%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.0%Mediaite: 2.8%Anecdotal11.4%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.0%Mediaite: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.4%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.1%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote11.4%This article: 12.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.5%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection12.0%This article: 12.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.6%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice12.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.7%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 1.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.6%

351 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech259writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageCorey Lewandowski • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJoseph Cuffari • 41 words • 0.0% coverageMediaite • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joseph Cuffari

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words45% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Quote-first Misdirection-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%Joseph Cuffari: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.2 ptsWriter: 16.2%Joseph Cuffari: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-15.4 ptsWriter: 15.4%Joseph Cuffari: 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.