WBUR9%

Trump’s Justice Department to send election monitors to Mass. 25%

By Gintautas Dumcius51%

7/10/2026, 2:56:39 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.9% saturation with 221 hits. Analysis detected 859 faulty-reasoning hits from 791 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.2% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,539 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.60% of the article peer group.

Voters cast their ballots at the Charlestown Boys and Girls Club in Boston on Nov 5, 2024. 
(Jesse Costa/WBUR file) 
President Trump’s Department of Justice plans to deploy election monitors to at least two cities in Massachusetts and two in New Hampshire for their respective state primaries. 
The Massachusetts primary is set for Sept. 1, and New Hampshire’s is scheduled for Sept. 
8. 
Election monitors  who are usually Department of Justice attorneys  will be sent to Boston and New Bedford, according to federal and state officials. 
Manchester and Nashua are the two New Hampshire cities. 
Harmeet Dhillon, who serves as the department’s assistant attorney general for civil rights, characterized the effort as a way to boost voter confidence in election outcomes. 
“This is something that DOJ does routinely,” she said in a video posted to the social media platform X this week. 
A spokeswoman for Secretary of State Bill Galvin’s office, which oversees Massachusetts elections, said the Department of Justice has deployed election monitors in the past, including in Boston in 2024, and going back to at least President George W. 
Bush’s administration. 
Galvin’s office has previously cooperated and maintained cordial working relationships with federal elections officials, said spokeswoman Debra O’Malley. 
But there is a different, more combative tone from the Trump administration this year, O’Malley added, particularly with announcements coming through social media posts, and formal notices coming days later, leading to confusion among elections officials. 
For example, on top of Dhillon’s social media post about election monitors, she also sent a letter to all 50 states this week threatening prosecution of elections officials for knowingly allowing noncitizens to vote. 
There's no record of any elections official in recent American history engaging in such a scheme, and no evidence of widespread noncitizen voting. 
Galvin said he took the letter as a threat. 
"It's clearly part of the continuing pattern by the Trump administration to exert control over local elections as we're heading into this national midterm," he said. 
Galvin said federal officials should look to collaborate with state elections officers, not admonish them. 
The Justice Department also requested information from Boston and New Bedford, including lists of registered voters for the 2026 election and polling locations. 
“It certainly seems to be a more antagonistic approach than both Democratic and Republican” justice departments in the past, O’Malley told WBUR. 
Department of Justice monitors, who typically seek to ensure compliance with federal voting laws such as the Voting Rights Act, have the same rights as anybody else wishing to observe elections, but they cannot interact with voters and they can’t intimidate voters, according to O’Malley. 
“They can stand there silently and watch, like everybody else,” she said. 
Boston’s elections department was put under state receivership after the city saw ballot shortages in the 2024 election  blamed on human error  and local elections officials didn’t pick up the phone to answer questions from their state-level counterparts. 
According to O’Malley, the Trump administration is sending election monitors to the city, citing requirements under the Voting Rights Act to provide bilingual ballots and signage as well as access to interpreters due to its population of Spanish-speaking voting-age citizens. 
New Bedford does not have the same language requirements because its voting-age Hispanic citizen population is under the threshold at 4.5%, but DOJ officials said they still plan to send election monitors there. 
Carol Rose, the executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, acknowledged in a statement that election monitors have an important role to play. 
But, she added, “The Trump administration has been stoking baseless fears about the security of our elections, spreading lies about voter fraud, and seeking to intimidate state and local election officials. 
Let's be clear: There is absolutely no evidence of widespread voter fraud, either here in Massachusetts or anywhere else in the country.” 
The other states expected to see election monitors for their primaries include Arizona, Michigan, Minnesota and Virginia, according to Dhillon’s announcement. 
The Department of Justice did not immediately respond to an email seeking comment. 
But in her social media post earlier this week, Dhillon indicated there was more to come on the monitoring front. 
“Stay tuned as we get towards the general election where there’ll be an even more expanded program for vote monitors,” she said, “as DOJ has done for decades in our great nation.” 
With additional reporting by WBUR's Rob Lane. 
Voting officials fear DHS may actually be a threat to elections this year 
Trump administration actions put U.S. election integrity in the spotlight 
How could Trump interfere in the midterms? 
Here's what voting officials are watching 
Gintautas Dumcius Senior reporter 
Gintautas “Gin” Dumcius is a senior reporter covering state politics at WBUR. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Gintautas Dumcius: 3.6%Cognoscenti: 2.4%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.4%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.7%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Availability Heuristic2.9%This article: 5.7%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 3.3%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.2%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Gintautas Dumcius: 8.4%Cognoscenti: 3.9%Framing Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.4%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 3.4%Optimism Bias4.0%This article: 2.5%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 27.9%Gintautas Dumcius: 8.6%Cognoscenti: 5.0%Negativity Bias27.9%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.2%Cognoscenti: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.6%Cognoscenti: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.1%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.5%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.0%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Halo Effect1.5%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.4%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.2%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.7%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 2.6%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 2.8%Gintautas Dumcius: 3.4%Cognoscenti: 1.7%False Dilemma2.8%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.4%Cognoscenti: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Gintautas Dumcius: 4.9%Cognoscenti: 3.5%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%Gintautas Dumcius: 8.0%Cognoscenti: 5.4%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 3.3%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.5%Cognoscenti: 0.5%Begging the Question3.3%This article: 9.6%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.5%Cognoscenti: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.7%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.9%Cognoscenti: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.7%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.4%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.1%Cognoscenti: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 3.7%Cognoscenti: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.6%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.7%Cognoscenti: 0.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.6%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.1%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.6%Cognoscenti: 0.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.8%Cognoscenti: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.6%Gintautas Dumcius: 3.8%Cognoscenti: 3.0%Biased Writer Voice1.6%This article: 0.9%Gintautas Dumcius: 1.6%Cognoscenti: 1.4%Indoctrination0.9%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 2.9%Cognoscenti: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Gintautas Dumcius: 0.0%Cognoscenti: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

791 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers48%attributed speech413writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 26 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageBill Galvin • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBill Galvin • 26 words • 0.0% coverageBill Galvin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 45 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDebra O’Malley • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCarol Rose • 23 words • 0.0% coverageCarol Rose • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCarol Rose • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageHarmeet Dhillon • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bill Galvin

82%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words13% of attributed speech31% writer coverage
0%2.5%5.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Bill Galvin: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.7 ptsWriter: 1.7%Bill Galvin: 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.