Why did Trump kill Congress’ housing bill? 60%

By Jim Newell66%

6/25/2026, 2:40:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 51.4% saturation with 416 hits. Analysis detected 1,860 faulty-reasoning hits from 809 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.9% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,868 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.50% of the article peer group.

Congress recently did something correctly. 
It passed a big, bipartisan bill to address one of voters’ big, bipartisan concerns: housing affordability. 
Everything was done the right way. 
The House and Senate committees of jurisdiction each passed their own versions, cleaned up the draft product in concert with each other, and produced a final version that, while it won’t fix the housing shortage on its own, takes a step toward making it easier to find an affordable place to live. 
It’s a policy win for both parties, and it could be a political boon to a party in power that needs to show voters, ahead of a difficult midterm election, that it’s capable of delivering results. 
And so President Donald Trump just had to step all over it. 
In a Wednesday morning post, he described the legislation as the “Elizabeth ‘Pocahontas’ Warren centric housing bill” and of “minor importance.” 
Shortly thereafter, he called off a planned signing ceremony for the bill at the Capitol “until such time as we pass the desperately needed SAVE AMERICA ACT, which I consider to be a National Emergency.” 
This is the latest episode of the president intentionally sabotaging Senate Republicans until they’ve done what he wants—or because he’s in a fit that they haven’t. 
What he wants them to do is eliminate or weaken the filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act, the GOP’s party-line elections bill that Democrats oppose as unduly restricting voter rights and ballot access. 
Since Republicans will not do what he wants, the net effect is simply that the president is intentionally sabotaging Senate Republicans in a midterm year. 
“It’s sort of inexplicable to me,” Texas Sen. 
John Cornyn, an ousted incumbent who’s suddenly a lot more willing to say what’s on his mind, told reporters. 
“I don’t know if there’s a precedent for it.” 
Trump’s insistence that the Senate pass the SAVE America Act is real and deep. 
But even deeper is his desire that the Senate simply do what he tells it, whether on a bill or anything else. 
Trump isn’t fond of separate branches of government technically outside his control. 
He figures that if they have to exist, they ought to obey him. 
So when the Senate on Tuesday passed a privileged War Powers Resolution vote to end the Iran war, that tipped him over the edge into spitting on its housing bill. 
Trump’s decision to deny himself and Congress an easy political win is mystifyingly counterproductive. 
But to Senate Republicans, what else is new? 
He’s been making their life hell too regularly for them not to see this latest bit of political malpractice coming. 
“I will stand on one leg and bark like a dog if that’s what it takes” to pass the SAVE Act, Louisiana Sen. 
John Kennedy told reporters. 
“But you can’t make people vote in a way that they don’t want to do.” 
Although Trump canceled the bill signing on the Hill, he did show up to Senate Republicans’ weekly Tuesday lunch, to which Florida Sen. 
Rick Scott—without informing Thune—had invited him. 
It went about as expected. 
GOP senators let slip dry smiles when reporters asked them about it immediately afterward; an unusually high number of them found it necessary to put phones to their ears as reporters stalked them. 
Among those willing to talk, passionate and forceful were common descriptors—standard euphemisms for Trump just ranted for a while. 
Trump, per Cornyn, said that “there wasn’t really an opportunity” to ask him questions because he “spoke for an hour and 15 minutes.” 
But another senator scorned by Trump—Louisiana’s Bill Cassidy, whom the president successfully bounced in a primary last month—found an opportunity, getting into what was described as a shouting match with the president over Iran. 
Cassidy, who at one point referred to the president as “brother,” told Trump he hadn’t been clear to the American people about why the war was necessary and that it hadn’t produced the administration’s stated results. 
“As I recall, he did not particularly care for my comments” and “raised his voice,” Cassidy recounted to reporters. 
“I lost my temper.” 
Otherwise, Trump faced no pushback. 
It’s unclear how this impasse—Trump wanting the SAVE America Act passed, and the Senate being unable to pass the SAVE America Act—will be resolved. 
Most likely, it won’t be. 
Nor is it clear how Trump’s underlying problem with the Senate having trouble obeying instructions 100 percent of the time will get any better. 
Senate Republicans in competitive reelections, in fact, will continue needing to separate themselves from the unpopular administration’s excesses as Election Day approaches, while aggrieved retiring senators like Cornyn, Cassidy, and Tillis will continue to express dangerous (above-zero) levels of free thought. 
Senate Republicans feel that the longer this feud goes on, Trump will reap the true cost of his sabotage: a Democratic Senate. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.6%Jim Newell: 3.1%Slate: 4.2%Confirmation Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 3.6%Slate: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.2%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 1.0%Slate: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Jim Newell: 0.9%Slate: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias3.0%This article: 12.5%Jim Newell: 6.4%Slate: 5.9%Framing Effect12.5%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect4.4%This article: 4.4%Jim Newell: 1.0%Slate: 1.1%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 8.9%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.8%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 34.9%Jim Newell: 13.0%Slate: 9.8%Negativity Bias34.9%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 20.8%Jim Newell: 3.3%Slate: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error20.8%This article: 2.3%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 1.7%Slate: 1.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Jim Newell: 1.1%Slate: 2.7%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.0%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.1%Slate: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Jim Newell: 3.1%Slate: 1.8%Ad Hominem1.6%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 0.9%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 2.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.9%Jim Newell: 1.8%Slate: 1.7%False Dilemma8.9%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 1.4%Slate: 1.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.2%Jim Newell: 6.6%Slate: 7.8%Hasty Generalization7.2%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.5%Slate: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 4.8%Slate: 5.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.9%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 1.2%Begging the Question0.9%This article: 11.0%Jim Newell: 3.0%Slate: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.3%Slate: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.3%Jim Newell: 2.1%Slate: 3.3%Anecdotal8.3%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.2%Jim Newell: 1.6%Slate: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.2%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.2%Slate: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.0%Slate: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.1%Slate: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.9%Jim Newell: 2.2%Slate: 1.4%Unattributed Quote7.9%This article: 7.2%Jim Newell: 0.9%Slate: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.2%This article: 51.4%Jim Newell: 32.9%Slate: 19.6%Biased Writer Voice51.4%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.6%Slate: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 4.4%Slate: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.4%Slate: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jim Newell: 0.8%Slate: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

809 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers21%attributed speech643writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Cornyn • 8 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Cornyn • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Cornyn • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Kennedy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Kennedy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Kennedy • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageRick Scott • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Cornyn • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 36 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 19 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

John Cornyn

85%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words36% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.5 ptsWriter: 61.7%John Cornyn: 32.2%32.2%Quote-first Misdirection+33.5 ptsWriter: 5.4%John Cornyn: 39.0%39.0%Unattributed Quote+4.9 ptsWriter: 8.7%John Cornyn: 13.6%13.6%

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.