MS NOW⁠95%

FBI fires analysts behind controversial memo on ‘radical Catholic ideology’ ⁠41%

By Ken Dilanian⁠0% Carol Leonnig⁠0%

6/5/2026, 9:00:23 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Framing Effect, and Red Herring, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 32.4% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 1,062 faulty-reasoning hits from 330 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 45.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠41% (13,048 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 59.60% of the article peer group.

FBI Director Kash Patel fired a group of bureau intelligence analysts Friday over a rescinded 2023 memo about “radical traditionalist Catholic ideology” that has long been a focus of Republicans despite an investigation that found no anti-Catholic bias, three people familiar with the matter told MS NOW. 
The analysts worked in the FBI’s Richmond office, where the memo originated, said the sources, who spoke on condition of anonymity due to sensitive personnel issues. 
They said at least five analysts were included in the firings. 
The 2023 memo was titled, “Interest of Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists in Radical-Traditionalist Catholic Ideology Almost Certainly Presents New Mitigation Opportunities.” 
The memo argued that some white supremacists and racially motivated violent extremists were attempting to recruit a small subset of “radical traditionalist Catholics” and suggested that Catholic congregations could present opportunities for intelligence gathering. 
It stemmed in part from a domestic terrorism investigation of a Virginia violent extremist who joined a Catholic sect not recognized by the Vatican, according to public records. 
As soon as it became public, then-FBI Director Christopher Wray ordered it withdrawn. 
He apologized for it in several congressional hearings, saying it did not meet the FBI’s standards. 
Then-Attorney General Merrick Garland said he was “appalled” by the memo but called allegations that he condoned discrimination against Catholics ludicrous. 
A review in 2024 by the Justice Department’s inspector general found no evidence of anti-Catholic bias or malicious intent on the part of the FBI personnel who prepared the memo. 
But the IG concluded it suffered from significant analytical problems and poor tradecraft. 
Some of the information in the memo came from the Southern Poverty Law Center, an anti-extremist organization that is now the subject of a deeply controversial fraud indictment. 
The FBI declined to comment. 
House Republicans released a report on the memo in 2023 titled, “The FBI’s breach of religious freedom: The weaponization of law enforcement against Catholic Americans.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.2%Ken Dilanian: 6.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias14.2%This article: 7.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.0%This article: 11.8%Ken Dilanian: 4.3%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 10.3%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic10.3%This article: 3.9%Ken Dilanian: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Ken Dilanian: 13.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect31.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.5%Ken Dilanian: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%Ken Dilanian: 24.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 3.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.8%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Ken Dilanian: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect9.1%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 5.1%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.9%Ken Dilanian: 9.1%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority13.9%This article: 3.9%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma3.9%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 5.8%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 22.7%Ken Dilanian: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring22.7%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.0%Ken Dilanian: 12.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion17.0%This article: 7.6%Ken Dilanian: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question7.6%This article: 12.4%Ken Dilanian: 3.2%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.4%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.2%Ken Dilanian: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof14.2%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.3%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.3%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ken Dilanian: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 8.5%Ken Dilanian: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy8.5%This article: 31.8%Ken Dilanian: 6.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote31.8%This article: 3.0%Ken Dilanian: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 32.4%Ken Dilanian: 8.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice32.4%This article: 8.5%Ken Dilanian: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 8.5%Ken Dilanian: 3.5%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.5%This article: 7.6%Ken Dilanian: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.6%This article: 8.5%Ken Dilanian: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.5%

330 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers37%attributed speech207writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageChristopher Wray • 13 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Wray • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMerrick Garland • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Department’s inspector general • 30 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department’s inspector general • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageFBI • 5 words • 0.0% coverageHouse Republicans • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

House Republicans

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words20% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%House Republicans: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-44.0 ptsWriter: 44.0%House Republicans: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-40.6 ptsWriter: 40.6%House Republicans: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%House Republicans: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%House Republicans: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%House Republicans: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%House Republicans: 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.