How China stole voter registration from 220 million US citizens, according to declassified materials 37%

By Kaelan Deese30%

7/18/2026, 11:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.4% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 1,432 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,006 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.6% and a BS Rank of 37% (13,390 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 63.20% of the article peer group.

A cache of declassified intelligence documents released by the Trump administration Thursday night offered bold new details on China ’s acquisition of U.S. voter information since 2016, which President Donald Trump called the “largest compromise of election data in history.” 
Trump said during his primetime address on Thursday that the People’s Republic of China acquired 220 million U.S. voter files containing names, addresses, phone numbers, political party preferences, and other sensitive information. 
Shortly after the speech, the White House released to the public dozens of declassified documents containing partially redacted findings, including data showing nearly 278,000 noncitizens who are registered to vote in federal elections and details over a “slow-walked” 2020 FBI investigation in Michigan . 
“This data loss presents an unprecedented election security nightmare,” Trump said. 
“The intelligence even shows that China assigned a data exploitation unit specifically to this new project.” 
A document in the White House release, titled “200M Voter Records Compromised,” says a 45-gigabyte database contained 204,822,241 U.S. voter records from 2016. 
The report’s third page states the database included voters’ names, ages, telephone numbers, and addresses. 
Trump described China’s acquisition of the data as illicit, although the declassified documents show Chinese actors obtained voter information through several methods, some of which required no hacking, including by accessing datasets available from commercial websites and data purchased from other sources. 
Chinese actors downloaded voter files from six states 
A People’s Republic of China cyber actor downloaded publicly available voter registration information for Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island from commercial websites, according to a January 2022 document titled “US Voter Registration for 6 States.” 
The information covered voter records from at least 2013 through 2021 and included names, party affiliations, email addresses, physical addresses, and phone numbers, the document said. 
The assessment warned that the information could, “in theory,” be used in future cyber- or election-influence operations, while acknowledging the Chinese actor’s actual motivation was unknown. 
“Election security organizations should be aware that U.S. 
State voter registration information may be hosted on websites outside the control of government agencies, and that APT actors may harvest voter registration information outside the monitoring of election security organizations,” the report said. 
The document also said the Chinese entity unsuccessfully tried to download an Ohio voter registration application from the state government’s website. 
China analyzed voter information from 18 states 
The PRC conducted analysis of voter registration information from 18 states to support identity matching that could help them identify “important U.S. targets” as well as conduct wide-scale public opinion analysis, according to a separate White House release, titled “18 States Memo.” 
The memo said the data included voter names, dates of birth, home mailing addresses, and political party affiliations. 
Some records also contained historical voting information, polling records, election donation expenses, and demographic information. 
The report identified Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Maryland, New York, and Washington, D.C., among jurisdictions whose data were included. 
It said North Carolina’s records covered more than 8 million voters. 
The full list of states’ names is partially redacted, making a handful of affected states unclear at this time. 
Another document, “PRC US Voter Data 7 States 2023,” stated that a Chinese actor had previously purchased 2020 voter data from cities in Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Michigan, and North Carolina. 
The release further included a report titled “PRC Target 2024 Election 2023,” in which Chinese actors were alleged to have discussed targeting the 2024 U.S. elections. 
The heavily redacted assessment referenced interest in swing-state voting conditions. 
The 2020 mail-in ballot allegation 
The documents also included more information about a previously known concern surrounding the bureau’s suppression of an intelligence report regarding Chinese meddling in the 2020 election, a matter that was not publicly revealed until a July 1, 2025, documents release from Sen. 
Chuck Grassley (R-IA). 
The suppressed FBI information report alleged Chinese officials planned to manufacture fraudulent U.S. driver’s licenses for Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic to the Chinese Communist Party to create tens of thousands of mail-in ballots for then-Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden . 
While many of the new documents in the report, “FBI Albany IIR Provided to Chairman Grassley,” outlined similar issues flagged by Grassley last year, the new documentation also included allegations that China collected private U.S. user information from millions of TikTok accounts, including names, identification information, and addresses, to create the licenses. 
However, the FBI under its former director, Christopher Wray, ultimately labeled the document an information report, not finally evaluated intelligence. 
It warned that the reporting had not been fully assessed, integrated with other information, interpreted, or analyzed. 
An FBI comment in the report also noted that an address was not a required field when creating a TikTok account and said it was unclear how China would have obtained U.S. address data from the platform. 
Trump said Thursday that intelligence officials suppressed information about China’s activities before the 2020 election. 
“Members of the deep state,” Trump said, “worked to actively suppress and downplay information about the extent of China’s sinister election meddling.” 
He directed the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Justice Department, the FBI, and the CIA to investigate how the intelligence was handled and to pursue firings or criminal charges, if appropriate. 
While the Lone Star State is unnamed in the declassified documentation, recently-appointed U.S. 
Attorney Aaron Reitz for the Southern District of Texas responded to Trump’s address on X Thursday, saying his office would actively begin reviewing the material and coordinate with the DOJ and other agencies to “ensure future elections are secure.” 
“More to come,” Reitz added. 
Meanwhile, China’s state actors issued a firm denial of Trump’s allegations and the newly unveiled documents Friday. 
“The relevant allegations by the U.S. are entirely fabricated and aimed at vilifying China,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Lin Jian said. 
“We have no interest in interfering in U.S. elections and have never done so.” 
The full tranche of records can be downloaded via the White House’s webpage . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.7%Kaelan Deese: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias11.7%This article: 4.1%Kaelan Deese: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 8.7%Kaelan Deese: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.7%This article: 2.6%Kaelan Deese: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 2.6%Kaelan Deese: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.6%This article: 3.2%Kaelan Deese: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias3.2%This article: 1.4%Kaelan Deese: 5.9%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect1.4%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.4%Kaelan Deese: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.5%Kaelan Deese: 3.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.5%This article: 5.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.0%This article: 21.4%Kaelan Deese: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias21.4%This article: 1.5%Kaelan Deese: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Kaelan Deese: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias2.2%This article: 2.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 3.8%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Kaelan Deese: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Kaelan Deese: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem2.2%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Kaelan Deese: 3.9%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.1%Kaelan Deese: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.6%Kaelan Deese: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization2.6%This article: 1.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring1.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.2%Kaelan Deese: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion10.2%This article: 1.6%Kaelan Deese: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question1.6%This article: 5.2%Kaelan Deese: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 2.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque2.0%This article: 5.6%Kaelan Deese: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 1.4%Kaelan Deese: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.4%This article: 9.2%Kaelan Deese: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.2%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.0%Kaelan Deese: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 5.6%Kaelan Deese: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice5.6%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kaelan Deese: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1006 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers59%attributed speech408writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 44 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coveragePeople's Republic of China • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageChuck Grassley • 3 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Grassley • 41 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Grassley • 52 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 20 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 17 words • 0.0% coverageFBI • 37 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Reitz • 39 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Reitz • 5 words • 0.0% coverageChina • 17 words • 0.0% coverageLin Jian • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLin Jian • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chuck Grassley

97%flagged-word coverage
96 attributed words16% of attributed speech71% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Chuck Grassley: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Chuck Grassley: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.