Newsday51%

ICE drops plan to convert 2 Pennsylvania warehouses into detention centers 18%

By The Associated Press63%

7/23/2026, 12:09:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Unattributed Quote, and Negativity Bias, with Availability Heuristic as the most egregious example at 15.2% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 319 faulty-reasoning hits from 289 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.1% and a BS Rank of 18% (17,488 of 21,176 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

HARRISBURG, Pa.  U.S. 
Immigration and Customs Enforcement is giving up on its plan to use two rural Pennsylvania warehouses to hold thousands of people. 
The plan had been held up by the state's denial of drinking water and wastewater permits, and an ICE lawyer filed paperwork Wednesday withdrawing his agency's appeal of the denial. 
The state had raised concerns that the local water and wastewater services in rural areas of Berks and Schuylkill counties were inadequate to handle the thousands of inhabitants envisioned by the federal agency. 
ICE did not say what, if anything, it would ultimately use the warehouses for. 
But it told the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection in a separate letter that it “has considered the final use it will make of this property, and it hereby informs DEP that it will not be using this property as a detention center.” 
The letter, dated last week, was released Wednesday by the DEP. 
In a statement, Gov. 
Josh Shapiro, a Democrat, said the warehouses "are not suitable for people and converting them to detention centers would have posed serious risks to the health, safety, and infrastructure of the surrounding communities.” 
ICE had been buying warehouses across the U.S. as part of former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s $38 billion plan to rapidly expand detention capacity this year. 
However, it began retreating from that plan last month. 
Noem’s purchases were largely made out of public view and angered communities that were caught by surprise. 
Some local officials only learned about ICE’s ambitions after the agency bought or leased space for detainees. 
After Noem was fired, her replacement, Markwayne Mullin, quickly paused the purchase of new warehouses. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.3%The Associated Press: 2.7%Newsday: 1.6%Confirmation Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.4%Newsday: 1.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%The Associated Press: 3.2%Newsday: 3.2%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%Newsday: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.1%The Associated Press: 0.6%Newsday: 0.2%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.8%Newsday: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%The Associated Press: 11.2%Newsday: 5.4%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.6%Newsday: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%Newsday: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.0%Newsday: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%Newsday: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%The Associated Press: 10.9%Newsday: 11.5%Negativity Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.2%Newsday: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%Newsday: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%Newsday: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%The Associated Press: 2.1%Newsday: 0.7%In-Group Bias11.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.0%Newsday: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 2.0%Newsday: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%The Associated Press: 2.0%Newsday: 2.2%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%Newsday: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.9%Newsday: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%Newsday: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.9%The Associated Press: 3.8%Newsday: 4.3%Appeal to Authority14.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%Newsday: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%Newsday: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%The Associated Press: 3.0%Newsday: 2.2%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%Newsday: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%Newsday: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.4%The Associated Press: 5.5%Newsday: 3.6%Appeal to Emotion11.4%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%Newsday: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.2%The Associated Press: 2.9%Newsday: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.5%Newsday: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.3%Newsday: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.7%Newsday: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.0%Newsday: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.1%Newsday: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%Newsday: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%Newsday: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%The Associated Press: 1.8%Newsday: 2.3%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 1.2%Newsday: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 3.9%Newsday: 2.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.7%Newsday: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.8%Newsday: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.2%Newsday: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Associated Press: 0.4%Newsday: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

289 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech256writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Josh Shapiro

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words100% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%Josh Shapiro: 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.