Newsom signs 100% tax on any Californian who benefits from Trump 'slush fund' ⁠67%

By Carlos Garcia⁠64%

7/2/2026, 12:01:15 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 31.6% saturation with 124 hits. Analysis detected 882 faulty-reasoning hits from 392 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,307 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.60% of the article peer group.

Democratic California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom used his official powers to try to counteract the $1.7 billion "anti-weaponization fund" proposed by President Donald Trump. 
On Tuesday, Newsom said in a statement on social media that he had signed legislation to tax 100% of the funds that were granted to any Californian. 
'Taxpayer dollars should support victims, not the people who attacked law enforcement officers and our very democracy. 
We don't fund criminals.' 
The anti-weaponization fund was a part of the settlement Trump made in his lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service after his tax records were leaked to the public. 
Critics say he wants to use the fund to benefit his supporters and allies. 
"I just signed a new law imposing a 100% state tax on any Californians who benefit from [Trump's] Jan. 6th slush fund for insurrectionists," Newsom wrote. 
"Taxpayer dollars should support victims, not the people who attacked law enforcement officers and our very democracy. 
We don't fund criminals." 
The state of the fund is in dispute, as some members of the administration have said it does not exist and will not exist, but the president has made comments that he still wants it to be established. 
"We are not moving forward with the fund. 
Period," acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said during a congressional hearing. 
Opponents of the fund have also filed a lawsuit to prevent its operation. 
The Justice Dept. said the possible beneficiaries of the fund would include "millions of Americans whose online speech was censored at the behest of the government, parents silenced at school boards, Senators whose records were secretly subpoenaed, churchgoers targeted by the FBI, and so on." 
RELATED: Video shows Nancy Pelosi exploding with fury at reporter over Jan. 6 claims: 'SHUT UP!' 
"We believe democracy is worth defending, the rule of law matters, and public dollars should support victims — not those who attacked the very institutions that protect our freedoms," Newsom added. 
Newsom is widely believed to be jabbing at the president in order to jump-start a presidential campaign for 2028. 
He has tried to take on the mantle of the foremost opponent to Trump's policies. 
Like Blaze News? 
Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. 
Sign up here! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.4%Carlos Garcia: 4.1%Blaze Media: 5.6%Confirmation Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.0%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 3.2%Availability Heuristic23.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 26.5%Carlos Garcia: 11.1%Blaze Media: 9.6%Framing Effect26.5%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.9%Carlos Garcia: 12.1%Blaze Media: 9.8%Negativity Bias17.9%This article: 3.8%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 8.7%Carlos Garcia: 1.2%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error8.7%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.8%Blaze Media: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.7%Blaze Media: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.1%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 2.8%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Carlos Garcia: 3.4%Blaze Media: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.8%Blaze Media: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.5%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 3.7%Appeal to Authority11.5%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.4%Carlos Garcia: 5.1%Blaze Media: 8.9%Hasty Generalization18.4%This article: 4.1%Carlos Garcia: 1.6%Blaze Media: 0.8%Red Herring4.1%This article: 4.3%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 0.9%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 31.6%Carlos Garcia: 10.5%Blaze Media: 8.2%Appeal to Emotion31.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.1%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.1%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.3%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.0%Burden of Proof3.3%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.6%Carlos Garcia: 2.1%Blaze Media: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.8%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 4.3%Carlos Garcia: 3.9%Blaze Media: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 21.4%Carlos Garcia: 6.5%Blaze Media: 10.6%Biased Writer Voice21.4%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.3%Blaze Media: 4.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 5.7%Blaze Media: 7.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.9%

392 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers48%attributed speech202writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 27 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 17 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 26 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 17 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 8 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Dept. • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Justice Dept.

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words24% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+80.7 ptsWriter: 19.3%Justice Dept.: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -19.3 ptsWriter: 19.3%Justice Dept.: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.9 ptsWriter: 6.9%Justice Dept.: 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.