Trump team scrutinized election agency before firings 21%

By Bo Erickson32% Erin Banco Reuters33%

7/19/2026, 2:30:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Slippery Slope, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 9% saturation with 58 hits. Analysis detected 443 faulty-reasoning hits from 641 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 35.2% and a BS Rank of 21% (17,330 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.20% of the article peer group.

WASHINGTON  President Donald Trump's administration spent more than a year scrutinizing the federal agency that oversees U.S. voting systems, questioning its handling of the 2020 presidential election and vetting potential new leaders before he fired its commissioners this month, according to documents reviewed by Reuters and two people familiar with the discussions. 
The previously unreported effort sheds light on the Republican president's push to exert greater influence over federal elections after years of disputing his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. 
The Election Assistance Commission, a little-known bipartisan agency that helps test and certify voting systems, could play a central role as the administration presses for voting and election-administration changes ahead of November's midterm elections. 
Republicans say the measures would bolster election security, but Democrats argue they are aimed at restricting voter access. 
"If you look at voting today, it's in such bad shape in so many states, and we are committing to fix it. 
And we're also committing to be working with those states and local jurisdictions to help them fix and patch known technical vulnerabilities before the midterm elections," Trump said in his speech. 
"We want those elections to be honest." 
Trump and the White House did not say what role, if any, they envision for the commission in that effort. 
Trump spent years contesting his 2020 loss despite courts, recounts and election reviews that found no evidence of widespread fraud. 
U.S. elections are the purview of the states. 
The federal election agency develops voluntary guidelines for voting technology used by states and oversees the testing and certification of voting systems. 
It also has authority to decertify voting systems, though it has never done so in its 24-year history. 
Before ousting the commission's leadership, administration officials spent months looking for ways to bypass the agency as they pushed to accelerate initiatives that included changes to voting machine guidance and proof-of-citizenship requirements, Reuters previously reported. 
The White House did not respond when asked about the documents reviewed by Reuters or its plans to replace the commissioners. 
Trump nominees to the commission would need to be confirmed by the Senate. 
According to correspondence reviewed by Reuters, the election agency's commission requested a briefing in May 2025 from then-Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard about her public allegations that voting systems were vulnerable to manipulation. 
“The EAC stands ready to support ODNI and respectfully requests a classified or unclassified briefing on any identified vulnerabilities," the letter said. 
McNamara took issue with the commission’s assertion that the 2020 election was "the most secure in American history" and its subsequent update to voting system guidelines in early 2021. 
He questioned the “rapid shift in policy” and asked why the upgrades were not made before the election. 
Election experts said new voting system guidelines often take years to implement due to costs and logistics. 
The commission's work on the updated guidance started in 2015 and underwent multiple rounds of debate and public feedback, according to commission records. 
As administration officials examined the commission's work, the White House also started vetting potential nominees for election commissioner posts. 
Patrice Johnson, the chair of the Michigan Fair Elections Institute that supports Trump's election agenda, told Reuters she sent her resume to the White House last year. 
Cleta Mitchell, an attorney who worked with Trump's team to overturn his 2020 loss with claims that the election was rigged, told Reuters she suggested to the White House that Johnson should be a future commissioner. 
The White House also considered installing another lawyer who worked to overturn the 2020 election, Kurt Olsen, according to a person familiar with the discussions. 
Olsen instead joined the U.S. 
Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of Florida in June. 
​COPYRIGHT 2026 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS. 
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. 
THIS MATERIAL MAY NOT BE PUBLISHED, BROADCAST, REWRITTEN OR REDISTRIBUTED. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Bo Erickson: 3.6%wbkb11.com: 6.6%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.5%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.9%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Bo Erickson: 1.4%wbkb11.com: 1.8%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 2.8%Bo Erickson: 1.5%wbkb11.com: 3.4%Hindsight Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 1.9%wbkb11.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Bo Erickson: 10.1%wbkb11.com: 3.0%Framing Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.8%Bo Erickson: 0.7%wbkb11.com: 0.9%Status Quo Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.3%wbkb11.com: 1.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Bo Erickson: 4.4%wbkb11.com: 3.2%Optimism Bias4.8%This article: 3.4%Bo Erickson: 2.0%wbkb11.com: 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 3.1%Bo Erickson: 9.9%wbkb11.com: 1.0%Negativity Bias3.1%This article: 4.2%Bo Erickson: 1.6%wbkb11.com: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.5%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.5%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Bo Erickson: 0.7%wbkb11.com: 0.9%In-Group Bias2.8%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.4%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.9%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Bo Erickson: 0.5%wbkb11.com: 1.8%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.6%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 1.5%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.6%wbkb11.com: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.5%Bo Erickson: 1.1%wbkb11.com: 1.8%Slippery Slope5.5%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.4%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Bo Erickson: 2.8%wbkb11.com: 2.3%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.7%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.1%Bo Erickson: 0.4%wbkb11.com: 0.7%Appeal to Emotion1.1%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.5%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.4%Bo Erickson: 2.9%wbkb11.com: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.4%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Bo Erickson: 0.3%wbkb11.com: 1.0%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Bo Erickson: 4.3%wbkb11.com: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.1%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.9%wbkb11.com: 3.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 3.7%wbkb11.com: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 1.2%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 4.7%wbkb11.com: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Bo Erickson: 0.0%wbkb11.com: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

641 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers9.8%attributed speech578writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coveragePatrice Johnson • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCleta Mitchell • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Patrice Johnson

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words43% of attributed speech56% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.