Gothamist77%

The People's Forum, NYC-based activist group, hit with House subpoena 80%

By Arya Sundaram81%

7/24/2026, 1:48:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Self-Serving Bias as the most egregious example at 25% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,564 faulty-reasoning hits from 555 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.4% and a BS Rank of 80% (4,459 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 79.60% of the article peer group.

The powerful Republican-controlled U.S. 
House Ways and Means Committee has subpoenaed records of Manhattan-based activist group The People’s Forum, an activist group that has led local protests against ICE and the war in Gaza, and supported other left-leaning causes, according to documents provided to Gothamist. 
The July 21 subpoena to Manolo De Los Santos, the organization’s executive director, seeks contracts and communications with foreign entities, information about donors and grant recipients, along with documents and communication with the left-wing tech mogul Neville Roy Singham, who was born in the United States and is based in China. 
Committee Chair Rep. 
Jason Smith, a Missouri Republican, said in a statement to Gothamist that the documents would help “expose how America’s tax laws and charitable sector may have been exploited to advance the CCP’s [Chinese Communist Party] influence operations inside the United States.” 
De Los Santos, in an interview, said the subpoena was part of a “wholesale political attack on free speech  against individuals and organizations in opposition to the Trump administration.” 
The People's Forum describes itself as a "a movement incubator for working-class and marginalized communities to build unity across historic lines of division at home and abroad." 
In addition to leading protests, the group hosts workshops, discussion forums, film screenings and other events in support of social justice causes. 
In a July 21 letter to the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, which is providing legal representation to The People’s Forum, Smith said the subpoena was necessary to help investigate “whether existing legal standards governing tax-exempt status adequately account for foreign influence and control.” 
The letter cited a Fox News report that asserted more than $22 million from a fund controlled by Singham had flowed to The People’s Forum between 2017 and 2022. 
The organization has previously defended its decision to take funding from Singham, who The New York Times has reported worked closely with the Chinese government to fund pro-China messaging across the world. 
De Los Santos said of the inquiry: “It’s nothing more than a witch hunt that is reviving the ghost of Joe McCarthy.” 
The People's Forum isn't the first New York City group to be investigated by a congressional Committee in recent years. 
The Republican-controlled U.S. 
House Committee on Homeland Security last year began investigating the Chinese-American Planning Council, a New York City nonprofit. 
That panel alleged in an April 2025 letter that the taxpayer-funded group’s know-your-rights training sessions may help undocumented people evade immigration enforcement agents. 
Smith’s committee previously requested documents from De Los Santos in September 2025 and May of this year, citing similar concerns about the group's work. 
After the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund objected, Smith said in a July letter that he would resort to “invoking compulsory process” to obtain the documents, claiming that the group’s objections were “without merit.” 
Correspondence from Smith also cited The People's Forum's opposition to the war against Iran and other Trump administration policies. 
In a September 2025 letter, the lawmaker accused the organization of “using tax-exempt status to spread foreign propaganda while acting as a foreign agent.” 
Attorney Mara Verheyden-Hilliard with the fund wrote that the congressional inquiry “appears to be part of a broad scale political attack on cherished First Amendment rights, targeting viewpoints with which the Committee leadership disagrees.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 22.5%Arya Sundaram: 5.8%Gothamist: 2.7%Confirmation Bias22.5%This article: 14.4%Arya Sundaram: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.5%Anchoring Bias14.4%This article: 12.6%Arya Sundaram: 3.6%Gothamist: 3.6%Availability Heuristic12.6%This article: 5.8%Arya Sundaram: 1.4%Gothamist: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Arya Sundaram: 13.0%Gothamist: 8.4%Framing Effect18.6%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.4%Gothamist: 1.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Arya Sundaram: 1.5%Gothamist: 3.6%Optimism Bias4.9%This article: 6.1%Arya Sundaram: 2.0%Gothamist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias6.1%This article: 21.6%Arya Sundaram: 12.0%Gothamist: 8.5%Negativity Bias21.6%This article: 25.0%Arya Sundaram: 4.1%Gothamist: 2.6%Self-Serving Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 1.2%Gothamist: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.4%Gothamist: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 3.2%Gothamist: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Arya Sundaram: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.8%This article: 8.8%Arya Sundaram: 2.5%Gothamist: 2.1%Halo Effect8.8%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%Arya Sundaram: 1.3%Gothamist: 1.3%Recency Bias7.9%This article: 3.2%Arya Sundaram: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.4%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.8%Gothamist: 1.0%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Arya Sundaram: 5.1%Gothamist: 4.4%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 6.1%Arya Sundaram: 0.7%Gothamist: 1.2%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 1.1%Gothamist: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Arya Sundaram: 4.1%Gothamist: 3.8%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 3.4%Arya Sundaram: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.3%Red Herring3.4%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.9%Gothamist: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 18.9%Arya Sundaram: 7.1%Gothamist: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion18.9%This article: 12.3%Arya Sundaram: 1.2%Gothamist: 0.7%Begging the Question12.3%This article: 4.1%Arya Sundaram: 3.4%Gothamist: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.1%This article: 5.4%Arya Sundaram: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Tu Quoque5.4%This article: 13.5%Arya Sundaram: 0.5%Gothamist: 0.4%Burden of Proof13.5%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.2%Arya Sundaram: 5.2%Gothamist: 2.8%Anecdotal5.2%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.2%Arya Sundaram: 2.3%Gothamist: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.2%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.2%Gothamist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.0%Gothamist: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 5.8%Arya Sundaram: 0.6%Gothamist: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy5.8%This article: 7.4%Arya Sundaram: 0.9%Gothamist: 1.2%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 4.0%Arya Sundaram: 1.1%Gothamist: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 7.2%Arya Sundaram: 2.8%Gothamist: 3.2%Biased Writer Voice7.2%This article: 4.9%Arya Sundaram: 2.5%Gothamist: 1.5%Indoctrination4.9%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 2.6%Gothamist: 1.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.3%Gothamist: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Arya Sundaram: 0.3%Gothamist: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

555 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers50%attributed speech277writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageJason Smith • 41 words • 100.0% coverageDe Los Santos • 30 words • 100.0% coverageThe People’s Forum • 27 words • 100.0% coverageThe People’s Forum • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJason Smith • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDe Los Santos • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJason Smith • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageJason Smith • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMara Verheyden-Hilliard • 34 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

De Los Santos

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words19% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice+54.1 ptsWriter: 3.6%De Los Santos: 57.7%57.7%Quote-first Misdirection+42.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%De Los Santos: 42.3%42.3%

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.