MS NOW⁠95%

Trump’s PACs spend millions on legal bills as his personal court battles continue ⁠45%

By Soorin Kim⁠26%

7/18/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 41.1% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,007 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠45% (12,175 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.60% of the article peer group.

Two political action committees affiliated with President Donald Trump paid nearly $8 million in legal bills over the first six months of this year, paying law firms that have been defending him in personal and political court fights that have trailed him through 18 months of his second term. 
Save America and Make America Great Again PAC also reported about $5 million still owed to law firms, according to their latest disclosure filings. 
Since Trump’s return to the White House last year, several of his high-profile court battles have slowed down and so has his political committees’ legal spending, but many of the cases have not gone away completely, still costing the president millions in legal bills. 
This week, $5.6 million in damages and interest paid by Trump was transferred to writer E. 
Jean Carroll , three years after a jury found him liable for sexually abusing her in 1996 and later defaming her on social media. 
Also this week, a federal judge lambasted Trump’s settlement with the IRS as the product of collusive, backroom dealings. 
And Trump is still appealing his conviction on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records to conceal a hush money payment to adult-film actress Stormy Daniels during the 2016 campaign. 
According to the latest campaign finance disclosures, the biggest chunk of Trump-affiliated PACs’ legal bills in the first half of this year went to Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, a law firm that has represented Trump in his appeal of the hush money case. 
The firm, which has also reportedly been engaged to handle Trump’s ongoing appeal of Carroll’s $83.3 million verdict over additional defamation claims, has been paid at least $2.3 million by Save America, disclosures show. 
Two other firms that have been involved in the E. 
Jean Carroll cases — Habba Madaio & Associates LLP and the James Otis Law Group — were paid $198,500 and $92,800, respectively, so far this year, according to the filings. 
Brito PLLC and Epstein & Co., which represent Trump in the IRS lawsuit, have been paid $324,000 by Save America and are owed another $180,000. 
The committee also paid roughly $295,000 to Weber, Crabb & Wein P.A., which represents Trump in his lawsuit against the Pulitzer Prize Board. 
Make America Great Again PAC, formerly Trump’s 2024 campaign committee, paid $1.5 million to Campbell Killin Brittan & Ray, which is defending Trump and the former presidential campaign against a defamation suit brought by Dominion Voting Systems. 
The PAC owes the firm an additional $924,600, its filing shows. 
MAGA PAC has also been paying hefty sums to firms defending him and his former campaign in various election-related legal battles. 
MS NOW has reached out to Save America PAC and Make America Great Again PAC for comment. 
For both Save America PAC and Make America Great Again PAC, which raise money primarily from small-dollar online donors, legal expenses have been their single-largest cost over the past year. 
Save America, created after the 2020 election, has been the main vehicle for those bills, paying more than $100 million in legal fees since. 
The post Trump’s PACs spend millions on legal bills as his personal court battles continue appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 12.3%Soorin Kim: 3.2%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias12.3%This article: 13.6%Soorin Kim: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic13.6%This article: 6.8%Soorin Kim: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.8%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Soorin Kim: 0.6%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.4%This article: 26.2%Soorin Kim: 7.5%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect26.2%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Soorin Kim: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect5.5%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Soorin Kim: 2.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 39.6%Soorin Kim: 22.9%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias39.6%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.4%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.2%Soorin Kim: 0.9%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority6.2%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.9%Soorin Kim: 0.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization3.9%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.5%Soorin Kim: 0.9%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion3.5%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.4%Soorin Kim: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal4.4%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.2%Soorin Kim: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.2%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.1%Soorin Kim: 11.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice41.1%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.3%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Soorin Kim: 2.3%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker3.1%attributed speech528writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageMS NOW • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

MS NOW

0%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-42.4 ptsWriter: 42.4%MS NOW: 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.