MS NOW95%

Jan. 6 prosecutors and officers see Trump’s $1.776 billion fund as a signal 86%

By Laura Barrón-López79%

5/20/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.3% saturation with 289 hits. Analysis detected 1,952 faulty-reasoning hits from 668 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.2% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,046 of 21,170 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.60% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has set aside $1.776 billion in taxpayer money to compensate people it deems victims of government “weaponization,” a figure that echoes the rallying cry of the Jan. 6 rioters who are now eligible to collect from it. 
The dollar figure is not coincidental, according to former Justice Department prosecutors, congressional investigators and domestic extremism researchers. 
It is a direct nod to 1776, the year the U.S. declared independence from Britain. 
It is also a number that Capitol rioters invoked as they breached the building on Jan. 6, 2021  in chants, on flags and in Proud Boys planning documents titled “1776 Returns,” which laid out a scheme to seize federal buildings and force a new election. 
Trump supporters co-opted the patriotic year as a rallying cry for their “1776 moment” to overturn the 2020 election results. 
“That number didn’t just appear arbitrarily,” said Michael Fanone, a former officer with the Metropolitan Police Department in Washington, D.C., who was beaten by rioters while defending the Capitol and lawmakers. 
“Like everything else, it’s a branding thing. 
Donald Trump is trying to rebrand January 6th insurrectionists as great American patriots.” 
People convicted in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. 
Capitol can apply for “formal apologies” and payments from the fund  including those found guilty of assaulting police officers. 
Pressed by reporters Tuesday, Vice President JD Vance, who previously said violent insurrectionists would not be pardoned, refused to rule anything out. 
“We’re going to look at everything case by case,” Vance told MS NOW’s Jake Traylor. 
“I’m not committing to giving anybody money or committing to giving no one money.” 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche delivered a similar message to lawmakers Tuesday, telling them that eligibility decisions will rest with a new “Truth and Justice Commission.” 
Every member of that board will be appointed by Blanche, who is Trump’s former personal attorney; only one appointment requires consultation with Congress, and the president “can remove any member,” according to a Justice Department announcement of the fund. 
The White House, asked about the prospect of payments to rioters convicted of violent offenses and why the fund totals exactly $1.776 billion, referred questions to the Justice Department. 
The department did not respond to MS NOW’s request for comment. 
For former prosecutors and investigators who built cases against the rioters, the figure reads as a deliberate signal. 
“So many of them use the rhetoric of the American Revolution to justify their actions,” said Tim Heaphy, a former U.S. attorney who was chief investigative counsel for the House Jan. 6 committee. 
“It’s an alternate universe that there would be any credible claim that they are entitled to damages.” 
A former Jan. 6 prosecutor who requested anonymity for fear of retaliation told MS NOW that “1776” references were everywhere that day as Trump supporters and rioters created a narrative to “justify violence.” 
“People were sending text messages about George Washington crossing the Delaware as they took a rebar from the inaugural stage and bashed police officers on the head,” the former prosecutor said. 
The former prosecutor said the prospect of members of the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys receiving substantial payouts alarmed him. 
“Think how much weaponry they could purchase with that; think how much money that they could use to recruit other people and recruit them with the message: ‘Look, if you commit crimes in the name of Trump, you’re going to be pardoned, and you’re going to be enriched.’” 
Jacob Ware, who studies domestic and international terrorism at the Council on Foreign Relations, said his first thought about the dollar figure was the same: It “was a nod to the organizers of January 6.” 
“There is a broader signalling here that criminal behavior, criminal actions against our election system such as occurred on January 6, will be compensated if done on behalf of the president,” said Ware. 
“That’s antithetical to democracy and a peaceful transfer of power.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Laura Barrón-López: 5.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 7.5%Laura Barrón-López: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias7.5%This article: 23.1%Laura Barrón-López: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic23.1%This article: 11.8%Laura Barrón-López: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Laura Barrón-López: 10.6%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.1%Laura Barrón-López: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias12.1%This article: 43.3%Laura Barrón-López: 24.2%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias43.3%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Laura Barrón-López: 1.3%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.8%This article: 3.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias3.0%This article: 3.0%Laura Barrón-López: 2.9%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Laura Barrón-López: 2.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.7%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.7%Laura Barrón-López: 6.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority18.7%This article: 5.1%Laura Barrón-López: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 7.2%Laura Barrón-López: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.6%Laura Barrón-López: 5.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization15.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 27.8%Laura Barrón-López: 4.9%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion27.8%This article: 4.8%Laura Barrón-López: 2.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 11.8%Laura Barrón-López: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.6%Laura Barrón-López: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.8%Laura Barrón-López: 5.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal14.8%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.9%Laura Barrón-López: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.9%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.3%Laura Barrón-López: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity3.3%This article: 5.8%Laura Barrón-López: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading5.8%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Laura Barrón-López: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 8.5%Laura Barrón-López: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection8.5%This article: 4.9%Laura Barrón-López: 8.5%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice4.9%This article: 6.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination6.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 3.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.0%This article: 0.0%Laura Barrón-López: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

668 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers39%attributed speech405writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Fanone • 31 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Fanone • 7 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Fanone • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 15 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTim Heaphy • 33 words • 0.0% coverageTim Heaphy • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Ware • 35 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Ware • 33 words • 0.0% coverageJacob Ware • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jacob Ware

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words30% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%Jacob Ware: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-14.1 ptsWriter: 14.1%Jacob Ware: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+12.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Jacob Ware: 12.8%12.8%Unattributed Quote-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Jacob Ware: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.1 ptsWriter: 8.1%Jacob Ware: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.