White House Correspondents’ Dinner suspect Cole Allen sent anti-Trump manifesto to family before opening fire 35%

By Eric Garcia64%

4/26/2026, 4:26:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.8% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 946 faulty-reasoning hits from 568 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.6% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,264 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.20% of the article peer group.

The suspected shooter at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner sent a manifesto critical of President Donald Trump to his family before he allegedly opened fire at the Washington Hilton, The New York Post reports. 
Authorities identified the shooter as 31-year-old Cole Allen, a teacher from Torrance, California. 
Allen’s brother notified police in the New London, Connecticut, police department. 
Allen’s document was signed “Cole ‘coldForce’ ‘Friendly Federal Assassin’ Allen.” 
The Post reported that the manifesto showed that Allen allegedly wanted to kill officials from the Trump administration. 
“Turning the other cheek is for when you yourself are oppressed,” he wrote. 
Allen would proceed to list off some of the actions from the Trump administration that allegedly drove him to open fire. 
“I’m not the person raped in a detention camp. 
I’m not the fisherman executed without trial,” he said. 
“I’m not a schoolkid blown up, or a child starved, or a teenage girl abused by the many criminals in this administration. 
Turning the other cheek when *someone else* is oppressed is not Christian behavior; it is complicity in the oppressor’s crimes.” 
Allen said that officials from the Trump administration  with the exception of FBI Director Kash Patel  were targets for his alleged rampage. 
“I am no longer willing to permit a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with his crimes,” he wrote in reference to the president. 
Allen also laid out how he planned to stage his attack. 
“In order to minimize casualties, I will also be using buckshot rather than slugs (less penetration through walls),” he wrote. 
“I would still go through most everyone here to get to the targets if it were absolutely necessary (on the basis that most people *chose* to attend a speech by a pedophile, rapist, and traitor, and are thus complicit) but I really hope it doesn’t come to that.” 
The manifesto also highlighted the “insane” lack of security at the Washington Hilton, saying that Iranian agents could have come to the dinner with more lethal weaponry and “no one would have noticed s***.” 
Many other attendees, including reporters, members of the Trump administration and guests at the dinner criticized the lax security at the dinner, particularly given the multiple assassination attempts against the president. 
Like, the one thing that I immediately noticed walking into the hotel is the sense of arrogance,” Allen wrote. 
“I walk in with multiple weapons and not a single person there considers the possibility that I could be a threat.” 
Ahead of the dinner, attendees only had to show their ticket and go through one round of magnetometers to get to the main ballroom where the event would be held, which Allen noted. 
“The security at the event is all outside, focused on protestors and current arrivals, because apparently no one thought about what happens if someone checks in the day before,” he said. 
“Like, this level of incompetence is insane, and I very sincerely hope it’s corrected by the time this country gets actually competent leadership again.” 
Police said Allen had purchased two handguns and a shotgun at Cap Tactical Firearms. 
He reportedly stored them at his parents home and practiced at a shooting range. 
Allen was reportedly part of a group known as the “Wide Awakes” and reportedly attended a “No Kings” rally to protest the president. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.9%Eric Garcia: 3.7%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias16.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Eric Garcia: 3.2%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic6.0%This article: 4.0%Eric Garcia: 1.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.8%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 10.6%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.8%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.5%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Eric Garcia: 1.3%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias4.2%This article: 18.8%Eric Garcia: 10.7%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias18.8%This article: 3.5%Eric Garcia: 1.6%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias3.5%This article: 8.5%Eric Garcia: 2.4%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error8.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.4%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 3.0%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.4%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.5%Eric Garcia: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Eric Garcia: 3.5%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem4.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.5%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.6%Eric Garcia: 1.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority5.6%This article: 12.0%Eric Garcia: 2.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma12.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.5%Eric Garcia: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning8.5%This article: 17.3%Eric Garcia: 5.2%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization17.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.5%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.5%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 14.3%Eric Garcia: 6.1%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion14.3%This article: 3.5%Eric Garcia: 1.2%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question3.5%This article: 3.7%Eric Garcia: 3.6%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.5%Eric Garcia: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.5%Eric Garcia: 1.6%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal5.5%This article: 8.5%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman8.5%This article: 2.3%Eric Garcia: 1.2%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Eric Garcia: 1.9%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.9%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.2%Eric Garcia: 12.1%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice4.2%This article: 3.5%Eric Garcia: 1.9%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 2.2%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 1.3%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Garcia: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

568 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers63%attributed speech210writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Post • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 9 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 20 words • 100.0% coverageCole Allen • 24 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 19 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 33 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 31 words • 0.0% coverageCole Allen • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Cole Allen

94%flagged-word coverage
340 attributed words95% of attributed speech59% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Biased Writer Voice+7.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cole Allen: 7.1%7.1%Indoctrination+5.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cole Allen: 5.9%5.9%Unattributed Quote+3.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Cole Allen: 3.8%3.8%

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.