Newsom wants California to impose 100% tax on payments from Trump’s ‘slush fund’ 73%

By Ariana Baio0%

5/28/2026, 12:51:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 49.9% saturation with 170 hits. Analysis detected 909 faulty-reasoning hits from 341 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.4% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,572 of 20,153 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.40% of the article peer group.

California Governor Gavin Newsom said Wednesday he wants the state to impose a 100 percent tax on any resident who receives monetary relief through the Justice Department’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.” 
Newsom, a Democrat who has fervently pushed back against President Donald Trump’s policies, told reporters he was thinking of ideas to combat the $1.776 billion fund that would allow anyone who believes they have been wrongly prosecuted to request taxpayer money. 
“Anyone from California that receives any of those funds, we want to tax 100 percent of those proceeds and that’s an action the state of California can take,” Newsom said during a press conference. 
Newsom indicated the new tax would be implemented either through the state legislature or as a ballot measure, saying it would need “your support.” 
It’s the latest effort by Trump’s opponents to push back against the unusual multi-billion-dollar fund that emerged as a settlement from a lawsuit between Trump, his adult sons, and his business and the IRS. 
The DOJ has sought to justify the fund by insisting the Trumps would not be eligible for a portion of it and that it’s open to anyone. 
But lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have denounced the so-called “slush fund,” believing it would allow people such as the January 6, 2021, rioters to seek taxpayer compensation despite having once attacked the Capitol. 
“People who assault cops and overthrow democracy don’t deserve a taxpayer-funded payday,” Newsom later said in an X post, referring to the pot of money as a “slush fund.” 
Newsom’s suggested tax is just the latest effort from lawmakers to oppose the fund. 
In New York, Democratic state assemblyman Alex Bores suggested imposing a 100 percent tax on any New Yorker who collects money from the fund. 
New Jersey state Senator Andrew Zwicker told Politico he was working to draft a bill to set up a 100 percent tax on the fund, calling the idea a “brilliant counter move.” 
More follows... 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 3.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.6%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic10.6%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.3%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Ariana Baio: 7.7%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect31.4%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Ariana Baio: 0.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.8%Ariana Baio: 10.7%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias32.8%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 5.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error12.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 3.0%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.4%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.8%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Ariana Baio: 1.6%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 12.0%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 5.0%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.9%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority7.9%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.4%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 10.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning10.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 3.8%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 16.1%Ariana Baio: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring16.1%This article: 7.0%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon7.0%This article: 28.4%Ariana Baio: 7.1%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion28.4%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.8%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.9%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.9%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.0%Ariana Baio: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote10.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 49.9%Ariana Baio: 8.0%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice49.9%This article: 7.0%Ariana Baio: 0.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination7.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.8%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

341 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers51%attributed speech167writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 34 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageAlex Bores • 24 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew Zwicker • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrew Zwicker

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words18% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+17.4 ptsWriter: 82.6%Andrew Zwicker: 100.0%100.0%

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.