Kash Patel claims AI has stopped school shootings: ‘I’m using it everywhere’ 87%

By Owen Scott0%

5/6/2026, 10:28:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Anecdotal, with Overconfidence Bias as the most egregious example at 25.3% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 461 faulty-reasoning hits from 407 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.9% and a BS Rank of 87% (3,000 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.30% of the article peer group.

FBI Director Kash Patel claims that the bureau has been able to stop school shootings because of A.I. 
Speaking to Sean Hannity, Patel claimed that artificial intelligence was never used at the FBI until the second Trump administration. 
Now, he says, “I’m using it everywhere.”​ 
“We stopped a school massacre in North Carolina because we got a tip and we were able to triage it with artificial intelligence,” he said on Tuesday’s episode of Hang Out with Sean Hannity.​ 
Patel also claims that an unrelated school shooting in New York was stopped after receiving a tip from private-sector partners working on the bureau’s A.I. infrastructure.​ 
The FBI Director told the show’s eponymous host that artificial intelligence software was being used to help the bureau with the deluge of tips that it receives each week.​ 
“If we had just humans look at it, we would never sift through them all,” Patel explained.  
Later, he boasted that he involved private technology companies in the agency’s infrastructure.  
“I’ve got every major tech company in the world embedded in the FBI, rebuilding our internet capabilities, our classified systems, and the ability for artificial intelligence to be in our counterterrorism program so we can get instantaneous results,” he said.​ 
Patel added: “What’s the point of collecting terabytes of data if you can’t sift through it?”​ 
Now, artificial intelligence is being implemented in the bureau’s National Threat Operations Center. 
Patel also says that the technology is allowing agents to “pop fingerprints immediately and get fugitives and arrest warrants out.”​ 
During the interview, Patel also took a swipe at his predecessors’ handling of artificial intelligence at the bureau. 
​“The former FBI rejected that notion because they knew…that wasn’t their focus,” he said, referring to the implementation of A.I. 
“Their focus was on weaponization, not modernization.” 
​Patel has faced widespread criticism in recent months, and was recently lampooned in an SNL skit, which saw Aziz Ansari playing an exaggerated version of the FBI director. 
In the sketch, he said an investigation conducted into the shooting at the White House Correspondents’ Dinner on April 25 “could not have been more thorough”. 
“And for those of you saying I'm doing a bad job running the FBI, well, what if I told you this agency is only six weeks away from pinpointing the exact location of Osama bin Laden?” 
Ansari, still in character, quipped. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 2.9%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias2.9%This article: 4.9%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.9%This article: 8.4%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 25.3%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias25.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias6.9%This article: 4.9%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem4.9%This article: 1.7%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man1.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.1%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma6.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.7%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization14.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 14.7%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.7%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal14.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 2.9%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

407 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers44%attributed speech229writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 40 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKash Patel • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageAziz Ansari • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kash Patel

89%flagged-word coverage
142 attributed words80% of attributed speech46% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Kash Patel: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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