Mike Pence says Trump’s $1.8B ‘slush fund’ for allies, including J6-ers who shouted to hang him, is ‘deeply offensive’ 29%

By Ariana Baio0%

5/31/2026, 10:07:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Bandwagon, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.7% saturation with 202 hits. Analysis detected 952 faulty-reasoning hits from 550 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.7% and a BS Rank of 29% (14,523 of 20,371 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.30% of the article peer group.

Former Vice President Mike Pence denounced the Trump administration’s $1.8 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” saying it would be “unacceptable” and “deeply offensive” for January 6 rioters to obtain “one dime of taxpayer money.” 
Pence, who was a target of rioters storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021, said that he hopes the administration will drop the idea of the fund, created by the Justice Department to provide monetary relief to those who believe they were wrongfully prosecuted. 
“The idea of creating a fund that could compensate people who assaulted police officers and vandalized the Capitol that day is totally unacceptable,” Pence, 66, told CBS News’ Face The Nation Sunday. 
“I mean, it’s deeply offensive to me,” Pence added on NBC’s Meet the Press. 
For years, Pence has strongly condemned the president and the rioters’ actions. 
That day, rioters, who wrongfully believed Pence had the power to decertify the election, chanted “Hang Mike Pence.” 
“People that assaulted police officers on January 6 and vandalized our Capitol should not get one dime of taxpayer money from that fund or anywhere else,” Pence said. 
Although Pence once served as President Donald Trump’s vice president, he is no longer an ally  a result of Trump’s refusal to condemn his supporters’ actions and rhetoric on January 6. 
Since leaving the White House in 2021, Pence has sought to appeal to traditional Republicans who reject Trump’s populist approach. 
“I’ll never minimize what happened on January 6, and I’ll always believe, by God’s grace, we did our duty that day to see to the peaceful transfer of power under the Constitution,” Pence reiterated. 
Trump’s former vice president is just the latest Republican to balk at the idea of the $1.776 billion so-called “slush fund.” 
Several GOP lawmakers, including Senators Mitch McConnell and Thom Tillis, have joined Democrats in rejecting the idea of taxpayer money going to the president’s allies  especially January 6 rioters who Trump pardoned last year. 
Republican Rep. 
Mike Flood of Nebraska recently told constituents that he did not agree with the idea of the “Anti-Weaponization Fund,” emphasizing that not a single penny should go to a January 6 rioter. 
“I want to be very clear, I do not think we should be creating any fund for people who commit physical violence against law enforcement,” Flood said during a town hall last week. 
Constituents responded with applause in agreement. 
Other Republicans have reportedly privately told top White House aides that the administration should drop the fund because it looks bad, politically, heading into the midterm elections. 
During a closed-door meeting with Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, dozens of Republicans allegedly yelled at the top Trump official, Senator Ted Cruz revealed on his podcast. 
The Justice Department has sought to justify the “Anti-Weaponization Fund” by claiming it is a nonpartisan fund that allows anyone who believes they were wrongly prosecuted to seek monetary relief. 
The fund emerged as an unusual settlement option in a lawsuit brought by Trump, his adult sons and his business against the IRS for leaked tax returns. 
The DOJ has said that neither the president nor his adult sons would be able to obtain payments from the fund if it were approved. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.5%Ariana Baio: 2.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias5.5%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Ariana Baio: 3.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 3.6%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.6%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: 12.2%Ariana Baio: 7.7%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect12.2%This article: 6.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.0%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: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.7%Ariana Baio: 10.7%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias36.7%This article: 9.5%Ariana Baio: 5.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias9.5%This article: 5.8%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error5.8%This article: 8.0%Ariana Baio: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias8.0%This article: 6.4%Ariana Baio: 3.0%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias6.4%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: 3.8%Ariana Baio: 1.6%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias3.8%This article: 6.2%Ariana Baio: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect6.2%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.1%Ariana Baio: 5.0%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem1.1%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.0%Ariana Baio: 3.8%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization10.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.2%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon10.2%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 7.1%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.9%Ariana Baio: 1.8%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.9%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.5%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.5%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: 3.3%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal3.3%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.2%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 9.8%Ariana Baio: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote9.8%This article: 3.5%Ariana Baio: 2.0%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 9.3%Ariana Baio: 8.0%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice9.3%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 0.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 2.8%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Ariana Baio: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Ariana Baio: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

550 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers60%attributed speech219writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageMike Pence • 32 words • 100.0% coverageMike Pence • 44 words • 0.0% coverageMike Pence • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMike Pence • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageMike Pence • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageMike Pence • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMike Flood • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMike Flood • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageTed Cruz • 27 words • 100.0% coverageJustice Department • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJustice Department • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ted Cruz

100%flagged-word coverage
27 attributed words8.2% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+87.7 ptsWriter: 12.3%Ted Cruz: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -9.6 ptsWriter: 9.6%Ted Cruz: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Ted Cruz: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.7 ptsWriter: 8.7%Ted Cruz: 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.