Kash Patel instructed by the White House to oversee investigation into NYT journalists: report 13%

By Graig Graziosi63%

7/11/2026, 5:52:37 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 41.9% saturation with 412 hits. Analysis detected 2,734 faulty-reasoning hits from 984 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.5% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,151 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.50% of the article peer group.

The White House reportedly instructed FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate a leak to the New York Times over the newspaper's reporting of President Donald Trump’s Qatari -donated Air Force One alternative. 
Patel was planning to fly to Chicago last week to see his girlfriend Alexis Wilkins, a country music singer, and to visit an FBI field office in the city when he abruptly cancelled the trip. 
It emerged that Patel was called in to the White House, where he spent “roughly eight hours running the investigation from there rather than FBI headquarters,” on Friday, the newspaper reports . 
The Times noted the move marked “a major departure from historical practice.” 
Two people familiar with the situation told the Times that Patel briefed senior administration officials about the investigation into the paper’s Air Force One report . 
One person told the newspaper that the FBI director “had his own concerns about the type of information publicly disclosed about the plane.” 
On Friday night, following the meeting at the White House, several of the paper’s reporters were sent subpoenas. 
Tyler Pager, Julian Barnes, Eric Lipton and Eric Schmitt have been ordered to testify before a Manhattan grand jury next week. 
FBI Director Kash Patel has reportedly been tasked with investigating a leak that led to a New York Times story exposing alleged security deficiencies in President Donald Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One ( Getty ) 
FBI spokesman Ben Williamson disputed the newspaper’s reporting. 
“Director Patel and White House officials agreed to meet on Friday at the White House to brief an ongoing matter. 
While we would not comment further, other speculative reporting regarding the nature of the meeting is absolutely false,” Williamson said in a statement to the paper. 
“President Trump is laser focused on helping the American people and keeping them safe. 
That will always be his priority,” added White House communications director Steven Cheung. 
The Independent has approached the White House and the FBI for further comment. 
Trump was furious following the newspaper’s reporting on Thursday that his Qatari-donated airplane allegedly lacks the robust countermeasures found on the previous Air Force One . 
The president used the new jet during a NATO flight to Turkey earlier this week, but switched to the previous plane after Secret Service agents raised safety concerns, according to the outlet. 
He told reporters that he switched planes to give U.S. service members stationed in the U.K. a chance to tour the aircraft. 
Emily Covington, the Justice Department Office of Public Affairs director, told the paper that the reporters were not the ultimate targets of the investigation. 
“To be clear, reporters are not the targets. 
Those leaking classified information are,” she said. 
The Times learned that, despite Trump's claim that his opulent new plane cost American taxpayers nothing, it still cost regular Americans hundreds of millions in tax dollars to upgrade its security. 
While Trump has claimed that the aircraft has been outfitted with all the “bells and whistles” it needs to protect him, the Times report found that lacked the countermeasure systems present on the previous Air Force One. 
U.S. 
President Donald Trump shows off his new Qatari-donated Air Force One. 
He was reportedly forced to switch back to the previous Air Force One on a trip back from a NATO summit in Turkey after Secret Service members voiced their concerns over the plane's defensive capabilities ( Reuters ) 
Experts told the paper that the lack of defensive measures posed a risk not only to Trump, but to the gaggle of staff, administration officials, and journalists who travel with him. 
Before media outlets published stories about the plane, an FBI official reportedly asked the organizations to hold the story, citing national security concerns. 
According to the Times , the official refused to explain the security issue and further asked the paper to reveal its sources for the article. 
The paper refused to reveal its sources. 
The protection of sources is a long-held ethical red-line amongst news organizations, to the point where some reporters have been fined and even jailed for refusing to comply with government demands. 
The newspaper’s lawyer, David McCraw, condemned the Trump administration for sending subpoenas to the reporters. 
“This brazen act should be seen as nothing more than an attempt to prevent the public from knowing what is happening in their country by intimidating journalists from doing their jobs,” he said. 
Freedom of the Press Foundation Chief of Advocacy Seth Stern accused the Trump administration of retaliating against reporters. 
“We've long said that when the government claims it needs to investigate journalists to protect national security, it really means its own reputational security,” he said. 
“This is as clear an example as you can get. 
The administration's embarrassment that it reportedly charged taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars to retrofit a flying bribe that still isn't secure enough for hostile times does not supersede the need for a free and independent press.” 
“These kinds of stories show us exactly why we need to protect journalists and whistleblowers  without them, we'd never know about this sort of waste and incompetence,” Stern added. 
Patel lashed out at new organizations after stories about his cancelled trip began appearing online. 
One source reportedly told MSNOW that Patel was only flying to Chicago to visit his girlfriend, and claimed he tacked on the visit to an FBI office to justify using the bureau's plane for the trip. 
“Patel was coming (to Chicago) today for a fake office visit for his girlfriend’s country concert this weekend,” the source reportedly said. 
The FBI director insisted the reporting was false and then, potentially, teased the investigation into the NYT's reporters. 
Patel said the MSNOW story was false except for the fact that “I was at the White House, true, and the fake news will find out why soon.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.6%Graig Graziosi: 2.7%The Independent: 3.9%Confirmation Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.3%The Independent: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Graig Graziosi: 3.6%The Independent: 3.6%Availability Heuristic7.9%This article: 2.6%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic2.6%This article: 2.3%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.8%Hindsight Bias2.3%This article: 1.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.8%The Independent: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias1.0%This article: 17.0%Graig Graziosi: 8.4%The Independent: 7.9%Framing Effect17.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.1%The Independent: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.2%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.8%The Independent: 2.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Graig Graziosi: 2.2%The Independent: 1.3%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 32.7%Graig Graziosi: 13.9%The Independent: 10.4%Negativity Bias32.7%This article: 5.1%Graig Graziosi: 2.3%The Independent: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.6%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.9%The Independent: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 3.4%The Independent: 2.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 1.2%The Independent: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 3.4%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 0.1%Straw Man3.4%This article: 4.4%Graig Graziosi: 6.0%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.7%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 1.3%False Dilemma0.7%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%Graig Graziosi: 4.0%The Independent: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.8%The Independent: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.1%Graig Graziosi: 8.3%The Independent: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion16.1%This article: 8.8%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 1.0%Begging the Question8.8%This article: 8.9%Graig Graziosi: 2.2%The Independent: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.9%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.6%The Independent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.5%Graig Graziosi: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Burden of Proof1.5%This article: 3.2%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.2%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.6%Graig Graziosi: 2.6%The Independent: 1.8%Anecdotal16.6%This article: 2.6%Graig Graziosi: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.6%This article: 13.3%Graig Graziosi: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.3%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.8%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading3.8%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 41.9%Graig Graziosi: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote41.9%This article: 8.3%Graig Graziosi: 2.4%The Independent: 2.0%Quote-first Misdirection8.3%This article: 19.6%Graig Graziosi: 7.0%The Independent: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice19.6%This article: 7.1%Graig Graziosi: 1.6%The Independent: 0.7%Indoctrination7.1%This article: 3.2%Graig Graziosi: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Graig Graziosi: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

984 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers37%attributed speech617writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageBen Williamson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBen Williamson • 20 words • 100.0% coverageBen Williamson • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 14 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 13 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageEmily Covington • 24 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Covington • 8 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Covington • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageDavid McCraw • 15 words • 0.0% coverageDavid McCraw • 33 words • 0.0% coverageSeth Stern • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSeth Stern • 26 words • 100.0% coverageSeth Stern • 10 words • 0.0% coverageSeth Stern • 37 words • 100.0% coverageSeth Stern • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageKash Patel • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kash Patel

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words7.6% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+91.2 ptsWriter: 8.8%Kash Patel: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-57.5 ptsWriter: 57.5%Kash Patel: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-25.3 ptsWriter: 25.3%Kash Patel: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%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.