UAE investor who bought half of Trump crypto firm gets green light to buy best US AI chips in ‘corrupt deal’ 51%

By Josh Marcus54%

7/11/2026, 12:29:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 32.9% saturation with 250 hits. Analysis detected 1,766 faulty-reasoning hits from 761 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.2% and a BS Rank of 51% (9,984 of 20,370 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.00% of the article peer group.

Critics are attacking the Trump administration for a deal to let the United Arab Emirates access cutting-edge U.S. technology, accusing the White House of offering the country preferential treatment because a U.A.E. royal invested millions in a Trump family cryptocurrency company last year. 
The Commerce Department announced on Friday that it will allow the U.S. ally license-free access to crucial technology such as AI chips . 
That status will extend to U.A.E. companies such as G42, which is chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan , the UAE’s national security adviser. 
Four days before President Trump’s inauguration, another Tahnoon-backed company reportedly spent $500 million to buy what was initially a secret 49 percent stake in World Liberty Financial, the Trump family’s fledgling crypto firm . 
The deal reportedly sent an immediate $187 million to Trump entities and helped fuel the family’s crypto empire. 
Democratic Sen. 
Elizabeth Warren called the change in Commerce Department export controls a  corrupt deal  in a statement on Friday. 
“[Commerce] Secretary Howard Lutnick and Under Secretary Jeffrey Kessler need to testify in front of the Committee to explain this corrupt deal and how it could put our national security at risk,” she wrote. 
“And Congress should not pass any crypto legislation that does not stop the President and his family from continuing to profit off of crypto.” 
Critics accuse President Trump of giving the UAE access to advanced American chips under newly announced export rules because a UAE royal invested millions in a Trump crypto company ( Getty ) 
The Independent has contacted the White House, Commerce Department, UAE embassy in Washington and G42 for comment. 
In its announcement, the Commerce Department said the deal was in part based on the “UAE’s status as a U.S. 
Major Defense Partner and its support in advancing U.S. national security interests,” including assistance during the Iran war. 
Others argued the deal will harm U.S. companies and could open the door to China accessing sensitive American technologies, given G42’s past work with Chinese tech giant Huawei. 
“This is a HUGE deal, poses massive national security risks, will slow the US AI buildout, and will cause the largest data centers in the world to be built in the UAE instead of the US,” Chris McGuire, a former Biden administration official overseeing tech policy, wrote on X. 
Others saw positives in the expanding U.S. and UAE collaboration on AI, arguing that it’s preferable that U.S. firms and allies lead the way instead of China in building the large-scale data centers required to develop AI models. 
“As things stand, the United States does not have the political will, grid capacity, or streamlined interconnection queues necessary to install all of the compute we need to cheaply offer AI services to global publics,” American Enterprise Institute fellow Ryan Fedasiuk wrote on X. 
“I wish we did, but we don’t. 
We will need to lean on international partners to share in the burden of the global AI build-out.” 
Shortly before President Trump was inaugurated, a UAE royal’s firm secretly bought nearly half of the family’s crypto company, World Liberty Financial ( Getty ) 
The Commerce Department said Friday’s announcement was consistent with the terms of the export deal between U.S. and the UAE that was finalized in May of last year. 
A G42 employee held a job at World Liberty while that 2025 deal was being negotiated, The New York Times reported . 
All sides have denied any conflict of interest was involved in the dealmaking. 
President Trump has continued to face scrutiny over his ties to Tahnoon, especially after recent financial disclosures showed the Republican made more than $1 billion personally last year from the Trump family’s crypto companies. 
Part of that windfall came from MGX, another company chaired by Tahnoon, which used $2 billion in a World Liberty coin in an investment into Binance, a crypto company whose founder Trump pardoned last year . 
MGX is also among the new owners of the U.S. operations of TikTok , after the Trump administration leaned on the social platform to spin off an American division. 
In 2022, U.S. intelligence agencies obtained information that the U.A.E. transferred technology to Huawei via G42 that ultimately enabled China to extend the range of its air-to-air missiles, the Financial Times reported . 
G42 called the reporting “false and defamatory” at the time. 
G42 reportedly cut ties with Huawei as part of a 2024 investment deal from Microsoft. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.1%Josh Marcus: 3.9%The Independent: 3.9%Confirmation Bias9.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.7%Josh Marcus: 3.8%The Independent: 3.4%Availability Heuristic19.7%This article: 8.4%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.4%The Independent: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Josh Marcus: 8.9%The Independent: 8.1%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.3%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.3%This article: 2.4%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.4%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 2.2%The Independent: 2.1%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 13.1%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 1.1%Pessimism Bias13.1%This article: 27.5%Josh Marcus: 11.5%The Independent: 9.9%Negativity Bias27.5%This article: 1.3%Josh Marcus: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias1.3%This article: 5.7%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.3%The Independent: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.8%The Independent: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 2.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 1.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.2%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority12.2%This article: 7.4%Josh Marcus: 1.3%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma7.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Josh Marcus: 4.0%The Independent: 4.0%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.8%Josh Marcus: 6.3%The Independent: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion2.8%This article: 3.2%Josh Marcus: 0.8%The Independent: 1.1%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 32.9%Josh Marcus: 4.3%The Independent: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 1.0%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Composition/Division5.0%This article: 7.8%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 1.9%Anecdotal7.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.9%Josh Marcus: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.5%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 7.0%Josh Marcus: 2.7%The Independent: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.0%This article: 19.3%Josh Marcus: 6.1%The Independent: 6.4%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 3.2%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 0.7%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

761 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers48%attributed speech394writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageCommerce Department • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Warren • 20 words • 100.0% coverageElizabeth Warren • 34 words • 0.0% coverageElizabeth Warren • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageThe Independent • 17 words • 0.0% coverageCommerce Department • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCommerce Department • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageChris McGuire • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageRyan Fedasiuk • 44 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Fedasiuk • 7 words • 0.0% coverageRyan Fedasiuk • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageCommerce Department • 28 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageThe Financial Times • 33 words • 0.0% coverageG42 • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chris McGuire

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words13% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+75.1 ptsWriter: 24.9%Chris McGuire: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning -20.6 ptsWriter: 20.6%Chris McGuire: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.5 ptsWriter: 13.5%Chris McGuire: 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.