Newsmax75%

Senate Passes $70B Immigration Enforcement Funding Bill 18%

By MARY CLARE JALONICK22% JOEY CAPPELLETTI51%

6/5/2026, 12:38:08 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Biased Writer Voice, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.2% saturation with 320 hits. Analysis detected 1,506 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,026 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32.9% and a BS Rank of 18% (18,125 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 82.80% of the article peer group.

The Senate passed legislation to fund President Donald Trump’s immigration enforcement agencies early Friday, after weeks of delays and fierce backlash to an unrelated $1.776 billion settlement fund that threatened to derail the bill. 
Senators voted 52-47 to pass the $70 billion legislation to fund Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol for the next three years, through the end of Trump’s term, after Democrats blocked the money for months. 
The bill will now head to the House, which is expected to take it up next week. 
The final vote came just before 5 a.m., after Republicans narrowly defeated multiple attempts by members of both parties to add language to the bill that would permanently ban Trump’s settlement fund for allies who believe they've been politically persecuted. 
Republicans cleared the last major hurdle overnight when they defeated an amendment proposed by one of their own members, Louisiana Sen. 
Bill Cassidy, that would have redirected payments from the settlement to members of law enforcement who were injured when a mob of Trump supporters seeking to overturn his 2020 presidential election loss attacked the Capitol on Jan. 
6, 2021. 
The amendments were a test of party unity that complicated what should have been an easy vote for Republicans who wanted to keep the focus on immigration enforcement in an election year. 
Instead, they spent almost a full day haggling among themselves over whether to block the settlement fund, even after acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had said earlier this week that it would not go forward. 
“This would have been done several hours ago if we weren’t having to deal with some of the issues around the fund,” Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said shortly before midnight. 
Thune himself has criticized the fund, which was part of a settlement that resolves Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS over the leak of his tax returns and has angered many of his GOP colleagues. 
But he has been pushing GOP senators for weeks to keep the bill focused on the funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol and to avoid adding new provisions that could complicate its passage in the House. 
Still, a group of Republican senators pushed all day and into the night to block the fund’s payouts through legislation. 
That effort came after Trump, who has been at odds with the Senate in recent weeks, raised new doubts about the fund’s future on Wednesday when he told reporters that it is “very important” and said “I don’t know” whether it is dead or on hold. 
The final 52-47 vote on the bill was nearly party line, with Sen. 
Lisa Murkowski of Alaska the only Republican to oppose it. 
Democratic Sen. 
Michael Bennet of Colorado missed the vote. 
The first vote on Thursday morning, a Democratic effort to ban the settlement fund, was held open for several hours while Cassidy and two other Republican senators decided whether to support it. 
The Democrat motion was narrowly defeated when Cassidy eventually voted against it and the two other senators  Jon Husted of Ohio and Dan Sullivan of Alaska, both of whom are up for reelection this year  voted for it. 
The Senate then rejected a second amendment from Republican Sen. 
Thom Tillis of North Carolina that would also have banned the settlement fund but would have moved the money to a separate anti-fraud fund at the Department of Justice. 
Most Democrats voted against the amendment, guaranteeing its defeat, but more than 10 Republicans supported it. 
Tillis said the fund is a political liability for the party. 
“If Blanche says this is largely inoperative, why not use this moment to codify that?” 
Tillis said. 
“Otherwise, you’re exposing every one of our members who are in cycle to having to deal with this between today and Election Day, and that makes no sense for something that the DOJ says they’re not moving forward with.” 
Cassidy's amendment to compensate the injured police officers was a pointed rebuke, as payouts from Trump's fund could have potentially gone to Trump supporters who beat police and attacked the Capitol on Jan. 
6. 
Cassidy lost reelection last month after Trump endorsed a primary opponent. 
He said that, despite Blanche's comments, the fund is still part of an active settlement and “absolutely can be used.” 
The Senate rejected several other Democratic efforts to try to block or limit the fund, including amendments to ban payments to Jan. 6 defendants who injured law enforcement officers. 
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said Republicans are now “leaving taxpayers to rely on nothing more than a promise from Donald Trump’s personal fixer. 
That is not accountability. 
That is a permission slip.” 
Enactment of the bill to fund ICE and the Border Patrol would end the blockade by Democrats who demanded policy changes after the fatal shootings of two protesters by federal agents in January. 
Senate Republicans used a complicated procedural maneuver to get around the filibuster and pass the budget legislation with no Democrat votes. 
But it took weeks to get the bill to the Senate floor as Republicans navigated various obstacles to passage created by Trump and the White House  including a $1 billion proposal for White House security and Trump’s ballroom that they eventually scrapped and the fierce bipartisan backlash to the settlement fund. 
Democrats say any funding bill for the Department of Homeland Security should place restraints on federal immigration authorities, including better identification for federal officers and more use of judicial warrants, among other asks. 
After federal agents shot Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Trump agreed to a Democratic request that the Homeland Security bill be separated from a larger spending measure that became law. 
But bipartisan negotiations went nowhere, and the department funding lapsed in mid-February with no agreement on changes to the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. 
Congress eventually funded the rest of DHS at the end of April with Democratic support, but ICE and Border Patrol have remained without regular funding. 
Copyright 2026 The Associated Press. 
All rights reserved. 
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.5%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.1%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 1.3%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.7%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Mary Clare Jalonick: 6.2%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.2%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.6%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.2%Mary Clare Jalonick: 6.0%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias31.2%This article: 3.8%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.1%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias3.8%This article: 3.9%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.8%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error3.9%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.7%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.6%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Mary Clare Jalonick: 7.9%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.7%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.7%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Mary Clare Jalonick: 2.2%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 3.2%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.9%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma3.2%This article: 1.9%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.4%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope1.9%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 2.1%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.1%Mary Clare Jalonick: 2.6%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 1.9%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.2%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question1.9%This article: 16.1%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.5%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)16.1%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division1.6%This article: 3.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.3%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.7%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.3%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 1.1%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.9%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.6%Mary Clare Jalonick: 2.3%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice15.6%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.1%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.4%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Mary Clare Jalonick: 0.1%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1026 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers15%attributed speech875writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Thune • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageBill Cassidy • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 4 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chuck Schumer

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words23% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Chuck Schumer: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Chuck Schumer: 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.