Trump saved small business from a ticking time bomb. Congress needs to defuse it permanently 92%

By Josh McLeod99%

7/23/2026, 1:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.2% saturation with 310 hits. Analysis detected 1,836 faulty-reasoning hits from 552 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.6% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,920 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.20% of the article peer group.

In 2025, President Donald Trump gave small businesses one of the largest regulatory relief victories ever by exempting U.S. businesses from the burdensome and unconstitutional Corporate Transparency Act. 
This little-known but highly intrusive law mandated that over 30 million small businesses register their beneficial ownership information with the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network. 
Failure to comply meant small businesses could face civil and criminal penalties of up to $10,000 and up to two years in prison. 
Thankfully, Trump released millions of small businesses from a mandate that few even knew existed. 
The president called BOI “invasive, egregious, and an economic menace” to small businesses. 
He was 100% right. 
In freeing U.S. businesses from this mandate, the president also saved Congress from the scorn of law-abiding small-business owners. 
According to reports, only half of the projected 32.6 million small businesses registered with FinCEN in 2024. 
If FinCEN began enforcement in 2025, over 16 million small businesses could have faced those egregious civil and criminal penalties. 
Some in Congress scoff and believe it was an unlikely scenario, but that was the reality facing millions of small-business owners. 
And while the mandate isn’t currently being enforced, the law is still on the books. 
A future administration could reimpose this invasive law and the stiff penalties that come with it, punishing Main Street once again. 
That is why small-business owners want Congress to solidify Trump’s victory. 
Congress can start by repealing the BOI mandate through H.R. 
425/S. 100 or by codifying Trump’s U.S. business exemption from BOI. 
In addition to these bills, Congress must also require the permanent deletion of the previously submitted BOI data of the roughly 16 million small businesses that registered with FinCEN. 
In September 2025, FinCEN Director Andrea Gacki promised Congress she would do just that. 
However, it’s been over 10 months, and FinCEN still holds the data. 
What are they waiting for? 
FinCEN should destroy this data immediately. 
The Corporate Transparency Act is a well-intentioned but half-baked idea that Congress quietly inserted into a 1,000-page must-pass bill. 
It is a product of the smoke-filled backroom dealings that are common in Washington but the public despise. 
It’s a law that is riddled with unintended consequences. 
Mostly, criminals will not voluntarily register with FinCEN, but law-abiding small-business owners will. 
In essence, all Congress has done is add red tape and compliance costs on the good guys and missed the bad guys the CTA sought to target. 
Once registered, the BOI of small businesses is readily available to state, federal, and international law enforcement and intelligence agencies without a subpoena. 
It is not a stretch of the imagination to say this personally identifiable information will be hacked, leaked, or even abused by the criminals the law was intended to catch. 
SMALL BUSINESSES BUILT AMERICA  BIG GOVERNMENT IS SMOTHERING THEM 
If Congress is serious about providing long-term regulatory relief to small businesses, it must make Trump’s $128 billion regulatory cost-saving exemption permanent. 
Doing so will prevent this threat from reemerging under a future administration . 
This is a no-brainer. 
Help small businesses now. 
Lock in these massive regulatory savings before it is too late. 
Josh McLeod is a director of federal government relations at the National Federation of Independent Business. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%Josh McLeod: 7.2%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Josh McLeod: 11.4%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic25.5%This article: 2.4%Josh McLeod: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic2.4%This article: 5.1%Josh McLeod: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.1%This article: 1.4%Josh McLeod: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias1.4%This article: 15.0%Josh McLeod: 26.2%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect15.0%This article: 15.0%Josh McLeod: 11.5%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion15.0%This article: 2.9%Josh McLeod: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.2%Josh McLeod: 10.3%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias15.2%This article: 21.9%Josh McLeod: 10.3%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias21.9%This article: 2.7%Josh McLeod: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Josh McLeod: 6.9%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Josh McLeod: 4.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect10.1%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Josh McLeod: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.3%Josh McLeod: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem3.3%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.6%Josh McLeod: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 10.0%Josh McLeod: 6.2%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma10.0%This article: 12.9%Josh McLeod: 10.7%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope12.9%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.7%Josh McLeod: 14.4%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization21.7%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.0%Josh McLeod: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon2.0%This article: 14.9%Josh McLeod: 10.4%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion14.9%This article: 9.8%Josh McLeod: 6.6%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question9.8%This article: 5.8%Josh McLeod: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.8%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.2%Josh McLeod: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof2.2%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Josh McLeod: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.7%Josh McLeod: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.7%This article: 3.8%Josh McLeod: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.8%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.7%Josh McLeod: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy6.7%This article: 4.9%Josh McLeod: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 56.2%Josh McLeod: 36.5%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice56.2%This article: 16.8%Josh McLeod: 16.0%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination16.8%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh McLeod: 6.0%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Josh McLeod: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

552 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers7.8%attributed speech509writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageAndrea Gacki • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageNational Federation of Independent Business • 16 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Andrea Gacki

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words33% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Andrea Gacki: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-60.9 ptsWriter: 60.9%Andrea Gacki: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Andrea Gacki: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Andrea Gacki: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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