MS NOW⁠95%

Wisconsin voters deal blow to Trump’s data center dreams ⁠0%

By Ja'han Jones⁠97%

4/8/2026, 6:49:16 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Politically Right Leaning Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 64.3% saturation with 234 hits. Analysis detected 1,277 faulty-reasoning hits from 364 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Wisconsin voters in Port Washington, a small suburb of Milwaukee, just dealt a potentially significant blow to President Donald Trump’s data center dreams. 
Trump, who has been showered with money and gifts from Big Tech oligarchs, has issued multiple executive orders pressing for rapid construction of controversial data centers that can be used to power artificial intelligence tools. 
But the buildout has gotten off to a rocky start, to say the least, amid bipartisan backlash — particularly over the centers’ environmental impacts and tendency to raise energy costs in surrounding communities. 
Trump has tried to respond to these concerns with nonbinding guarantees from Big Tech executives. 
And if Tuesday’s vote in Wisconsin is any sign, those guarantees aren’t going to be enough to stem the rising tide of opposition. 
Unofficial results suggest Port Washington voters, by a margin of roughly 2-to-1, backed a measure requiring city officials to seek voter approval before authorizing tax-subsidized districts for developers. 
The initiative was introduced in direct response to a Trump-backed data center being built in Port Washington, which will be operated by OpenAI and Oracle — two companies whose respective top executives, Sam Altman and Larry Ellison, are Trump allies. 
Politico noted the referendum is the first of its kind in the nation and will apply to future projects, not the data center currently in progress: 
The Port Washington referendum doesn’t actually derail the city’s controversial data center campus — a $15 billion, 1.3-gigawatt facility from tech giants OpenAI and Oracle that’s one of multiple ‘Stargate’ AI megaprojects the companies are planning with the Trump administration’s support. 
Instead, it takes aim at future projects by requiring city leaders to obtain voter approval before awarding developers lucrative tax incentives. 
Representatives for OpenAI and Oracle didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment. 
The Port Washington ballot measure is being challenged in court, but its success in winning over voters could inspire more states to follow suit. 
Indeed, as Politico notes, there are already upcoming referendums in other states that would similarly target data centers, which could give voters yet more opportunity to throw sand in the gears of Trump’s plans. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 18.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.9%Ja'han Jones: 5.1%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic12.9%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.0%Ja'han Jones: 34.4%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect39.0%This article: 5.8%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion5.8%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Ja'han Jones: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 12.6%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias12.6%This article: 48.1%Ja'han Jones: 36.3%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias48.1%This article: 9.6%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias9.6%This article: 11.0%Ja'han Jones: 3.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error11.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Ja'han Jones: 7.5%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 8.6%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 4.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.7%Ja'han Jones: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias15.7%This article: 11.3%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Ja'han Jones: 9.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem9.6%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.1%Ja'han Jones: 7.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority7.1%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 6.6%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope6.6%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.3%Ja'han Jones: 15.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization6.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 9.3%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon9.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 18.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 4.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.0%Ja'han Jones: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%Ja'han Jones: 2.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 6.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 18.1%Ja'han Jones: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote18.1%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 64.3%Ja'han Jones: 31.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice64.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 20.4%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 25.3%Ja'han Jones: 1.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias25.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

364 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker16%attributed speech304writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coveragePolitico • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coveragePolitico • 34 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Politico

100%flagged-word coverage
60 attributed words100% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 65.8%Politico: 56.7%56.7%Politically Right Leaning +37.6 ptsWriter: 19.1%Politico: 56.7%56.7%Unattributed Quote+30.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Politico: 43.3%43.3%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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