MS NOW⁠95%

Opinion | Missing Trump DMs point to Trump administration’s disdain for records act ⁠76%

By Ja'han Jones⁠97%

6/5/2026, 7:20:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Appeal to Authority, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 40.9% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,893 faulty-reasoning hits from 548 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠76% (5,241 of 21,170 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 75.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s missing Twitter messages add to a brewing scandal over his administration’s defiance of the Presidential Records Act, a law that requires the retention of federal records and communications. 
And the missing messages are likely to fuel concerns that Trump and his allies may hoard or destroy documents in violation of the law. 
In January, The Washington Post filed a Freedom of Information Act request to Trump’s federally supported presidential library, seeking, among other things, direct messages Trump sent via Twitter (now X) accounts during his first term. 
The Post reported Wednesday that the library, a division of the National Archives, said it was “unable to locate any records related to” any direct message Trump sent via Twitter despite evidence he sent several. 
The claim doesn’t pass the smell test. 
As the Post noted, it doesn’t seem to square with the fact that former special counsel Jack Smith subpoenaed and obtained several of Trump’s Twitter DMs during the probe of Trump’s unlawful push to overturn the 2020 election. 
Per the Post: 
Court records show that Twitter produced at least 32 DMs sent to or from the @realDonaldTrump account between October 2020 and January 2021 in response to a warrant sought by special counsel Jack Smith as part of his investigation into Trump’s role in the attack on the U.S. 
Capitol on Jan. 
6, 2021. 
A lawyer for Twitter told the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia that “there are confidential communications” in Trump’s Twitter account, although “we don’t know the context of [them].” 
“If Trump did send DMs and did not preserve them, he may have violated the Presidential Records Act as it has been understood for decades,” the Post reported. 
The scenario underscores two points. 
The first is the questionable credibility of Trump’s future presidential library — if one can even call it that, given Trump said earlier this year he doesn’t believe in building libraries and that he plans for the building to function as a hotel on its controversial plot of land. 
Arguably more importantly, the missing messages also lend support to critics’ concerns that Trump and his allies are brazenly defying the Presidential Records Act by destroying, withholding or otherwise failing to retain records that legally belong to the American public and not to the administration. 
Trump’s hoarding of classified documents in locations including a Mar-a-Lago bathroom after he left office the first time was an early indication of his disregard for the law. 
And Trump’s second term has provided an opportunity for a more overt assault on the PRA. 
My colleague Steve Benen wrote in April about the administration’s assertion that the PRA is unconstitutional, and as my colleague Jordan Rubin explained, legal groups have sued the administration over its defiance of the law, warning in a legal filing that Trump will “keep or destroy” presidential records without judicial intervention. 
Last month, a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction saying the PRA is likely constitutional and ordered White House staff to abide by the law while the suit plays out — but as my colleague Ebony Davis reported, the order excluded the National Archives and the Justice Department, as well as the president and vice president. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 24.6%Ja'han Jones: 18.2%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Ja'han Jones: 5.1%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.1%Ja'han Jones: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias5.1%This article: 0.9%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.9%This article: 21.4%Ja'han Jones: 34.4%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect21.4%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%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: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.3%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias7.3%This article: 40.9%Ja'han Jones: 36.3%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias40.9%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 3.8%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 8.9%Ja'han Jones: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 7.5%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 8.6%MS NOW: 2.6%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: 17.2%Ja'han Jones: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 10.2%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect10.2%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 9.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 2.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.7%Ja'han Jones: 7.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority32.7%This article: 10.2%Ja'han Jones: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma10.2%This article: 2.9%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope2.9%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.2%Ja'han Jones: 15.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization18.2%This article: 17.7%Ja'han Jones: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring17.7%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.4%Ja'han Jones: 18.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 5.1%Ja'han Jones: 4.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question5.1%This article: 12.0%Ja'han Jones: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.0%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 13.9%Ja'han Jones: 2.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof13.9%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: 35.2%Ja'han Jones: 2.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)35.2%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: 1.3%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity1.3%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 8.9%Ja'han Jones: 6.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy8.9%This article: 17.2%Ja'han Jones: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote17.2%This article: 2.4%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.4%This article: 10.2%Ja'han Jones: 31.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice10.2%This article: 6.4%Ja'han Jones: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination6.4%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 20.4%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Ja'han Jones: 1.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Ja'han Jones: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

548 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker25%attributed speech412writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 35 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
136 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+45.6 ptsWriter: 5.8%The Washington Post: 51.5%51.5%Indoctrination+25.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Washington Post: 25.7%25.7%Biased Writer Voice-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%The Washington Post: 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.