The Trump Administration Is on a Legal Losing Streak ⁠89%

By Sam Stein⁠91%

7/23/2026, 11:26:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 67.3% saturation with 103 hits. Analysis detected 428 faulty-reasoning hits from 153 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 82.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠89% (2,378 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 88.80% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein and Ben Parker give their takes on why the DOJ abruptly withdrew its subpoenas against three New York Times reporters and their family members over reporting on security flaws in Trump’s Qatari-gifted Air Force One. 
But the losses in court don't stop there, the administration also quietly dropped its demand for a list of Jewish faculty and students at UPenn, and a Trump-appointed judge just blocked the White House from obtaining Kentucky’s voter rolls. 
Plus, in a scene straight out of Pyongyang: Trump finishes a speech, and the applause just… doesn’t stop. 
A full uncomfortable minute of a room too scared to be the first one to sit down. 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.6%The Bulwark: 5.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Sam Stein: 5.0%The Bulwark: 3.0%Availability Heuristic11.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 55.6%Sam Stein: 17.4%The Bulwark: 6.9%Framing Effect55.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.7%The Bulwark: 2.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 31.4%Sam Stein: 29.6%The Bulwark: 11.4%Negativity Bias31.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error11.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.9%The Bulwark: 3.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.3%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Sam Stein: 7.7%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem11.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.6%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.2%The Bulwark: 3.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.3%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Sam Stein: 9.9%The Bulwark: 8.4%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.3%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.9%Sam Stein: 6.3%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion22.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.1%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.9%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.1%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 28.8%Sam Stein: 23.2%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice28.8%This article: 11.8%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 2.8%Indoctrination11.8%This article: 67.3%Sam Stein: 15.4%The Bulwark: 5.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias67.3%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Sam Stein: 24.4%The Bulwark: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…21.6%

153 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.8%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ Takes • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bulwark+ Takes

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +87.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Bulwark+ Takes: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-74.6 ptsWriter: 74.6%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-31.9 ptsWriter: 31.9%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Bulwark+ Takes: 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.