The Verge⁠56%

The FBI reportedly won’t investigate ICE anymore ⁠88%

By Terrence O'Brien⁠58%

7/19/2026, 4:42:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.8% saturation with 133 hits. Analysis detected 1,254 faulty-reasoning hits from 267 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠88% (2,671 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.80% of the article peer group.

According to the New York Times, federal agents have been told that the FBI will no longer be investigating confrontations involving ICE agents. 
The DHS and DOJ denied the change in policy to The Times. 
The reported change in guidance follows renewed scrutiny of violence by ICE agents who have killed two people in the last two weeks. 
The shootings in Maine and Texas were just the latest civilian deaths at the hands of ICE agents, who have attempted to intimidate witnesses following its recent spate of high-profile killings. 
The new guidance would end FBI investigations of assaults against DHS agents. 
The government has aggressively pursued cases against protesters and others who have had even fleeting and unintentional physical contact with agents. 
But those felony assault cases routinely fall apart, with nearly half of them ending with an acquittal, the charges being thrown out, or withdrawn, according to a Times analysis. 
While the FBI investigations are ostensibly to help the government make a case against protesters and others, they often provide evidence against the officers that could be used in future trials against them. 
According to The Times: 
> Under the change, responsibility for investigating cases involving federal immigration officers would likely fall to Homeland Security Investigations, an arm of ICE, effectively leaving the agency to investigate itself…Homeland Security Investigations does not have jurisdiction to investigate civil rights violations, so putting the change into practice would make it far less likely that shootings of unarmed people by ICE agents would be investigated to determine if the agents broke federal law. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.4%Terrence O'Brien: 4.3%The Verge: 3.6%Confirmation Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 22.5%Terrence O'Brien: 3.8%The Verge: 3.8%Availability Heuristic22.5%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.1%The Verge: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.8%The Verge: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Terrence O'Brien: 8.9%The Verge: 6.2%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.6%The Verge: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.1%The Verge: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.8%The Verge: 2.4%Pessimism Bias27.0%This article: 49.8%Terrence O'Brien: 12.1%The Verge: 9.7%Negativity Bias49.8%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.0%The Verge: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.7%The Verge: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Terrence O'Brien: 1.5%The Verge: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.9%The Verge: 2.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.6%The Verge: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 20.2%Terrence O'Brien: 1.3%The Verge: 1.8%Recency Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.9%The Verge: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 3.4%The Verge: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.0%The Verge: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Terrence O'Brien: 6.1%The Verge: 4.0%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.1%The Verge: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 27.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.6%The Verge: 1.2%Slippery Slope27.0%This article: 27.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.2%Circular Reasoning27.0%This article: 30.3%Terrence O'Brien: 5.9%The Verge: 6.8%Hasty Generalization30.3%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.4%The Verge: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.3%The Verge: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.9%Terrence O'Brien: 6.6%The Verge: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion7.9%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 1.5%The Verge: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.6%Terrence O'Brien: 3.5%The Verge: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.6%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.3%The Verge: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.5%The Verge: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.6%Terrence O'Brien: 2.7%The Verge: 3.6%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 48.3%Terrence O'Brien: 2.6%The Verge: 2.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)48.3%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.0%The Verge: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.2%The Verge: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 35.6%Terrence O'Brien: 3.2%The Verge: 2.6%Unattributed Quote35.6%This article: 27.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.9%The Verge: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection27.0%This article: 43.1%Terrence O'Brien: 11.4%The Verge: 10.8%Biased Writer Voice43.1%This article: 27.0%Terrence O'Brien: 2.0%The Verge: 1.1%Indoctrination27.0%This article: 19.5%Terrence O'Brien: 3.5%The Verge: 1.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias19.5%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 0.1%The Verge: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Terrence O'Brien: 3.7%The Verge: 4.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

267 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers52%attributed speech127writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 23 words • 100.0% coverageDHS • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 4 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 72 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
128 attributed words91% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%47.5%95.0%Biased Writer Voice-90.6 ptsWriter: 90.6%New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+74.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%New York Times: 74.2%74.2%Quote-first Misdirection+56.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%New York Times: 56.3%56.3%Indoctrination+56.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%New York Times: 56.3%56.3%Politically Left Leaning B-40.9 ptsWriter: 40.9%New York Times: 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.