Trump’s allies are already lining up to apply to his $1.8 billion fund ⁠79%

By Meryl Kornfield⁠0%

5/21/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Optimism Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 52.9% saturation with 36 hits. Analysis detected 117 faulty-reasoning hits from 68 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,723 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.40% of the article peer group.

Mark McCloskey is eagerly waiting for details to emerge on how to apply for the Trump administration’s new $1.8 billion settlement fund, both for himself and for the Jan. 6 rioters he represents as a lawyer. 
“Everybody’s very excited about it,” McCloskey said. 
“It’s the first ray of light we’ve seen in a long time.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.6%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.3%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 52.9%Meryl Kornfield: 16.1%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect52.9%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 17.6%Meryl Kornfield: 5.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 10.6%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.5%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.2%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 3.3%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.3%Meryl Kornfield: 8.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization10.3%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 10.3%Meryl Kornfield: 5.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon10.3%This article: 17.6%Meryl Kornfield: 3.7%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion17.6%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.5%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.3%Meryl Kornfield: 1.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote10.3%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 52.9%Meryl Kornfield: 6.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice52.9%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 3.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 1.3%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Meryl Kornfield: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

68 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech49writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageMark McCloskey • 7 words • 100.0% coverageMark McCloskey • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark McCloskey

100%flagged-word coverage
19 attributed words100% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-73.5 ptsWriter: 73.5%Mark McCloskey: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+36.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mark McCloskey: 36.8%36.8%

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.