Blue states pitch 100 percent tax on Trump’s ‘anti-weaponization’ payouts ⁠87%

By Hannah Knowles⁠0% Dan Merica⁠0%

5/31/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 65.6% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 204 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,908 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.70% of the article peer group.

Democratic state leaders around the country have an unusual strategy to stymie President Donald Trump’s $1.8 billion settlement fund for people who claim they were wrongly investigated by the government. 
California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom (D) has endorsed the idea of taxing any payouts from President Donald Trump's "Anti-Weaponization Fund." 
(Annabelle Gordon/Reuters) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 5.5%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 3.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.5%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 65.6%Hannah Knowles: 24.0%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect65.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 1.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 1.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 65.6%Hannah Knowles: 22.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias65.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 4.9%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 49.2%Hannah Knowles: 2.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error49.2%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 16.4%Hannah Knowles: 4.2%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias16.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 1.5%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.2%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.5%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 27.9%Hannah Knowles: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect27.9%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 3.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 3.5%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 5.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 9.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 8.8%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.9%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.7%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 3.5%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.1%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.9%Hannah Knowles: 5.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote27.9%This article: 16.4%Hannah Knowles: 5.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection16.4%This article: 65.6%Hannah Knowles: 22.2%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice65.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 5.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Knowles: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

61 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker28%attributed speech44writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Gavin Newsom

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Gavin Newsom: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-90.9 ptsWriter: 90.9%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-22.7 ptsWriter: 22.7%Gavin Newsom: 0.0%0.0%

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

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

Analysis

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