Supreme Court hands Trump major victories on his immigration agenda ⁠68%

By Julian Mark⁠0% Justin Jouvenal⁠0% Maria Sacchetti⁠0%

6/25/2026, 2:28:15 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 96.9% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 373 faulty-reasoning hits from 96 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (7,197 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.10% of the article peer group.

The Supreme Court gave President Donald Trump’s efforts to curtail immigration a major boost Thursday, handing down a ruling that could allow the administration to deport millions of immigrants who have been living the United States lawfully. 
It also ruled that the administration can revive a policy blocking migrants from entering the United States to seek asylum. 
Federal agents in Newark block protesters on June 5 from approaching the entrance of a facility being used as an Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention center. 
(Ryan Murphy/AFP/Getty Images) 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 27.1%Julian Mark: 2.4%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic27.1%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 69.8%Julian Mark: 19.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect69.8%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.9%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 76.0%Julian Mark: 9.8%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias76.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.8%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.6%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.7%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.7%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 2.8%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.5%Julian Mark: 6.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion38.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 3.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 20.8%Julian Mark: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote20.8%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 1.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 96.9%Julian Mark: 17.8%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice96.9%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 20.8%Julian Mark: 4.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.8%This article: 38.5%Julian Mark: 5.4%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias38.5%This article: 0.0%Julian Mark: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

96 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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