Does Trump Know How Passports Work? ⁠82%

By Inae Oh⁠87%

6/27/2026, 6:37:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Anecdotal, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 57.7% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 597 faulty-reasoning hits from 208 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠82% (4,016 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.70% of the article peer group.

President Trump on Friday unveiled the latest rendering of a special edition US passport to commemorate America’s 250th birthday that features a large image of himself hovering over the Resolute Desk, the latest in a series of plans to place Trump front and center of the anniversary. 
But it’s the warning that will accompany the new passports that's prompting a new kind of stress: “Welcome, but be good!” 
The message instantly called into question Trump's understanding of a passport, which is primarily obtained so that American citizens can leave the United States and travel abroad—no welcome needed. 
It seems likely that Trump was conflating a US passport with a visa. 
Either that or he feels a knee-jerk inclination to inject anti-immigrant, xenophobic themes into everything he does. 
Both feel too possible. 
Meanwhile, the State Department hasn't confirmed the new design. 
But American citizens with plans to obtain or renew their passports this summer may want to steer clear of the Washington Passport Agency. 
As CNN reported when an earlier rendering was released in April, the limited edition passport will be the “default option” at the DC processing center. 
“Online options or other locations will maintain existing passport design,” an official told CNN. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%Inae Oh: 10.8%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Inae Oh: 5.3%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic1.9%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 2.4%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 2.7%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Inae Oh: 1.3%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 2.9%Inae Oh: 2.2%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.3%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Inae Oh: 2.2%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias11.1%This article: 57.7%Inae Oh: 15.6%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias57.7%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 5.6%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 1.7%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 3.6%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 3.2%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 2.4%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Inae Oh: 4.7%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem8.2%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.9%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.8%Inae Oh: 2.9%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority18.8%This article: 8.2%Inae Oh: 3.5%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.1%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.1%Inae Oh: 18.5%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization9.1%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.1%Inae Oh: 3.6%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion10.1%This article: 13.9%Inae Oh: 3.8%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question13.9%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 3.0%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.1%Inae Oh: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof11.1%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.6%Inae Oh: 3.9%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal22.6%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.9%Inae Oh: 1.9%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.9%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Inae Oh: 4.6%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 10.1%Inae Oh: 3.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 38.5%Inae Oh: 26.1%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice38.5%This article: 11.1%Inae Oh: 3.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination11.1%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 5.2%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Inae Oh: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.1%Inae Oh: 3.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.1%

208 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech160writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageState Department • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageCNN • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCNN • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

CNN

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words81% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-50.0 ptsWriter: 50.0%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+35.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%CNN: 35.9%35.9%Indoctrination-14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.4 ptsWriter: 14.4%CNN: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%CNN: 0.0%0.0%

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.