Vox51%

Did Trump fire someone trying to stop IRS abuses? 45%

By Andrew Prokop55%

7/17/2026, 10:25:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Confirmation Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 16.5% saturation with 69 hits. Analysis detected 850 faulty-reasoning hits from 417 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.7% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,448 of 20,518 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.80% of the article peer group.

This story appeared in The Logoff, a daily newsletter that helps you stay informed about the Trump administration without letting political news take over your life. 
Subscribe here. 
Welcome to The Logoff: President Donald Trump fired one of his own appointees who was reportedly trying to stop his team from illegally interfering with the IRS. 
What happened? 
Ken Kies headed tax policy at the Treasury Department and was simultaneously serving as the IRS’s top lawyer on an acting basis. 
But, according to the Wall Street Journal, he’s now been forced out. 
And his ouster comes after he’d clashed with White House officials over certain requests they were making about IRS audits  requests that, Kies believed, were illegal. 
Federal law prohibits the president and White House staffers from requesting, “directly or indirectly,” that the IRS “conduct or terminate an audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer.” 
What was the White House trying to do? 
We don’t know yet. 
Possibilities include that they were requesting that certain people or groups, perhaps political enemies, be audited  or that they were trying to make ongoing audits of Trump’s allies go away. 
Do we know Kies was fired because of this? 
Not for sure. 
The Journal reports that administration officials and conservative activists had other complaints about Kies, including that he wasn’t working fast enough to roll back Biden-era regulations, and that he was cracking down on wealthy investors’ attempts to get huge tax breaks by not developing certain lands. 
What’s the takeaway? 
In 1971, President Richard Nixon privately told his aides that, atop the IRS, he wanted “a ruthless son of a bitch” that will “go after our enemies and not go after our friends.” 
When these and many other Nixon-era abuses came to light, new laws were passed, and new norms were established to prevent this. 
But these norms have been fraying. 
Indeed, Vice President JD Vance recently argued that Nixon’s scandals weren’t actually so bad and shouldn’t have taken down his presidency at all. 
And with that, it’s time to log off... 
The World Cup final between Spain and Argentina is this Sunday…or is it? 
That will depend on whether the wildfire smoke-ridden air in northern New Jersey (and much of the East Coast and Midwest) improves enough by then. 
Fingers crossed that it will, but while we wait, read Caitlin Dewey on how US cities had some of the unhealthiest air in the world this week. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.9%Andrew Prokop: 5.5%Vox: 4.4%Confirmation Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.8%Andrew Prokop: 3.2%Vox: 3.0%Availability Heuristic10.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.8%Vox: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.3%Andrew Prokop: 2.2%Vox: 1.4%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.9%Vox: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Andrew Prokop: 11.1%Vox: 6.1%Framing Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.9%Vox: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.6%Vox: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.6%Andrew Prokop: 1.4%Vox: 2.0%Optimism Bias9.6%This article: 3.1%Andrew Prokop: 1.4%Vox: 2.3%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 12.5%Andrew Prokop: 8.3%Vox: 6.5%Negativity Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.4%Vox: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.6%Vox: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.9%Vox: 1.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.7%Vox: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.4%Vox: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.5%Andrew Prokop: 1.9%Vox: 1.4%Recency Bias16.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.1%Vox: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.7%Vox: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.3%Andrew Prokop: 2.5%Vox: 3.3%Appeal to Authority16.3%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 2.2%Vox: 2.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.4%Andrew Prokop: 1.2%Vox: 1.6%Slippery Slope1.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.0%Andrew Prokop: 6.2%Vox: 6.3%Hasty Generalization11.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.5%Vox: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.9%Vox: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.0%Andrew Prokop: 4.0%Vox: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion6.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.2%Vox: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.8%Andrew Prokop: 5.3%Vox: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.6%Vox: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.5%Andrew Prokop: 2.1%Vox: 2.1%Anecdotal6.5%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.2%Vox: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Andrew Prokop: 1.5%Vox: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.0%Vox: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.1%Vox: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.3%Vox: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Andrew Prokop: 1.3%Vox: 1.8%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 7.9%Andrew Prokop: 1.3%Vox: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection7.9%This article: 7.9%Andrew Prokop: 7.9%Vox: 9.0%Biased Writer Voice7.9%This article: 0.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.9%Vox: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 11.0%Andrew Prokop: 2.1%Vox: 2.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.0%This article: 12.0%Andrew Prokop: 0.4%Vox: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias12.0%This article: 13.2%Andrew Prokop: 0.8%Vox: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…13.2%

417 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers46%attributed speech227writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageKen Kies • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 12 words • 0.0% coverageKen Kies • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Nixon • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageCaitlin Dewey • 27 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Wall Street Journal

100%flagged-word coverage
58 attributed words31% of attributed speech80% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Politically Left Leaning B+79.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Wall Street Journal: 79.3%79.3%Unattributed Quote-12.8 ptsWriter: 12.8%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Wall Street Journal: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Wall Street Journal: 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.