Fox News87%

This Midwestern state leads the nation in home foreclosures as US filings jump by 26% 84%

By Amanda Macias0%

5/15/2026, 10:00:58 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Right Leaning Bias, Pessimism Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 16.9% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 1,206 faulty-reasoning hits from 556 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75.7% and a BS Rank of 84% (3,396 of 20,369 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 83.30% of the article peer group.

Home foreclosures in the U.S. are up 26% from last year as inflation rates and rising costs are catching up with homeowners. 
Indiana was hit hardest and logged one foreclosure filing for every 739 housing units in the first quarter of 2026, according to findings from property data firm ATTOM. 
This is nearly two-thirds higher than the nationwide rate of one in every 1,211 house facing foreclosure in that same period. 
The latest data released in April shows that red states are being hit the hardest by the sweeping affordability crisis  and with the 2026 midterm elections approaching, economic woes are at the top of mind for many voters and policymakers. 
WHITE HOUSE TEASES MAJOR HOUSING AFFORDABILITY PLAN AS PRICES SQUEEZE AMERICANS 
The top three states with the worst foreclosure rates at the start of 2026 all voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election. 
South Carolina came in second behind Indiana with one in every 743 properties with foreclosure filings in the first quarter of the year, and Florida was in third with one in every 750 housing units facing the same fate. 
While foreclosure activity is on the rise across the U.S., it remains well below levels seen during the 2008 housing crisis. 
But that isn't stopping Democrats from pouncing on the issue, and using affordability, inflation and rising housing costs as their candidates' leading messaging ahead of the November elections. 
A total of 118,727 U.S. properties had a foreclosure filing in the first quarter of 2026, up 6% from the previous quarter and 26% from a year ago. 
Foreclosure filings came in for 45,921 properties for March alone, increasing 18% from February and 28% from March of last year. 
THE PRICE OF BUILDING A HOME KEEPS CLIMBING  AND UNCERTAINTY ISN’T HELPING 
Looking more closely at the data, more homes are entering the foreclosure process, a potential sign of future distress. 
A total of 82,631 properties started foreclosure processes in the first quarter of 2026, up 20% from the year prior, while lenders repossessed 14,020 properties, marking a 45% annual increase. 
Blue states like Delaware and Illinois are also facing high foreclosure rates  showcasing that the issue crosses party lines. 
Among major metro areas, cities like Cleveland, Ohio; Jacksonville, Florida; and Indianapolis, Indiana ranked among the highest for foreclosure rates. 
The revelation of spiking foreclosure rates comes as the U.S. grapples with a slew of housing challenges that have helped contribute to today’s crisis. 
Against that backdrop, experts say rising mortgage rates, higher living costs and other homeownership expenses are putting increasing pressure on some homeowners, pushing up monthly payments and making it harder to keep up with housing costs. 
THE TOP 3 REASONS HOUSING HAS BECOME SO UNAFFORDABLE IN THE US MARKET 
The average rate on a 30-year fixed mortgage rose to 6.37% for the week ending May 7, up from 5.98% in late February. 
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP 
Rob Barber, CEO of ATTOM, said that while foreclosure levels remain below those seen during the housing crisis, the recent uptick suggests more homeowners may be coming under financial strain. 
Taken together, the data points to a housing market that remains stable overall, even as affordability challenges persist for some homeowners. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Amanda Macias: 3.5%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 10.8%Amanda Macias: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias10.8%This article: 8.6%Amanda Macias: 3.3%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 7.9%Amanda Macias: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.2%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Amanda Macias: 14.4%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect14.4%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.6%Amanda Macias: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.6%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 15.1%Amanda Macias: 2.2%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias15.1%This article: 13.7%Amanda Macias: 8.2%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Amanda Macias: 2.1%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.1%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.8%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.2%Amanda Macias: 2.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias9.2%This article: 7.4%Amanda Macias: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Amanda Macias: 2.8%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem5.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.9%Amanda Macias: 4.5%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority16.9%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 2.1%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.4%Amanda Macias: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope3.4%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Amanda Macias: 5.4%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.3%Amanda Macias: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 12.4%Amanda Macias: 7.1%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion12.4%This article: 7.4%Amanda Macias: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question7.4%This article: 13.7%Amanda Macias: 5.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.7%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 7.4%Amanda Macias: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division7.4%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.2%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Amanda Macias: 0.7%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 1.5%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 4.0%Amanda Macias: 4.0%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 0.0%Amanda Macias: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 3.6%Amanda Macias: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias3.6%This article: 16.7%Amanda Macias: 5.7%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias16.7%This article: 1.4%Amanda Macias: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.4%

556 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.4%attributed speech526writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageRob Barber • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rob Barber

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Politically Right Leaning -17.7 ptsWriter: 17.7%Rob Barber: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Rob Barber: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Rob Barber: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Rob Barber: 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.