Fox News88%

Probe into 'subversive' anti-AI Singham network is 'enormous,' former Treasury advisor says 57%

By Asra Q. Nomani0%

6/30/2026, 10:00:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 31 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 35.9% saturation with 397 hits. Analysis detected 3,246 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,107 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.1% and a BS Rank of 57% (8,987 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.20% of the article peer group.

FIRST ON FOX: Former Treasury senior advisor and chief speechwriter Sam Lyman says the Southern District of New York's investigation into the finances behind the activist network tied to American Marxist businessman Neville Roy Singham marks one of the most significant developments yet in the federal government's scrutiny of the organization and far-left protests in the U.S. 
"It's an enormous development because it's one of the first legal actions that's taking a deeper look into this network, which is among the most subversive political networks here in the United States, period," Lyman told Fox News Digital. 
Lyman was reacting to Fox News Digital's exclusive report that U.S. 
Attorney Jay Clayton from the Southern District of New York has opened a grand jury investigation into the finances behind Singham's sprawling activist network. 
The former Treasury official, who now serves as head of research at the Bitcoin Policy Institute, released a new report on Monday, first obtained by Fox News Digital, examining the Singham network's role in organizing opposition to artificial intelligence infrastructure and data center development across the country. 
DOJ LAUNCHES GRAND JURY PROBE INTO MARXIST MOGUL NEVILLE ROY SINGHAM'S FUNDING OF LEFTIST GROUPS 
Researchers conclude that about $23.6 billion in proposed AI and data center investment has been delayed, scaled back or blocked in campaigns where Party for Socialism and Liberation served as "a critical mobilizer in efforts that delayed, scaled back, or blocked the proposed AI infrastructure investment." 
"What we've uncovered is that Neville Singham's network, in particular the Party for Socialism and Liberation, has been boots on the ground in dozens of protests across the country targeting data centers," Lyman said. 
According to the report, the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which has emerged in the past decade as a key political and activist arm of the Singham network, has developed a nationwide organizing operation that has participated in 21 campaigns across 14 states opposing AI infrastructure projects. 
The report documents 19 case studies involving cities and counties including: Charlotte, N.C.; Prince George's County, Md.; DeForest, Wisc.; Monterey Park, Calif.; Denver, Co.; Tucson, Ariz.; Athens, Ga.; Durham, N.C.; Madison, Wisc.; New Orleans; Cleveland and other locations. 
According to the report, those campaigns resulted in 10 local data center moratoria, one permanent data center ban and four rejected or withdrawn projects. 
The authors note that the figure likely understates the total impact because several additional campaigns involved projects whose investment values were never publicly disclosed. 
REPORT: CHINESE PROPAGANDA, SINGHAM NETWORK, FOREIGN DARK MONEY LINKED TO CAMPAIGNS AGAINST DATA CENTERS 
The report argues that while many residents have legitimate concerns over water use, electricity demand and land use, activists linked to the Singham network have built a sophisticated nationwide operation that amplifies those concerns through coordinated organizing, demonstrations and political pressure. 
"The American opposition to data centers is real and mostly homegrown," the report states. 
"But an organized, foreign-aligned party has worked to amplify and convert genuine grievances into actions that slow or degrade America's buildout of data centers." 
One of the report's featured examples is Charlotte, N.C., where it says Party for Socialism and Liberation organizers canvassed neighborhoods, circulated petitions and helped organize demonstrations before the City Council unanimously approved a 150-day moratorium on new data centers. 
According to the report, organizers are now pushing for a permanent ban. 
In Prince George's County, Md., researchers say the Party for Socialism and Liberation chapter in Washington, D.C., helped organize town halls, canvass neighborhoods and gather more than 20,000 petition signatures opposing Lerner Enterprises' proposed $5 billion Brightseat Tech Park. 
County officials later paused data center approvals while reviewing local policy. 
SEN. 
TOM COTTON URGES DOJ TO PROBE CHINESE BID TO 'KNEECAP' AMERICAN AI 
The report also highlights DeForest, Wisc., where it says Party for Socialism and Liberation organizers joined local residents opposing Blackstone-backed QTS' proposed $12 billion hyperscale data center campus. 
Following months of public opposition, village officials declared the proposal "not feasible," leading the developer to withdraw the project. 
In Southern California, the report said the Los Angeles chapter of Party for Socialism and Liberation participated in the "No Data Centers SGV" coalition, which organized petitions, public meetings and a ballot initiative culminating in California's first permanent municipal ban on new data centers in Monterey Park. 
According to the report, the coalition also influenced neighboring cities to adopt additional restrictions or temporary moratoria. 
Researchers further cite campaigns in Arizona opposing Amazon's proposed $3.6 billion Project Blue near Tucson and a separate $2 billion AI data center proposal in Chandler, both of which encountered significant setbacks following organized opposition. 
The report argues that the campaign against AI infrastructure is only one part of a broader effort by organizations linked to Singham. 
"The common thread in all of these nonprofit organizations is that they agitate against American causes  what they call American empire," Lyman said. 
NETWORK FUNDED BY PRO-CCP TECH TYCOON TARGETS PALANTIR AMID ANTI-US PROTESTS THAT SUPPORT THE REGIME IN IRAN 
"After Oct. 7, these nonprofit networks and their political affiliates were boots on the ground protesting Israel and any action Israel took in Gaza. 
They did the exact same thing when President Trump took office and started enforcing immigration laws. 
Now we're seeing the exact same thing take place against the technology industry here in the United States." 
As reported by Fox News Digital, nonprofits funded by Singham  including CodePink, Tricontinental, People's Dispatch and Liberation News  have spent years publishing material opposing American AI development and criticizing leading technology companies including Palantir, Google, Amazon and Meta. 
Lyman said the network's organizing capacity has made it an increasingly influential political force. 
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP 
"This network is incredibly good at organizing," he said. 
"Self-identified socialists in America are incredibly good at getting out the vote, getting their people to protest and getting them to sign petitions." 
He argued that the federal investigation by the Justice Department's Southern District of New York reflects growing recognition in Washington, D.C., of Singham's influence. 
"Singham essentially is the figurehead who's funding all of this," Lyman said. 
"It makes sense both from a legal perspective and from a policymaking perspective that the American people are starting to take notice of his subversive activities because they are truly prolific." 
The report concludes by calling for greater transparency into the funding behind the Party for Socialism and Liberation and other organizations tied to Singham, arguing that Americans should know who is financing organized campaigns that seek to shape the future of the country's AI infrastructure. 
Fox News Digital's Mitch Picasso contributed to this report. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 35.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 10.2%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias35.9%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.1%Asra Q. Nomani: 3.0%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic14.1%This article: 8.5%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.0%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.7%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias5.9%This article: 13.6%Asra Q. Nomani: 28.1%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect13.6%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.2%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.3%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias2.2%This article: 2.8%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.8%This article: 20.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 13.0%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.3%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 2.1%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.8%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.1%This article: 2.1%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.6%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect2.1%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 4.0%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem2.9%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.7%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.6%Asra Q. Nomani: 5.5%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority11.6%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 1.6%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope1.6%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 14.3%Asra Q. Nomani: 9.0%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization14.3%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.4%Asra Q. Nomani: 4.5%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion7.4%This article: 6.3%Asra Q. Nomani: 2.6%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question6.3%This article: 19.4%Asra Q. Nomani: 4.0%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)19.4%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.4%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof8.4%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.9%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.6%Fox Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal16.9%This article: 1.3%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.3%This article: 33.8%Asra Q. Nomani: 3.1%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)33.8%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.9%Asra Q. Nomani: 2.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy4.9%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 2.7%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.5%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.7%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.5%This article: 15.5%Asra Q. Nomani: 10.8%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice15.5%This article: 10.4%Asra Q. Nomani: 1.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination10.4%This article: 0.0%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Asra Q. Nomani: 15.4%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.8%This article: 0.7%Asra Q. Nomani: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.7%

1107 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker24%attributed speech839writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 100.0% coverageSam Lyman • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageSam Lyman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageSam Lyman • 9 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 23 words • 100.0% coverageSam Lyman • 24 words • 0.0% coverageSam Lyman • 12 words • 100.0% coverageSam Lyman • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam Lyman

100%flagged-word coverage
268 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice+14.0 ptsWriter: 12.2%Sam Lyman: 26.1%26.1%Quote-first Misdirection+14.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sam Lyman: 14.6%14.6%Indoctrination+1.6 ptsWriter: 10.0%Sam Lyman: 11.6%11.6%Politically Right Leaning -0.2 ptsWriter: 8.8%Sam Lyman: 8.6%8.6%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.0 ptsWriter: 1.0%Sam Lyman: 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.