Newsmax75%

Blanche: Scrapping $1.8B Anti-Weaponization Fund 73%

By ERIC TUCKER35% ALANNA DURKIN RICHER47%

6/2/2026, 2:34:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.1% saturation with 118 hits. Analysis detected 654 faulty-reasoning hits from 274 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 65.1% and a BS Rank of 73% (5,975 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.70% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration is abandoning the president's nearly $1.8 ‌billion "weaponization" fund, U.S. 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche told lawmakers ​on Tuesday, after an intense and rare backlash from Republican senators. 
"We are not moving forward with the fund," Blanche said. 
"Period." 
The ⁠Justice Department's agreement with President Donald Trump to bar future audits into ​his or his family's past tax records will remain in place, Blanche ⁠told lawmakers. 
The fund was dropped as furious senators faced an impasse with Trump over a $72 billion bill to fund ICE and Border Patrol operations. 
Congressional leaders had questioned whether they ‌could pass the bill if the fund was not killed, ​and a person ‌familiar with the White House's thinking said Blanche's future hinged on his ability to address those concerns. 
The fund ‌emerged from a legal settlement between Trump and the Justice Department to resolve an unprecedented $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over the alleged ⁠mishandling of his tax records. 
The $1.776 billion ‌fund was meant to ⁠pay people who said they had been the subject of government abuse, and Blanche angered senators ⁠last ⁠month when he would not commit to barring people who assaulted police officers during the January 6, ‌2021, Capitol riot from receiving funds. 
White House officials spent much of Monday calling lawmakers to assure them there'd be no payouts after the Republican revolt, said two ‌sources ​familiar with the matter, ‌speaking on the condition of anonymity. 
That assurance had done little to quiet Republican demands ahead of Blanche's House subcommittee hearing Tuesday afternoon, where ​lawmakers pressed for a definitive promise that the fund is dead. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.0%Eric Tucker: 3.3%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias12.0%This article: 11.3%Eric Tucker: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias11.3%This article: 25.2%Eric Tucker: 2.4%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic25.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.1%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.8%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Eric Tucker: 8.4%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect24.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.1%Eric Tucker: 11.8%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias43.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 3.1%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Eric Tucker: 1.0%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error13.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.6%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%Eric Tucker: 1.3%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 1.6%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.3%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 13.1%Eric Tucker: 1.2%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma13.1%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.2%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.6%Eric Tucker: 3.2%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization10.6%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.2%Eric Tucker: 4.5%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion17.2%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 8.8%Eric Tucker: 1.4%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.9%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.4%Eric Tucker: 2.0%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.4%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 28.8%Eric Tucker: 3.1%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote28.8%This article: 4.0%Eric Tucker: 2.6%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.0%This article: 9.9%Eric Tucker: 6.9%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice9.9%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 2.8%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.7%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Eric Tucker: 0.3%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

274 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker20%attributed speech218writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 10 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 1 words • 100.0% coverageTodd Blanche • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Todd Blanche

100%flagged-word coverage
56 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+48.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Todd Blanche: 48.2%48.2%Unattributed Quote-13.8 ptsWriter: 31.7%Todd Blanche: 17.9%17.9%Quote-first Misdirection+19.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Todd Blanche: 19.6%19.6%

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.