DeSantis Announces the End of Trump’s Beloved “Alligator Alcatraz” ⁠78%

By Rachel Kahn⁠0%

6/25/2026, 6:21:38 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Appeal to Emotion, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 63.5% saturation with 167 hits. Analysis detected 1,115 faulty-reasoning hits from 263 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠78% (4,840 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.90% of the article peer group.

DeSantis Announces the End of Trump’s Beloved “Alligator Alcatraz” 
After one year of abusing immigrants, the Florida detention center is finally shutting down. 
Alligator Alcatraz, the infamous Florida detention camp, will be closed, Governor Ron DeSantis said on Thursday. 
DeSantis said the detention center, where immigrants described worms in their food, floors flooded with sewage, and enormous bugs, was not meant to be a permanent installation, the AP reported. 
“It served its purpose for the time,” DeSantis said at a press conference. 
Alligator Alcatraz was hastily erected nearly a year ago, and has been described by many as a concentration camp. 
The detention center was temporarily closed earlier this month in advance of hurricane season, and lawyers said that they didn’t hear from their clients being held at the facility for over a week. 
The detainees have since been scattered between South Florida, California, Arizona, Louisiana, and Texas, reported the AP. 
Rumors began in May that the detention center would soon be closed, after Florida officials told President Donald Trump that it cost $1 million each day to operate. 
Though one symbol of Trump’s inhumane immigration crackdown is disappearing, the mass deportation campaign continues. 
ICE is still terrorizing neighborhoods, and Trump’s assault on free speech and dissent is well underway. 
DeSantis said at the press conference that 21,000 people were deported through Alligator Alcatraz. 
That’s 21,000 people who had to endure toilets that didn’t flush, bugs in their food, sweltering heat, and freezing cold—treated like “rats in an experiment,” as one detainee told CBS. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 8.5%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 40.7%Rachel Kahn: 10.4%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic40.7%This article: 7.2%Rachel Kahn: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 10.6%Rachel Kahn: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 5.1%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%Rachel Kahn: 16.1%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect36.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Rachel Kahn: 5.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 60.1%Rachel Kahn: 25.1%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias60.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Rachel Kahn: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 8.2%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Rachel Kahn: 2.8%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 5.7%Rachel Kahn: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 8.6%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Rachel Kahn: 9.6%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 53.2%Rachel Kahn: 24.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion53.2%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.6%Rachel Kahn: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.8%Rachel Kahn: 6.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal22.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 63.5%Rachel Kahn: 9.1%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote63.5%This article: 4.9%Rachel Kahn: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection4.9%This article: 60.1%Rachel Kahn: 37.7%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice60.1%This article: 11.8%Rachel Kahn: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination11.8%This article: 6.1%Rachel Kahn: 21.2%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Kahn: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

263 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers34%attributed speech173writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageRon DeSantis • 16 words • 100.0% coverageAP • 30 words • 100.0% coverageRon DeSantis • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageAP • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRon DeSantis • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

AP

64%flagged-word coverage
47 attributed words52% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-0.9 ptsWriter: 64.7%AP: 63.8%63.8%Unattributed Quote+0.2 ptsWriter: 63.6%AP: 63.8%63.8%Indoctrination-17.9 ptsWriter: 17.9%AP: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%AP: 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.