Trump’s Attempt to Rig Midterms Is Dealt a Harsh Blow by Obama Judge 60%

By Malcolm Ferguson68%

6/25/2026, 8:11:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37.1% saturation with 132 hits. Analysis detected 703 faulty-reasoning hits from 356 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.1% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,795 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.80% of the article peer group.

A federal judge has blocked parts of President Trump’s executive order attempting to restrict mail-in ballots as the midterm elections approach. 
The order, challenged in court by 23 states as well as the District of Columbia, was struck down Thursday by Obama-appointed Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Massachusetts. 
She argued that the Constitution empowers states and Congress to oversee elections, not Trump. 
Trump’s order, signed in March, would force the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. 
Postal Service to create lists of voters eligible for mail ballots, and deny anyone not on the list from receiving one. 
“The States alone determine voter-eligibility requirements, subject only to the outer limits of the Constitution,” Talwani wrote in her decision. 
She also noted the high risk of error involved in the endeavor, writing that the federal government lacked “the ability to create complete and accurate lists of the U.S. citizens residing in every State.” 
“Donald Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional Executive Order sought to undermine eligible voters’ ability to make their voices heard in our democracy. 
Our Constitution is clear: the authority to set our election rules belongs to the states,” Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro wrote on X after the ruling was announced. 
“The right to vote is the foundation of our democracy, and I will take on anyone—up to and including the President—who tries to undermine that fundamental right.” 
The president has long railed against mail-in ballots as fraudulent, a baseless claim he typically uses whenever his side loses an election. 
And while Trump’s order was initially allowed to go through in May, this court ruling will be a significant obstacle for his plans, which could disenfranchise thousands of legal voters. 
“Trump’s vendetta against mail-in voting, which is safe and secure, is about picking who can vote and avoiding accountability,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said. 
“Democrats will continue fighting every day to block all of Trump’s illegal actions and ensure that Americans can freely cast their ballots this year.” 
Trump has yet to comment on the ruling. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.6%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect18.3%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias8.4%This article: 37.1%Malcolm Ferguson: 17.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias37.1%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.6%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias7.6%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 20.8%Malcolm Ferguson: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority20.8%This article: 14.6%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma14.6%This article: 8.4%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope8.4%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 6.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization6.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon6.7%This article: 21.3%Malcolm Ferguson: 8.9%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion21.3%This article: 5.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof6.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Malcolm Ferguson: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.9%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.9%This article: 3.7%Malcolm Ferguson: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice3.7%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 6.2%Malcolm Ferguson: 10.3%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Malcolm Ferguson: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

356 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers54%attributed speech164writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageIndira Talwani • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageIndira Talwani • 20 words • 0.0% coverageIndira Talwani • 34 words • 0.0% coverageIndira Talwani • 21 words • 100.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJosh Shapiro • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChuck Schumer • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Chuck Schumer

100%flagged-word coverage
49 attributed words26% of attributed speech56% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Politically Left Leaning B-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Chuck Schumer: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Chuck Schumer: 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.