The Trump Administration’s War on Dissent Has a New Target ⁠66%

By Hafiz Rashid⁠68%

6/26/2026, 8:25:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Framing Effect, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 37% saturation with 125 hits. Analysis detected 919 faulty-reasoning hits from 338 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠66% (7,468 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.90% of the article peer group.

After successfully prosecuting anti-ICE protesters in Texas and giving them long prison sentences, the Trump administration has its next free speech targets. 
The government is looking to prosecute protesters against the Cop City project in Atlanta, The Guardian reports. 
The $109 million police training center in Georgia has faced heavy opposition from activists against police militarization and the clearing of a forest to build the facility. 
Earlier this month, the Department of Justice indicted two protesters for allegedly attacking a contractor for the facility and two of its employees. 
The federal indictments come despite the fact that Georgia authorities have tried and failed to bring cases against protesters. 
In August 2023, the state attorney general tried to bring a RICO indictment against three protesters in Fulton County, only for that case to be dismissed more than two years later in December. 
In April, state prosecutors tried again in neighboring Cobb County, only for a judge to dismiss that case on Monday. 
The DOJ may be emboldened by the March guilty verdicts from its Texas case, referred to as Prarieland, against protesters who were demonstrating against an ICE detention facility. 
On Tuesday, Texas activists received prison sentences of more than 50 years in prison based on terrorism charges, with the Trump administration claiming they were part of an “antifa cell.” 
Just like in Texas, the Cop City protesters set off fireworks, giving the Trump administration the same justifications to invoke terrorism charges. 
“The Cobb county protest matches the narrative of what they’re looking for. 
It’s similar to what they did with Prairieland—they’re crafting a certain narrative on protests and trying to indict based on the narrative,” Xavier de Janon, an attorney for one of the Georgia protesters, told The Guardian. 
“Fireworks become explosives. 
Communities become ‘antifa cells.’ 
The power of language is going to become central to everything the government is doing moving forward,” said filmmaker and author Will Potter, who researches government responses to protests, to the publication. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 26.3%Hafiz Rashid: 7.5%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias26.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.3%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic8.3%This article: 14.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic14.5%This article: 5.9%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias5.9%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias9.5%This article: 25.7%Hafiz Rashid: 10.9%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect25.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect9.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias9.5%This article: 37.0%Hafiz Rashid: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias37.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.5%This article: 6.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma6.5%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope9.5%This article: 10.7%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning10.7%This article: 6.5%Hafiz Rashid: 8.6%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization6.5%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 1.2%Hafiz Rashid: 6.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion1.2%This article: 3.6%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 14.8%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)14.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.9%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.6%Hafiz Rashid: 4.0%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote3.6%This article: 5.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 3.0%Hafiz Rashid: 14.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice3.0%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination9.5%This article: 17.5%Hafiz Rashid: 7.0%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias17.5%This article: 6.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

338 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers70%attributed speech100writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageThe Guardian • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coveragestate attorney general • 33 words • 0.0% coveragestate prosecutors • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageTrump administration • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageXavier de Janon • 12 words • 100.0% coverageXavier de Janon • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWill Potter • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWill Potter • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWill Potter • 32 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Will Potter

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words16% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Indoctrination+82.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Will Potter: 82.1%82.1%Politically Left Leaning B+55.1 ptsWriter: 27.0%Will Potter: 82.1%82.1%Politically Right Leaning -22.0 ptsWriter: 22.0%Will Potter: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+17.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Will Potter: 17.9%17.9%Biased Writer Voice-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Will Potter: 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.