DHS Sec. Threatens to Jail State Officials Who Defy Trump’s Demands 78%

By Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling62%

7/17/2026, 4:55:01 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Biased Writer Voice, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 155 hits. Analysis detected 980 faulty-reasoning hits from 454 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69.5% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,875 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.70% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has promised to stonewall federal grants unless states “scrub” their voter rolls and to imprison state officials who refuse to comply. 
Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin announced during a press conference in Washington Friday that state officials who refuse Washington’s new election demands could be jailed for their disobedience. 
“If the states choose not to participate with the state program, and they choose not to participate in securing the elections, we will make sure that we make those states a priority to look at who voted in their states, and hold them—the election officials—accountable,” Mullin said. 
“If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections, and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, and even—depending on how far it goes—prison time.” 
The pledge came hours after Donald Trump delivered a national address that not only included numerous factual inaccuracies and vast exaggerations about how he lost to Joe Biden in the 2020 presidential election, but also weaponized those conspiracies in an attempt to undermine American trust in future elections. 
“Working with [Commerce] Secretary [Howard] Lutnick, we are going to make our security enhancements mandatory. 
Meaning that if these states want a grant, and they want to be reimbursed to run federal elections, they are going to have to implement security issues,” Mullin said . 
“Just security issues. 
We’re not trying to get into anything else, but we’re saying that the machines have to be secured and that your voter registration lists need to be scrubbed.” 
“We need to make sure that individuals legally able to vote are voting.” 
The homeland security chief confidently announced the plot while standing in front of several American flags, despite the fact that the entire scheme is most likely illegal and that he is acting far outside the limitations of his office and even the executive branch. 
Homeland Security lacks the necessary authority to either withhold federal grants or force states to purge voter rolls. 
Only Congress has the power to do that. 
Beyond that, voter fraud is a statistical nonissue in American elections. 
For instance, a 2024 statewide audit out of Georgia—the epicenter of one of Trump’s baseless 2020 theories—revealed that 20 non-citizens out of 8.2 million residents existed on the state’s voter roll, just 0.00024 percent of the state’s voting population. 
Out of those 20, only nine participated in elections many years ago, before ID was required as a part of the voter verification process. 
The other 11 individuals were registered but never actually voted, according to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. 
This story has been updated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 8.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.8%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.8%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias34.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error6.2%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem20.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 17.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma17.4%This article: 10.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope10.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 5.5%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion2.9%This article: 6.2%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof5.3%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal8.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote3.7%This article: 2.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.0%This article: 20.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice20.3%This article: 2.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination2.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

454 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers49%attributed speech232writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 47 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 30 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 3 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 28 words • 0.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBrad Raffensperger • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Markwayne Mullin

100%flagged-word coverage
205 attributed words92% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.7 ptsWriter: 39.7%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+6.3 ptsWriter: 0.0%Markwayne Mullin: 6.3%6.3%Quote-first Misdirection-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Markwayne Mullin: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.