America First? Trump’s Foreign Income Exploded in 2025 ⁠87%

By Hafiz Rashid⁠70%

7/20/2026, 9:11:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Anchoring Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.5% saturation with 107 hits. Analysis detected 1,299 faulty-reasoning hits from 329 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 79.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,800 of 21,164 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

President Trump made a whopping $117 million from foreign business interests in the first year of his second term as president, a new report found. 
The progressive nonprofit Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, released a report Monday examining Trump’s personal financial disclosure, which he released last month. 
The organization found he made almost as much in 2025 from overseas ventures ($117 million) as he did during his entire first term (at least $149 million). 
Trump reported a total of 28 different accounts, each with at least $50,000 in revenue, the report said, compared to just nine accounts in the last year of his first term. 
Trump made more than $2 billion from all of his businesses in 2025, thanks in large part to cryptocurrency, again more than the $1.7 billion he made during his first term as president. 
The foreign income stands out for Trump, as it undermines his America First rhetoric. 
But it also raises questions about foreign governments, companies, and individuals using money for influence peddling with the White House, as well as the U.S. government overall. 
Trump has taken in over $500 million in foreign income since 2014, and the true number could exceed $650 million, according to CREW. 
That number will likely increase for the rest of Trump’s second term, as there are currently 24 Trump-branded developments in progress overseas, 13 of which began after he announced he was running for a second term in 2022. 
These include new developments in the United Arab Emirates, where Trump has already made several corrupt deals . 
Trump and his family don’t care about any conflicts of interest in his second term, and their businesses are operating without the fear of accountability. 
Congress isn’t stepping in to investigate Trump’s businesses now, but that could change after November if Democrats take over. 
Even then, the president and his family will use every legal resource to evade scrutiny. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.1%Hafiz Rashid: 7.3%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias20.1%This article: 25.2%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias25.2%This article: 24.6%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic24.6%This article: 9.4%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias16.1%This article: 8.5%Hafiz Rashid: 11.3%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.8%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.6%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias11.6%This article: 8.2%Hafiz Rashid: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias8.2%This article: 32.5%Hafiz Rashid: 17.1%newrepublic.com: 12.9%Negativity Bias32.5%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error17.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.3%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: 13.4%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias13.4%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: 13.1%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem13.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.9%Hafiz Rashid: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority31.9%This article: 5.8%Hafiz Rashid: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma5.8%This article: 16.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Slippery Slope16.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.8%Hafiz Rashid: 8.4%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization15.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 7.3%Hafiz Rashid: 6.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 4.3%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 21.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.8%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)21.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 14.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Burden of Proof14.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%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: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.8%Hafiz Rashid: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.8%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: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.6%Hafiz Rashid: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote7.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.5%Hafiz Rashid: 15.5%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice15.5%This article: 16.4%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination16.4%This article: 13.7%Hafiz Rashid: 6.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.0%

329 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker23%attributed speech253writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 26 words • 100.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageCitizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
76 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Politically Left Leaning B+26.7 ptsWriter: 7.5%Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: 34.2%34.2%Indoctrination-21.3 ptsWriter: 21.3%Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington: 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.