Trump Is Already Fighting With His New Homeland Security Secretary 88%

By Edith Olmsted82%

7/23/2026, 12:15:04 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Hasty Generalization, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.3% saturation with 161 hits. Analysis detected 740 faulty-reasoning hits from 291 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.9% and a BS Rank of 88% (2,649 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.90% of the article peer group.

It’s only been four months, but it looks like Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin is already on the White House’s bad side. 
The rift is a result of some early missteps and concerns about Mullin’s personnel choices, according to a senior Trump administration official and a senior Department of Homeland Security official who spoke with NBC News Thursday. 
The White House wasn’t happy with Mullin’s decision to temporarily restrict Immigration and Customs Enforcement vehicle stops after two deadly shootings by immigration officers in Texas and Maine. 
Just one day after Mullin announced the change, and yet another person was killed during a chaotic ICE incident, Trump ordered the agency to resume traffic stops. 
An administration official told NBC News that Mullin’s decision was “100 percent” a bad move. 
Mullin reportedly never received the White House’s blessing before announcing the sudden policy change—leaving President Donald Trump and border czar Tom Homan in the dark. 
Trump was reportedly furious, believing that it signaled the administration was softening on immigration enforcement. 
Another source of tension between Mullin and the White House is the secretary’s decision to nominate Lance Schroyer, one of his allies, to run ICE. 
The decision had “a lot of people talking,” as Schroyer has no direct experience with federal law or immigration enforcement, a DHS official told NBC News. 
In addition to Schroyer’s lackluster résumé , he’s also been accused of failing to pay for child support. 
In any case, several officials “aren’t thrilled with him,” one Trump administration official told NBC News. 
Rising tensions with the freshly appointed DHS secretary come as a new report suggests that Trump’s second administration has even higher turnover among Senate-confirmed officials than his first. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%Edith Olmsted: 4.8%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.9%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Edith Olmsted: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect3.4%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 55.3%Edith Olmsted: 21.0%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias55.3%This article: 5.2%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.2%This article: 8.6%Edith Olmsted: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error8.6%This article: 9.6%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias9.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Edith Olmsted: 6.0%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem6.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.1%Edith Olmsted: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization26.1%This article: 9.6%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring9.6%This article: 5.5%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon5.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.9%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 6.2%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy6.2%This article: 40.5%Edith Olmsted: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote40.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.6%Edith Olmsted: 25.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice8.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 11.9%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

291 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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