Trump Caves and Withdraws Subpoenas for New York Times Journalists 34%

By Edith Olmsted82%

7/23/2026, 7:36:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 15.4% saturation with 48 hits. Analysis detected 371 faulty-reasoning hits from 312 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 41.7% and a BS Rank of 34% (14,653 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 66.90% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump’s administration withdrew its subpoenas Thursday for three New York Times journalists who reported on Air Force One’s security issues. 
Lawyers for the publication appeared in court to challenge subpoenas that would’ve compelled reporters to testify about their confidential sources before a grand jury, and granted access to reporters’ and their family members’ phone records. 
Times lawyers argued that the Department of Justice had ignored its own protocols for failing to give advance notice and issuing subpoenas “without first conducting any serious investigation.” 
On Thursday, U.S. 
District Court Judge Arun Subramanian seemed to agree. 
“Subpoenas are not the first thing you do, they are the last thing you do,” he said . 
The judge argued that the Trump administration’s actions had turned the First Amendment and free speech regulation “on its head.” 
After nearly an hour of intense grilling, Sean Buckley, chief counsel to the U.S. attorney in Manhattan, announced that the government was prepared to “unilaterally withdraw” its subpoenas. 
Subramanian made it clear he would have rejected the subpoenas anyway. 
White House officials were left fuming earlier this month after the Times reported that Trump had ditched his new Air Force One in Europe because it was missing certain security and communications capabilities. 
The president later announced plans to further “max out” the plane, suggesting that the $400 million luxury jumbo jet indeed lacked sufficient security features—all but confirming the story had been accurate. 
The Air Force has already spent roughly $400 million on renovating the plane, changing the cabin layout, communications system, and security upgrades. 
That doesn’t account for the taxpayer-funded continued maintenance of the plane, either. 
The Qatari-gifted jet will be moved to Trump’s presidential library foundation in 2029, where it may be available for him to use as a private citizen . 
This story has been updated. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.9%Edith Olmsted: 4.8%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias9.9%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: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.9%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias9.9%This article: 6.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias6.1%This article: 3.2%Edith Olmsted: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect3.2%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: 3.8%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.8%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: 10.6%Edith Olmsted: 21.0%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect8.7%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: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%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: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.0%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.4%Edith Olmsted: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority15.4%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: 9.9%Edith Olmsted: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization9.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.6%Edith Olmsted: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion10.6%This article: 9.9%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question9.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%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: 6.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.1%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: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.8%Edith Olmsted: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote5.8%This article: 5.8%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection5.8%This article: 3.2%Edith Olmsted: 25.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice3.2%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%

312 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech266writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageArun Subramanian • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSean Buckley • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Arun Subramanian

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words39% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Arun Subramanian: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Arun Subramanian: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%Arun Subramanian: 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.