MS NOW⁠94%

After falling short in birthright citizenship case, Trump eyes new solution ⁠71%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

6/30/2026, 4:45:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Indoctrination, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 47.8% saturation with 224 hits. Analysis detected 1,266 faulty-reasoning hits from 469 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (6,034 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.40% of the article peer group.

The language of the Constitution’s 14th Amendment seems straightforward. 
“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside,” it reads. 
Donald Trump has nevertheless spent years condemning what’s known as “birthright citizenship” and vowing to undo it despite the plain language of the Constitution. 
Indeed, on Inauguration Day 2025, the new Republican president kept one of his uglier campaign promises and issued an executive order designed to gut the constitutional principle and directed federal agencies to refuse to recognize U.S. citizenship for children who do not meet the administration’s new standards. 
Not surprisingly, Trump’s radical gambit struggled in the courts, which relied on generations’ worth of legal precedent, but he was undeterred. 
When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, he engaged in direct lobbying in ways Americans hadn’t seen before — sitting in attendance during oral arguments and even publicly demanding “loyalty” from the justices he appointed to the high court. 
This plan fell short. 
Four Republican-appointed justices — Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Clarence Thomas — issued dissents in Trump v. 
Barbara, suggesting Trump could ignore the 14th Amendment by way of an executive order, but this radical view fell one vote shy of a majority. 
Two hours later, the president responded by way of his social media platform. 
His online statement read in its entirety: 
The Supreme Court upheld Birthright Citizenship, which is too bad for our Country, but we can easily make it up in Congress through Legislation, with the support of the President, that has now been determined during this process. 
No long and unwieldy Constitutional Amendment is necessary! 
Congress should start TODAY to work on ending expensive and unfair to our Country, Birthright Citizenship. 
They will have my Complete and Total Support! 
In other words, as far as Trump is concerned, his defeat at the high court was disappointing, but the setback was temporary. 
Seizing on the dissent, the Republican sees a new legislative path, in which Congress can simply change the meaning of a constitutional amendment with a bill signed by the president. 
That might sound absurd, given how our system of government is supposed to work, but it’s apparently what Trump hopes to accomplish based on the guidance of four Republican-appointed justices. 
To that end, there is a bill pending in the House to undo birthright citizenship, which currently has 87 Republican co-sponsors, and a companion measure in the Senate has eight GOP co-sponsors. 
With the president’s online statement in mind, it’s likely that both bills are poised to get a fresh look from the party’s members and leaders. 
This is a developing story. 
Check back for updates. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.3%Steve Benen: 10.6%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic4.5%This article: 6.4%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic6.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias6.4%This article: 6.8%Steve Benen: 23.2%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect6.8%This article: 11.5%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion11.5%This article: 1.9%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 6.4%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias6.4%This article: 43.5%Steve Benen: 29.4%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias43.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias10.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.5%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.3%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 7.9%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 6.4%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man6.4%This article: 1.7%Steve Benen: 6.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority1.7%This article: 1.7%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma1.7%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope10.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.2%Steve Benen: 11.4%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 8.1%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question8.1%This article: 5.3%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.4%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 6.4%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity6.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.5%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote1.5%This article: 8.1%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection8.1%This article: 47.8%Steve Benen: 22.8%MS NOW: 14.3%Biased Writer Voice47.8%This article: 13.2%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination13.2%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.0%This article: 10.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.0%This article: 0.9%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.9%

469 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech343writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageUnited States Supreme Court • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 38 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 16 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

88%flagged-word coverage
107 attributed words85% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-35.9 ptsWriter: 58.3%Donald Trump: 22.4%22.4%Indoctrination+57.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 57.9%57.9%Quote-first Misdirection+35.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 35.5%35.5%Politically Left Leaning B-13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -13.7 ptsWriter: 13.7%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-2.0 ptsWriter: 2.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.2 ptsWriter: 1.2%Donald Trump: 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.