Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission takes aim at church-state separation ⁠100%

By Michelle Boorstein⁠0%

6/26/2026, 11:55:50 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 10 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and In-Group Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 100% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 513 faulty-reasoning hits from 63 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (56 of 20,518 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 99.70% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration took aim at the separation of church and state Friday, issuing a draft report from the president’s Religious Liberty Commission that says the separation concept is a legal error and that Americans should view religion as an “essential support” and always remember “the Creator who made us and bestows our rights.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 7.8%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias85.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 1.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 2.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Michelle Boorstein: 22.8%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect100.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 5.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 1.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 100.0%Michelle Boorstein: 14.9%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias100.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 5.5%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias85.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 2.8%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 1.8%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.4%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 8.1%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority85.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 5.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 7.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 12.6%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 4.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question85.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.8%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 3.3%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote85.7%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 5.2%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection85.7%This article: 14.3%Michelle Boorstein: 10.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice14.3%This article: 85.7%Michelle Boorstein: 6.6%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination85.7%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 7.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 8.2%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michelle Boorstein: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

63 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker86%attributed speech9writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageTrump’s Religious Liberty Commission • 54 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-100.0 ptsWriter: 100.0%Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump’s Religious Liberty Commission: 100.0%100.0%

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.