White House finally reveals true purpose of 'alien.gov' after months of UFO speculation 70%

By Stacy Liberatore0%

5/29/2026, 5:41:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Hasty Generalization, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 44.1% saturation with 255 hits. Analysis detected 1,173 faulty-reasoning hits from 578 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.8% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,642 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.70% of the article peer group.

The White House has finally launched its mysterious 'alien.gov' website that it secured in March, revealing it was never meant for UFO disclosure. 
The site, which went live Thursday, opens with a Star Wars-style crawl as stars streak across the screen and ominous text warns that 'They walk among us,' teasing what appears to be a decades-long government secret involving aliens living undetected among ordinary Americans. 
Only after scrolling further do visitors discover the site is not about extraterrestrials at all, but instead features a live ticker tracking federal law enforcement 'encounters' involving migrants living in the US illegally, alongside immigration enforcement data and arrest statistics. 
The site features a searchable database detailing ICE arrests carried out during the Trump administration, including detainees' alleged criminal histories, nationality, arrest records and purported gang ties. 
It also directs visitors to an ICE reporting portal labeled for 'suspicious aliens' while claiming government leaders spent decades concealing what it describes as an ongoing 'invasion.' 
The rollout immediately sparked backlash from members of the UFO community, who accused the White House of 'hijacking the language of disclosure for an immigration campaign.' 
Investigative journalist Jeremy Corbell appeared to anticipate the move hours before the website launched, posting on X: 'I suspect tonight the White House is going to punk the American people.' 
'They'll use the massive public interest in UAP, in "aliens," and weaponize that curiosity for a political message that has nothing to do with the global mystery surrounding UFOs,' he wrote. 
The website text accuses the US government of hiding illegal immigrants from Americans for 60 years. 
'Aliens have been walking among us, living in our neighborhoods, and interacting with us in our daily lives,' it states. 
'They've shopped in the same stores, attended the same classes as our children, and lived seemingly normal human existences.' 
'With one exception  they do not belong here,' the website text continued. 
A running counter on the website claims more than 3.1 million 'encounters,' with the figure continuing to climb as of Thursday evening. 
The site does not explain what period the tally covers. 
'President Trump was the first to call out the real danger Aliens pose to every American family, every community, and the future of our nation,' the website reads. 
The site is packed with UFO disclosure language, telling people not to be alarmed if they witness an alien abduction. 
'The Alien is in good hands. 
We will take care of it… and return it safely to its place of origin,' it reads. 
The website, however, has led many people to believe that the Trump administration may not be taking disclosure as seriously as it seemed. 
One X user posted: 'There is clearly something going on with UAP (should have never changed from UFO) and conflating "illegal aliens" with "aliens/extraterrestrials" is f****** stupid. 
'And everyone was thinking this administration was taking disclosure seriously, and then you drop this sad attempt at being witty and punny.' 
Other X users did not seem surprised about the true purpose of the domain, with one saying: 'Wait, you really thought there were real aliens the government was going to tell us about? 
'Aliens are almost certainly real, but none of the fuzzy footage, weird radar signals or anything else this gov could release will be aliens.' 
The frustration comes as the President released troves of UFO files in the past month, promising Americans transparency. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Stacy Liberatore: 3.7%Daily Mail: 2.7%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Stacy Liberatore: 1.9%Daily Mail: 2.8%Availability Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 4.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.8%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 4.2%Stacy Liberatore: 3.2%Daily Mail: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias4.2%This article: 9.7%Stacy Liberatore: 4.3%Daily Mail: 6.9%Framing Effect9.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Stacy Liberatore: 4.8%Daily Mail: 1.1%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 20.2%Stacy Liberatore: 7.1%Daily Mail: 10.9%Negativity Bias20.2%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.9%Daily Mail: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.5%Daily Mail: 5.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%Stacy Liberatore: 1.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 4.8%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.8%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Stacy Liberatore: 0.5%Daily Mail: 1.7%Ad Hominem4.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.8%Stacy Liberatore: 5.0%Daily Mail: 3.0%Appeal to Authority4.8%This article: 9.0%Stacy Liberatore: 1.0%Daily Mail: 0.9%False Dilemma9.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 3.4%Daily Mail: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.1%Stacy Liberatore: 5.7%Daily Mail: 3.9%Hasty Generalization17.1%This article: 6.9%Stacy Liberatore: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.4%Red Herring6.9%This article: 9.5%Stacy Liberatore: 1.8%Daily Mail: 0.8%Bandwagon9.5%This article: 7.3%Stacy Liberatore: 5.2%Daily Mail: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion7.3%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 1.2%Daily Mail: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.1%Stacy Liberatore: 0.7%Daily Mail: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.1%Daily Mail: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.7%Stacy Liberatore: 2.2%Daily Mail: 0.4%Burden of Proof1.7%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 8.2%Daily Mail: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.0%Stacy Liberatore: 2.4%Daily Mail: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.4%Daily Mail: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.6%Daily Mail: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.3%Daily Mail: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 44.1%Stacy Liberatore: 3.9%Daily Mail: 3.3%Unattributed Quote44.1%This article: 6.9%Stacy Liberatore: 1.9%Daily Mail: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.9%This article: 4.0%Stacy Liberatore: 3.3%Daily Mail: 8.9%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 3.5%Stacy Liberatore: 1.6%Daily Mail: 1.0%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.2%Daily Mail: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Stacy Liberatore: 0.0%Daily Mail: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

578 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech517writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageJeremy Corbell • 30 words • 100.0% coverageJeremy Corbell • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Jeremy Corbell

100%flagged-word coverage
61 attributed words100% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Unattributed Quote+5.7 ptsWriter: 43.5%Jeremy Corbell: 49.2%49.2%Quote-first Misdirection-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Jeremy Corbell: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%Jeremy Corbell: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Jeremy Corbell: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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