Forbes⁠45%

Trump Says ICE Should Continue Making Traffic Stops—Contradicting DHS Pause ⁠83%

By Zachary Folk⁠34%

7/15/2026, 12:48:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 9 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Recency Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 88% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 461 faulty-reasoning hits from 83 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 75% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,570 of 20,541 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.60% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump said Immigration and Customs Enforcement should continue using traffic stops, insisting “we CANNOT give up one of I.C.E.’s most important and effective Crime Fighting tools,” one day after the Department of Homeland Security ordered the agency to pause vehicle stops. 
Trump called traffic stops one of ICE’s “most important and effective crime fighting tools,” one day after the DHS paused the tactic in the wake of two officer-involved deadly shootings. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 88.0%Zachary Folk: 5.7%Forbes: 3.3%Confirmation Bias88.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 1.0%Forbes: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 1.4%Forbes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 3.3%Forbes: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%Zachary Folk: 10.1%Forbes: 6.0%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.7%Forbes: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 3.2%Forbes: 3.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 88.0%Zachary Folk: 12.3%Forbes: 5.6%Negativity Bias88.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.8%Forbes: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 88.0%Zachary Folk: 5.1%Forbes: 1.6%Recency Bias88.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 8.1%Forbes: 4.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 2.8%Forbes: 5.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.4%Forbes: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 88.0%Zachary Folk: 3.2%Forbes: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion88.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 51.8%Zachary Folk: 3.6%Forbes: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)51.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.8%Forbes: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 36.1%Zachary Folk: 3.5%Forbes: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)36.1%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.8%Zachary Folk: 2.5%Forbes: 1.2%Unattributed Quote51.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 1.3%Forbes: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 51.8%Zachary Folk: 1.9%Forbes: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice51.8%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 6.9%Forbes: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.0%Forbes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zachary Folk: 0.5%Forbes: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

83 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker88%attributed speech10writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 43 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 30 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
73 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+58.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 58.9%58.9%Biased Writer Voice+58.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 58.9%58.9%

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.