Daily Kos85%

Border czar says ICE killings weren’t mistakes 97%

By Emily Singer83%

7/20/2026, 10:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Anecdotal, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.8% saturation with 235 hits. Analysis detected 1,563 faulty-reasoning hits from 414 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 95.4% and a BS Rank of 97% (658 of 21,180 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 96.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan is shamelessly defending the latest killings carried out by immigration agents, saying that those who were killed deserved it. 
Homan, who appeared angry about being asked questions about these killings, blamed people who criticize Immigration and Customs Enforcement for the executions, saying that their rhetoric about wanting to abolish the agency somehow “emboldened” the victims to not comply with agents' demands. 
"You can attack the men and women of ICE all you want. 
It comes down to one simple fact: these people failed to comply with law enforcement," Homan said Monday. 
"All they had to do is comply. 
If they did, they'd be alive today." 
He concluded, “If they did, they'd be alive today.” 
This revisionist history is truly disturbing. 
First, many of the people who were killed were engaging with immigration agents' demands—or at least trying to, despite getting conflicting orders from the unqualified maniacs who have been hired to carry out Trump's racist and cruel mass deportation efforts. 
Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse who was shot and killed in Minneapolis in January, was not even engaging with agents when he was executed. 
And that same month, Renee Good was given conflicting orders while observing immigration raids in Minneapolis before an agent shot her in the head. 
And the 25-year-old Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero was heard saying "I tried to stop" before he was shot to death in Maine last week. 
Homan's disturbing victim blaming was made even worse when he said that some of the killings in Minnesota weren't mistakes. 
"All the mistakes they say happened in Minnesota—the mistakes they claim in Minnesota—a lot of them I don't think were mistakes," Homan said, stumbling over his words. 
He then tried to blame Democrats for ICE agents refusing to wear body cameras—footage from which would likely prove that the Trump administration has been lying about these killings—even though ICE was given tens of millions of dollars to purchase the devices. 
Homan’s despicable comments will likely be used against Republicans in the midterms. 
GOP Sen. 
Susan Collins of Maine, for example, will likely have to answer questions about whether she thinks Guerrero would still be alive today if he complied with agents or if his death was a mistake. 
Ultimately, polls show that voters disapprove of ICE's conduct, with a majority now in favor of abolishing the agency altogether. 
And Homan’s latest atrocious comments are unlikely to change voters’ minds. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.8%Emily Singer: 6.3%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%Emily Singer: 4.0%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic21.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.9%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias3.9%This article: 6.5%Emily Singer: 2.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias6.5%This article: 20.8%Emily Singer: 9.8%Daily Kos: 9.0%Framing Effect20.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.1%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Emily Singer: 2.9%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias4.3%This article: 40.8%Emily Singer: 19.0%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias40.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.1%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.1%Emily Singer: 4.3%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error10.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.3%Daily Kos: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Emily Singer: 2.2%Daily Kos: 1.4%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Emily Singer: 8.8%Daily Kos: 5.9%Ad Hominem4.8%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 3.8%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 14.3%Emily Singer: 2.0%Daily Kos: 2.4%False Dilemma14.3%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 18.8%Emily Singer: 9.8%Daily Kos: 9.7%Hasty Generalization18.8%This article: 10.1%Emily Singer: 1.3%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring10.1%This article: 7.7%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 8.9%Emily Singer: 7.8%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.9%Emily Singer: 6.2%Daily Kos: 4.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.0%Emily Singer: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof20.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 27.1%Emily Singer: 1.5%Daily Kos: 2.1%Anecdotal27.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.5%Emily Singer: 1.8%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 9.7%Emily Singer: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy9.7%This article: 26.6%Emily Singer: 2.7%Daily Kos: 2.7%Unattributed Quote26.6%This article: 2.9%Emily Singer: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection2.9%This article: 56.8%Emily Singer: 27.3%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice56.8%This article: 4.3%Emily Singer: 1.4%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 24.6%Emily Singer: 14.3%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Singer: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

414 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker51%attributed speech204writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 26 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 42 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 12 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 18 words • 0.0% coverageTom Homan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTom Homan • 7 words • 0.0% coverageTom Homan • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 27 words • 100.0% coverageTom Homan • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Tom Homan

100%flagged-word coverage
210 attributed words100% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.1 ptsWriter: 58.8%Tom Homan: 54.8%54.8%Unattributed Quote-13.3 ptsWriter: 33.3%Tom Homan: 20.0%20.0%Politically Left Leaning B+9.9 ptsWriter: 19.6%Tom Homan: 29.5%29.5%Indoctrination-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Tom Homan: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+5.7 ptsWriter: 0.0%Tom Homan: 5.7%5.7%

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.