WAMU15%

If You Can Keep It: Trump’s election attacks 69%

7/13/2026, 12:37:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Authority, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31.7% saturation with 73 hits. Analysis detected 566 faulty-reasoning hits from 230 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.1% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,883 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.60% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration is threatening top election officials with criminal prosecution if any ballot is cast by noncitizens in their state. 
That’s according to a letter from the Justice Department sent last week to all 50 states and the District of Columbia. 
The president’s threats raise the specter of noncitizen voting. 
In Michigan, for example, officials found that only 16 noncitizens voted in the 2024 election. 
That’s 0.00028 percent of the state’s total votes. 
And in Texas, their state investigation found about 100 potential noncitizen voters in 2024, though Gov. 
Greg Abbot initially suggested that there were over 1,900 potential noncitizen voters in the state. 
The Trump administration’s efforts to sow doubt in elections doesn’t stop there. 
Last Thursday, President Trump fired the remaining members of the bipartisan federal Election Assistance Commission, just months ahead of this year’s midterms. 
And the Federal Emergency Management Agency warned states it will withhold a percentage of antiterrorism preparedness funds if states don’t change the way they conduct elections, including implementing paper ballots, verifying citizenship, and running costly audits. 
In this installment of our weekly politics series, “If You Can Keep It,” we look at the administration’s attacks on the election process. 
How is it affecting the way that Americans’ perceive their elections  and what that all means for freedom and fairness of our elections. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.2%WAMU: 2.2%Confirmation Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.9%WAMU: 2.9%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 6.5%WAMU: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic6.5%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%WAMU: 5.2%Framing Effect29.1%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%WAMU: 2.3%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 31.7%WAMU: 7.4%Negativity Bias31.7%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.1%WAMU: 1.3%Recency Bias16.1%This article: 9.6%WAMU: 0.4%Primacy Effect9.6%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.8%WAMU: 2.8%Appeal to Authority24.8%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%WAMU: 4.5%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 3.9%WAMU: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion3.9%This article: 10.4%WAMU: 0.6%Begging the Question10.4%This article: 9.6%WAMU: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%WAMU: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.3%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 15.7%WAMU: 1.2%Unattributed Quote15.7%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.9%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.6%WAMU: 2.7%Biased Writer Voice22.6%This article: 10.4%WAMU: 1.0%Indoctrination10.4%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%WAMU: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.4%WAMU: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.4%

230 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers22%attributed speech179writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Abbot • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageFederal Emergency Management Agency • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
36 attributed words71% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Federal Emergency Management Agency: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.1 ptsWriter: 29.1%Federal Emergency Management Agency: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Federal Emergency Management Agency: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -13.4 ptsWriter: 13.4%Federal Emergency Management Agency: 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.