People in the US: share your views on Trump’s earnings in his second term ⁠67%

By Guardian community team⁠0%

7/1/2026, 12:02:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 11 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Recency Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 39.5% saturation with 88 hits. Analysis detected 495 faulty-reasoning hits from 223 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠67% (7,242 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.90% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump has earned more than $1bn from his crypto businesses since returning to the White House, according to recent financial disclosures. 
According to a 927-page document released on Tuesday by the US Office of Government Ethics, in all, the US president made more than $2.2bn last year, benefiting from a vast global network of businesses and investments. 
That figure includes all the president’s revenue, from sources ranging from real estate and golf courses to royalty deals and Trump-branded products such as cologne. 
He also took tens of millions of dollars in court settlements. 
In his second term, the president and his family have invested heavily in digital money and crypto businesses, with Trump announcing at the start of last year that he wanted the US to be the “crypto capital of the world”. 
He has received some $1.1bn from his World Liberty Financial and CIC Digital LLC businesses, which sell “governance tokens” and souvenir-type “memecoins” stamped with his face. 
Anna Kelly, a White House spokesperson, said: “Neither the president nor his family has ever engaged – or will ever engage – in conflicts of interest. 
We want to hear from you – what do you think about Trump’s vast earnings during his second term Do you have concerns? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.5%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%Guardian community team: 4.4%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 11.7%Guardian community team: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.5%Guardian community team: 15.5%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect39.5%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 4.8%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.9%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.8%Guardian community team: 7.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias36.8%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.4%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.2%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 4.7%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.9%Guardian community team: 3.2%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias17.9%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.7%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.1%Guardian community team: 4.1%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority16.1%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.4%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.9%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 5.3%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 12.4%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.6%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 11.2%Guardian community team: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division11.2%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 2.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 29.6%Guardian community team: 2.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)29.6%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 11.7%Guardian community team: 1.8%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection11.7%This article: 14.8%Guardian community team: 20.8%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice14.8%This article: 16.6%Guardian community team: 12.5%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination16.6%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Guardian community team: 4.2%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

223 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker12%attributed speech197writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageAnna Kelly • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Anna Kelly

0%flagged-word coverage
26 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Indoctrination-18.8 ptsWriter: 18.8%Anna Kelly: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.8 ptsWriter: 16.8%Anna Kelly: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-13.2 ptsWriter: 13.2%Anna Kelly: 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.