After Birthplace Citizenship Ruling, China Won’t Need Hackers To Meddle In US Elections 100%

By Jordan Boyd81%

7/17/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Indoctrination, Negativity Bias, and Unattributed Quote, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 96% saturation with 429 hits. Analysis detected 2,912 faulty-reasoning hits from 447 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of 100% (3 of 17,335 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

One of the biggest revelations from President Donald Trump’s declassified election document dump on Thursday night was a report indicating the Chinese Communist Party acquired and exploited American voter data to influence the 2020 election. 
One FBI information report released alleged China manufactured tens of thousands of fraudulent drivers’ licenses using data harvested “from millions of TikTok accounts” to ensure noncitizen “Chinese students and immigrants sympathetic” to the authoritarian regime could send mail-in votes for Joe Biden in 2020. 
The allegation is alarming, but not as alarming as the fact that, over the next few decades, China could hack U.S. elections without ever breaking a law, risking punishment, or even raising the eyebrows of the intelligence community. 
Thanks to the Supreme Court’s recent birthplace citizenship ruling, the CCP doesn’t need to manufacture fake IDs to sway votes in favor of Democrats. 
All China has to do to take advantage of America’s elections is to use the birth tourism industry to manufacture babies who are entitled to real American IDs as soon as they are born in the U.S. 
China is already a known top exploiter of the U.S. birth tourism industry. 
One 2024 report claimed Chinese nationals made up 41.7 percent of the surrogacy contracts between foreigners and American women between 2014 and 2020. 
During that same time period, foreigners’ use of the American birthplace citizenship surrogacy scheme increased by 78 percent. 
At that rate, the CCP could ballot-harvest an entire generation of Americans who are sold to any foreigner rich enough to rent a U.S. woman’s womb, get that baby’s U.S. paperwork, and whisk the child back to be raised in China. 
Because the Supreme Court ruled that if an infant is born on magic U.S. dirt, that child will be entitled to all of the rights of an American child, including the right to cast a ballot as an overseas citizen voter, even though he is susceptible to indoctrination and weaponization by Xi Jinping’s communist regime. 
The CCP has already proved it can infiltrate American universities, installing spies posing as students and professors to steal U.S. research and trade secrets. 
According to a series of declassified memos from an unnamed “sensitive government agency,” China also “had developed capabilities” ahead of the 2020 election to “encourage,” among other hot-button issues, violent demonstrations such as Black Lives Matter riots on both social media and in corporate media. 
Birthplace citizenship promises China the opportunity to prime political interference in children even younger than college students and online-addicted teens. 
For the CCP, violating America’s sovereignty starts in the cradle  no TikTok user data harvesting required. 
Confirmation Bias
24.6%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
19.2%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
21.3%
Framing Effect
28.9%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
37.4%
Negativity Bias
41.2%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
2.9%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
15.2%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
38.3%
False Dilemma
6.7%
Slippery Slope
30.4%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
35.6%
Red Herring
10.1%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
24.4%
Begging the Question
21.5%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
9.4%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
16.3%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
9.2%
Anecdotal
15%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
9.8%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
8.3%
Genetic Fallacy
8.3%
Unattributed Quote
39.8%
Quote-first Misdirection
21.7%
Biased Writer Voice
96%
Indoctrination
54.8%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
5.4%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

447 words analyzed.

Analysis

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