Trump’s DOJ purges site of news releases on Jan 6 attack due to it being ‘partisan propaganda’ 14%

By Erin Keller0%

5/23/2026, 10:06:30 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Availability Heuristic, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.5% saturation with 129 hits. Analysis detected 654 faulty-reasoning hits from 527 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.2% and a BS Rank of 14% (14,601 of 16,813 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

The Justice Department has confirmed that it removed news releases from its website that documented criminal cases related to January 6, 2021, when MAGA supporters fought police and stormed the U.S. 
Capitol, calling the material “partisan propaganda.” 
The deleted pages included press releases that detailed charges, convictions and sentencing outcomes for defendants involved in the riot, when Trump supporters breached the Capitol in an effort to stop the certification of the 2020 election results after his loss to Joe Biden. 
The changes drew attention after Washington Post reporter Meryl Kornfield posted before-and-after screenshots of the DOJ website on X on Friday, alleging the department was “quietly deleting info” as it prepares to distribute funds to people convicted in connection with the riot. 
“Nothing ‘quiet’ about it,” the official DOJ Rapid Response account responded to Kornfield’s post. 
“We are proud to reverse the DOJ’s weaponization under the Biden administration. 
We will do everything in our power to make whole those who were persecuted for political purposes. 
This includes stripping DOJ’s website of partisan propaganda.” 
Among the deleted materials were high-profile case summaries involving members of far-right groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, who were previously convicted on charges including seditious conspiracy, Politico reports. 
Some of those convictions have since been vacated or dropped following recent Justice Department actions and court rulings. 
This is the latest step in the Trump administration’s effort to reshape the narrative around January 6. 
On his first day back in office in January 2025, Trump issued sweeping clemency measures tied to the Capitol attack, pardoning, commuting sentences or directing the dismissal of cases involving more than 1,500 defendants. 
The actions covered a range of cases, including people convicted of serious assaults on police officers during the riot. 
Some of those convictions involved attackers who used improvised weapons such as flagpoles, a hockey stick and a crutch during the breach of the Capitol. 
The Trump administration is also advancing a nearly $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund to compensate people it says were unfairly targeted by federal investigations, with eligibility potentially extending to some January 6 defendants, including those convicted of violence. 
The proposal has drawn bipartisan criticism over concerns that it could benefit people involved in the Capitol attack. 
Hundreds of riot defendants are now seeking multi-million-dollar payouts, as critics describe the program as a “slush fund” that could reward Trump allies and those charged in the assault. 
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has not ruled out payments to individuals who attacked police officers, while two officers injured during the riot have already filed lawsuits challenging the fund. 
Trump told reporters Wednesday that people he described as victims of “weaponization” under the Obama and Biden administrations  referring to allies investigated in connection with his 2016 and 2020 campaigns and January 6, were “destroyed,” saying they went to jail, had their families ruined, and some “committed suicide.” 
“We’re reimbursing those people for their legal fees and for their costs, and for anybody involved,” he said. 
“It was the most violent thing I’ve ever seen in politics.” 
Confirmation Bias
3.2%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
15.6%
Representativeness Heuristic
6.1%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
24.5%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
18.4%
Self-Serving Bias
6.6%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
0%
Primacy Effect
0%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
0%
False Dilemma
3.4%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
3.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
16.9%
Begging the Question
2.3%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
3.2%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
1.5%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
10.1%
Quote-first Misdirection
2.7%
Biased Writer Voice
3.2%
Indoctrination
3.2%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

527 words analyzed.

Analysis

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