Judges Rip Trump Apart 75 Times for Violating First Amendment 86%

By Hafiz Rashid85%

8/4/2026, 2:43:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 31% saturation with 93 hits. Analysis detected 801 faulty-reasoning hits from 300 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71% and a BS Rank of 86% (4,302 of 30,213 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

Despite campaigning to bring back free speech, President Trump has been a serial violator of the First Amendment to the Constitution, according to a new report. 
A Reuters investigation found 75 rulings from federal judges that Trump infringed on constitutional freedoms such as religion, freedom, and the press. 
Many had to do with the Trump administration’s attacks on pro-Palestine advocacy , and the rulings came from judges appointed by both Democratic and Republican presidents. 
In September, for example, a Reagan-appointed federal judge found that the administration illegally revoked visas and deported foreign faculty and students over their stance on Palestine and Israel. 
“The President’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech,” Young wrote in his ruling. 
Other judicial rebukes had to do with Trump’s attacks on law firms , his termination of grants for universities that seemingly go against his ideological agenda, and use of excessive force against protesters. 
Trump has attacked federal judges who rule against him, leveling insults and accusing them of being activists. 
While most of the president’s legal losses came from judges appointed by Democratic presidents, 10 of them came from Republican appointees. 
Many of the lawsuits filed against Trump came from media outlets or organizations that ideologically oppose Trump, Reuters found. 
Oftentimes, lawsuits were challenging Trump executive orders, which have sought to take revenge against Trump’s enemies or target ideological viewpoints that the president opposes. 
Trump has attacked everything from diversity, equity and ⁠inclusion to gender ideology with executive orders, with only federal courts standing in the way thanks to an unwilling Republican-controlled Congress. 
All of this goes to show that Trump may be the most anti-free speech president ever. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.7%Hafiz Rashid: 7.5%newrepublic.com: 5.1%Confirmation Bias19.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Hafiz Rashid: 4.0%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Availability Heuristic12.7%This article: 8.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 5.3%Hafiz Rashid: 0.9%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Hindsight Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.7%Hafiz Rashid: 10.7%newrepublic.com: 6.2%Framing Effect28.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.7%Hafiz Rashid: 3.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Pessimism Bias9.7%This article: 31.0%Hafiz Rashid: 15.8%newrepublic.com: 10.1%Negativity Bias31.0%This article: 8.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias8.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Hafiz Rashid: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.4%In-Group Bias6.3%This article: 6.3%Hafiz Rashid: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Hafiz Rashid: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 2.9%Ad Hominem5.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 9.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%False Dilemma9.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.3%Hafiz Rashid: 8.6%newrepublic.com: 6.2%Hasty Generalization17.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.3%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Bandwagon6.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 5.6%newrepublic.com: 4.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 8.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Begging the Question8.7%This article: 8.0%Hafiz Rashid: 3.4%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.3%Hafiz Rashid: 3.4%newrepublic.com: 1.7%Anecdotal9.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.3%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.7%Hafiz Rashid: 3.6%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Unattributed Quote9.7%This article: 9.7%Hafiz Rashid: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.7%This article: 8.7%Hafiz Rashid: 14.7%newrepublic.com: 11.4%Biased Writer Voice8.7%This article: 14.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Indoctrination14.0%This article: 8.7%Hafiz Rashid: 8.5%newrepublic.com: 5.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.7%This article: 9.7%Hafiz Rashid: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias9.7%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

300 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech230writer words
Selected voice

Young

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words41% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Young: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Young: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Young: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -12.6 ptsWriter: 12.6%Young: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%Young: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-11.3 ptsWriter: 11.3%Young: 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.