WAMU16%

If You Can Keep It: Trump’s election attacks 67%

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

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 19.1% saturation with 44 hits. Analysis detected 88 faulty-reasoning hits from 230 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62.1% and a BS Rank of 67% (5,172 of 15,517 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.70% 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. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
0%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
19.1%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
0%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
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
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
0%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
0%
Quote-first Misdirection
0%
Biased Writer Voice
0%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
19.1%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

230 words analyzed.

Analysis

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