Raw Story91%

'This is nuts stuff': Disturbing threat alarms as Trump admin escalates midterms rhetoric 81%

By Robert Davis76%

7/19/2026, 11:42:36 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.8% saturation with 86 hits. Analysis detected 782 faulty-reasoning hits from 234 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.5% and a BS Rank of 81% (3,627 of 18,604 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.50% of the article peer group.

A disturbing threat from a Trump administration official regarding the 2026 midterm elections alarmed an analyst on Sunday. 
Jacob Soboroff, host of MS NOW's "Connect with Jacob Soboroff," discussed comments that Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin made during a recent press conference about election security. 
Mullin said during the event that he was directing states to "scrub their voter rolls" to comply with a series of new election mandates from the Trump administration. 
"If the election officials, once we gave them the information they need to secure their elections and they chose not to, then those individuals can also be held accountable by fines, by penalties, and even, depending on how far it goes, prison time," Mullin said. 
The threat alarmed Soborof. 
"This is nuts stuff," Soborof said. 
"While Donald Trump's first administration was filled with more traditional government officials or people with extensive military backgrounds, this time around, he is surrounded by people like these guys, Todd Blanche [and] Markwayne Mullin, people who are not pushing back on the president's worst impulses." 
The Trump administration has been escalating its rhetoric about election security as the midterms approach. 
Last week during his national address, Trump made a series of claims about foreign election interference and demanded that lawmakers pass his SAVE Act, a bill that would overhaul how elections are conducted. 
Confirmation Bias
6.4%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
7.7%
Representativeness Heuristic
0%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
19.7%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
36.8%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
19.2%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
19.2%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
22.2%
Primacy Effect
19.2%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
14.1%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
19.2%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
19.2%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
0%
Appeal to Emotion
34.2%
Begging the Question
0%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
6.4%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
0%
No True Scotsman
19.2%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
33.3%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
19.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
5.6%
Biased Writer Voice
13.2%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

234 words analyzed.

Analysis

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