Trump says he ‘may’ pull Blanche AG nomination temporarily 26%

By Danielle Kurtzleben71% NPR78% RYAN LUCAS88%

7/30/2026, 1:16:26 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Recency Bias, and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 21% saturation with 120 hits. Analysis detected 623 faulty-reasoning hits from 571 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 31.8% and a BS Rank of 26% (20,868 of 28,112 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 74.20% of the article peer group.

President Trump says he is willing to pull Todd Blanche's nomination for attorney general. 
The news comes as two key Republicans are withholding their support over concerns about the Justice Department’s deal with President Trump to end his IRS lawsuit. 
Trump said Thursday he was willing to end the nomination, but he was by no means conciliatory in his tone, saying he would keep Blanche on as acting attorney general and renominate him later. 
In addition, Trump took aim at the two Republican senators withholding their support  John Cornyn of Texas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, both of whose support Blanche would need to advance in his nomination in committee. 
“I have no objection to temporarily withdrawing Todd's name, if they do not do the right thing, and putting him back after Cornyn and Tillis are out of office,” Trump wrote in a social media post. 
Both Cornyn and Tillis are leaving Congress in January. 
Tillis announced his retirement last year, after publicly clashing with Trump over his massive tax-and-spending bill. 
Cornyn lost his primary this year to a Trump-backed challenger. 
In his post, Trump bragged that both senators' “political careers have been ended by my action.” 
Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer, has been a contentious pick to lead the Justice Department amid questions about his handling of the Epstein files, the targeting of Trump's political foes and the broader politicization of justice. 
Tillis and Cornyn this week voiced their opposition to Blanche over an agreement the Justice Department struck to end President Trump's IRS lawsuit over his leaked tax returns. 
The settlement included the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund, which Cornyn and Tillis have vocally opposed for weeks. 
That fund would compensate people who alleged they were unfairly targeted by the government, meaning money could have gone to defendants charged with wrongdoing in the Jan. 6 riots. 
A second, related part was a sweeping immunity deal for Trump, his family and businesses from audits of past tax returns. 
Blanche has said the fund is not moving forward, but Cornyn and Tillis wanted written guarantees from the Justice Department about the scope of the tax immunity deal  guarantees that they said the DOJ would not provide. 
“For some reason, I don’t know whether it’s the staff of the DOJ or who it is, but they simply, they know what they need to do, but they simply refuse to do it,” Cornyn told reporters this week. 
In response to Trump's Thursday post, Cornyn responded with his own post: “POTUS is mistaken if he believes concerns about the provisions in his tax lawsuit settlement are limited to me and Senator Tillis.” 
Democrats have been united in opposition to his nomination, while Republicans have, by and large, been supportive. 
In addition to criticizing the anti-weaponization fund, Tillis had also been vocal in criticizing Blanche's handling of the scandal around the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. 
Late Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee chairman, GOP Sen. 
Chuck Grassley of Iowa, announced the planned vote on Blanche was postponed as work continues to secure sufficient support for his nomination. 
While Trump says he would renominate Blanche once Cornyn and Tillis are gone from the Senate, that plan would be far more difficult if Democrats win the Senate in November  a distinct possibility given this year’s map and Trump's low approval ratings. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.9%Houston Public Media: 1.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.8%Houston Public Media: 2.3%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 3.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.0%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic3.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.8%Danielle Kurtzleben: 5.1%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Overconfidence Bias6.8%This article: 6.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 9.2%Houston Public Media: 3.6%Framing Effect6.0%This article: 6.3%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.3%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.8%Houston Public Media: 2.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.5%Houston Public Media: 1.0%Pessimism Bias7.5%This article: 21.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 11.2%Houston Public Media: 3.9%Negativity Bias21.0%This article: 2.8%Danielle Kurtzleben: 4.4%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias2.8%This article: 6.3%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.3%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.3%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.9%Houston Public Media: 1.2%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.9%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.2%Houston Public Media: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.5%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.1%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.4%Houston Public Media: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.9%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.0%Houston Public Media: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 7.5%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.5%Houston Public Media: 0.7%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 2.8%Houston Public Media: 1.7%Hasty Generalization3.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.1%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.4%Houston Public Media: 3.7%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.1%Houston Public Media: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 2.8%Danielle Kurtzleben: 3.2%Houston Public Media: 1.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)2.8%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.7%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.1%Houston Public Media: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.3%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.2%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.5%Houston Public Media: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.3%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.7%Houston Public Media: 0.9%Unattributed Quote6.3%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 1.1%Houston Public Media: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.3%Danielle Kurtzleben: 6.9%Houston Public Media: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice6.3%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.4%Houston Public Media: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danielle Kurtzleben: 0.0%Houston Public Media: 0.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

571 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers26%attributed speech424writer words
Selected voice

Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words35% of attributed speech41% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+69.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 69.2%69.2%Biased Writer Voice-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Trump: 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.