amny.com38%

Has ICE’s New York surge begun? Masked agents caught on camera across city stopping people, attacking protesters with pepper spray 72%

By Dean Moses53%

7/31/2026, 1:15:46 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Anecdotal, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 239 hits. Analysis detected 1,606 faulty-reasoning hits from 560 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.5% and a BS Rank of 72% (7,740 of 26,881 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.20% of the article peer group.

Has the ICE enforcement surge, that Trump's border czar Tom Homan threatened, started ? 
Some New York immigration activists fear it has. 
On Thursday and Friday, an influx of ICE agents was spotted throughout the five boroughs and on Long Island, marking an unusual rise in reported sightings. 
Videos quickly made the rounds on social media of ICE agents on New York City streets  wearing body armor and masks, in violation of state law  stopping people targeted for detention, and confronting those recording and/or protesting their presence. 
On July 30, masked agents were seen in Manhattan, Queens, and Brooklyn in larger groups than had previously been reported. 
In Bushwick, Brooklyn, several masked agents were seen questioning a family in a minivan and checking their passports, including that of a young child. 
The family was not reportedly detained. 
That same day, ICE agents were also spotted in East Elmhurst and Inwood. 
On Seaman and Isham Avenues in Inwood, a disturbing encounter was caught on camera that appeared to show a masked federal agent approaching a woman who was filming them on her cellphone while holding what appeared to be a canister of military-grade pepper spray. 
The agent then sprayed her in the face, according to the video, with no apparent justification. 
Local Council Member Carmen De La Rosa was quick to denounce the federal activity. 
"It is unacceptable to have the presence of ICE in our community without judicial warrants, simply walking near our parks, near our children, near our families in an immigrant community," De La Rosa said in a video posted to her Instagram. 
"It is our responsibility to step up and speak up on behalf of our neighbors, who at this moment cannot speak for themselves." 
On Friday morning, just before 10 a.m., a large group of ICE agents was spotted in East Elmhurst, where sources familiar with ICE activity said a person was taken into custody. 
The same sources said New York has seen an increase in ICE activity in neighborhoods where such operations had not previously been widely reported, including Inwood and College Point. 
They also said agents appear to be conducting more vehicle stops. 
The New York Immigration Coalition also issued an alert warning of increased immigration enforcement activity, writing: "We expect this trend to continue and potentially increase." 
The reported uptick in enforcement comes as fears mount over the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitian New Yorkers and follows Homan's pledge to surge ICE agents into New York. 
A spokesperson for NYC ICE Watch, an organization that monitors ICE activity in the city, said they believe this is the beginning of Homan's threats becoming a reality. 
"We have heard Tom Homan's threats. 
We have also heard the rumors. 
Thursday seemed to be the day that the ICE abductions really began to increase. 
So, yes, this is definitely an increase in ICE activity," the spokesperson said. 
"They have been pepper-spraying neighbors who have borne witness to their kidnappings, and as it seems that they are increasing their kidnappings in the city, they will only continue to be more violent unless they are stopped." 
As a result of Thursday and Friday's incidents, several protests in Brooklyn and Inwood are planned for Saturday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.0%Dean Moses: 4.9%amNewYork: 3.1%Confirmation Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Dean Moses: 4.5%amNewYork: 2.6%Availability Heuristic23.6%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.5%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.6%Hindsight Bias7.5%This article: 2.3%Dean Moses: 1.0%amNewYork: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 15.9%Dean Moses: 6.7%amNewYork: 4.6%Framing Effect15.9%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.3%amNewYork: 3.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 18.2%Dean Moses: 1.6%amNewYork: 0.9%Pessimism Bias18.2%This article: 42.7%Dean Moses: 10.6%amNewYork: 5.2%Negativity Bias42.7%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.4%amNewYork: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.7%amNewYork: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Dean Moses: 1.4%amNewYork: 0.9%In-Group Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.2%amNewYork: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.0%amNewYork: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Dean Moses: 1.7%amNewYork: 0.9%Recency Bias3.6%This article: 1.1%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Primacy Effect1.1%This article: 1.1%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 3.6%amNewYork: 2.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 11.1%Dean Moses: 1.7%amNewYork: 0.6%Slippery Slope11.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.1%Dean Moses: 6.1%amNewYork: 3.2%Hasty Generalization17.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 3.2%Dean Moses: 0.3%amNewYork: 0.5%Bandwagon3.2%This article: 14.6%Dean Moses: 7.5%amNewYork: 4.6%Appeal to Emotion14.6%This article: 3.6%Dean Moses: 0.5%amNewYork: 0.9%Begging the Question3.6%This article: 11.8%Dean Moses: 2.7%amNewYork: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.8%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.3%Dean Moses: 0.7%amNewYork: 0.4%Burden of Proof7.3%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.1%amNewYork: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.0%Dean Moses: 4.5%amNewYork: 1.7%Anecdotal22.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.1%Dean Moses: 2.1%amNewYork: 0.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.5%Dean Moses: 2.7%amNewYork: 1.0%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 13.9%Dean Moses: 2.1%amNewYork: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection13.9%This article: 10.4%Dean Moses: 6.6%amNewYork: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice10.4%This article: 12.1%Dean Moses: 1.7%amNewYork: 1.5%Indoctrination12.1%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 1.1%amNewYork: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.0%amNewYork: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Dean Moses: 0.6%amNewYork: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

560 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers37%attributed speech353writer words
Selected voice

Carmen De La Rosa

100%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words38% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Indoctrination+27.2 ptsWriter: 2.3%Carmen De La Rosa: 29.5%29.5%Biased Writer Voice-16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Carmen De La Rosa: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Carmen De La Rosa: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-11.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Carmen De La Rosa: 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.