Megyn Kelly faces backlash over ‘profoundly racist’ rant against Haitian immigrants after Supreme Court ruling 79%

By Rachel Dobkin74%

6/26/2026, 4:30:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Politically Left Leaning Bias, Ad Hominem, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.5% saturation with 164 hits. Analysis detected 1,210 faulty-reasoning hits from 699 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 62% and a BS Rank of 79% (6,634 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.30% of the article peer group.

Right-wing commentator Megyn Kelly is facing backlash over a vulgar rant against Haitian immigrants after the Supreme Court ruled that Donald Trump’s administration can take away humanitarian protections for tens of thousands of people. 
“Go home! 
Get out! 
We know our country is better than yours,” Kelly said on her podcast The Megyn Kelly Show on Thursday after the high court’s ruling. 
“That’s because we filled it with our work ethic and our culture and our values!” 
she said. 
“You being here only dilutes it for us, those who built it and live it. 
And half of you people  more than half of you  won’t assimilate. 
We don’t want you!” 
Kelly was reacting to a 6-3 decision from the Supreme Court’s conservative majority that allows the Department of Homeland Security to end Temporary Protected Status for Haiti and Syria, a decision that could force roughly 350,000 Haitians and thousands more Syrians to return to the countries they fled. 
“Profoundly racist. 
Morally reprehensible,” Professor Eddie S. 
Glaude Jr. of Princeton University’s African American Studies Department wrote on X in reaction to Kelly’s claims that Haitian immigrants lack work ethic and values. 
“We don’t care if you’re offended. 
Get out! 
Go home! 
Go back to f***ing Haiti!” 
Kelly said on her podcast. 
“Sorry, I’m thinking about our friends in Ohio who’ve been dealing with these TPS Haitians for years now,” she said. 
“This is the whole cats and dogs thing, like, they don’t want to live like Americans live,” she added. 
“And this was supposed to be a temporary  It was supposed to be temporary help, and it’s turned into another backdoor way of allowing someone permanent residency here.” 
Kelly was referencing baseless claims amplified by Trump during his 2024 campaign, when he accused Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, of “eating the pets.” 
Viles Dorsainvil, a Haitian immigrant in Ohio who lives in the U.S. under TPS, told reporters Thursday that the Supreme Court seemed to accept “all the conspiracy theories from the president against minority groups” with its decision. 
Democratic Rep. 
Yassamin Ansari of Arizona called Kelly’s claims about Haitian immigrants “just vile.” 
“Imagine having every privilege and opportunity in the world and choosing to dedicate your platform to spreading hatred about vulnerable people,” the congresswoman wrote on X. 
“Hope you find whatever humanity you’re missing, Megyn.” 
NewsNation’s Connell McShane, a former colleague of Kelly’s, called her an “a******.” 
“I didn't want to even bother listening to this, but I did for some reason. 
Megyn, you're such an a******, and this is simply not true,” he wrote on X. 
“The people I know and work with from Haiti are making this country better, not worse,” he said. 
“You, on the other hand…” 
Ohio-based writer Pedro L. 
Gonzalez accused Kelly of making crude comments for money and fame. 
“She became a cartoon white nationalist because she figured going that direction would get her the most attention. 
There are a lot of soulless grifters in the podcasting space, but Megyn Kelly has got to be in the top five,” he wrote. 
Katie Miller  the wife of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who is the architect of Trump’s most extreme immigration policies  also celebrated the Supreme Court ruling on TPS with false claims against Haitian immigrants. 
“Great news for the dogs and cats of Springfield,” she wrote on X Thursday. 
Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Miñana Family Center for Immigration Law and Policy at the UCLA School of Law, who argued the TPS case before the Supreme Court, lambasted the ruling. 
“The decision hands to the administration, and to the far right-wing of the anti-immigrant movement, an important victory that they have been unable to obtain through Congress for a number of years,” Arulanantham said at a press briefing Thursday. 
“The Supreme Court decision also finds it’s not even ‘likely’ that the president’s statements and Secretary Noem’s statements about Haitians were motivated by race discrimination,” the attorney said. 
“That conclusion is deeply troubling not just for immigration cases, but for the state of racial justice in this country more broadly.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 2.8%Confirmation Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%Rachel Dobkin: 2.6%The Independent: 3.1%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 2.1%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.8%The Independent: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 7.8%The Independent: 7.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.3%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias3.1%This article: 23.5%Rachel Dobkin: 9.4%The Independent: 11.5%Negativity Bias23.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.0%The Independent: 2.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Rachel Dobkin: 1.5%The Independent: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error1.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%In-Group Bias9.3%This article: 5.4%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Rachel Dobkin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.0%Ad Hominem16.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.6%Rachel Dobkin: 3.2%The Independent: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.6%This article: 5.6%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma5.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.9%Rachel Dobkin: 3.0%The Independent: 3.9%Hasty Generalization11.9%This article: 3.4%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring3.4%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 10.9%Rachel Dobkin: 6.0%The Independent: 6.2%Appeal to Emotion10.9%This article: 4.1%Rachel Dobkin: 0.9%The Independent: 0.8%Begging the Question4.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.2%The Independent: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.6%Rachel Dobkin: 1.2%The Independent: 2.1%Anecdotal2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.6%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy1.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.4%The Independent: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 5.6%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 7.0%Rachel Dobkin: 7.3%The Independent: 7.3%Biased Writer Voice7.0%This article: 3.1%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 1.2%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 19.9%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias19.9%This article: 2.6%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

699 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers81%attributed speech130writer words
Selected voice

Katie Miller

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words9.3% of attributed speech58% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Politically Left Leaning B+55.1 ptsWriter: 18.5%Katie Miller: 73.6%73.6%Biased Writer Voice-37.7 ptsWriter: 37.7%Katie Miller: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-30.0 ptsWriter: 30.0%Katie Miller: 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.