Trump’s wealth grew on a scale without modern presidential precedent ⁠81%

By Clara Ence Morse⁠0% Dan Diamond⁠97%

7/1/2026, 3:14:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Hasty Generalization as the most egregious example at 67.9% saturation with 53 hits. Analysis detected 365 faulty-reasoning hits from 78 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (6,087 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.10% of the article peer group.

No past president has seen financial gains in office like those reported by President Donald Trump this week — not even Trump. 
The president’s income last year soared to more than $2.2 billion, fueled by cryptocurrency holdings and related ventures, according to his latest financial disclosure forms. 
The figures represent a vast expansion over his first term, when Trump reported still-significant income gains but on a smaller scale. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 3.2%The Washington Post: 3.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 1.4%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Clara Ence Morse: 5.6%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic28.2%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 2.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.7%Clara Ence Morse: 31.4%The Washington Post: 21.4%Framing Effect39.7%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 1.5%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 26.9%Clara Ence Morse: 1.4%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias26.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 32.1%Clara Ence Morse: 2.5%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias32.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 3.1%The Washington Post: 3.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Clara Ence Morse: 33.7%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias12.8%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 1.7%The Washington Post: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 2.5%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.9%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 28.2%Clara Ence Morse: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect28.2%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 32.1%Clara Ence Morse: 1.7%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority32.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.9%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 4.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 67.9%Clara Ence Morse: 28.8%The Washington Post: 5.8%Hasty Generalization67.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 8.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 1.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 32.1%Clara Ence Morse: 2.5%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)32.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 1.6%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 67.9%Clara Ence Morse: 10.9%The Washington Post: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)67.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 32.1%Clara Ence Morse: 4.4%The Washington Post: 4.7%Unattributed Quote32.1%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 67.9%Clara Ence Morse: 41.7%The Washington Post: 15.1%Biased Writer Voice67.9%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 15.6%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.9%The Washington Post: 1.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Clara Ence Morse: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

78 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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