Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

40
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
73% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️ on X

A point that isn’t hammered hard enough by ICE and admin spox imo is that these dangerous raids - in more ways than one - happen BECAUSE of sanctuary city/state policies. In red states following our immigration laws, most of these people are getting picked up at the courthouse or…

Posted by Inez Stepman ⚪️🔴⚪️
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 3/5
Presents stark choice: sanctuary = raids/danger, or follow laws = courthouse pickups; ignores nuances like partial cooperation.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 4/5
Divides into 'red states following our immigration laws' (good) vs. sanctuary 'city/state policies' (causing danger).
Simplistic Narratives 4/5
Frames sanctuary policies as sole cause of 'dangerous raids' vs. compliant red states' safe outcomes; clear good-vs-bad binary.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Post aligns organically with Jan 7 Minneapolis ICE shooting and Jan 10-13 protests/raids in sanctuary areas; no suspicious distraction from other news like Syrian clashes.
Historical Parallels 1/5
Echoes standard sanctuary critiques since 1980s without propaganda tactics; no ties to known disinformation campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Bolsters Trump admin/ICE narrative and GOP anti-sanctuary push (e.g., Noem's agent surge); benefits conservatives ideologically, no paid links found.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No appeals to consensus like 'everyone knows'; presented as personal insight ('imo').
Rapid Behavior Shifts 3/5
Contributes to post-shooting momentum on ICE raids trend; protests/influencer amplification create moderate pressure to accept sanctuary blame.
Phrase Repetition 4/5
Repeats verbatim across X (e.g., VP Vance on 'chaotic raids in blue sanctuary cities'); clustered posts blame sanctuary for raids vs. jail pickups.
Logical Fallacies 4/5
Causal claim ('raids happen BECAUSE of sanctuary policies') assumes full causation; overlooks federal priorities.
Authority Overload 1/5
No cited experts or officials; relies on unnamed 'ICE and admin spox' and personal opinion.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Selective contrast of red vs. blue state arrests without stats on volumes, risks, or criminal convictions.
Framing Techniques 4/5
'Dangerous raids' negatively frames enforcement; 'following our immigration laws' positively valorizes red states.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No negative labels for sanctuary advocates or critics; focuses on policy effects.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits sanctuary goals (e.g., crime reporting trust); no data on raid targets (criminals) or red state cooperation details.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' claims; routine policy contrast between sanctuary cities and red states, nothing portrayed as novel.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Single use of 'dangerous raids'; no repeated emotional triggers or escalating language.
Manufactured Outrage 3/5
Implies outrage at sanctuary policies causing 'dangerous raids,' somewhat amplified as disconnected from routine enforcement, but grounded in current events.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No explicit demands for action; only suggests ICE spokespeople should 'hammer' the point harder, allowing gradual consideration.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Phrases like 'dangerous raids - in more ways than one' evoke fear of risks to agents and communities from sanctuary policies, stirring moderate emotional concern without overwhelming outrage.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Appeal to fear-prejudice Name Calling, Labeling Reductio ad hitlerum Straw Man

What to Watch For

This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else