Vox · left

Why Trump is at war with the International Criminal Court

Open the full analysis → Read the original article at Vox →

Flags are about wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check

Wording

9%of the article’s sentences use a rhetorical technique

Tap a technique to see where it’s used.

What these techniques mean

Appeal to Fear Raising a threat to drive the reader’s view.Show the first one ↓

Sovereignty Rhetoric Show the first one ↓

Loaded Language Emotionally charged words that push a reaction instead of giving information.Show the first one ↓

False Equivalence Show the first one ↓

ClaimsCheck the factual claims in this article →

What the model flagged

underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words tap a technique for why

“the court could "target" American citizens, such as Border Patrol agents or US soldiers”

↓

Appeal to Fear · “the court could "target" American citizens, such as Border Patrol agents or US soldiers”Why ›

The quote frames the ICC as a threat that could 'target' American citizens including Border Patrol agents and soldiers, creating anxiety about a foreign institution threatening Americans.

“the Trump administration's goal is to "dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary"”

↓

Sovereignty Rhetoric · “the Trump administration's goal is to "dismantle the ICC—brick by brick, if necessary"”Why ›

The stated goal of dismantling the ICC invokes the principle that American citizens should not be subject to an international court, deflecting accountability by asserting national self-determination.

↓

Loaded LanguageWhy ›

Emotionally charged words chosen to trigger a reaction rather than convey facts.

“everyone comes out not looking great here”

↑

False Equivalence · “everyone comes out not looking great here”Why ›

The phrase implies all parties are equally culpable without distinguishing between their actions, creating an artificial moral balance.

Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →

↑ Back to the results

Analyzed 2026-08-01 18:16 UTC. Articles are sometimes updated after publication — if a quote here isn't in the current version, the piece has changed since.

Analyzed automatically with Semblen's fine-tuned model. These are rhetorical techniques, not political tilt — and finding one is not a claim that the article is false. Findings include language the outlet is quoting rather than asserting: we flag techniques wherever they appear, so check each quote against the original. The model has known false positives on strong-but-legitimate language, so treat each finding as a prompt to read closely, not a verdict. How articles are chosen →