Did Trump say he talked to Jesus? 40%

By Anna Rascouët-Paz21%

7/11/2026, 11:00:10 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 729 faulty-reasoning hits from 352 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.2% and a BS Rank of 40% (16,161 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 60.10% of the article peer group.

In July 2026, an image circulated online supposedly showing a post by U.S. 
President Donald Trump on Truth Social saying he talked to Jesus. 
A screenshot authentically shows a December 2025 post by U.S. 
President Donald Trump on Truth Social saying that he talked to Jesus. 
The alleged screenshot appeared on Threads and Facebook, with one post saying "the president is clearly delusional" (archived). 
Image courtesy of Dilara Irem Sancar/Anadolu via Getty Images 
The supposed post read: 
“You know, I've known Jesus for a long time. 
He often says, "Donald Trump, we are really close friends and my father is happy that you're making America Great Again. 
It's my favorite country." 
When he saved my ear from the bullet he whispered in my ear, the one that was saved, and said, "The whole world owes you a debt of gratitude for being so Christian and having perfect morals." 
The image was not new. 
Social media users had been sharing it since at least December 2025, when it appeared on Facebook and Threads, with some people saying the post was proof that Trump had dementia. 
However, the image had been fabricated to present those words as Trump's. 
As a result, we have rated it fake. 
We could find no evidence that the post was real. 
We didn't find it on the president's Truth Social feed. 
A keyword search in the archive of Trump's Truth Social posts revealed no such post. 
In addition, the font's proportions did not match those from the real Truth Social website, and it did not include a date. 
We also searched for reports from reputable news organizations about this supposed post, to no avail. 
General searches on Google, Bing or DuckDuckgo revealed no evidence that this post was real, either. 
The earliest instance of this image we could find was posted Dec. 13, 2025, on Threads (archived) with the comment, "He's a Very Disturbed man." 
The Threads account appeared to post memes several times a day without citing sources. 
For further reading, we've covered a number of fake posts attributed to Trump. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.7%Snopes: 2.2%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.7%Snopes: 3.0%Availability Heuristic10.5%This article: 4.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.0%Snopes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 6.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.0%Snopes: 2.1%Framing Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 3.9%Snopes: 4.3%Negativity Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.4%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.0%Snopes: 0.5%Halo Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 1.4%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.8%This article: 12.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.2%Ad Hominem12.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.1%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 5.2%Snopes: 5.1%Appeal to Authority15.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.8%Snopes: 3.2%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 3.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.0%Snopes: 0.6%Red Herring3.7%This article: 8.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.4%Snopes: 1.3%Bandwagon8.8%This article: 12.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 2.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.3%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.0%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.1%Snopes: 1.4%Burden of Proof20.5%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 1.6%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.9%Snopes: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.3%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.8%Snopes: 2.6%Unattributed Quote27.3%This article: 5.4%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.5%Snopes: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.4%Snopes: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

352 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.