Did Trump confuse 'transistor' with 'transgender' in speech criticizing CHIPS Act? We examined footage 36%

By Anna Rascouët-Paz21%

7/20/2026, 9:00:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Biased Writer Voice, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 21.1% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,179 faulty-reasoning hits from 660 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.2% and a BS Rank of 36% (17,249 of 26,774 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 64.40% of the article peer group.

In July 2026, social media posts claimed U.S. 
President Donald Trump confused the words "transistor" and "transgender" during a speech criticizing the CHIPS and Science Act  a 2022 bipartisan effort to support the production of semiconductors in the U.S. 
Several social media posts made the claim on Facebook and X. 
All the posts included a video clip of Trump speaking, with one of them adding that "the difference" between transistors and transgender people "has been extensively documented" (archived): 
Apparently referring to the eligibility criteria to benefit from the CHIPS program, Trump supposedly said in the video, "the standards were so high. 
If you weren't transgender, as an example, uh you didn't qualify. 
So, they get the money, they hired, they look all over for transgender people to run the company, large portions. 
They couldn't find them." 
Several Snopes readers searched the website and emailed, seeking confirmation that Trump had confused "transistor" with "transgender." 
While the video is authentic and Trump made the false assertion about eligibility during a July 15, 2026, roundtable on defense and innovation in Pennsylvania, it's not clear that he mistook "transistor" for "transgender." 
We reached out to the White House seeking clarifications and we will update this report should they respond. 
Trump falsely asserted the CHIPS Act benefited trans people 
On July 15, 2026, Trump attended a roundtable on defense and innovation, which the White House streamed live on YouTube: 
As he spoke, Trump criticized the CHIPS Act and falsely asserted that it benefited transgender people (at the 19:58 mark in the video): 
> "We had this ridiculous CHIPS Act where you give billions of dollars to a company and they didn't even know what the hell to do with it. 
You give them billions of dollar, they say they're going to build. 
Nobody knew what to do it. 
> 
> **And of course the standards were so high. 
If you weren't transgender, as an example, you didn't qualify. 
So they get the money, they're hired, they look all over for transgender people to run the company, large portions, they couldn't find them. 
They weren't into the chip-making business, I guess, right? 
They had other things on their mind. 
> 
> But this was the Biden fools, those idiots that almost destroyed our country. 
But we're also reasserting the fundamental truth: to be a strong nation, you must be a manufacturing nation, of manufacturing jobs. 
** 
(Though Trump spoke of the CHIPS Act in the past tense, the law is still in effect as of this writing.) 
The CHIPS Act does not include provisions about trans people 
A review of the text of the CHIPS Act turned up no provisions regarding trans people (or transistors, for that matter). 
Instead, the program supports companies that manufacture semiconductors in the U.S., as well as domestic microelectronics research by universities, nonprofit organizations and other research groups. 
The law also seeks to support other domestic scientific research to protect national security interests. 
It received bipartisan support in the Senate and the House of Representatives when it passed in 2022. 
This was not the first time Trump appeared to falsely suggest piece of legislation included provisions on transgender people. 
For example in March 2026, Snopes examined his insistence that the SAVE America Act bill included a ban on on "men in women's sports" and "transgender mutilation surgery for children." 
Similarly, it would not be the first time people on the internet speculated Trump had confused an unrelated term to mean "transgender." 
In March 2025, Trump said in the first address to Congress of his second term that his new administration had identified wasteful spending from the previous administration of President Joe Biden, a Democrat. 
The waste, according to Trump, included "$8 million for making mice transgender." 
People on social media said he had intended to say "transgenic" mice  genetically modified rodents used in biomedical research. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.1%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.7%Snopes: 2.3%Confirmation Bias21.1%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: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.0%Snopes: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias8.8%This article: 1.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.0%Snopes: 2.1%Framing Effect1.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 3.9%Snopes: 4.3%Negativity Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.4%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.0%Snopes: 0.5%Halo Effect0.0%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: 2.9%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 1.4%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 3.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.2%Ad Hominem2.1%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 5.2%Snopes: 5.1%Appeal to Authority10.0%This article: 1.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.7%False Dilemma1.5%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: 16.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.8%Snopes: 3.2%Hasty Generalization16.7%This article: 4.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.0%Snopes: 0.6%Red Herring4.2%This article: 10.6%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.4%Snopes: 1.3%Bandwagon10.6%This article: 7.7%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion7.7%This article: 4.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.3%Begging the Question4.5%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: 4.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 2.1%Snopes: 1.4%Burden of Proof4.8%This article: 3.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.2%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.6%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 1.6%Anecdotal5.6%This article: 0.0%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.9%Snopes: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.5%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: 1.8%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy1.8%This article: 3.5%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.8%Snopes: 2.6%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 5.2%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.5%Snopes: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 15.3%Anna Rascouët-Paz: 1.4%Snopes: 2.1%Biased Writer Voice15.3%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%

660 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.5%attributed speech630writer words
Selected voice

Snopes

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.0 ptsWriter: 16.0%Snopes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Snopes: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Snopes: 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.