The Blaze86%

Karoline Leavitt rips into WaPo for 'BS story' about Trump and Hegseth 67%

By Carlos Garcia78%

8/6/2026, 5:45:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Begging the Question, Burden of Proof, and Negativity Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 33.2% saturation with 131 hits. Analysis detected 926 faulty-reasoning hits from 394 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 67% (10,325 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.20% of the article peer group.

A report from the Washington Post claiming President Donald Trump is angry at Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been vehemently denied by the White House on social media. 
The report said that the military's stockpile of long-range missiles had been extremely depleted by the strikes against Iran, and the president was blaming Hegseth. 
'Unfortunately for them, the President loves the Secretary and thinks he’s doing a tremendous job. 
FAKE NEWS!' 
"I was at Camp David with President Trump and Secretary Hegseth. 
This literally never happened, and we told the Washington Post that repeatedly," wrote Leavitt on social media Wednesday. 
"This B.S. story was shopped to many outlets by someone clearly out to disparage the Secretary, for whatever reason," she added. 
"Unfortunately for them, the President loves the Secretary and thinks he’s doing a tremendous job. 
FAKE NEWS!" 
The report depended on two sources who claimed to have knowledge about the interaction between Trump and Hegseth at Camp David. 
One source said the depletion of military resources was limiting what options the president had going forward. 
Hegseth reportedly blamed War Deputy Secretary Steve Feinberg for persuading the president that Iran would quickly capitulate after the attacks. 
The report did include a statement of denial from Leavitt. 
"This is 100% fake news. 
Literally never happened. 
And President Trump has the utmost confidence in Secretary Hegseth," she responded. 
Pentagon chief spokesman Sean Parnell also offered a denial of the story. 
"Secretary Hegseth did not mislead anyone about our munitions posture, and he did not blame Deputy Secretary Feinberg. 
These claims about depleted stockpiles, internal disagreements, the Secretary’s position on Iran ... are equally fictional," he responded. 
RELATED: 'Why do you have to announce it to the world?': Trump REBUKES Netanyahu over Iran's nukes 
The economic fallout of the strikes on gas prices and inflation has led to some dissent among the supporters of the president. 
Trump has continued to insist that the polling in the mainstream media is wrong. 
"My REAL Polling Numbers, not those made up by the Fake News Media, are the best they have ever been, and why wouldn’t they be," he wrote on Truth Social on Monday. 
"Don’t believe the Radical Left’s Fake Poll numbers. 
They are Crooked and Corrupt, just like the Country Destroying Dumocrats are Crooked and Corrupt." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.2%Carlos Garcia: 4.0%Blaze Media: 5.0%Confirmation Bias33.2%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 3.1%Blaze Media: 2.9%Availability Heuristic8.1%This article: 2.8%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic2.8%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias10.2%This article: 3.0%Carlos Garcia: 10.0%Blaze Media: 8.4%Framing Effect3.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 1.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.6%Pessimism Bias5.6%This article: 16.5%Carlos Garcia: 11.5%Blaze Media: 9.0%Negativity Bias16.5%This article: 15.2%Carlos Garcia: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias15.2%This article: 9.1%Carlos Garcia: 1.5%Blaze Media: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error9.1%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.6%Carlos Garcia: 1.0%Blaze Media: 1.0%Recency Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.3%Blaze Media: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Carlos Garcia: 3.3%Blaze Media: 2.5%Ad Hominem11.7%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.8%Blaze Media: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.8%Blaze Media: 3.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 2.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.6%Blaze Media: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.3%Carlos Garcia: 4.4%Blaze Media: 7.6%Hasty Generalization5.3%This article: 4.3%Carlos Garcia: 1.4%Blaze Media: 0.7%Red Herring4.3%This article: 8.1%Carlos Garcia: 0.8%Blaze Media: 0.7%Bandwagon8.1%This article: 8.9%Carlos Garcia: 9.8%Blaze Media: 7.6%Appeal to Emotion8.9%This article: 18.8%Carlos Garcia: 0.9%Blaze Media: 1.2%Begging the Question18.8%This article: 5.6%Carlos Garcia: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.5%Blaze Media: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 16.8%Carlos Garcia: 1.1%Blaze Media: 0.9%Burden of Proof16.8%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Carlos Garcia: 2.0%Blaze Media: 2.5%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 5.3%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.2%No True Scotsman5.3%This article: 4.6%Carlos Garcia: 1.7%Blaze Media: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.0%Blaze Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.2%Blaze Media: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.1%Blaze Media: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.4%Blaze Media: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 3.6%Blaze Media: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 4.3%Carlos Garcia: 3.2%Blaze Media: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 7.6%Carlos Garcia: 5.4%Blaze Media: 8.8%Biased Writer Voice7.6%This article: 9.6%Carlos Garcia: 1.9%Blaze Media: 3.8%Indoctrination9.6%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 0.7%Blaze Media: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Carlos Garcia: 4.9%Blaze Media: 6.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%Carlos Garcia: 2.4%Blaze Media: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

394 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers49%attributed speech199writer words
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
55 attributed words28% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination+41.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 41.8%41.8%Quote-first Misdirection+14.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 14.5%14.5%Biased Writer Voice-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Donald Trump: 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.