Trump’s Own People Don’t Want Him to Give This Speech (w/ Erin Banco) ⁠87%

By Sam Stein⁠97%

7/16/2026, 1:36:55 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Unattributed Quote, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 62.4% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 496 faulty-reasoning hits from 109 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 71.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (4,255 of 30,584 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.10% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein speaks with Reuters national security reporter Erin Banco about Trump’s planned election speech, his administration’s moves against federal election officials, and concerns inside his own White House that reviving voting-machine conspiracies could backfire by convincing MAGA voters to stay home. 
White House weighs releasing controversial intel on China and US elections, sources say 
Foreign Threats to the 2020 US Federal Elections 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.8%The Bulwark: 4.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.1%The Bulwark: 2.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.0%The Bulwark: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 50.5%Sam Stein: 15.5%The Bulwark: 5.8%Framing Effect50.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 62.4%Sam Stein: 23.8%The Bulwark: 9.5%Negativity Bias62.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 2.0%In-Group Bias11.9%This article: 38.5%Sam Stein: 2.5%The Bulwark: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias38.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.7%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.4%The Bulwark: 1.1%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 5.3%The Bulwark: 3.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Sam Stein: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.4%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.1%The Bulwark: 1.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 38.5%Sam Stein: 9.0%The Bulwark: 6.3%Hasty Generalization38.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.1%The Bulwark: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.7%The Bulwark: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.1%The Bulwark: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.3%The Bulwark: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.5%The Bulwark: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.9%The Bulwark: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 38.5%Sam Stein: 1.5%The Bulwark: 1.9%Anecdotal38.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 31.2%Sam Stein: 1.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)31.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 50.5%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.5%Unattributed Quote50.5%This article: 11.9%Sam Stein: 0.9%The Bulwark: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection11.9%This article: 50.5%Sam Stein: 20.3%The Bulwark: 12.6%Biased Writer Voice50.5%This article: 14.7%Sam Stein: 3.1%The Bulwark: 2.1%Indoctrination14.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 15.2%The Bulwark: 4.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 30.3%Sam Stein: 21.5%The Bulwark: 3.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…30.3%

109 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers52%attributed speech52writer words
Selected voice

Sam Stein

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words74% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+75.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Sam Stein: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+75.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Sam Stein: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -34.6 ptsWriter: 34.6%Sam Stein: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-30.8 ptsWriter: 30.8%Sam Stein: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-25.0 ptsWriter: 25.0%Sam Stein: 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.