White House Rushes to Trump’s Defense After Alan Ritchson Torches President Over Epstein Files ⁠81%

By Charisma Madarang⁠52%

7/24/2026, 9:25:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Recency Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 49.5% saturation with 150 hits. Analysis detected 1,131 faulty-reasoning hits from 303 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 67% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (5,019 of 26,282 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.90% of the article peer group.

The White House came to Donald Trump's defense after Reacher star Alan Ritchson <a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/alan-ritchson-donald-trump-epstein-files-new-interview-1235598526/">slammed</a><a href="https://www.rollingstone.com/tv-movies/tv-movie-news/alan-ritchson-donald-trump-epstein-files-new-interview-1235598526/"> the president over his handling of the Epstein files</a>. 
“Just as President Trump has said, he&rsquo;s been totally exonerated on anything relating to Epstein,” White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to <em>Entertainment Weekl</em>y. 
“And by releasing thousands of pages of documents, cooperating with the House Oversight Committee&rsquo;s subpoena request, signing the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and calling for more investigations into Epstein&rsquo;s Democrat friends, President Trump has done more for Epstein&rsquo;s victims than anyone before him.” 
The response arrived a day after Ritchson's interview with the&nbsp;<em>Happy Sad Confused</em>&nbsp;podcast. 
The actor called the president a &ldquo;bitch&rdquo; and a &ldquo;fucking rapist,&#8221; and criticized the government over the sluggish release of the Jeffrey Epstein files and the president&rsquo;s alleged association with the convicted pedophile. &ldquo;The Epstein files, the fucking Epstein files! 
&rdquo; Ritchson said. &ldquo;Goddamn it! 
Where are they? 
It&rsquo;s a fucking law, bitch. 
Show it. 
You fucking pedophiles! 
&rdquo; (Trump has repeatedly denied rape allegations against him.) 
Launching into his tirade, Ritchson added, &ldquo;This is my fucking politics, dude. 
I would fucking railroad these fuckers. 
I would get those Epstein files out in two seconds. 
Fucking move out of the way. 
I don&rsquo;t care what room they&rsquo;re in, bitch, move. 
Give me the fucking manila envelope. 
I will get you the Epstein files. 
Don&rsquo;t you want to see what&rsquo;s in there, so that we can hold people accountable? 
These fucking rapists! 
We&rsquo;re just cool with it? 
&rdquo; 
While there has been significant <a rel="nofollow" href="https://www.npr.org/2026/04/03/nx-s1-5766260/epstein-files-arrests-doj-prosecutors" target="_blank">legal and political fallout in the U.K.</a> since the release of the files in 2025 and 2026, there have been no related arrests in the U.S.&nbsp;to date. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 31.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.6%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Confirmation Bias31.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Charisma Madarang: 2.5%Rolling Stone: 2.2%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Overconfidence Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 4.6%Rolling Stone: 3.9%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 14.2%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Status Quo Bias14.2%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.3%Charisma Madarang: 2.0%Rolling Stone: 1.4%Optimism Bias3.3%This article: 3.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Pessimism Bias3.0%This article: 49.5%Charisma Madarang: 7.3%Rolling Stone: 5.5%Negativity Bias49.5%This article: 23.1%Charisma Madarang: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias23.1%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.7%Rolling Stone: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 4.3%Rolling Stone: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 41.6%Charisma Madarang: 2.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Recency Bias41.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 0.9%Ad Hominem2.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.2%Charisma Madarang: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 2.3%Appeal to Authority14.2%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.6%Rolling Stone: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 25.7%Charisma Madarang: 3.6%Rolling Stone: 3.9%Hasty Generalization25.7%This article: 2.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.9%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Red Herring2.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 37.3%Charisma Madarang: 6.7%Rolling Stone: 4.0%Appeal to Emotion37.3%This article: 13.9%Charisma Madarang: 0.5%Rolling Stone: 0.5%Begging the Question13.9%This article: 15.5%Charisma Madarang: 2.2%Rolling Stone: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.5%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.7%Charisma Madarang: 0.7%Rolling Stone: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.7%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.3%Rolling Stone: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 1.9%Rolling Stone: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 2.3%Rolling Stone: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.7%Charisma Madarang: 0.0%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Special Pleading1.7%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.1%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 3.2%Rolling Stone: 1.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 21.5%Charisma Madarang: 2.6%Rolling Stone: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection21.5%This article: 32.0%Charisma Madarang: 4.6%Rolling Stone: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice32.0%This article: 8.9%Charisma Madarang: 1.0%Rolling Stone: 0.8%Indoctrination8.9%This article: 11.6%Charisma Madarang: 1.2%Rolling Stone: 1.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.2%Rolling Stone: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Charisma Madarang: 0.4%Rolling Stone: 2.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

303 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers55%attributed speech135writer words
Selected voice

Abigail Jackson

100%flagged-word coverage
70 attributed words42% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+21.4 ptsWriter: 40.0%Abigail Jackson: 61.4%61.4%Quote-first Misdirection-48.1 ptsWriter: 48.1%Abigail Jackson: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+38.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Abigail Jackson: 38.6%38.6%Politically Left Leaning B-25.9 ptsWriter: 25.9%Abigail Jackson: 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.