Marco Rubio Is Rebranding the State Department as Explicitly Christian 81%

By Austin Campbell62%

4/29/2026, 1:46:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 23.9% saturation with 226 hits. Analysis detected 1,930 faulty-reasoning hits from 945 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.2% and a BS Rank of 81% (3,921 of 20,541 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.90% of the article peer group.

The State Department has shifted its public image in favor of explicit Christian messaging and iconography and away from secular and multicultural causes, an analysis by The Intercept of the department’s Instagram posts has found. 
Posts marking Passover, Good Friday, and Easter in 2026 included explicitly religious messaging, including imagery of Christian crosses and references to “Christ’s sacrifice” and the Resurrection. 
The Intercept’s analysis, which catalogued of the department’s Instagram posts from 2020 through early 2026, found these posts show a clear change in messaging not only from the Biden years, but also from President Donald Trump’s first term. 
“From a digital diplomacy point of view, this looks like more than a change in images. 
It suggests a shift in how the U.S. government is presenting itself online,” said Corneliu Bjola, a professor of digital diplomacy at the University of Oxford. 
“In earlier years, posts projected a broad and inclusive image  what you might call ‘the shiny city on the hill.’ 
The 2026 pattern points to a narrower and more controlled message about strength and authority  ‘fortress America.’” 
Long considered the government’s primary diplomatic arm, the State Department historically used its account to highlight a wide range of international, cultural, and religious observances. 
In 2020, under the leadership of former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, the State Department used its account to mark holidays and observances including Juneteenth, Chinese New Year, Ramadan, Eid al-Fitr, Eid al-Adha, Yom Kippur, and Kwanzaa. 
Since Secretary of State Marco Rubio assumed his role, observance-related posts have been limited to Christian and Jewish holidays, including one that featured an impassioned speech by Rubio describing the resurrection of Jesus Christ. 
The account has not marked major Islamic holidays or other widely observed cultural events that it routinely highlighted in prior years. 
Federal agencies have already faced scrutiny over controversial social media posts. 
The Department of Homeland Security has recently drawn scrutiny for using a neo-Nazi-linked song in a recruiting post, and the Department of Labor has faced criticism for social media imagery depicting an all-white, all-male workforce in a 1950s-style campaign, including a post that read, “One Homeland. 
One People. 
One Heritage. 
Remember who you are, American.” 
Meanwhile, the State Department has moved away from posts highlighting multiculturalism in the United States and abroad. 
Under Pompeo, the State Department made posts highlighting initiatives such as the International Religious Freedom Alliance and women’s empowerment efforts. 
The account also recognized events such as World Press Freedom Day, World Refugee Day, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, and the International Day of Reflection on the Rwanda Genocide, among others. 
The range narrows significantly under Rubio. 
Posts during this period place greater emphasis on borders, sovereignty, and enforcement, alongside a more limited set of cultural and religious observances. 
In September 2025, the account featured a video of Rubio meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Israel as the country continued its assault on Gaza in what human rights groups and some international observers have described as a genocide. 
In 2025, posts marking observances were limited to a small set of holidays and commemorations, including International Holocaust Remembrance Day, Yom HaShoah, Independence Day, Labor Day, Columbus Day, Christmas, and D-Day. 
Several posts emphasized religious or national themes, including a Columbus Day post that referenced “glory to God and country.” 
The posts have also shifted to heavily feature the likeness of President Donald Trump. 
In early 2026, roughly 40 percent of posts included Trump’s image, a higher share than during either the Biden administration or Trump’s first term. 
On Tuesday, The Bulwark reported that the State Department is finalizing plans to include President Donald Trump’s image in a redesigned U.S. passport. 
Asked why the account no longer marks a broader range of international and religious observances, including major Islamic holidays that had been featured in prior years, a State Department spokesperson said the content reflects the priorities of the current administration. 
“Our content reflects the priorities of the current administration, including a renewed focus on seriousness and diplomacy.” 
“Obviously, the president is featured prominently in our posts. 
He sets U.S. foreign policy, and the State Department’s role is to execute and communicate that agenda,” the spokesperson said. 
“Our content reflects the priorities of the current administration, including a renewed focus on seriousness and diplomacy. 
Decisions about what to highlight, including observances, are made by communications professionals.” 
Rather than highlighting diplomatic events or cultural observances, the account frequently features stylized graphics of Trump and administration officials alongside slogans emphasizing immigration enforcement, national sovereignty and security. 
Some posts resemble campaign messaging, including phrases such as “Send Them Back” and “This Is Our Hemisphere,” as well as graphics touting policy outcomes like visa revocations. 
Former U.S. diplomats and public diplomacy officials told The Intercept the shift marks a break from long-standing norms that have historically emphasized nonpartisan messaging and broad cultural representation in official government communications. 
Daniel Kreiss, a political communication scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, said the shift reflects a broader pattern across government agencies. 
“The cultural and religious diversity that represents all of America  and frankly, for the State Department, the world  is no longer being represented, based on your data, in favor of overrepresenting what the administration cares about,” Kreiss said. 
“It’s sending a key public signal that these agencies are operating faithfully to the president and his coalition.” 
The shift, experts say, is not just about what the United States chooses to show the world, but also what it no longer does. 
In digital diplomacy, what is omitted can be as consequential as what is shown. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.6%Austin Campbell: 3.4%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias17.6%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Austin Campbell: 3.2%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 7.2%Austin Campbell: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.2%This article: 3.3%Austin Campbell: 0.7%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias3.3%This article: 5.7%Austin Campbell: 1.1%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias5.7%This article: 15.3%Austin Campbell: 8.5%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect15.3%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.8%Austin Campbell: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.4%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 1.5%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 23.9%Austin Campbell: 11.8%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias23.9%This article: 2.1%Austin Campbell: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias2.1%This article: 6.1%Austin Campbell: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error6.1%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Austin Campbell: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.9%Austin Campbell: 0.9%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias5.9%This article: 6.6%Austin Campbell: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.7%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.2%Austin Campbell: 5.5%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority12.2%This article: 5.5%Austin Campbell: 1.8%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma5.5%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 7.8%Austin Campbell: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning7.8%This article: 19.3%Austin Campbell: 5.3%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization19.3%This article: 4.9%Austin Campbell: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring4.9%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 4.2%Austin Campbell: 8.5%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion4.2%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 1.0%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 3.1%Austin Campbell: 2.6%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.1%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.2%Austin Campbell: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof2.2%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.9%Austin Campbell: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division3.9%This article: 11.6%Austin Campbell: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal11.6%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Austin Campbell: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 1.5%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 5.3%Austin Campbell: 5.4%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice5.3%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.7%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 7.9%Austin Campbell: 3.1%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Austin Campbell: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

945 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech758writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageCorneliu Bjola • 16 words • 0.0% coverageCorneliu Bjola • 26 words • 0.0% coverageCorneliu Bjola • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCorneliu Bjola • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageThe Bulwark • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Kreiss • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Kreiss • 40 words • 100.0% coverageDaniel Kreiss • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Daniel Kreiss

100%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words44% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice+46.9 ptsWriter: 1.3%Daniel Kreiss: 48.2%48.2%Politically Left Leaning B-9.9 ptsWriter: 9.9%Daniel Kreiss: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.