California Rep's jaw-dropping reply when Scott Bessent asks question every 10th grader can answer ⁠70%

By Titus Wu⁠85%

6/4/2026, 8:43:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 126 hits. Analysis detected 1,170 faulty-reasoning hits from 544 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠70% (6,199 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.60% of the article peer group.

California Democratic Congresswoman Judy Chu got into a vicious back-and-forth over the Iran war with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent Thursday — but was caught flat-footed when asked who the president was during World War I. 
At a House Ways and Means Committee hearing to discuss the Trump administration's fiscal policies, Chu tried to grill Bessent on a past remark by the Republican president, suggesting he wasn’t factoring in the financial situations of US citizens during negotiations to end the war. 
“Do you agree with President Trump that you also do not care about Americans’ financial situations?” 
Chu asked, while a staffer held a sign claiming price increases during the US war with Iran. 
Bessent then responded with a simple question to Chu: “Who was the president during World War I?” 
Chu seemed caught off guard and stayed silent for a moment. 
“Are you refusing to answer to my question?” 
she asked in return. 
Bessent said he wasn’t and then repeated his question. 
“I don’t know,” the congresswoman, who was born and raised in Los Angeles, admitted. 
In California, students typically study World War One in 10th-grade, and are required to study Wilson's prominent role in negotiating the Treaty of Versailles and his role negotiating the League of Nations. 
The two then start speaking over each other as Bessent attempted to explain why he asked that question. 
Bessent brought up Woodrow Wilson, he said, because much like the US entry into World War I, the Trump administration's actions are motivated by long-term security. 
In fact, Trump had explained to Fox News days after his remark that with negotiations, his sole focus is to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 
“I can tell you, Americans' financial situation would be devastated if Iran got a nuclear weapon and there was a permanent, permanent shutdown of the flow of energy out of the Middle East,” Bessent said. 
Secretary Bessent flatly stated that Trump does care about the financial woes of US citizens. 
Even then, Chu insisted that wasn’t true, but Bessent dismissed the attack as Trump's remarks being taken out of context. 
The two later continue trying to speak over each other at points as Bessent attempted to say that the Wilson administration probably made a similar judgment in entering World War I. 
Chu continued her attack on Bessent as a billionaire who couldn't understand how everyday people were struggling. 
The secretary countered with examples of costs of certain goods seeing improvement. 
“You're entitled to your opinion, not your own facts,” Bessent said at the end of the exchange. 
US inflation increased at its fastest pace in three years in April, driven by higher energy prices amid the war with Iran, which has restricted the flow of the global oil supply. 
However, California's economic policies have also exacerbated the cost of living, which Bessent pointed out. 
Download The California Post App, follow us on social, and subscribe to our newsletters 
California Post News: Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, X, YouTube, WhatsApp, LinkedIn 
California Post Sports Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, YouTube, X 
California Post Opinion 
California Post Newsletters: Sign up here! 
California Post App: Download here! 
Home delivery: Sign up here! 
Page Six Hollywood: Sign up here! 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.2%Titus Wu: 4.8%California Post: 4.1%Confirmation Bias23.2%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Titus Wu: 3.5%California Post: 4.2%Availability Heuristic11.6%This article: 5.9%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.9%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%Titus Wu: 12.5%California Post: 10.4%Framing Effect8.6%This article: 6.4%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.9%Loss Aversion6.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.4%California Post: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.5%Pessimism Bias6.4%This article: 23.2%Titus Wu: 22.1%California Post: 16.1%Negativity Bias23.2%This article: 7.5%Titus Wu: 4.6%California Post: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias7.5%This article: 5.7%Titus Wu: 1.8%California Post: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 3.7%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias3.7%This article: 3.1%Titus Wu: 2.4%California Post: 1.6%In-Group Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.9%California Post: 3.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 1.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Titus Wu: 4.2%California Post: 2.6%Ad Hominem3.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.8%California Post: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.0%Titus Wu: 3.4%California Post: 4.2%Appeal to Authority5.0%This article: 7.5%Titus Wu: 2.1%California Post: 1.5%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.3%California Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.7%Titus Wu: 6.8%California Post: 5.5%Hasty Generalization10.7%This article: 3.1%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.7%Red Herring3.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.0%California Post: 1.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.4%Titus Wu: 9.6%California Post: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion6.4%This article: 4.4%Titus Wu: 1.2%California Post: 1.1%Begging the Question4.4%This article: 13.4%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.4%California Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.1%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.8%Burden of Proof3.1%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.9%California Post: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.5%Titus Wu: 3.2%California Post: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.5%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.0%California Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.1%California Post: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 3.7%Titus Wu: 0.3%California Post: 0.2%Special Pleading3.7%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 1.1%California Post: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Titus Wu: 3.9%California Post: 3.2%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 2.6%Titus Wu: 1.6%California Post: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection2.6%This article: 22.6%Titus Wu: 17.4%California Post: 13.2%Biased Writer Voice22.6%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.5%California Post: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 0.7%California Post: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Titus Wu: 3.7%California Post: 3.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Titus Wu: 1.7%California Post: 6.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.5%

544 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech398writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageJudy Chu • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageScott Bessent • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageScott Bessent • 8 words • 0.0% coverageJudy Chu • 4 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJudy Chu • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Bessent

92%flagged-word coverage
112 attributed words77% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.4 ptsWriter: 27.4%Scott Bessent: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%Scott Bessent: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%Scott Bessent: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Scott Bessent: 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.