Trump Claimed to Run Venezuela. After Earthquakes, He’s Walking That Back. 45%

By Nick Turse65%

6/25/2026, 6:36:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Politically Left Leaning Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 27.4% saturation with 215 hits. Analysis detected 1,143 faulty-reasoning hits from 784 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,283 of 20,368 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.40% of the article peer group.

After abducting Venezuela President Nicolás Maduro, U.S. 
President Donald Trump declared that America would “run” Venezuela. 
When asked in January who was leading Venezuela, Trump said, “We’re in charge.” 
Yet after back-to-back earthquakes rocked multiple Venezuelan cities on Wednesday, toppling scores of buildings and killing at least 188 people and injuring at least 1,520, Trump merely offered assistance. 
“The U.S.A. stands ready, willing, and able to help! 
I have instructed all agencies of our government to get ready to move quickly,” he wrote in a Truth Social post. 
“We will be there for our new and great friends.” 
One U.S. government official told The Intercept that Trump’s offer doesn’t go far enough since Venezuela is now a U.S. “vassal state.” 
“Don’t we run that country?” 
the official asked, speaking on background and referencing Trump’s comments. 
“That’s an obligation that exceeds friendship.” 
At the same time, Venezuelan American organizations and progressive foreign policy groups are about to circulate a letter calling on the Trump administration to provide massive, unconditional humanitarian aid to Venezuela in the wake of the 7.2 foreshock and 7.5-magnitude quake, as well as long-term economic damage from U.S. sanctions, according to details of the letter shared exclusively with The Intercept by Just Foreign Policy, one of the groups that drafted the letter. 
The organizations argue that the United States bears a unique obligation to Venezuela and that U.S. aid "must match the scale of the harm the United States has played a role in creating." 
This all comes after Trump seemed to suggest earlier this week that the U.S. has reaped billions of dollars of Venezuelan oil wealth in the last six months. 
After ousting Maduro, Trump’s installed a puppet government run by former Maduro ally Delcy Rodriguez. 
She has carried out day-to-day governance under the threat of a looming U.S. criminal indictment alleging corruption and money laundering charges. 
Trump also warned that the U.S. might attack again if Rodriguez did not comply with his demands. 
“Should the U.S. be responsible for rebuilding? 
Any word from Trump on that?” 
The costs of Absolute Resolve  the military operation and abduction of Maduro  topped $206 million, according to an analysis by Brown University’s Costs of War Project. 
Since then, the Trump administration has seized control of Venezuela’s oil industry and claims to be exploiting it for massive returns. 
This week, Trump said that the U.S. has recovered its war costs 28 times over through oil extraction; this equates to roughly $5.7 billion. 
“The people are happy in the country. 
They have smiles,” Trump said of Venezuelans on Tuesday, prior to the earthquakes. 
He claimed Venezuela has shared in the economic rewards. 
But the letter being drafted by the Venezuelan American and progressive groups cites a recent economic analysis by Venezuelan economist Francisco Rodríguez showing that U.S. policy has failed to produce the economic recovery Trump has claimed. 
The letter notes that sanctions have left Venezuela operating at a "diminished capacity," that "the buildings that collapsed were not maintained," and "the hospitals that must now treat nearly a thousand injured were not adequately supplied" as a direct result. 
In the port city of La Guaira, for example, more than 100 buildings were destroyed in the twin earthquakes. 
“Should the U.S. be responsible for rebuilding?” 
the U.S. government official mused. 
“Any word from Trump on that?” 
The White House did not respond to a request for comment on whether the U.S. would ease sanctions or help to rebuild Venezuela. 
U.S. 
Southern Command, which spearheaded the war on Venezuela earlier this year said on Thursday that it was “working with the Department of State to support U.S. government relief operations in Venezuela.” 
The command added that it “has established an operational planning team that includes experienced subject matter experts from the Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, who are advising staff and leadership responsible for disaster relief planning and mission-related decisions.” 
But disaster aid is inadequate, according to Just Foreign Policy and the other groups. 
“Emergency relief alone will not be enough. 
Venezuela’s recovery will require access to its own financial resources and the ability to import the equipment, construction materials, medicine, fuel, spare parts and other goods needed to rebuild homes, hospitals, schools, roads, ports and critical infrastructure,” they wrote. 
Even before the earthquakes, almost 8 million people in Venezuela were in need of humanitarian aid, according to the United Nations. 
The letter from Just Foreign Policy and others calls on the Trump administration to "provide immediate, massive humanitarian assistance with no political conditions attached," to release Venezuelan oil revenues currently held in U.S.-controlled accounts, and to suspend remaining sanctions impeding disaster response and reconstruction. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.4%Nick Turse: 5.7%The Intercept: 5.2%Confirmation Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Nick Turse: 2.7%The Intercept: 3.0%Availability Heuristic6.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.6%The Intercept: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Nick Turse: 2.3%The Intercept: 1.5%Overconfidence Bias3.1%This article: 5.6%Nick Turse: 6.5%The Intercept: 9.3%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.4%The Intercept: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.7%Nick Turse: 0.8%The Intercept: 1.0%Optimism Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 27.4%Nick Turse: 17.4%The Intercept: 12.5%Negativity Bias27.4%This article: 1.1%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias1.1%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 1.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.3%The Intercept: 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.6%The Intercept: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.3%Nick Turse: 1.2%The Intercept: 1.3%Recency Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.3%The Intercept: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Nick Turse: 2.8%The Intercept: 2.5%Ad Hominem1.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 19.3%Nick Turse: 7.9%The Intercept: 3.5%Appeal to Authority19.3%This article: 3.7%Nick Turse: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.0%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.7%The Intercept: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 4.2%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Circular Reasoning4.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 5.7%The Intercept: 7.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.7%Nick Turse: 6.1%The Intercept: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion2.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 1.3%The Intercept: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.8%Nick Turse: 2.9%The Intercept: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.8%Nick Turse: 1.0%The Intercept: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.8%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.5%The Intercept: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.7%Nick Turse: 2.1%The Intercept: 2.3%Anecdotal8.7%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.2%Nick Turse: 1.9%The Intercept: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.2%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.0%The Intercept: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.6%Nick Turse: 2.8%The Intercept: 2.1%Unattributed Quote6.6%This article: 0.8%Nick Turse: 1.6%The Intercept: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.8%This article: 15.4%Nick Turse: 12.6%The Intercept: 10.7%Biased Writer Voice15.4%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 1.4%The Intercept: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 13.9%Nick Turse: 5.2%The Intercept: 6.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.9%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.2%The Intercept: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nick Turse: 0.1%The Intercept: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

784 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers53%attributed speech367writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 73 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageBrown University’s Costs of War Project • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Southern Command • 31 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. Southern Command • 37 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 14 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 39 words • 0.0% coverageUnited Nations • 21 words • 0.0% coverageJust Foreign Policy • 44 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words6.7% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-33.0 ptsWriter: 33.0%Brown University’s Costs of War Project: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.8 ptsWriter: 9.8%Brown University’s Costs of War Project: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-6.0 ptsWriter: 6.0%Brown University’s Costs of War Project: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.6 ptsWriter: 1.6%Brown University’s Costs of War Project: 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.