NATO Summit in Ankara Will Test Trump’s Commitment to Europe—Again 28%

By Rishi Iyengar27%

7/2/2026, 10:03:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Pessimism Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 44.6% saturation with 585 hits. Analysis detected 3,296 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,313 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39% and a BS Rank of 28% (14,884 of 20,517 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.50% of the article peer group.

Trump Rails at NATO (Again) 
Nothing is certain in this world besides death, taxes, and Donald Trump criticizing NATO. 
The U.S. president slammed the alliance for the umpteenth time on Thursday morning, returning to his frequent complaint about the United States subsidizing the other 31 members. 
“The United States spends more money on NATO than any other country, by far, to protect them, without getting any benefit from so doing,” he wrote on Truth Social, adding that it was “ridiculous.” 
Trump’s long-standing disdain for the alliance may be old hat at this point, but it’s certainly not the message NATO’s European member states and Canada want to hear just days before Trump travels to Ankara for the summit. 
Last week, Trump joked that he’s only going to the summit because of his affinity for Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. 
Rutte, who was sitting next to him in the Oval Office at the time, quipped: “You would have come for me.” 
Much of Rutte’s energy at the helm of NATO has been spent managing and mollifying Trump, which was definitely the case at last year’s summit in The Hague, where NATO allies all agreed to boost their respective defense spending to 5 percent of GDP by 2035. 
“My expectation is that it will be more of the same from last year,” retired Gen. 
Richard Shirreff, who served as NATO’s deputy supreme allied commander Europe from 2011 to 2014, told SitRep. 
“In other words, a desperate effort to try and keep Trump and America in the camp and a continuation of the head-in-the-sand approach of the NATO secretary-general about the reality that America under Trump cannot be trusted as a NATO ally.” 
However, Rutte sought to paint a picture of progress during his visit to Washington last week. 
“At Ankara, we are going to show the world that we are delivering on the commitments we made in The Hague last year,” he said in a speech at the Atlantic Council after meeting with Trump, adding that the alliance “will announce tens of billions of dollars of new contracts” at the summit. 
There’s an added question of whether those contracts can produce what Europe needs and who will fulfill them, with the Iran war having severely depleted U.S. stockpiles to the point where Washington is worried about its own supply. 
“The single greatest threat to America’s national security today is under-investment in military spending,” U.S. 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth wrote in an op-ed in the New York Post last week, calling on Congress to pass Trump’s proposed $1.5 trillion defense budget for 2027. 
There are likely some tough conversations to be had on what that means for NATO, especially as the Trump administration continues to tease the possibility of withdrawing some U.S. troops from Europe. 
But Trump’s statements going into the summit portend that much of Europe’s energy this year—again—will be spent on preventing undue fireworks from the other side of the Atlantic. 
Ukraine’s pain. 
That also threatens to distract further from the top priority for NATO’s European members—ending Russia’s war with Ukraine. 
Russian strikes on the Ukrainian capital, Kyiv, this week have killed at least 27 people in one of the deadliest attacks of the war so far, and Europe is keen to move toward a lasting peace. 
Trump and his administration have been more positive on Ukraine in recent weeks—largely because of the country’s successes on the battlefield and ability to inflict serious pain on Moscow, as our colleague Sam Skove outlined recently. 
An ideal outcome of the summit would be “an agreement by the alliance to design and execute a strategy to support Ukraine and defeat Russia,” Shirreff said. 
That will depend once again in large part on whether NATO can keep Trump focused and not feuding (maybe Poland can help). 
Let’s Get Personnel 
The Defense Department is looking for someone to oversee its drone programs. 
A newly created position within the department—the Direct Reporting Portfolio Manager for Unmanned Systems (DRPM-UxS for short)—will oversee all autonomous systems used by the military and will report to the deputy secretary of defense, the Pentagon said in a statement on Wednesday. 
Another new Trump administration job that has already been filled is the head of a team of scientists tasked with studying the national security threats posed by potential alien spacecraft. 
The person tapped for the job is Avi Loeb, who served as head of Harvard University’s astronomy department until 2020. 
Loeb has raised eyebrows among some of his academic peers with questionable theories about UFO sightings. 
On the Button 
What should be high on your radar, if it isn’t already. 
Fable restored. 
Eighteen days after the Trump administration abruptly forced AI company Anthropic to bar any foreign nationals from using its latest models (leading the company to suspend them completely), the White House equally abruptly reversed its decision. 
The administration lifted its new export controls on Anthropic’s Fable 5 and Mythos 5 models on Tuesday evening, the company said in a blog post. 
Anthropic said it had made updates to the models’ safeguards to prevent potential misuse and committed to “deeper government collaboration” on model releases. 
But Trump’s initial decision to cut off access has spooked European allies whose trust deficit may be harder to overcome even with the models back in action. 
More on that trans-Atlantic tech schism in my latest piece. 
Doha doldrums. 
The United States and Iran concluded their latest round of indirect talks in the Qatari capital of Doha on Wednesday, which reportedly focused on the navigation of ships through the Strait of Hormuz and the unfreezing of Iranian financial assets. 
Notably absent was any discussion of restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program, one of Trump’s key stated goals of launching the war. 
Our colleague Keith Johnson has a piece today on how most of the initial outcomes of the “memorandum of understanding” that stopped the war two weeks ago favor one party to the conflict—and it isn’t Washington. 
The United States last week also brokered a cease-fire agreement in the related conflict between Israel and Hezbollah in Lebanon, which saw the Israeli military pledge to withdraw from two areas it controlled in Lebanon’s south (Hezbollah was not a party to the agreement, and Israel has now delayed its withdrawal).. 
But the situation remains tense and Israel is adamant that it will not fully withdraw from the country, in part because of militant group Hezbollah’s use of low-cost drones in the region, as John outlined in a new analysis. 
Snapshot 
U.S. soldiers and Venezuelan military police patrol the streets of La Guaira, Venezuela, on June 29 following twin earthquakes that have devastated the country. 
Put on Your Radar 
Friday, July 3: Funeral ceremonies for former Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei begin in Tehran. 
Monday, July 6: United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres speaks at the Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva. 
Tuesday, July 7: The two-day NATO summit begins in Ankara. 
Wednesday, July 8: Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney visits Saudi Arabia. 
Thursday, July 9: Nominations open for the U.K. 
Labour Party’s leadership election. 
By the Numbers 
$1,000—the amount that the Iran war has cost each American household, according to an estimate by Moody’s Analytics’ chief economist, Mark Zandi. 
Zandi said his estimate is “conservative” and that the true cost is likely “meaningfully higher.” 
Quote of the Week 
“We have extraordinary things like Buc-ee’s and Chick-fil-A, very convenient to eat in your car while you’re having a phone call.” 
—U.S. 
Ambassador to NATO Matt Whitaker extolling some virtues of the United States in an interview on Fox News. 
FP’s Most Read This Week 
As the Tide Turns Against Putin, Beware the Drowning Man by Peter Frankopan 
The Middle East’s Great Divergence Is Underway by Rabah Arezki and Tarik M. 
Yousef 
The Obama Center Sets a Dangerous Precedent by Julian E. 
Zelizer 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.3%Rishi Iyengar: 1.9%Foreign Policy: 3.3%Confirmation Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.9%Rishi Iyengar: 1.7%Foreign Policy: 2.5%Availability Heuristic3.9%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 1.6%Foreign Policy: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Rishi Iyengar: 4.2%Foreign Policy: 4.9%Framing Effect2.8%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.0%Rishi Iyengar: 3.5%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Optimism Bias8.0%This article: 26.4%Rishi Iyengar: 2.4%Foreign Policy: 2.8%Pessimism Bias26.4%This article: 44.6%Rishi Iyengar: 9.7%Foreign Policy: 7.9%Negativity Bias44.6%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Rishi Iyengar: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.7%In-Group Bias2.7%This article: 7.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias7.0%This article: 4.9%Rishi Iyengar: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.6%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.0%Rishi Iyengar: 2.0%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Recency Bias15.0%This article: 3.5%Rishi Iyengar: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Rishi Iyengar: 1.2%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Ad Hominem4.3%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.8%Rishi Iyengar: 2.1%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Appeal to Authority12.8%This article: 8.8%Rishi Iyengar: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 1.6%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 2.1%Rishi Iyengar: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Slippery Slope2.1%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Rishi Iyengar: 3.9%Foreign Policy: 4.8%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 8.1%Rishi Iyengar: 1.8%Foreign Policy: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 5.9%Rishi Iyengar: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Begging the Question5.9%This article: 15.5%Rishi Iyengar: 2.8%Foreign Policy: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.5%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.5%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Composition/Division3.5%This article: 6.6%Rishi Iyengar: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Anecdotal6.6%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.0%Rishi Iyengar: 1.4%Foreign Policy: 1.7%Unattributed Quote5.0%This article: 3.2%Rishi Iyengar: 1.6%Foreign Policy: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 24.1%Rishi Iyengar: 7.3%Foreign Policy: 5.3%Biased Writer Voice24.1%This article: 4.3%Rishi Iyengar: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 1.1%Indoctrination4.3%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.0%Rishi Iyengar: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.0%

1313 words analyzed.

Speakers

14speakers34%attributed speech862writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMark Rutte • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRichard Shirreff • 17 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Shirreff • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageMark Rutte • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRichard Shirreff • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageDepartment of Defense • 12 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageAnthropic • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAnthropic • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKeith Johnson • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageMark Zandi • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageMatt Whitaker • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coveragePeter Frankopan • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRabah Arezki • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTarik M. Yousef • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJulian E. Zelizer • 10 words • 0.0% coverageJulian E. Zelizer • 1 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Richard Shirreff

100%flagged-word coverage
85 attributed words19% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Indoctrination+46.5 ptsWriter: 1.7%Richard Shirreff: 48.2%48.2%Biased Writer Voice-36.8 ptsWriter: 36.8%Richard Shirreff: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.7 ptsWriter: 3.7%Richard Shirreff: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Richard Shirreff: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.5 ptsWriter: 1.5%Richard Shirreff: 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…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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