In Massive Military Bill, Congress Considers Putting Anti-DEI Protections Into Law 92%

By Cass Rutledge100%

7/16/2026, 11:35:17 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Politically Right Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 72.8% saturation with 446 hits. Analysis detected 2,659 faulty-reasoning hits from 613 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86.8% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,730 of 21,182 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.80% of the article peer group.

Just like the rest of the swamp, the Pentagon is woke. 
And now, there is legislation to try and fix it. 
Sen. 
Jim Banks of Indiana is leading the efforts to amend next year’s National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which funds the Pentagon, to include anti-woke reforms to the military. 
If Banks’ amendment passes, it would ban “invented and identification pronouns” at the Pentagon, end required DEI training, and codify a Trump executive order to replace diversity messaging with merit messaging on military job boards. 
President Donald Trump was reelected with a mandate to root out leftist ideology from our government. 
In large part, the president has taken action to fulfill that mandate—he ordered that every diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) bureaucrat be fired, reversed several radical Biden executive orders and proclamations, and enacted many anti-woke policies at the Department of War. 
However, the president alone can do so much. 
Legislation passed by Congress brings permanence  so the Marxist ideology will stay out no matter who is in the White House next. 
The Pentagon has long suffered from the woke mind virus. 
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark Milley, who received a blanket autopen pardon from Biden in his final moments in office, famously said, “I wanna understand white rage” in a congressional hearing after being confronted about classes at West Point teaching cadets about white rage and white power. 
Under the Biden administration, the military’s fitness test standards were lowered in order to accommodate “gender diversity.” 
The Army also put out an animated ad featuring a future cadet with two lesbian moms marching at a gay “pride rally” with the goal of “shatter[ing] stereotypes.” 
The good news is that this problem is getting attention in Washington. 
But even if Banks’ amendment were to pass, there are still significant hurdles to winning the war on woke. 
In red states across the country, we have seen legislation passed ending DEI and critical race theory in universities only for it to be rebranded and left in place. 
Leftist ideology never left higher education; it just got a little better at hiding. 
The rot runs deep, and leaving the arsonist in charge of putting out the fire is careless and naive. 
Legislation might be a good first step, and it would be a morale boost for conservatives to actually see Congress address the real issues with legislative solutions. 
But the Pentagon, like nearly every other facet of government, needs to clean house and eradicate the career bureaucrats. 
Rank-and-file soldiers love our country  literally to the point of risking their lives for it. 
They do not deserve haughty leaders with an excessive number of ribbon bars lecturing them about their whiteness or “misgendering microaggressions.” 
Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has done a great job of this, firing more than a dozen longtime military officers. 
In typical fashion, however, the Republican old guard was quick to complain. 
In fact, Republicans joined Democrats in adding a provision to the NDAA that would require the Pentagon to inform Congress when senior military officers are going to be fired. 
To many Republicans—even in deep-red states—maintaining the status quo is more important than Trump and Hegseth’s fight to restore the military to its warrior ethos. 
Hegseth has said that the military needs to prioritize “warfighting over wokeness.” 
Ridding the military bureaucracy of political correctness, quotas, and left-wing ideology is essential. 
Passing Banks’ amendment is the first step of many in doing that. 
The next step is to continue the purge of the people responsible for implementing leftist garbage at the Pentagon in the first place. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 23.3%Cass Rutledge: 15.5%The Federalist: 8.5%Confirmation Bias23.3%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.2%Cass Rutledge: 6.0%The Federalist: 3.4%Availability Heuristic13.2%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Cass Rutledge: 2.6%The Federalist: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 8.3%Cass Rutledge: 9.9%The Federalist: 10.1%Framing Effect8.3%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.2%Cass Rutledge: 2.4%The Federalist: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 2.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.7%The Federalist: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.0%This article: 5.5%Cass Rutledge: 1.8%The Federalist: 1.0%Optimism Bias5.5%This article: 10.0%Cass Rutledge: 4.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Pessimism Bias10.0%This article: 29.4%Cass Rutledge: 18.1%The Federalist: 12.2%Negativity Bias29.4%This article: 6.7%Cass Rutledge: 2.2%The Federalist: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 1.4%The Federalist: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Cass Rutledge: 8.8%The Federalist: 4.0%In-Group Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 5.4%The Federalist: 2.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Cass Rutledge: 3.9%The Federalist: 2.3%Halo Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.7%The Federalist: 1.3%Recency Bias2.0%This article: 2.6%Cass Rutledge: 0.9%The Federalist: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Cass Rutledge: 11.1%The Federalist: 5.3%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 6.9%Cass Rutledge: 6.5%The Federalist: 2.7%Straw Man6.9%This article: 8.5%Cass Rutledge: 2.8%The Federalist: 5.1%Appeal to Authority8.5%This article: 17.6%Cass Rutledge: 7.9%The Federalist: 2.8%False Dilemma17.6%This article: 8.8%Cass Rutledge: 2.9%The Federalist: 2.2%Slippery Slope8.8%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.3%Cass Rutledge: 26.5%The Federalist: 11.3%Hasty Generalization22.3%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 17.1%Cass Rutledge: 14.1%The Federalist: 8.1%Appeal to Emotion17.1%This article: 6.4%Cass Rutledge: 5.2%The Federalist: 3.2%Begging the Question6.4%This article: 9.5%Cass Rutledge: 3.2%The Federalist: 2.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.5%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.4%Cass Rutledge: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.1%Burden of Proof4.4%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.1%Cass Rutledge: 1.0%The Federalist: 0.4%Composition/Division3.1%This article: 9.3%Cass Rutledge: 3.1%The Federalist: 2.8%Anecdotal9.3%This article: 2.3%Cass Rutledge: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.3%No True Scotsman2.3%This article: 4.6%Cass Rutledge: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Cass Rutledge: 0.0%The Federalist: 0.8%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%Cass Rutledge: 2.8%The Federalist: 3.1%Unattributed Quote8.5%This article: 8.5%Cass Rutledge: 5.7%The Federalist: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection8.5%This article: 63.1%Cass Rutledge: 64.3%The Federalist: 19.8%Biased Writer Voice63.1%This article: 19.2%Cass Rutledge: 12.9%The Federalist: 5.3%Indoctrination19.2%This article: 2.3%Cass Rutledge: 0.8%The Federalist: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias2.3%This article: 72.8%Cass Rutledge: 49.5%The Federalist: 15.8%Politically Right Leaning Bias72.8%This article: 4.4%Cass Rutledge: 1.5%The Federalist: 1.8%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.4%

613 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers18%attributed speech501writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageJim Banks of Indiana • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageMark Milley • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Milley

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words46% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mark Milley: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Mark Milley: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+39.5 ptsWriter: 60.5%Mark Milley: 100.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +26.9 ptsWriter: 73.1%Mark Milley: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-23.6 ptsWriter: 23.6%Mark Milley: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -5.4 ptsWriter: 5.4%Mark Milley: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Mark Milley: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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