NOTUS⁠0%

Mark Kelly Backs Another Hegseth Foe In Latest Endorsement Push ⁠60%

By Joe Gould⁠0%

7/1/2026, 9:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 24.1% saturation with 145 hits. Analysis detected 1,276 faulty-reasoning hits from 602 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠60% (8,758 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.00% of the article peer group.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s attacks have boosted Democratic Sen. 
Mark Kelly’s profile and war chest. 
Now he will use both to back Nancy Lacore, a former vice admiral who’s running for Congress after Hegseth fired her. 
Kelly’s political operation plans to announce Wednesday that it will support Lacore among 10 military veteran candidates in competitive House races, highlighting the Arizona senator’s growing national influence that has fueled speculation about a potential 2028 White House run. 
The new endorsements also unite two veterans who say they have become targets of the Trump administration’s efforts to politicize the military. 
“The one thing we share is we both consider public service to be about delivering results to people and about the Constitution, not about political games,” Lacore told NOTUS. 
“Yet we have both been caught up in some political games, thanks to Pete Hegseth.” 
Kelly, a former Navy pilot and astronaut, is locked in a high-profile legal and political battle with Hegseth after he and other lawmakers urged troops to refuse unlawful orders. 
Hegseth responded by issuing a censure and threatening to demote Kelly’s retired rank and cut his pension. 
“Senator Kelly is proud to support these battle-tested leaders because they bring the grit and service-oriented perspective that Congress needs right now,” Marisol Samayoa, a Kelly spokesperson, said in a statement to NOTUS. 
His political team said Kelly’s campaign will donate $2,500 to each candidate, the maximum amount his committee can give to a House campaign, along with providing fundraising support from Kelly’s donor network. 
Lacore, the former chief of the Navy Reserve, won the Democratic primary in South Carolina’s 1st Congressional District after Hegseth fired her last year in his purge of a dozen senior military officers. 
Republican Rep. 
Nancy Mace didn’t seek reelection in order to focus on her failed gubernatorial bid, leaving behind a district the Cook Political Report moved from “solid Republican” to “lean Republican.” 
For Lacore, Kelly’s endorsement offers validation from one of the country’s most prominent veteran-politicians as she tries to win over moderate Republicans and independents in a district with one of the country’s largest military communities. 
“The way he comes across, it’s really more about service,” she said. 
“He hasn’t gotten lost in the political shenanigans that we see in D.C. so often. 
And frankly, everyone loves an astronaut.” 
After 35 years in uniform, Lacore said her career ended abruptly when she was called into a senior officer’s office and informed Hegseth had ordered her firing. 
“There was no reason given,” she said, and within an hour, she had packed her belongings and left the Pentagon for good. 
“There’s a lot of drama surrounding the Pentagon, and it’s touched me, and it’s touched Senator Kelly,” Lacore said. 
“I think exactly what people don’t want is this political drama.” 
Beyond Lacore, Kelly also will endorse Jessica Killin in Colorado’s 5th Congressional District, Eileen Laubacher in Colorado’s 4th, Bale Dalton in Florida’s 7th, Darren McAuley in Florida’s 12th, Leela Gray in Florida’s 13th, Zach Dembo in Kentucky’s 6th, Kristina Knickerbocker in Ohio’s 10th, Rebecca Bennett in New Jersey’s 7th and Cait Conley in New York’s 17th. 
Kelly has said he is seriously considering a 2028 presidential run, but Samayoa pushed back on the suggestion that all the political activity is meant to set the stage for that effort. 
“He just wants to be able to utilize whatever resources he can — goodwill, his own name and bipartisan brand — to do everything to make sure that we win back majorities,” she said. 
This story was updated with additional reporting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.3%Joe Gould: 2.1%NOTUS: 2.3%Confirmation Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.2%NOTUS: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Joe Gould: 1.0%NOTUS: 2.2%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 5.8%Joe Gould: 1.3%NOTUS: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.3%NOTUS: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.6%NOTUS: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.1%Joe Gould: 5.6%NOTUS: 6.6%Framing Effect24.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.2%NOTUS: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.8%NOTUS: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.6%Joe Gould: 3.1%NOTUS: 3.3%Optimism Bias6.6%This article: 6.3%Joe Gould: 0.9%NOTUS: 3.0%Pessimism Bias6.3%This article: 22.6%Joe Gould: 7.9%NOTUS: 10.5%Negativity Bias22.6%This article: 12.5%Joe Gould: 2.6%NOTUS: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias12.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 1.1%NOTUS: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.2%NOTUS: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Joe Gould: 2.5%NOTUS: 2.1%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 2.5%Joe Gould: 0.1%NOTUS: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.5%This article: 18.1%Joe Gould: 3.8%NOTUS: 1.3%Halo Effect18.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.2%NOTUS: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.5%Joe Gould: 1.3%NOTUS: 1.2%Recency Bias6.5%This article: 5.3%Joe Gould: 0.3%NOTUS: 0.3%Primacy Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.4%NOTUS: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.4%NOTUS: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.9%Joe Gould: 4.0%NOTUS: 4.7%Appeal to Authority15.9%This article: 5.3%Joe Gould: 1.4%NOTUS: 1.0%False Dilemma5.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.6%NOTUS: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.0%Joe Gould: 3.6%NOTUS: 4.9%Hasty Generalization9.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 1.2%NOTUS: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.8%Joe Gould: 0.9%NOTUS: 0.9%Bandwagon2.8%This article: 8.5%Joe Gould: 3.3%NOTUS: 3.5%Appeal to Emotion8.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.9%NOTUS: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.9%Joe Gould: 4.6%NOTUS: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.2%NOTUS: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%Joe Gould: 2.8%NOTUS: 1.5%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.4%NOTUS: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.6%Joe Gould: 1.6%NOTUS: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.4%NOTUS: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.6%NOTUS: 2.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 2.9%NOTUS: 2.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.8%NOTUS: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.4%NOTUS: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.3%NOTUS: 1.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Gould: 0.0%NOTUS: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

602 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers37%attributed speech379writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 29 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMarisol Samayoa • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 15 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 27 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 19 words • 0.0% coverageNancy Lacore • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMarisol Samayoa • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Marisol Samayoa

100%flagged-word coverage
67 attributed words30% of attributed speech73% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.