Trump’s speech may focus on 2020 election. Here’s a primer on foreign interference, voting security 16%

By Alex Min8% Amy Sherman9%

7/15/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Overconfidence Bias, Negativity Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 415 hits. Analysis detected 1,815 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,058 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 32% and a BS Rank of 16% (17,827 of 21,164 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 84.20% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump is set to address the nation July 16 with an expected primetime focus on election integrity. 
Trump's comments and news reports show he will focus on the 2020 election that he lost. 
The administration has been cagey about offering further details, saying Americans will need to tune in. 
Trump alluded to the speech’s topic July 14; when a reporter asked whether his remarks would be about "election machines’ integrity," Trump said, "It will concern that subject." 
"Our country has to shape up," Trump said, adding, "it doesn't get bigger because without free and fair elections, you don't have a country." 
MS NOW, citing unnamed White House officials, had reported that Trump will talk about newly declassified intelligence reports about foreign nations’ plans to interfere in the 2020 election. 
Trump has made unproven statements about elections and voting by mail for a decade. 
He has used those falsehoods to push for changing election laws and recently called on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, a bill that would tighten voter registration and voter ID requirements. 
Reports from intelligence experts show that the 2020 election was secure and foreign governments’ attempts at interference did not affect voting. 
"Trump ran the (government) in 2020, services were led by his appointees, and there were many efforts to track foreign interference in 2020," wrote Renee DiResta, a Georgetown University expert on election rumors and influence operations. 
"Nothing major happened." 
DiResta told PolitiFact it is important to distinguish between efforts at foreign influence and impact. 
If the Trump administration releases a trove of materials, she advised voters to look beyond sensational headlines to see what the documents show. 
What is foreign influence and interference? 
Foreign influence is activity  such as misinformation on social media  by foreigners to sway voters and candidates, said Lawrence Norden, an elections expert at the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law. 
Foreign interference targets election infrastructure and hardware to change election outcomes. 
While there has been foreign influence in U.S. elections since 2016, there are no known instances of infiltration of election systems outside of Russian’s attempts in 2016, Norden said. 
In 2016, Russian agents used hacking and disinformation campaigns in an attempt to tilt the election in Trump’s favor, government reports have shown. 
Special Counsel Robert Mueller, tasked with investigating it, found no criminal coordination between Moscow and the Trump campaign. 
There are multiple safeguards protecting elections from foreign interference, including regularly audited paper records for 98% of votes cast in almost every state, Norden said. 
The Trump administration has cut back on election security efforts launched during his first term, such as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency. 
In a 2020 post-election tweet, Trump fired the head of CISA, Chris Krebs, after the agency released a statement that affirmed the election’s security. 
What did the U.S. government conclude about interference and the 2020 election? 
Federal government officials concluded that foreign actors attempted to undermine confidence in the U.S. elections, but were unsuccessful. 
In March 2021, the National Intelligence Council issued a report that said it observed "no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results." 
The same month, a report by the U.S. 
Justice and Homeland Security departments largely confirmed these results. 
Both reports expressed high confidence in their findings and noted the extreme improbability of undetected election interference. 
The National Intelligence Council report said Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized operations focused on promoting Trump at the expense of Joe Biden. 
Other countries such as Cuba and Venezuela made smaller-scale influence efforts. 
When it came to China, the intelligence community disagreed, said Geoff Hale, an election security expert at the Center for Democracy and Technology. 
The most commonly held belief was that China created plans and considered conducting influence operations but did not implement them. 
News reports and statements from the federal government before the 2020 election showed that foreign actors were attempting to influence the election. 
In October 2020, PolitiFact reported on a spoofed email threat to Florida and Alaska voters that U.S. intelligence officers said originated from Iran. 
The email, made to look like it was sent by the far-right U.S. group the Proud Boys, said the group would know if recipients voted for Trump. 
Four years later, the Justice Department charged three Iranian hackers with targeting people associated with U.S. political campaigns. 
The Trump presidential campaign also said it had been hacked by the Iranian government and lost sensitive internal documents. 
What did Trump, allies say about 2020 interference, rigging? 
After Trump lost the 2020 election, he and his team falsely blamed foreign actors. 
Sidney Powell, a Trump attorney, made a Pants on Fire statement that election machines were designed to change results. 
Powell said the machines that many Americans used to cast their ballots were originally created to falsify election results in Venezuela. 
Smartmatic voting systems have been used in elections around the world. 
In Venezuela, the company said its technology was manipulated to report a skewed tally in 2017, but Smartmatic said the incident was an anomaly and likely due to the lack of election monitors. 
The company stopped its work there in 2018. 
Smartmatic has a pending $2.7 billion lawsuit against Fox News and won a $40 million settlement from Newsmax. 
Dominion Voting Systems won a $787 million settlement against Fox News for repeatedly airing false claims about the company. 
The 2020 election was neither rigged nor stolen. 
Biden won after receiving 306 electoral votes, compared with 232 for Trump. 
Biden also got about 7 million more votes nationwide than Trump. 
Trump and his allies lost more than 60 election lawsuits for reasons including that the allegations lacked proof. 
In 2022, a group of Republicans, including former federal judges, examined Trump’s statements of fraud and miscount. 
They concluded that the claims "failed to present evidence of fraud or inaccurate results significant enough to invalidate the (election) results." 
Norden said the 2020 contest "was perhaps the most examined election in US history, with counts, recounts and audits all showing the same thing: Trump lost." 
RELATED: 2017 Lie of the Year: Russian election interference is a 'made-up story' 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.5%Alex Min: 0.8%@politifact: 2.0%Confirmation Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.4%@politifact: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Alex Min: 2.0%@politifact: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 1.0%Alex Min: 0.9%@politifact: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic1.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 19.8%Alex Min: 1.1%@politifact: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias19.8%This article: 2.3%Alex Min: 3.2%@politifact: 3.6%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.3%Alex Min: 0.8%@politifact: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 14.6%Alex Min: 4.0%@politifact: 5.1%Negativity Bias14.6%This article: 3.1%Alex Min: 0.9%@politifact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias3.1%This article: 6.5%Alex Min: 0.5%@politifact: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error6.5%This article: 1.8%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.3%@politifact: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.3%@politifact: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.6%Alex Min: 0.9%@politifact: 0.8%Halo Effect1.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Alex Min: 0.8%@politifact: 1.0%Recency Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Alex Min: 0.7%@politifact: 0.4%Ad Hominem3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 39.2%Alex Min: 4.0%@politifact: 4.6%Appeal to Authority39.2%This article: 0.8%Alex Min: 0.4%@politifact: 0.8%False Dilemma0.8%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.3%@politifact: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.4%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.1%Circular Reasoning3.4%This article: 3.8%Alex Min: 2.8%@politifact: 3.0%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 1.2%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Red Herring1.2%This article: 1.9%Alex Min: 1.0%@politifact: 0.6%Bandwagon1.9%This article: 5.3%Alex Min: 3.2%@politifact: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.6%@politifact: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.3%Alex Min: 2.4%@politifact: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.3%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.5%Alex Min: 0.7%@politifact: 0.6%Burden of Proof6.5%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 1.7%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Composition/Division1.7%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.3%@politifact: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.9%Alex Min: 1.8%@politifact: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Alex Min: 2.1%@politifact: 1.7%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 4.4%Alex Min: 2.3%@politifact: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection4.4%This article: 5.4%Alex Min: 1.1%@politifact: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice5.4%This article: 3.6%Alex Min: 0.6%@politifact: 1.0%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Alex Min: 0.9%@politifact: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Alex Min: 0.1%@politifact: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1058 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers39%attributed speech646writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageRenee DiResta • 36 words • 0.0% coverageRenee DiResta • 3 words • 0.0% coverageRenee DiResta • 15 words • 100.0% coverageRenee DiResta • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageLawrence Norden • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageLawrence Norden • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageLawrence Norden • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageNational Intelligence Council • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageNational Intelligence Council • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageGeoff Hale • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coveragePolitiFact • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageSidney Powell • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSmartmatic • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageLawrence Norden • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

MS NOW

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words6.8% of attributed speech77% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+92.7 ptsWriter: 7.3%MS NOW: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -5.1 ptsWriter: 5.1%MS NOW: 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.