Live fact-check: President Donald Trump's expected address on election security 21%

By PolitiFact Staff24%

7/16/2026, 12:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Negativity Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 32% saturation with 32 hits. Analysis detected 164 faulty-reasoning hits from 100 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.8% and a BS Rank of 21% (16,910 of 21,172 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 79.90% of the article peer group.

In a July 16 primetime TV address to the nation, President Donald Trump is expected to focus on voting integrity and foreign interference attempts in the 2020 election, according to news reports. 
PolitiFact has fact-checked many of Trump’s unproven and false assertions about election security and his loss against former President Joe Biden in the 2020 election. 
We will fact-check his speech live tonight starting at 9 p.m. 
EDT. 
Follow our live fact-checks below. 
READ: Trump’s speech may focus on 2020 election. 
Here’s a primer on foreign interference, voting security 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.0%PolitiFact Staff: 6.3%@politifact: 2.0%Confirmation Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 2.6%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%PolitiFact Staff: 8.3%@politifact: 3.6%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.0%PolitiFact Staff: 18.8%@politifact: 5.1%Negativity Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.3%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.0%PolitiFact Staff: 6.3%@politifact: 4.6%Appeal to Authority25.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 3.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 6.3%@politifact: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 32.0%PolitiFact Staff: 8.0%@politifact: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)32.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.0%PolitiFact Staff: 2.0%@politifact: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection8.0%This article: 25.0%PolitiFact Staff: 12.5%@politifact: 1.6%Biased Writer Voice25.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 6.3%@politifact: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PolitiFact Staff: 0.0%@politifact: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.0%PolitiFact Staff: 4.0%@politifact: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.0%

100 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker25%attributed speech75writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePolitiFact • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

PolitiFact

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%PolitiFact: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -21.3 ptsWriter: 21.3%PolitiFact: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%PolitiFact: 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.