Even Nancy Pelosi Is Voting to Cut Aid to Israel Now ⁠88%

By John Nichols⁠83%

7/17/2026, 1:25:29 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.2% saturation with 274 hits. Analysis detected 1,836 faulty-reasoning hits from 718 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠88% (2,753 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.40% of the article peer group.

Former House speaker Nancy Pelosi, long one of the most ardent defenders of US aid to Israel, voted Wednesday to slash that aid. 
And she was not alone; 103 House Democrats and Kentucky Republican Thomas Massie voted for Massie’s amendment to slash almost $3.3 billion in funds for Israel—and their number included House Democratic whip Katherine Clark (D-MA) and the ranking Democrats on a number of key committees. 
It was the latest measure of the evolution of the Democratic Party’s stance regarding aid to Israel, which had changed dramatically as the party’s base voters signaled that they cannot accept continued aid to the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, which has been widely accused of committing genocide with a multiyear assault on Palestinians in Gaza. 
“For the good of the Israeli people and the Palestinian people, it is clear that US policy must change,” said Pelosi, who explained, “The United States must be a force for security and stability. 
The American people are rightly demanding an end to a perpetual cycle of war, and the Netanyahu government cannot maintain its current course. 
“ 
A bipartisan House majority of 314 still opposed the amendment to block the foreign military aid money from a broader national security spending bill. 
But the size of the “yes” vote was described by Politico as a “seismic shift” on issues related to Israel and Palestine. 
Congressional Progressive Caucus chair Greg Casar agreed, noting on Wednesday, “It used to be that just a small number of House Democrats would vote against sending taxpayer dollars to weapons for the Israeli military. 
Then, two years ago, 37 House Democrats voted for a measure to not send billions of dollars to the Israeli military. 
Today, over 100 House Democrats voted for a measure to block billions of dollars in weapons to Netanyahu. 
That is enormous progress. 
That is a victory for our movement for security, peace and justice for all people.” 
“That,” added Casar, “sends a strong message to Netanyahu that the days are over of an unaccountable blank check to his wars and his war crimes—at least from the Democratic Party.” 
But not all Democrats embraced that progress. 
And that is going to be an issue in upcoming Democratic primaries. 
Minnesota US Representative Angie Craig, who is locked in a competitive August 11 Democratic US Senate primary, voted against the amendment. 
That prompted her primary rival, Minnesota Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, to declare, “A vote to send $3.3 billion of taxpayer money to fund additional weapons of war to Benjamin Netanyahu is unconscionable. 
Enough.” 
Michigan US Representative Haley Stevens, who is bidding in the August 4 Democratic US Senate primary against Dr. 
Abdul El-Sayed, also voted to continue aid to Israel. 
“Today, Congresswoman Stevens had a choice: stand with the majority of Democrats who oppose unconditional military aid to Israel, or stand with the special interests funding her campaign,” said El-Sayed. 
“She chose to side with AIPAC and Republicans to fund a war machine that has taken the loved ones of Michigan families. 
She made her choice. 
You make yours.” 
In another Michigan race, State Representative Donavan McKinney, a democratic socialist supporter of Palestinian rights, is mounting a serious Democratic primary challenge to incumbent US Representative Shri Thanedar, who voted against cutting aid to Israel. 
“Once again,” argued McKinney, “Shri Thanedar proved he’d rather spend money dropping bombs on families overseas than help families here at home. 
It’s unacceptable.” 
In Arizona, where he is challenging Democratic incumbent Greg Stanton in a July 21 party primary, veteran activist Kai Newkirk is highlighting the incumbent’s “no” vote as an important issue in the primary. 
“Greg Stanton has taken over $300K from AIPAC. 
And today—as so many Americans in our district and across the country struggle to get by—he just voted to send billions more of our tax dollars to Israel to fund their war crimes and genocide,” said Newkirk. 
“Disgraceful.” 
Track AIPAC, the grassroots effort to reveal and counter the influence of AIPAC in American politics and policymaking, weighed in with a particularly blunt endorsement of the challenger: “AIPAC’s Greg Stanton voted against cutting aid to Israel today. 
He has a primary coming up in 6 days. 
Support Kai Newkirk for Congress to unseat this AIPAC stooge.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.1%John Nichols: 7.4%The Nation: 5.4%Confirmation Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.7%The Nation: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%John Nichols: 5.5%The Nation: 2.9%Availability Heuristic7.1%This article: 11.0%John Nichols: 2.2%The Nation: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic11.0%This article: 8.1%John Nichols: 2.3%The Nation: 1.1%Hindsight Bias8.1%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.1%The Nation: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%John Nichols: 6.6%The Nation: 6.9%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.3%John Nichols: 1.1%The Nation: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.3%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%John Nichols: 3.1%The Nation: 2.0%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 5.8%John Nichols: 1.6%The Nation: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 38.2%John Nichols: 8.9%The Nation: 11.0%Negativity Bias38.2%This article: 5.8%John Nichols: 1.0%The Nation: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 1.1%The Nation: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.5%John Nichols: 8.7%The Nation: 2.5%In-Group Bias12.5%This article: 3.1%John Nichols: 0.8%The Nation: 0.9%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.1%This article: 3.2%John Nichols: 2.0%The Nation: 1.8%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.9%The Nation: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.1%John Nichols: 2.4%The Nation: 1.0%Recency Bias9.1%This article: 3.2%John Nichols: 0.3%The Nation: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.6%John Nichols: 3.3%The Nation: 3.3%Ad Hominem8.6%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 5.5%The Nation: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.1%John Nichols: 4.1%The Nation: 3.4%Appeal to Authority3.1%This article: 4.2%John Nichols: 2.1%The Nation: 2.4%False Dilemma4.2%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.6%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.6%This article: 3.1%John Nichols: 8.4%The Nation: 8.6%Hasty Generalization3.1%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.7%John Nichols: 4.5%The Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 27.9%John Nichols: 12.1%The Nation: 7.5%Appeal to Emotion27.9%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 2.1%The Nation: 1.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.2%John Nichols: 3.2%The Nation: 3.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.2%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.5%The Nation: 0.5%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.9%The Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.6%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.6%John Nichols: 2.4%The Nation: 2.4%Anecdotal0.6%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.2%The Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 1.2%The Nation: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.1%The Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.0%The Nation: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.3%The Nation: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.0%John Nichols: 3.3%The Nation: 1.6%Unattributed Quote10.0%This article: 5.2%John Nichols: 3.2%The Nation: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 11.6%John Nichols: 17.2%The Nation: 16.5%Biased Writer Voice11.6%This article: 5.0%John Nichols: 4.9%The Nation: 4.4%Indoctrination5.0%This article: 21.2%John Nichols: 20.2%The Nation: 9.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias21.2%This article: 0.0%John Nichols: 0.9%The Nation: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%John Nichols: 0.5%The Nation: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.7%

718 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers56%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Pelosi • 34 words • 100.0% coverageNancy Pelosi • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageGreg Casar • 34 words • 100.0% coverageGreg Casar • 21 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Casar • 18 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Casar • 4 words • 0.0% coverageGreg Casar • 15 words • 100.0% coverageGreg Casar • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coveragePeggy Flanagan • 32 words • 0.0% coveragePeggy Flanagan • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 30 words • 100.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAbdul El-Sayed • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageDonavan McKinney • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonavan McKinney • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageKai Newkirk • 8 words • 100.0% coverageKai Newkirk • 37 words • 100.0% coverageKai Newkirk • 1 words • 0.0% coverageTrack AIPAC • 38 words • 100.0% coverageTrack AIPAC • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTrack AIPAC • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Kai Newkirk

100%flagged-word coverage
46 attributed words12% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%42.5%85.0%Quote-first Misdirection+80.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kai Newkirk: 80.4%80.4%Politically Left Leaning B+44.4 ptsWriter: 36.1%Kai Newkirk: 80.4%80.4%Unattributed Quote+17.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kai Newkirk: 17.4%17.4%Biased Writer Voice-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%Kai Newkirk: 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.