Truthout74%

Senators Urge Colleagues to Block NDAA Until Pro-Israel Provisions Are Debated 66%

By Sharon Zhang80%

7/10/2026, 7:10:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 269 hits. Analysis detected 1,600 faulty-reasoning hits from 617 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 60% and a BS Rank of 66% (7,122 of 20,516 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 65.30% of the article peer group.

Sen. 
Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) speaks on Capitol Grounds in front of a memorial of 168 pairs of shoes representing those killed in the U.S. strike on an Iranian school, on March 18, 2026 in Washington, D.C. 
Tasos Katopodis / Getty Images for Win Without War 
A group of Democratic senators is urging colleagues to block the advancement of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) until the Senate has the opportunity to strip it of “reckless” provisions that mandate military and intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and Israel. 
In a letter to colleagues, six senators, led by Sen. 
Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), said that they already oppose the massive, $1.15 trillion Pentagon budget for next year, representing a nearly 30 percent increase from this year’s budget. 
But they’re even further incensed, they wrote, by a provision that mandates the creation of a program to deepen coordination between the U.S. and Israeli military and intelligence, known as the “U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” 
“These agreements threaten U.S. national security interests by handing the Netanyahu government leverage over American weapons systems and military technology,” the letter says. 
“This is not hypothetical. 
The Netanyahu government has already leveraged its existing coproduction agreement with the United States on missile defense to block American Iron Dome batteries from reaching Ukraine  directly against U.S. national security interests.” 
The U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative would give Israel special access to U.S. military technology that’s not available to any other country in the world. 
Human rights advocates have previously called the provision, quietly tacked onto the bill earlier this year, “deeply troubling” in light of the violations of international and domestic law already committed through the U.S.’s existing military cooperation with Israel. 
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has personally advocated for the provision. 
Experts have said that it would give Israel an even greater voice in guiding U.S. foreign policy, while also making the U.S. more dependent on Israel’s military supply chain. 
The lawmakers also express concern about a provision within the 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act, which is typically added onto the Pentagon budget bill before passage, which mandates that the executive branch “expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the Government of Israel” and explicitly bans the reduction or suspension of intelligence sharing with Israel. 
“Imposing such a constraint on the President’s ability to protect America’s vital intelligence is reckless at any time, but particularly now, when according to public reports, the Trump Administration recently raised the counterintelligence threat level from Israel to the highest level,” the lawmakers wrote. 
They say that fellow senators should work to block the advancement of the budget legislation until they are able to undertake a debate and vote on amendments to remove the provisions. 
On top of Van Hollen, the letter was also signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Massachusetts), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont), Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), and Peter Welch (D-Vermont). 
The provision comes at a time of growing opposition among the American public , especially Democrats and the left, to expanding the U.S.’s cooperation with Israel. 
The lawmakers point out that a measure by Sanders to block the sale of certain weapons to Israel recently reached a high point of 40 votes  a level of support that would have been virtually unheard of prior to Israel’s genocide in Gaza. 
Media that fights fascism 
Truthout is funded almost entirely by readers  that’s why we can speak truth to power and cut against the mainstream narrative. 
But independent journalists at Truthout face mounting political repression under Trump. 
We rely on your support to survive McCarthyist censorship. 
Please make a tax-deductible one-time or monthly donation. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.6%Sharon Zhang: 7.7%Truthout: 5.8%Confirmation Bias0.6%This article: 4.5%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.5%This article: 15.7%Sharon Zhang: 5.3%Truthout: 3.3%Availability Heuristic15.7%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias4.1%This article: 18.8%Sharon Zhang: 11.8%Truthout: 10.0%Framing Effect18.8%This article: 6.5%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.5%Loss Aversion6.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.0%Truthout: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.8%Truthout: 2.3%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 43.6%Sharon Zhang: 19.1%Truthout: 12.1%Negativity Bias43.6%This article: 3.6%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.1%Truthout: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 0.2%Truthout: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.8%This article: 11.2%Sharon Zhang: 2.7%Truthout: 1.9%In-Group Bias11.2%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.8%Truthout: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.3%Truthout: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 16.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.5%Truthout: 1.1%Recency Bias16.0%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 0.7%Truthout: 0.3%Primacy Effect1.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.0%Truthout: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.3%Truthout: 0.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Sharon Zhang: 5.6%Truthout: 3.7%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.8%Truthout: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 3.6%Sharon Zhang: 0.3%Truthout: 0.3%Circular Reasoning3.6%This article: 9.6%Sharon Zhang: 10.1%Truthout: 7.7%Hasty Generalization9.6%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.5%Sharon Zhang: 0.5%Truthout: 0.6%Bandwagon4.5%This article: 25.9%Sharon Zhang: 10.9%Truthout: 8.6%Appeal to Emotion25.9%This article: 7.1%Sharon Zhang: 2.1%Truthout: 1.7%Begging the Question7.1%This article: 12.5%Sharon Zhang: 3.4%Truthout: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.5%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Sharon Zhang: 1.2%Truthout: 2.8%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.0%Sharon Zhang: 4.0%Truthout: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.0%Truthout: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.6%Truthout: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.4%Truthout: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.1%Truthout: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 1.6%Truthout: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 16.9%Sharon Zhang: 2.6%Truthout: 1.5%Unattributed Quote16.9%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 2.4%Truthout: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.5%Sharon Zhang: 14.2%Truthout: 9.4%Biased Writer Voice13.5%This article: 0.6%Sharon Zhang: 2.3%Truthout: 2.9%Indoctrination0.6%This article: 7.0%Sharon Zhang: 7.8%Truthout: 7.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Sharon Zhang: 0.9%Truthout: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Sharon Zhang: 3.5%Truthout: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.8%

617 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers9.9%attributed speech556writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageChris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageBenjamin Netanyahu • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTruthout • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Truthout

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words36% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-18.7 ptsWriter: 18.7%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Truthout: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%Truthout: 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.