Kotaku⁠73%

Eric Trump Is Building An Army Of Humanoid Robot Soldiers ⁠87%

By Zack Kotzer⁠69%

7/18/2026, 9:30:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Availability Heuristic, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 38.8% saturation with 156 hits. Analysis detected 1,274 faulty-reasoning hits from 402 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of ⁠87% (2,752 of 21,176 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.00% of the article peer group.

Oh laugh. 
Laugh all you want. 
When that break dancing robot eats a mouthful of pavement. 
When robo-Olaf short circuits and ruins a Disneyland vacation. 
Get your licks in now buddy, because once Eric Trump’s totally real robot army is up and running we’ll see who gets the last laugh. 
According to a report from WIRED, a recent startup is building the army of the future. 
Specifically the future from 1991’s Terminator 2: Judgement Day. 
Foundation Future Industries is a company developing humanoid robots for combat. 
While military robotics contracts are common and the battlefield is overrun with a variety of terrifying drones, what separates Foundation is that these killer bipeds are their flagship focus. 
The other distinctive element about Foundation is their chief strategy advisor: Eric Trump, son of Donald. 
“People don’t realize he actually is an engineer at heart,” Foundation CEO Sankaet Pathak tells WIRED, “so he does a lot of milling and things like that at his home.” 
While Trump told Fox News the company secured a $24 million dollar contract from the Pentagon, Pathak is more cagey about whether his involvement has secured any new specific funding from the White House. 
Humanoid androids make for good Starlog covers and pirate rides, but robotics experts have long criticized the pursuit of human-shaped robotics. 
Replicating human walking and running patterns for a variety of terrain is notoriously difficult to engineer. 
MIT’s Rodney Brooks tells WIRED we are likely a decade plus away from a bipedal robot that could safely navigate a door frame. 
Replacing human boots on the ground with metal ones may not be as efficient as wheels, treads or airborne drones. 
The juvenile pursuit of humanoid robots have long been a grievance for YouTuber Angela Collier, who bemoans the fantasy of robot waiters and janitors over the more purpose-built ketchup bottles or Roombas. 
As Collier illustrates, these pitches are usually little more than fishing for contracts and investment. 
People are familiar and captivated by robots as seen in film, and anything that closely matches those fictions deserves incredible scrutiny. 
It’s very Trump-brand to pursue the most bombastic method, regardless of practicality. 
Ideally we just don’t have any killer robots roaming around, regardless of legs. 
At the time of writing, we should be most concerned for the kids getting roundhouse kicked by automatons that weren’t supposed to do that. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.2%Zack Kotzer: 3.1%Kotaku: 4.0%Confirmation Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.2%Kotaku: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 30.3%Zack Kotzer: 4.8%Kotaku: 3.9%Availability Heuristic30.3%This article: 12.7%Zack Kotzer: 1.8%Kotaku: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.7%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.5%Kotaku: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.3%Kotaku: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 2.5%Zack Kotzer: 7.3%Kotaku: 5.8%Framing Effect2.5%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.6%Kotaku: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.8%Kotaku: 1.1%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.1%Kotaku: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.5%Kotaku: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 13.9%Zack Kotzer: 3.6%Kotaku: 3.4%Pessimism Bias13.9%This article: 34.8%Zack Kotzer: 16.8%Kotaku: 13.6%Negativity Bias34.8%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.8%Kotaku: 2.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Zack Kotzer: 1.1%Kotaku: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error11.4%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Zack Kotzer: 3.0%Kotaku: 1.3%In-Group Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.3%Kotaku: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.3%Kotaku: 3.6%Halo Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.2%Zack Kotzer: 1.3%Kotaku: 2.4%Recency Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Zack Kotzer: 3.2%Kotaku: 1.4%Ad Hominem3.7%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.6%Kotaku: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.4%Zack Kotzer: 3.4%Kotaku: 2.6%Appeal to Authority23.4%This article: 8.2%Zack Kotzer: 1.7%Kotaku: 2.3%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 5.7%Zack Kotzer: 1.8%Kotaku: 0.9%Slippery Slope5.7%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 19.9%Zack Kotzer: 8.9%Kotaku: 9.1%Hasty Generalization19.9%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.1%Kotaku: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 38.8%Zack Kotzer: 8.2%Kotaku: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion38.8%This article: 6.2%Zack Kotzer: 1.1%Kotaku: 0.8%Begging the Question6.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 2.4%Kotaku: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.3%Kotaku: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.3%Kotaku: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.2%Zack Kotzer: 2.0%Kotaku: 4.3%Anecdotal2.2%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 1.5%Kotaku: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.0%Kotaku: 0.5%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.2%Kotaku: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 3.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.4%Kotaku: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy3.0%This article: 7.5%Zack Kotzer: 1.7%Kotaku: 2.7%Unattributed Quote7.5%This article: 6.2%Zack Kotzer: 1.5%Kotaku: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection6.2%This article: 33.8%Zack Kotzer: 21.0%Kotaku: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice33.8%This article: 9.2%Zack Kotzer: 3.1%Kotaku: 2.4%Indoctrination9.2%This article: 8.0%Zack Kotzer: 4.5%Kotaku: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias8.0%This article: 3.0%Zack Kotzer: 0.7%Kotaku: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias3.0%This article: 4.0%Zack Kotzer: 2.4%Kotaku: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.0%

402 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers13%attributed speech349writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSankaet Pathak • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageRodney Brooks • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sankaet Pathak

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words57% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Sankaet Pathak: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-39.0 ptsWriter: 39.0%Sankaet Pathak: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%Sankaet Pathak: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-9.2 ptsWriter: 9.2%Sankaet Pathak: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Sankaet Pathak: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Sankaet Pathak: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Sankaet Pathak: 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.