Snopes.com⁠6%

Did Trump say he talked to Jesus? ⁠28%

By Anna Rascouët-Paz⁠10%

7/12/2026, 6:00:10 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Burden of Proof, and Appeal to Authority, with Unattributed Quote as the most egregious example at 27.3% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 729 faulty-reasoning hits from 352 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠28% (14,766 of 20,437 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

In July 2026, an image circulated online supposedly showing a post by U.S. 
President Donald Trump on Truth Social saying he talked to Jesus. 
A screenshot authentically shows a December 2025 post by U.S. 
President Donald Trump on Truth Social saying that he talked to Jesus. 
The alleged screenshot appeared on Threads and Facebook, with one post saying "the president is clearly delusional" (archived). 
Image courtesy of Dilara Irem Sancar/Anadolu via Getty Images 
The supposed post read: 
“You know, I've known Jesus for a long time. 
He often says, "Donald Trump, we are really close friends and my father is happy that you're making America Great Again. 
It's my favorite country." 
When he saved my ear from the bullet he whispered in my ear, the one that was saved, and said, "The whole world owes you a debt of gratitude for being so Christian and having perfect morals." 
The image was not new. 
Social media users had been sharing it since at least December 2025, when it appeared on Facebook and Threads, with some people saying the post was proof that Trump had dementia. 
However, the image had been fabricated to present those words as Trump's. 
As a result, we have rated it fake. 
We could find no evidence that the post was real. 
We didn't find it on the president's Truth Social feed. 
A keyword search in the archive of Trump's Truth Social posts revealed no such post. 
In addition, the font's proportions did not match those from the real Truth Social website, and it did not include a date. 
We also searched for reports from reputable news organizations about this supposed post, to no avail. 
General searches on Google, Bing or DuckDuckgo revealed no evidence that this post was real, either. 
The earliest instance of this image we could find was posted Dec. 13, 2025, on Threads (archived) with the comment, "He's a Very Disturbed man." 
The Threads account appeared to post memes several times a day without citing sources. 
For further reading, we've covered a number of fake posts attributed to Trump. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 3.3%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.4%Snopes: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.9%Snopes: 3.5%Availability Heuristic10.5%This article: 4.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.1%Snopes: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.1%Snopes: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 6.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.6%Snopes: 2.4%Framing Effect6.5%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.6%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.7%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 4.8%Snopes: 5.0%Negativity Bias22.7%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.4%Snopes: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.2%Snopes: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.5%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 10.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.3%Snopes: 0.6%Halo Effect10.5%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.6%Snopes: 1.5%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 2.8%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias2.8%This article: 12.2%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.5%Ad Hominem12.2%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 15.1%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 6.4%Snopes: 6.0%Appeal to Authority15.1%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.8%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.4%Snopes: 3.6%Hasty Generalization8.8%This article: 3.7%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.3%Snopes: 0.7%Red Herring3.7%This article: 8.8%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.5%Snopes: 1.4%Bandwagon8.8%This article: 12.2%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion12.2%This article: 2.8%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.4%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.3%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 20.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.7%Snopes: 1.6%Burden of Proof20.5%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.4%Snopes: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.3%Snopes: 1.9%Anecdotal4.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.3%Snopes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 27.3%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.3%Snopes: 3.4%Unattributed Quote27.3%This article: 5.4%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.6%Snopes: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection5.4%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.9%Snopes: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.4%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

352 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading

Loading

Loading

Loading


Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.