Karoline Leavitt Embarrassed After Sharing Eyebrow-Raising Trump Poll 35%

By William Vaillancourt0%

6/23/2026, 9:01:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 30.1% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 586 faulty-reasoning hits from 349 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 42.3% and a BS Rank of 35% (14,369 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.60% of the article peer group.

Karoline Leavitt shared a poll showing “broad support” for parts of Donald Trump’s Iran peace deal—but failed to mention that a vast majority thought the deal could fall apart anyway. 
The White House press secretary, 28, on Tuesday shared on X a Breitbart link to an Economist/YouGov poll conducted last week. 
“Poll: Broad Support for Key Objectives in Trump’s Peace Deal with Iran,” Leavitt wrote. 
As part of the memorandum of understanding with Iran, there would be a ceasefire, Iran would reopen the Straight of Hormuz, and the country would not “procure or develop nuclear weapons.” 
Additionally, the U.S. would lift sanctions against Iran while creating a $300 billion reconstruction investment fund for Iran. 
The “broad support” Leavitt and Breitbart were referencing appears to be the 69 percent of respondents who said they supported reopening the Strait of Hormuz with “toll-free commercial passage” for 60 days. 
The same percentage agreed that Iran should promise not to develop nuclear weapons. 
But when asked about the deal as a whole, poll respondents were less firmly on Trump’s side. 
Less than one-third (32 percent) supported the deal, while 24 percent opposed it and 44 percent were unsure. 
Additionally, a whopping 81 percent of the poll’s 1,679 respondents said it was either “very” or “somewhat” likely that the deal would fall apart and war would resume. 
Among self-described “MAGA” supporters, that number was still quite high (71 percent), and among Republicans, it was even higher: 75 percent. 
That point was highlighted by CBS News’ Kathryn Watson. 
Furthermore, only slightly more Americans in the poll felt that the U.S. had “won” the war: 25 percent, compared with 22 percent who chose Iran. 
A considerable 41 percent said neither won. 
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. 
Negotiations to end the war within 60 days began last weekend in Switzerland. 
The U.S. delegation is led by Vice President JD Vance, who got off to a rocky start by being forced to deny he had been snubbed by Iran’s foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 4.6%The Daily Beast: 4.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Anchoring Bias9.2%This article: 8.0%William Vaillancourt: 6.6%The Daily Beast: 3.6%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 28.9%William Vaillancourt: 10.8%The Daily Beast: 11.2%Framing Effect28.9%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 2.0%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 30.1%William Vaillancourt: 15.3%The Daily Beast: 19.9%Negativity Bias30.1%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.4%The Daily Beast: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 1.3%In-Group Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.8%The Daily Beast: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 3.1%The Daily Beast: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 1.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.6%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.1%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 2.3%The Daily Beast: 5.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.6%William Vaillancourt: 7.5%The Daily Beast: 3.2%Appeal to Authority2.6%This article: 4.9%William Vaillancourt: 2.1%The Daily Beast: 1.1%False Dilemma4.9%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.6%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 8.4%The Daily Beast: 6.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.8%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.4%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Bandwagon6.0%This article: 10.3%William Vaillancourt: 8.4%The Daily Beast: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion10.3%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 1.2%The Daily Beast: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.2%William Vaillancourt: 0.9%The Daily Beast: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.4%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 8.6%William Vaillancourt: 4.9%The Daily Beast: 1.4%Burden of Proof8.6%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 3.3%The Daily Beast: 3.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.9%William Vaillancourt: 2.5%The Daily Beast: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.9%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.2%The Daily Beast: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.0%William Vaillancourt: 8.2%The Daily Beast: 4.6%Unattributed Quote4.0%This article: 2.3%William Vaillancourt: 6.5%The Daily Beast: 3.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 10.9%William Vaillancourt: 9.5%The Daily Beast: 18.3%Biased Writer Voice10.9%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.5%The Daily Beast: 3.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.0%The Daily Beast: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%William Vaillancourt: 0.7%The Daily Beast: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

349 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers6.6%attributed speech326writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageCBS News’ Kathryn Watson • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

100%flagged-word coverage
14 attributed words61% of attributed speech54% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-11.7 ptsWriter: 11.7%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Karoline Leavitt: 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.