Mediaite⁠70%

Trump Boasts ‘Great Reviews’ of His Election Security Address With Push for SAVE America Act ⁠70%

By David Gilmour⁠61%

7/17/2026, 5:48:16 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 29.8% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 536 faulty-reasoning hits from 326 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63% and a BS Rank of ⁠70% (6,601 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 69.80% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump boasted “great reviews” of his primetime address on election security Friday morning and renewed his demand that Congress pass the SAVE America Act. 
The post came hours after the president used a nationally televised address to allege past attempts to sway the 2020 election by China and promote the stalled election reforms bill, which would require proof of citizenship to register to vote as part of his push for tighter election laws. 
Taking to Truth Social, the president wrote: 
Great reviews on speech last night. 
Big audience. 
Pass THE SAVE AMERICA ACT!!! 
Thank you! 
President DONALD J. 
TRUMP 
Trump did not immediately identify which “reviews” he was referencing, but support from some MAGA Republican loyalists followed almost immediately after his speech on Thursday night. 
Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) argued that “American elections should not be less secure than Olive Garden’s endless pasta,” adding that it was “more important than ever to crush foreign election interference” while urging lawmakers to pass the legislation. 
Rep. 
Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) also backed the president’s broader message, calling for Chinese student visas to be revoked. 
CIA Director John Ratcliffe defended Trump’s assertions, saying he had “long publicly highlighted China’s nefarious efforts to influence the 2020 election against President Trump, as evidenced by my dissent to the flawed January 2021 Intelligence Community Assessment.” 
The speech was met with extensive fact – checking from multiple news organizations after Trump repeated claims about the 2020 election and foreign interference. 
CBS aired the first 15-minutes of the address before cutting away to fact-check several of the president’s assertions, while ABC and NBC declined to carry the speech live on their primary broadcast networks. 
Democratic lawmakers also came out en masse to condemn the address, accusing Trump of reviving false election claims and using the presidency to pressure Congress over voting legislation ahead of the midterm elections. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.9%David Gilmour: 5.1%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%David Gilmour: 3.8%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.6%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.8%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.0%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 29.8%David Gilmour: 10.2%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect29.8%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.1%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%David Gilmour: 16.0%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias29.1%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 3.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.1%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%David Gilmour: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.1%In-Group Bias5.5%This article: 10.1%David Gilmour: 2.1%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.1%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.0%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.3%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 3.1%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%David Gilmour: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 4.3%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.6%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.3%David Gilmour: 1.7%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority11.3%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.2%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 10.1%David Gilmour: 7.0%Mediaite: 7.6%Hasty Generalization10.1%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.0%David Gilmour: 1.5%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon8.0%This article: 19.6%David Gilmour: 6.8%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion19.6%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.7%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 4.2%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.2%Mediaite: 3.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.3%David Gilmour: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.1%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.8%David Gilmour: 2.5%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote1.8%This article: 4.6%David Gilmour: 4.2%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 8.2%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 1.5%David Gilmour: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination1.5%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.7%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

326 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers34%attributed speech214writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 6 words • 100.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 5 words • 100.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coveragePresident Donald Trump • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSenator Mike Lee • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageRep. Anna Paulina Luna • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCIA Director John Ratcliffe • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Senator Mike Lee

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words34% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Senator Mike Lee: 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.