Mediaite71%

WATCH: Belgium Trolls Prez With ‘Trump Dance’ Celebration After Crushing USMNT: ‘Overturn This’ 25%

By David Gilmour61%

7/7/2026, 10:35:56 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 39.2% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 641 faulty-reasoning hits from 367 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of 25% (15,907 of 21,198 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

(Screengrab via X) Belgian players trolled President Donald Trump after eliminating the USMNT from the World Cup on Monday night, celebrating their emphatic 4-1 victory with his signature dance in a game overshadowed by controversy over his intervention to overturn Folarin Balogun's ban. 
Belgium advanced to the quarterfinals after overwhelming the USMNT in Seattle, with Charles De Ketelaere scoring twice before substitute Romelu Lukaku added Belgium's fourth goal late in the match. 
As the team gathered to celebrate Lukaku's goal, several Belgian players broke into the familiar "Trump dance," mimicking the arm-pumping routine the president has often performed at campaign rallies and public appearances. 
The display appeared to directly mock the president over his role in lobbying FIFA's decision to overturn Balogun's automatic one-match suspension from the previous game. 
The U.S. striker had been given a red card against Bosnia and Herzegovina and was initially expected to miss the round-of-16 clash before FIFA dropped the ban. 
Trump later revealed he personally asked FIFA president Gianni Infantino to review the case, saying Balogun's absence would have left a "big stain" on the tournament. 
The reversal sparked a political firestorm as pundits called out the interference as did the Union of European Football Associations (UEFA), while Belgium’s own football federation vowed to appeal the decision. 
In post-match interviews, Belgian midfielder Nicolas Raskin acknowledged the “sense of injustice” had fueled his team's resolve to win on the pitch. 
"A lot has happened off the pitch over the last two days. 
There was a sense of injustice within the squad, and we were determined to respond on the field," he said. 
"We told ourselves we had to respond on the pitch. 
That's what we did," Belgian captain Youri Tielemans also said. 
Belgium also appeared to continue the jab online after the match. 
The national team's X account posted a photo of Lukaku cupping his ear after scoring, alongside the caption: "overturn this." 
The victory sends Belgium into a quarterfinal match against Spain, and ends the United States' World Cup campaign as the last remaining host nation after Canada and Mexico were both eliminated in the round of 16. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 5.1%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%David Gilmour: 3.8%Mediaite: 3.7%Availability Heuristic8.7%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: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 39.2%David Gilmour: 10.2%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect39.2%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: 23.7%David Gilmour: 16.0%Mediaite: 14.6%Negativity Bias23.7%This article: 11.4%David Gilmour: 3.4%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias11.4%This article: 9.8%David Gilmour: 2.1%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error9.8%This article: 11.7%David Gilmour: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 2.1%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%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: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.9%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%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: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.7%Mediaite: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%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: 0.0%David Gilmour: 7.0%Mediaite: 7.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.5%Mediaite: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.5%David Gilmour: 6.8%Mediaite: 6.7%Appeal to Emotion15.5%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: 11.7%David Gilmour: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.8%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.8%David Gilmour: 1.7%Mediaite: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.8%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: 11.7%David Gilmour: 2.5%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote11.7%This article: 9.0%David Gilmour: 4.2%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.0%This article: 15.3%David Gilmour: 8.2%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice15.3%This article: 0.0%David Gilmour: 1.0%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%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: 1.2%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%

367 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers27%attributed speech267writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageNicolas Raskin • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNicolas Raskin • 12 words • 100.0% coverageNicolas Raskin • 20 words • 0.0% coverageYouri Tielemans • 10 words • 0.0% coverageYouri Tielemans • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nicolas Raskin

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words54% of attributed speech66% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+10.6 ptsWriter: 11.6%Nicolas Raskin: 22.2%22.2%Biased Writer Voice-21.0 ptsWriter: 21.0%Nicolas Raskin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-12.4 ptsWriter: 12.4%Nicolas Raskin: 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.