Mediaite70%

Trump Voter Tells MS NOW the President ‘Has Enough Money Already’ and to ‘Just Concentrate’ on Job 50%

By Kathryn Wilkens41%

7/2/2026, 12:52:05 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Framing Effect, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.3% saturation with 105 hits. Analysis detected 631 faulty-reasoning hits from 325 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50% and a BS Rank of 50% (11,071 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 50.60% of the article peer group.

Two individuals who voted for President Donald Trump in 2024 told MS NOW on Wednesday that he “should just concentrate on being the president,” adding that he “has enough money already.” 
The interview, conducted by MS NOW's Laura Barrón-López, took place at Trump's Great American State Fair in Washington, D.C., where sparse crowds have drawn widespread attention in recent days. 
Barrón-López asked the voters about Trump's 2025 financial disclosure report, which went public this week, and revealed the president earned roughly $1.4 billion from cryptocurrency ventures last year. 
“Do you think that's appropriate for the president to be doing while he's in office?” 
the MS NOW reporter asked. 
“I actually don't,” replied one of the voters. 
“No. 
I don't think that's appropriate. 
I think, you know, if you're in the office, take your salary; your investments are in the hands of third parties that you don't have any influence over.” 
“I think he should just concentrate on being the president,” the other voter added to MS NOW. 
“I think he has enough money already.” 
MS NOW's Nicolle Wallace went on to repeat the comment that Trump “has enough money already,” adding, “I do too, but those folks are people who voted for Donald Trump 18 months ago.” 
Those voters aren't the only ones raising concerns. 
The Wall Street Journal's editorial board published a pointed critique of the Trump family's financial dealings on Wednesday, accusing them of “cashing in on the Presidency in big and sketchy ways.” 
The piece pointed to the family's crypto earnings, foreign business ties, and investments connected to government-backed projects before arguing that, even if legal, the arrangements amounted to “an unseemly display of using the Presidency for family profit.” 
“Americans, and especially his supporters, deserve better from this or any President,” the WSJ editorial board concluded. 
Watch the full clip above via MS NOW. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.2%Mediaite: 5.0%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.8%Mediaite: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.7%Mediaite: 3.8%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 10.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.3%Mediaite: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 8.9%Mediaite: 9.1%Framing Effect16.6%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.0%Mediaite: 0.4%Status Quo Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 1.2%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.9%Mediaite: 1.6%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 32.3%Kathryn Wilkens: 11.8%Mediaite: 14.7%Negativity Bias32.3%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.2%Mediaite: 1.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.6%Mediaite: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.8%Mediaite: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.4%Mediaite: 0.7%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.9%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.8%Mediaite: 2.3%Recency Bias8.9%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.4%Mediaite: 0.6%Primacy Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 3.8%Ad Hominem9.5%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.1%Mediaite: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.2%Mediaite: 3.5%Appeal to Authority5.2%This article: 4.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.2%Mediaite: 2.4%False Dilemma4.6%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 9.5%Mediaite: 7.6%Hasty Generalization2.5%This article: 8.9%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 0.4%Red Herring8.9%This article: 10.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.9%Bandwagon10.2%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 5.3%Mediaite: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.3%Mediaite: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.3%Mediaite: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 8.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.1%Appeal to Nature8.6%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.3%Mediaite: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 2.0%Mediaite: 3.0%Anecdotal9.5%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 22.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.0%Mediaite: 2.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)22.2%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.5%Mediaite: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.0%Mediaite: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.2%Mediaite: 3.3%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 5.2%Kathryn Wilkens: 4.5%Mediaite: 3.2%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 1.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 3.5%Mediaite: 8.3%Biased Writer Voice1.5%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 1.6%Mediaite: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.9%Mediaite: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.2%Mediaite: 1.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Kathryn Wilkens: 0.6%Mediaite: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.5%

325 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers45%attributed speech179writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageLaura Barrón-López • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNicolle Wallace • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal's editorial board • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal's editorial board • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWall Street Journal's editorial board • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Nicolle Wallace

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words23% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.5 ptsWriter: 9.5%Nicolle Wallace: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Nicolle Wallace: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Nicolle Wallace: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Nicolle Wallace: 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.