The Trump Pentagon appointee who has divided top Republicans ⁠64%

By Noah Robertson⁠0%

6/28/2026, 4:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Pessimism Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.1% saturation with 27 hits. Analysis detected 126 faulty-reasoning hits from 69 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (7,904 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.90% of the article peer group.

Last fall, one of the top Republicans in Congress left the Pentagon suspecting he’d been told a lie. 
Rep. 
Mike D. 
Rogers, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, had learned that the Trump administration planned to remove thousands of soldiers from Romania — even as his committee demanded that the Pentagon consult with Congress before initiating any major withdrawals. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 3.8%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 8.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%Noah Robertson: 16.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 2.8%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 2.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.1%Noah Robertson: 15.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias26.1%This article: 39.1%Noah Robertson: 28.4%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias39.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.1%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 3.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.8%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 6.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 3.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 8.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.2%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 4.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 7.8%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 39.1%Noah Robertson: 2.8%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal39.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 26.1%Noah Robertson: 2.2%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)26.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 7.2%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 2.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 13.0%Noah Robertson: 15.1%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice13.0%This article: 26.1%Noah Robertson: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination26.1%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 2.7%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.8%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Noah Robertson: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

69 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker59%attributed speech28writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageMike D. Rogers • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMike D. Rogers • 39 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mike D. Rogers

0%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Indoctrination-64.3 ptsWriter: 64.3%Mike D. Rogers: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-32.1 ptsWriter: 32.1%Mike D. Rogers: 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.