DOJ charges Florida House candidate who called for ‘Antichrist’ Trump’s death 52%

By Molly Parks21%

7/16/2026, 5:32:11 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Appeal to Emotion, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 32.8% saturation with 138 hits. Analysis detected 618 faulty-reasoning hits from 421 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.9% and a BS Rank of 52% (10,710 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

The Department of Justice arrested and charged a former Marine running for Congress in Florida who called for President Donald Trump to be killed. 
The U.S. 
Attorney’s Office for the Middle District of Florida announced on Thursday that it charged William Upham, 35, of Jacksonville, Florida, with threatening the president. 
Upham could face up to five years in federal prison if he is convicted of the charge. 
Upham, who is running as a write-in Republican candidate to represent Florida’s 5th Congressional District, was arrested after he stated in a social media video that he believed Trump to be the Antichrist and said the president “must be killed.” 
The Marine Corps disavowed Upham on Tuesday after reports of his comments circulated through the media. 
In one of the videos detailed in the criminal complaint , Upham called on people to “overthrow the Trump administration on behalf of God” and called for the use of semi-automatic rifles in the process. 
“We are at war with evil,” Upham said of the United States in another social media video . 
“This is a war between God and the Antichrist. 
There is no doubt in my mind that the president of the United States, Donald J. 
Trump, is the Antichrist. 
He is a false Messiah, and he is your enemy, and he must be killed.” 
The Marine Corps said in a statement that it was “aware of the disturbing statements” made by Upham, who was medically discharged from his service in 2025. 
The Marine Corps said Upham’s comments “are a direct violation of the oath he swore to uphold and are not in keeping with the service’s values.” 
Two days after the Marine Corps disavowed Upham, the DOJ announced his arrest. 
In the affidavit made by a U.S. 
Secret Service agent accompanying the criminal complaint, the agent noted that the agency was made aware of the two disturbing social media videos from Upham and a separate email Upham allegedly sent to a reporter in which the former Marine said he would “kill President Trump at the time that God chooses.” 
MARINES DISAVOW FLORIDA HOUSE CANDIDATE WHO SAID ‘ANTICHRIST’ TRUMP ‘MUST BE KILLED’ 
U.S. 
Magistrate Judge Samuel J. 
Horovitz signed the complaint and submitted it on Wednesday. 
Upham is running as a write-in candidate against five-term incumbent Rep. 
John Rutherford (R-FL) and two other candidates in the Republican primary, set for Aug. 
18. 
The Cook Political Report deems the seat to be a solidly Republican district. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Molly Parks: 7.1%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.2%Molly Parks: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.8%Molly Parks: 7.1%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias32.8%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Molly Parks: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias3.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.3%Molly Parks: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority9.3%This article: 3.6%Molly Parks: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma3.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.4%Molly Parks: 7.9%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion16.4%This article: 4.8%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question4.8%This article: 6.9%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.0%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof4.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 24.0%Molly Parks: 4.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote24.0%This article: 12.4%Molly Parks: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection12.4%This article: 5.7%Molly Parks: 3.7%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice5.7%This article: 8.3%Molly Parks: 2.8%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination8.3%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

421 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech284writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageUpham • 18 words • 0.0% coverageUpham • 9 words • 100.0% coverageUpham • 16 words • 0.0% coverageUpham • 4 words • 0.0% coverageUpham • 15 words • 0.0% coverageMarine Corps • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMarine Corps • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageMagistrate Judge Samuel J. Horovitz • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCook Political Report • 13 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Upham

100%flagged-word coverage
62 attributed words45% of attributed speech74% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-17.9 ptsWriter: 32.4%Upham: 14.5%14.5%Quote-first Misdirection-18.3 ptsWriter: 18.3%Upham: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Upham: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.5 ptsWriter: 8.5%Upham: 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.