MS NOW95%

Trump returns to White House Correspondents’ Dinner after April assassination attempt 29%

By Ebony Davis78%

7/25/2026, 1:03:48 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 16 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 8.9% saturation with 64 hits. Analysis detected 460 faulty-reasoning hits from 722 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 39.5% and a BS Rank of 29% (15,534 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 71.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump is set to deliver remarks Friday at the rescheduled White House Correspondents’ Association dinner, three months after an assassination attempt forced organizers to postpone the original program. 
The dinner, originally scheduled for April, was interrupted after gunfire erupted outside the Washington Hilton as Trump and other administration officials attended the event. 
Secret Service agents quickly evacuated Trump, first lady Melania Trump, Vice President JD Vance and members of the Cabinet, while hundreds of attendees sheltered under tables as law enforcement secured the scene. 
Authorities later charged a California man with attempting to assassinate the president, alleging he tried to breach security while armed. 
The rescheduled event is being held at the Waldorf Astoria in Washington, D.C., with heightened security, including a lengthier screening process and a smaller guest list, though hundreds are still in attendance. 
“An assassination attempt on our president is an attack on democracy itself,” Former White House Correspondents’ Association President Weijia Jiang said in her opening remarks. 
“Tonight, our message is this: We are back. 
We will not be intimidated. 
We refuse to let an act of violence have the final word,” Jiang added. 
Friday’s event gives Trump a second chance to deliver the remarks he planned to give in April to journalists, administration officials and invited guests. 
“I don’t know whether or not I will give the same rather nasty statements, at least as it concerns certain people, but we will soon find out. 
In any event, it will be a ‘HOT’ ticket!,” Trump said in a Truth Social post on July 2 when announcing he would attend the rescheduled event. 
The first lady, who attended the original dinner, did not attend the rescheduled gathering, a White House official confirmed to MS NOW. 
The Office of the First Lady did not provide a reason for her absence. 
Several administration officials were spotted, including Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. 
Kennedy Jr., Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, White House communications director Steven Cheung and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche. 
U.S. 
Secret Service officer Victor Gonzales, who was struck by gunfire during April’s shooting, and the Washington Hilton staff were recognized Friday night for their response. 
The annual dinner has long served as one of Washington’s signature bipartisan social events, bringing together journalists, lawmakers, administration officials, entertainers and business leaders. 
It is held each year to celebrate the First Amendment, recognize excellence in journalism and raise money for scholarships. 
It is also known to be a night of humor and lighthearted exchanges. 
Presidents from both parties have traditionally used the event to poke fun at themselves, the press and the political establishment, though participation has varied in recent years. 
Jiang, who recently completed her term, said the board chose to hold a second dinner after consulting members argued that the gunfire that disrupted the original event underscored  not diminished  the organization’s mission to defend the First Amendment and a free press. 
She said in a letter that the association would “not allow an act of violence to have the last word,” particularly during the nation’s 250th anniversary year. 
Trump previously skipped the annual dinners throughout his first term and did so again in 2025 after returning to the White House. 
He has spent years publicly criticizing many national news organizations and reporters, including MS NOW’s journalists. 
He has also routinely labeled many mainstream news organizations as “fake news” and accused journalists of biased coverage, while his administration has repeatedly sparred with reporters over access and media policies. 
Ahead of the dinner, hundreds of journalists and several press freedom organizations urged the White House Correspondents’ Association to “forcefully” stand against what they described as the Trump administration’s “egregious” attacks toward journalists, including restrictions on media access. 
The letter specifically cited the Justice Department’s subpoenas of New York Times reporters over their reporting on a Qatari-gifted Air Force One. 
The DOJ withdrew those subpoenas on Thursday. 
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Thursday that the president “looks forward to finishing what he started before a despicable assassination attempt derailed the original event.” 
“I encourage everyone watching tomorrow night to tune in for what promises to be a very entertaining and memorable evening,” Leavitt said. 
Emily Hung and Soorin Kim contributed to this story. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%Ebony Davis: 2.0%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 2.6%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.3%Ebony Davis: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.3%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Ebony Davis: 12.6%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.7%Ebony Davis: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.7%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.8%Ebony Davis: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias6.8%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Ebony Davis: 12.4%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias6.2%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 5.9%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 3.5%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Ebony Davis: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias4.3%This article: 3.5%Ebony Davis: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect3.5%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.1%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Ebony Davis: 2.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias3.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 1.9%Ebony Davis: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 3.6%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 5.3%Ebony Davis: 4.8%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority5.3%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 3.6%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 10.7%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 2.2%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.8%Ebony Davis: 1.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal1.8%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.7%Ebony Davis: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.7%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 2.0%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 1.1%Ebony Davis: 4.8%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice1.1%This article: 4.0%Ebony Davis: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination4.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 2.8%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ebony Davis: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 3.0%Ebony Davis: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…3.0%

722 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech494writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 27 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWeijia Jiang • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 29 words • 100.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words22% of attributed speech34% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+56.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 56.9%56.9%Attempt to Sell a Product +43.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Karoline Leavitt: 43.1%43.1%

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.