MS NOW95%

Trump plans primetime speech on voting machines and foreign influence in elections 19%

By Vaughn Hillyard26%

7/14/2026, 10:15:33 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 17.6% saturation with 244 hits. Analysis detected 1,886 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,384 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34% and a BS Rank of 19% (17,747 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.10% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump is preparing to deliver a primetime speech that will focus on voting machine security and alleged efforts by foreign nations to influence U.S. elections, two senior administration officials told MS NOW. 
The text of the speech is not final, but the president is also expected to release declassified intelligence documents on both subjects. 
The address follows a year of internal disagreement between different administration factions over how to satisfy the president’s demands for information bolstering his false claim that he won the 2020 election. 
It is not clear whether the president will present any credible new evidence that the 2020 election was stolen. 
The push to declassify and release documents is being driven by Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, and John Solomon, a former journalist who has frequently amplified election fraud claims to mass audiences, according to multiple individuals familiar with the process. 
Solomon signed a contract with the White House in June as a special government employee to help determine which classified documents to release. 
Both men were elevated into their respective positions that month. 
This effort comes after extensive reviews by the U.S. intelligence community under both the Trump and Biden administrations found no credible evidence calling the 2020 election into question. 
Access to the president has “loosened” in recent months, according to one administration official, as Trump has increasingly leaned on aides and senior officials willing to spread conspiracy theories about 2020. 
“It’s that network [of people] that is the real f***ing problem,” said the administration official, who, like others who spoke with MS NOW for this story, was granted anonymity given the sensitivity of the issue. 
“They try to put bits and pieces together and then make these conclusions. 
Everything I have seen, it’s not what’s there.” 
“I’ve never seen any intelligence that an adversary hacked or changed or flipped votes,” the administration official added. 
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt urged people to wait for the speech. 
“As usual, anonymous sources are speculating about what President Trump will say during his speech on Thursday evening,” she told MS NOW. 
“The truth is, nobody knows yet what President Trump will ultimately say, which is why everyone should tune in.” 
The two senior administration officials cautioned that Trump could still revise the address and that its contents could change before its expected Thursday night delivery. 
The speech was initially planned for Monday night; that afternoon, a meeting was held at the White House to discuss it. 
At that meeting, according to two officials, participants discussed Chinese and Venezuelan government efforts to influence the 2020 election, along with the security of U.S. voting machines. 
For years, election deniers have spread a long-debunked conspiracy theory involving the Venezuelan government hacking American voting machines. 
A review by the National Intelligence Counsel compiled during the first Trump administration and released in March 2021 deemed the claim  not credible .” 
Now, with just over 110 days until the November midterm elections, that theory may be raised again by the president. 
Speaking to reporters Tuesday, Trump teased the address, declining to offer specifics but promising it will include “really big news” and warning that the country “has to shape up.” 
A White House task force has been reviewing thousands of intelligence and law enforcement documents related to election security for possible release, according to senior administration officials. 
They said CIA Director John Ratcliffe and his staff are participating in the process, as well as Pulte and Solomon. 
Intelligence assessments, including those compiled by the intelligence community in the final year of Trump’s first term, drew a clear distinction between influence and interference by foreign actors. 
Intelligence officials determined that influence campaigns happened in 2020, including social media activity by Iran and China aimed at weakening Trump, and by Russia aimed at denigrating then-candidate Joe Biden. 
But intelligence officials concluded that China did not interfere  a term defined as activity aimed at technically compromising voting systems and manipulating votes to affect the outcome. 
Former senior intelligence officials told MS NOW that declassifying and releasing potentially thousands of raw documents to the public is dangerous and could sow confusion and erode public trust in elections. 
The influence campaigns by China, Venezuela, Russia and Iran  along with the allegations of interference  were already investigated exhaustively after the 2020 election by judges, congressional committees and intelligence and law enforcement leaders. 
Some former and current officials also fear the release could expose the sources and methods behind the underlying intelligence. 
One former senior intelligence official described the mood inside the intelligence community as white-knuckled amid fears the release could undermine the credibility of U.S. intelligence and law enforcement. 
Pulte and Solomon remain at the center of the effort. 
On Sunday, a video posted on social media showed Pulte sitting beside Trump at his golf club in Virginia. 
Sources also told MS NOW that Kurt Olsen, a lawyer whom Trump onboarded last fall as the White House director of election security and integrity, has focused much of his attention on alleged Venezuelan efforts to interfere in U.S. elections. 
Last month, Olsen joined the U.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida, where an ongoing criminal conspiracy investigation is underway into allegations that various actors sought to undermine Trump’s electoral prospects. 
Georgia’s 2020 results, and the Senate runoffs that followed, are also expected to feature in the documents under consideration, according to two people familiar with the plans. 
The release is expected to include interviews and materials gathered across law enforcement and intelligence agencies. 
Former senior intelligence officials, including several who served in Trump’s first administration, called the planned release irresponsible, saying that if anyone had an interest in preventing the use of classified intelligence documents to spread false 2020 election claims it would be Ratcliffe. 
They noted the material was thoroughly reviewed at the time  including by Ratcliffe, then the director of national intelligence. 
Ratcliffe “had access to virtually every piece of intelligence, credible or not,” said a former senior national security official who served during Trump’s first term. 
“But there was nothing that would come anywhere near actual interference with election systems in the 2020 election  it’s complete and utter bull****.” 
On Jan. 7, 2021, as director of national intelligence, Ratcliffe argued that the intelligence community assessment did not “fully and accurately” reflect “the scope of the Chinese government’s efforts to influence the 2020 U.S. federal elections.” 
He did not, however, assert that China had changed any vote totals or interfered with critical infrastructure. 
The 2021 National Intelligence Council assessment was unambiguous on that point. 
“We have no indications that any foreign actor attempted to alter any technical aspect of the voting process in the 2020 US elections, including voter registration, casting ballots, vote tabulation, or reporting results,” it found. 
The assessment added that it “would be difficult” for foreign actors to “manipulate election processes at scale without detection by intelligence collection” due to the physical and cyber security monitoring around voting systems and election audits. 
The intelligence community presented its assessments of the available intelligence to White House chief of staff Susie Wiles last year, according to the administration official familiar with the deliberations over raw classified material. 
The official said the White House was aware of the intelligence community’s assessments related to the vulnerabilities of voting machines, but opted to not release its conclusions  a move that, this official said, prevented key agencies in the federal government from working with states and localities over the last several months to ensure fixes to any potential vulnerabilities, including outdated election software or internet access. 
The administration official and former national security officials who spoke to MS NOW said there is no evidence that foreign adversaries have been able to successfully exploit such vulnerabilities and change vote totals. 
Members of the intelligence community are now watching for the “next shoe to drop,” one former national security official said. 
The intelligence, an administration official said, does not show what Pulte and Solomon claim. 
“The intelligence just doesn’t say what you want it to say. 
I’m sorry,” they said. 
The post Trump plans primetime speech on voting machines and foreign influence in elections appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.6%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.9%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.4%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic5.8%This article: 4.6%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic4.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.8%This article: 4.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.1%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect4.1%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 6.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.4%This article: 7.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.6%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias7.0%This article: 17.6%Vaughn Hillyard: 9.5%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias17.6%This article: 3.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias3.0%This article: 4.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.9%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error4.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 3.0%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 1.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias1.4%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Vaughn Hillyard: 4.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem4.7%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.2%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority13.4%This article: 1.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 2.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope2.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.2%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.5%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization2.2%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon1.4%This article: 10.8%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.0%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion10.8%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.9%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 2.6%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature2.6%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal3.9%This article: 1.3%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman1.3%This article: 3.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.7%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity1.7%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.9%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.3%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.9%This article: 8.4%Vaughn Hillyard: 5.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice8.4%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 2.9%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Vaughn Hillyard: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1384 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers21%attributed speech1,087writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Solomon • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. intelligence community • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageNational Intelligence Counsel • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House task force • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageU.S. attorney’s office in the Southern District of Florida • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageJohn Ratcliffe • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageNational Intelligence Council • 35 words • 0.0% coverageNational Intelligence Council • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 66 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words9.4% of attributed speech72% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-10.7 ptsWriter: 10.7%U.S. intelligence community: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%U.S. intelligence community: 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.