Republican lawmaker says Hegseth ‘makes Kristi Noem seem like a 5-star recruit’ in blistering takedown 45%

By Isabel Keane0%

5/24/2026, 9:37:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 33.7% saturation with 153 hits. Analysis detected 916 faulty-reasoning hits from 454 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 47.9% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,296 of 20,371 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.40% of the article peer group.

Republican lawmaker says Hegseth ‘makes Kristi Noem seem like a 5-star recruit’ in blistering takedown 
Republican Sen. 
Thom Tillis slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s handling of the Iran war, saying that he makes “Kristi Noem seem like a 5-star recruit.” 
The North Carolina lawmaker, who is retiring at the end of his current term, spoke out Sunday against Hegseth’s handling of the ongoing war with Iran and the reported peace deal that the Trump administration claims is nearly reached. 
Tillis told CNN’s State of the Union that the deal comes after Hegseth claimed the U.S. “obliterated” Iran, noting that the secretary was “in a position to, pretty much, dictate terms.” 
“When you see these mistakes made by Hegseth…With all of these mistakes in total, it’s beginning to make Kristi Noem look like a five-star recruit,” Tillis said. 
Tillis, a frequent critic of Trump, suggested that the reported details of the agreement represent a shift in the administration’s stance on the war. 
"We were told about 11 weeks ago, by (U.S. 
Defense ​Secretary Pete) Hegseth and the Department of Defense, that they had obliterated Iran's defenses and it was just a matter of time before we had the nuclear material," Tillis said. 
"Now we're talking about a posture where we may accept the nuclear material remaining in Iran. 
How does that make sense at all?" 
The supposed deal, which would see the Strait of Hormuz reopen, had largely been negotiated, although Iran had not yet agreed to give up its uranium. 
The key passageway sees about 20 percent of the world’s oil supplies pass through it. 
However, its closure has caused gas prices to skyrocket past $4.50 as of Sunday, according to AAA. 
Hegseth has faced intense criticism during his time as Defense Secretary, and most recently for his handling of the war in Iran. 
Earlier this month, Hegseth faced grilling from Republican and Democratic lawmakers about the Trump administration’s plan to end the war in Iran and how it will pay for it, as Pentagon officials now say it will cost about $29 billion. 
Tillis, who voted to confirm both Hegseth and Noem last year, called for Noem to step down from her role as Homeland Security Secretary during an oversight hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee in March. 
The senator slammed Noem for her leadership decisions regarding immigration enforcement in Minneapolis, namely the killings of two U.S. citizens at the hands of federal immigration agents. 
He also criticized her decision to kill her 14-month-old dog, which she recounted in her 2024 memoir. 
Tillis, a critic of Trump, is set to retire when his current term ends next January. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.8%Isabel Keane: 4.0%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias19.8%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.4%Isabel Keane: 4.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic19.4%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.4%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.2%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Isabel Keane: 7.0%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.9%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.3%Isabel Keane: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.3%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 2.6%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 3.5%Isabel Keane: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias3.5%This article: 33.7%Isabel Keane: 8.9%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias33.7%This article: 7.7%Isabel Keane: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias7.7%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.7%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.9%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.1%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Isabel Keane: 2.1%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect5.1%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.2%Isabel Keane: 0.9%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias17.2%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.1%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.2%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 6.8%Isabel Keane: 3.1%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority6.8%This article: 3.5%Isabel Keane: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma3.5%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 3.3%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.0%Isabel Keane: 6.9%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion11.0%This article: 6.8%Isabel Keane: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question6.8%This article: 9.0%Isabel Keane: 2.5%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.0%This article: 7.7%Isabel Keane: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque7.7%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 5.9%Isabel Keane: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal5.9%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.5%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 1.5%Isabel Keane: 0.6%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity1.5%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.6%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.8%Isabel Keane: 3.7%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote6.8%This article: 6.6%Isabel Keane: 4.0%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection6.6%This article: 17.6%Isabel Keane: 5.4%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice17.6%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.0%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 0.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Isabel Keane: 1.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

454 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker37%attributed speech286writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 31 words • 100.0% coverageThom Tillis • 27 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 24 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 9 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 31 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 16 words • 0.0% coverageThom Tillis • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Thom Tillis

95%flagged-word coverage
168 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-6.2 ptsWriter: 19.9%Thom Tillis: 13.7%13.7%Unattributed Quote+18.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Thom Tillis: 18.5%18.5%Quote-first Misdirection-10.5 ptsWriter: 10.5%Thom Tillis: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.