Before posting Jesus meme, Trump consulted his ‘agent of chaos’: report 0%

By Joe Sommerlad0%

4/16/2026, 11:12:47 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 63.1% saturation with 340 hits. Analysis detected 1,435 faulty-reasoning hits from 539 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,197 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump’s decision to post an AI meme of himself as Jesus Christ healing the sick was not made alone, according to a report. 
Axios reports that the president consulted with Bill Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, a combative Trumpworld figure who was described as an “agent of chaos” by The Financial Times last year. 
The outlet writes that it was Pulte who first brought the image to Trump’s attention in Florida over the weekend, citing two advisers close to the president, one of whom commented: “Everyone thought it was a joke.” 
A third person denied that Pulte was responsible for showing Trump the meme, muddying the waters somewhat. 
But however it originally came to the president’s attention, his decision to post it on Truth Social after rebuking Pope Leo XIV for being “weak” and “catering to the Radical Left” sparked several days of arguments between Catholic members of his administration like JD Vance and Tom Homan and the Vatican and risked a further breach with the devout Christians among his base. 
Trump subsequently took the image down, saying it had been misunderstood, only to replace it with another of the Messiah embracing him. 
As for Pulte, he was described earlier this year as a “driving force” behind the Department of Justice’s decision to launch a criminal investigation into the Federal Reserve, which hit the rocks last month when a judge threw out two subpoenas and ruled it had been launched to “harass and pressure” the central bank’s outgoing chair, Jerome Powell. 
Pulte denied involvement in the affair but was described by Bloomberg as “a vocal force within the administration, pushing controversial housing policy ideas and investigating Trump’s foes for mortgage fraud.” 
The FHFA director, normally expected to do nothing more exciting than ensure the underlying soundness of the mortgage market, has instead “transformed the position into a megaphone to denigrate Trump’s perceived political foes,” according to the Associated Press. 
Last year, he accused New York Attorney General Letitia James, California Sen. 
Adam Schiff and Fed governor Lisa Cook of mortgage fraud, all of whom denied wrongdoing. 
None of their cases is moving forward. 
Pulte’s reputation for stirring the pot almost led to violence in September, when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent came to believe the official had been badmouthing him to the president and, in a rage, confronted him. 
“Why the f*** are you talking to the president about me?” 
Bessent reportedly asked Pulte. 
“F*** you. 
I’m gonna punch you in your f***ing face.” 
Asked to leave the event they were attending, the hot-headed secretary is said to have invited Pulte “outside,” with the latter asking if they could talk over their differences. 
“No,” Bessent answered. 
“I’m going to f***ing beat your ass.” 
The AP further reported last year that, prior to joining the Trump administration, Pulte began cultivating the dark arts by “practicing on his own family,” with whom he has publicly feuded over his late grandfather’s property business, PulteGroup. 
Pulte was described in court records as having accused his grandfather’s widow of insider trading, trashed his aunt online as a “phony Catholic” and called a step-aunt “a fat slob,” “weirdo” and “grifter.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.8%Joe Sommerlad: 4.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias10.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Joe Sommerlad: 3.7%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic7.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.6%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.0%Joe Sommerlad: 9.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect21.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias1.3%This article: 63.1%Joe Sommerlad: 20.4%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias63.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.2%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.7%Joe Sommerlad: 4.8%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias11.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.2%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.4%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias4.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 6.8%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 23.9%Joe Sommerlad: 4.2%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority23.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.7%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.7%Joe Sommerlad: 8.3%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization11.7%This article: 3.2%Joe Sommerlad: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring3.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.2%Joe Sommerlad: 8.1%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion8.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 11.7%Joe Sommerlad: 5.2%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.6%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof5.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 14.3%Joe Sommerlad: 4.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal14.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.4%Joe Sommerlad: 2.0%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.4%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.2%Joe Sommerlad: 2.8%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote7.2%This article: 15.2%Joe Sommerlad: 2.9%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection15.2%This article: 22.6%Joe Sommerlad: 11.7%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice22.6%This article: 0.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.4%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.6%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

539 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers29%attributed speech382writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageAxios • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 58 words • 0.0% coverageBloomberg • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 11 words • 100.0% coverageScott Bessent • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageScott Bessent • 8 words • 0.0% coverageScott Bessent • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAssociated Press • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Axios

100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words22% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+90.3 ptsWriter: 9.7%Axios: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-21.2 ptsWriter: 21.2%Axios: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.2 ptsWriter: 10.2%Axios: 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.