Trump lashed out at Vance telling him, ‘Everyone just needs to copy what I say’ on Iran, book reveals 57%

By Josh Marcus54%

6/19/2026, 8:43:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Availability Heuristic, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 55.4% saturation with 302 hits. Analysis detected 1,525 faulty-reasoning hits from 545 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.4% and a BS Rank of 57% (8,877 of 20,473 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.60% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump reportedly raged against Vice President JD Vance last year for not using the boss’s chosen line that American planes had “obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program. 
“Trump vented to others that Vance hadn’t repeated his own new phrase that Iran’s nuclear program had been ‘totally obliterated,’” according to an excerpt obtained by Politico of the forthcoming Regime Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, from New York Times reporters Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan. 
After the June attack on Iran, Vance had mildly undercut Trump in an interview with ABC News. 
“Well, Jon, severely damaged versus obliterated, I’m not exactly sure what the difference is,” Vance said. 
“What we know is we set their nuclear program back substantially.” 
(Intelligence on the strikes at the time reportedly suggested they did not in fact destroy the nuclear program.) 
Tensions flared elsewhere between the pair over Iran, according to the book. 
Vance, a military veteran and critic of U.S. foreign wars, reportedly appeared “anxious” after the strike and aides thought he was worried about further escalation. 
When Vance allegedly suggested Trump soften some lines in his speech about the Iran operation, the president allegedly snapped at Vance, telling him, “I know what I’m doing.” 
“Seemingly irritated by Vance’s second-guessing, Trump turned his back on the vice president without saying any more,” Regime Change claims. 
*The Independent* has contacted the White House for comment. 
Vance has often been one of the administration’s point people on Iran, shuttling between Washington and Pakistan for negotiations. 
In recent days, he has taken to the media and the White House briefing room to defend the memorandum of understanding between the U.S. and Iran aimed at ending the war, which largely returns conditions to their pre-war status quo and does not represent a finalized peace deal. 
Vance has also defended the deal from critics in Israel, the U.S. partner in the Iran war, who were nonetheless sidelined in negotiations to end the conflict. 
Speaking to reporters this week, Vance chastised Israel, warning that if he were in their position, he “might not be attacking the only powerful ally that I have anywhere left in the entire world.” 
*Regime Change*, which releases on Tuesday, has been sending shockwaves through the administration. 
Trump officials believe sourcing for the book includes leaked secret recordings from inside the Situation Room, the strictly guarded area where the president makes and monitors critical national security decisions, one of the most high-security areas on Earth. 
"We're afraid some of our most sensitive conversations were being recorded," an administration source said of the potential leak in an interview with Axios. 
"And we have no idea which ones." 
The book also reportedly captures the tension inside the administration over the Epstein files. 
*Regime Change* reportedly describes a Situation Room meeting about how to handle the fallout from the administration's slow-walking the release of the Epstein files, and it details a reported incident where then-FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino allegedly blew up at then-Attorney General Pam Bondi for what he called the “dumb f***ing charade” of giving an early batch of files to right-wing influencers, then declining to release much more for months. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Josh Marcus: 3.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 28.8%Josh Marcus: 3.8%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic28.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.4%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.8%Josh Marcus: 8.9%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect13.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 12.3%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias12.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.2%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 9.0%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias9.0%This article: 55.4%Josh Marcus: 11.5%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias55.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.7%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 1.3%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.4%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.8%Josh Marcus: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma8.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 4.0%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 26.1%Josh Marcus: 6.3%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion26.1%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 4.3%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division5.0%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal5.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.6%Josh Marcus: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.6%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 53.0%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote53.0%This article: 15.2%Josh Marcus: 2.7%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection15.2%This article: 7.3%Josh Marcus: 6.1%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice7.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 12.8%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…12.8%

545 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech447writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 70 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

JD Vance

100%flagged-word coverage
89 attributed words91% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote-5.4 ptsWriter: 54.8%JD Vance: 49.4%49.4%Quote-first Misdirection+27.2 ptsWriter: 11.0%JD Vance: 38.2%38.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -15.7 ptsWriter: 15.7%JD Vance: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-8.9 ptsWriter: 8.9%JD Vance: 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.