Catholic JD Vance weighs in after Trump removes Truth Social post with image appearing to show himself as Jesus 0%

By Owen Scott0%

4/14/2026, 9:09:53 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Ambiguity (Equivocation), and False Dilemma, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.6% saturation with 183 hits. Analysis detected 928 faulty-reasoning hits from 619 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,182 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Vice President JD Vance said that a now-deleted post shared by President Trump, in which the commander-in-chief appears to be dressed as Jesus, was a “joke.”  
Trump shared the widely condemned picture, which shows him clothed in white robes and placing a glowing hand on a sick patient, shortly after blasting Pope Leo XIV on Truth Social. 
In a lengthy post, the president claimed that the pope was “WEAK” on crime and tore into the pontiff’s criticism of the U.S.’s war with Iran.  
Vance, who converted to Catholicism in 2019, told Fox News’ Special Report With Bret Baier on Monday that the president’s post was “a joke.”  
“And, of course, he took it down because he recognized that a lot of people weren’t understanding his humor in that case,” he said. 
“I think the president of the United States likes to mix it up on social media.”​ 
Vance added that it was “good” that Trump is “not filtered.” 
“I certainly think that, in some cases, it would be best for the Vatican to stick to matters of morality,” Vance said. 
“To stick to matters of, you know, what’s going on in the Catholic Church and let the president of the United States stick to dictating American public policy.” 
When asked about Trump’s claim that the pope was “catering to the Radical Left,” Vance said that Trump has the “prerogative” to set the country’s immigration policy. 
​“He has to look out for the interests of the United States of America,” he added.  
Vance was shredded on social media for his comments, with journalist John Harwood claiming on X that the Trump administration is “not interested in matters of morality.” 
​“Glad the Vice President clarified that he doesn't think waging war is a matter of morality,” political commentator Jon Favreau wrote on X.  
Writer Polly Sigh took aim at Vance’s upcoming memoir about his conversion to Catholicism.  
“Spoken just like a fake Catholic who confused a Methodist church with a Catholic one on the cover of his book,” she wrote on X. 
Vance was one of the last world leaders to meet with Pope Francis before his death. 
The vice president had previously cited the concept of ordo amoris to justify his administration’s deportation policies, while Pope Francis asserted his own interpretation of the theological idea in an open letter. 
Trump’s scathing Truth Social post came a week after the current pope described the president’s claim that an “entire civilisation will die” in the war with Iran as “unacceptable.”​ 
The pope had also suggested, without naming Trump or the war with Iran directly, that a “delusion of omnipotence” was fueling conflicts around the world.  
On Truth Social, the president claimed that he liked the pope’s brother “much better” and suggested that, without his own election in 2024, the pope “wouldn’t be in the Vatican.” 
​Shortly after uploading that post, the president shared the image of himself in a white robe, bathed in light and placing his hand on a sick man’s face.  
A nurse, a soldier, a man in uniform, and a praying woman are all seated around the patient’s bedside in the image, while a huge U.S. flag, a pair of bald eagles, and a trio of military planes fly overhead.  
Responding to the Truth Social tirade, the pope said that he has “no fear of the Trump administration” and that he did not want to debate Trump on the issue. 
​Trump has since claimed that the image depicts him as a doctor “making people better,” and has since deleted the picture. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 4.7%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.2%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.2%This article: 3.9%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.8%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 29.6%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias29.6%This article: 6.1%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.5%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 3.9%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man3.9%This article: 4.0%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority4.0%This article: 8.1%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma8.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.6%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization6.6%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring4.4%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon4.4%This article: 4.8%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion4.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 18.3%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.7%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.7%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.1%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection3.1%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 3.6%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination3.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

619 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers52%attributed speech295writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 25 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 24 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 16 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 11 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 22 words • 100.0% coverageJD Vance • 28 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJD Vance • 17 words • 0.0% coverageJohn Harwood • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJon Favreau • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coveragePolly Sigh • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coveragePope Francis • 30 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 21 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Polly Sigh

100%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words7.7% of attributed speech81% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Quote-first Misdirection-6.4 ptsWriter: 6.4%Polly Sigh: 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.