MS NOW95%

Markwayne Mullin will be another yes-man in Trump’s Cabinet 0%

By Michael Steele0%

3/20/2026, 10:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Fundamental Attribution Error, and Ad Hominem, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 48.4% saturation with 326 hits. Analysis detected 1,051 faulty-reasoning hits from 673 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

In his first term, President Donald Trump ran his administration like a live episode of “The Apprentice,” dismissing high-level staff in chaotic and public ways. 
That was largely because he inherited them from a previous president  including officials like then-FBI Director James Comey  or they were establishment Republicans he never liked to begin with, such as White House chief of staff Reince Priebus. 
As the Senate decides whether to confirm Noem’s replacement, Oklahoma Sen. 
Markwayne Mullin, it’s important to think about the reason. 
This time around, the organizational chart hasn’t changed as much. 
Apart from former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Trump has kept his Cabinet and top appointees in place for the past 14 months. 
Loyalty. 
Not just regular loyalty, either. 
Absolute loyalty. 
Since returning to office, Trump has picked every staffer with that goal in mind. 
He’s filled the White House with so many yes-men and women that his critics rarely bring up the 25th Amendment anymore, knowing there’s no way this group of sycophants would do anything to cross him. 
It’s clear he expects Mullin will fit right in. 
On Wednesday, Mullin faced sharp questioning at his hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee. 
Although the panel voted to advance Mullin's nomination to the full Senate for confirmation, he couldn’t clear the most basic tests. 
Follow the law or follow Trump? 
He would not answer. 
Pressed on whether he would carry out an unlawful order, he deflected. 
Asked who won the 2020 election, he would not say it plainly. 
On fears of armed agents at polling places, he swerved. 
Time and again, when the questions demanded clarity, Mullin chose evasion. 
The hearing even turned tense as the chairman, Sen. 
Rand Paul, R-Ky., confronted Mullin over reports that Mullin called him a “freaking snake,” while other senators pressed Mullin on his foreign travel and thin record in office. 
In the past, Mullin’s experience as a senator would be a mark of seriousness. 
Despite these testy exchanges  among Republicans, no less  Senate Majority Leader John Thune said he is confident Mullin will be confirmed as the ninth secretary of Homeland Security. 
In the past, Mullin’s experience as a senator would be a mark of seriousness, signaling to his colleagues that he won’t embarrass them in office. 
These days, it’s more a sign of sycophancy, as Mullin and other Republican senators have demonstrated day after day that their only loyalty is to Trump. 
For Mullin, the move is almost seamless. 
Nominating a sitting senator is Washington’s closest thing to a confirmation cheat code. 
Senators confirm senators. 
The margins are typically overwhelming. 
For Marco Rubio, the bipartisan vote was 99-0. 
No senator voted against his confirmation. 
The institution protects its own. 
Trump does not need a fight right now. 
He cannot afford uncertainty. 
So he chose from the one pool where resistance is least likely and success is almost guaranteed. 
And he even takes it one step further. 
Mullin comes from one of the safest seats in the country. 
There is no real risk of losing it; no meaningful chance that a special election spirals into a headline about Republican weakness. 
At a time when the party has already stumbled in off-cycle contests, the last thing Trump wants is another unpredictable race. 
Mullin  or anyone else Trump might nominate and this Senate would confirm  is not being chosen to independently run an agency. 
He is being chosen to execute an agenda that is being set elsewhere. 
Do you seriously think Noem was setting Department of Homeland Security policy? 
And do you really think Mullin will set it as her successor? 
Absolutely not. 
Mullin will not control the power of his office. 
The White House will. 
He is there to do the bidding of Stephen Miller and Donald Trump  only this time without the TV commercials. 
That is what makes this moment so stark. 
The system is no longer even trying to maintain the distinction between independence and obedience. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.6%Michael Steele: 7.6%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias1.6%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 2.0%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.1%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Michael Steele: 4.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias4.6%This article: 15.3%Michael Steele: 7.2%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect15.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Michael Steele: 1.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias2.2%This article: 7.9%Michael Steele: 10.9%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.6%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Michael Steele: 6.5%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error13.7%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Michael Steele: 1.5%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.7%This article: 3.9%Michael Steele: 2.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Michael Steele: 1.5%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.5%Michael Steele: 9.7%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem13.5%This article: 5.2%Michael Steele: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man5.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 2.5%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.9%Michael Steele: 4.4%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 2.3%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.0%Michael Steele: 15.8%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization12.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 4.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.9%Michael Steele: 4.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.2%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 1.2%Michael Steele: 0.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal1.2%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.1%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 48.4%Michael Steele: 31.7%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice48.4%This article: 5.2%Michael Steele: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination5.2%This article: 13.5%Michael Steele: 14.1%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias13.5%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Michael Steele: 1.3%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

673 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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