Nobody Asked. Trump Brought Up His 3 Cognitive Tests Anyway ⁠68%

By Sam Stein⁠91%

7/12/2026, 6:50:45 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Recency Bias, and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 42.9% saturation with 112 hits. Analysis detected 765 faulty-reasoning hits from 261 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠68% (6,696 of 20,453 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.30% of the article peer group.

Sam Stein takes on Trump's escalating war on the press: subpoenas targeting NYT reporters over Air Force One security reporting, a rambling 450-word attack on Maggie Haberman, and the irony of Trump attending the White House Correspondents' Dinner just weeks later—while Mark Zuckerberg stays conspicuously silent. 
As always: Watch, listen, and leave a comment. 
Bulwark+ Takes is home to short videos, livestreams, and event archives exclusively for Bulwark+ members. 
Add Bulwark+ Takes feed to your player of choice, here . 
Bulwark+ Takes brings you bite-sized takes on the news of the day from the entire Bulwark team. 
This is the home to ad-free video shorts, Bulwark+ member-only livestreams, and live event archives. 
The news cycle doesn’t slow down, and neither do we. 
Could Todd Blanche’s Epstein Exposure Doom His Nomination? 
(w/ Sarah Longwell) | Bulwark on Sunday 
8 hrs ago • William Kristol and Sarah Longwell 
Republicans Just Bucked Trump by Accident...and Nothing Happened 
We Found Decades of Video of Trump Defending Accused Sex Predators 
Jul 10 • Tim Miller and Sarah Longwell 
BREAKING: Trump Shivs GOP Congress, Refuses to Sign Bipartisan Housing Bill | Receipts Live 
Jul 10 • Catherine Rampell 
MAGA Influencer Blames Antifa for His Own Alleged Sex Crime | The Trio 
Jul 9 • Tim Miller , Sam Stein , and Will Sommer 
JD Vance Sucks. 
So How Did He Get This Far? 
Jul 9 • Sam Stein and Tim Miller 
BREAKING: Graham Platner Ends Campaign for U.S. 
Senate 
Jul 9 • Sam Stein and Catherine Rampell 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 5.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 24.9%Sam Stein: 4.3%The Bulwark: 3.1%Availability Heuristic24.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.9%Sam Stein: 16.4%The Bulwark: 7.0%Framing Effect14.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.3%The Bulwark: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.8%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 1.5%Optimism Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.5%The Bulwark: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 42.9%Sam Stein: 28.8%The Bulwark: 11.5%Negativity Bias42.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.6%The Bulwark: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 3.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 5.0%Sam Stein: 3.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias5.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 1.0%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 29.1%Sam Stein: 1.9%The Bulwark: 1.6%Recency Bias29.1%This article: 21.8%Sam Stein: 0.2%The Bulwark: 0.5%Primacy Effect21.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Sam Stein: 8.0%The Bulwark: 3.3%Ad Hominem6.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.8%The Bulwark: 0.8%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 2.4%The Bulwark: 3.6%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 3.1%Sam Stein: 2.5%The Bulwark: 2.3%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 9.0%The Bulwark: 8.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 4.7%The Bulwark: 0.6%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.4%Sam Stein: 5.1%The Bulwark: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion31.4%This article: 5.7%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 1.4%Begging the Question5.7%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.2%Sam Stein: 2.1%The Bulwark: 2.2%Anecdotal4.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.0%The Bulwark: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.2%Sam Stein: 1.6%The Bulwark: 2.1%Unattributed Quote4.2%This article: 17.6%Sam Stein: 1.2%The Bulwark: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection17.6%This article: 17.6%Sam Stein: 24.1%The Bulwark: 15.4%Biased Writer Voice17.6%This article: 3.1%Sam Stein: 3.2%The Bulwark: 2.9%Indoctrination3.1%This article: 21.8%Sam Stein: 14.2%The Bulwark: 5.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias21.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Stein: 0.4%The Bulwark: 0.7%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 29.1%Sam Stein: 24.8%The Bulwark: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…29.1%

261 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers15%attributed speech222writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ Takes • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageBulwark+ Takes • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBulwark on Sunday • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Bulwark+ Takes

100%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words82% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +80.2 ptsWriter: 19.8%Bulwark+ Takes: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-25.7 ptsWriter: 25.7%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.0 ptsWriter: 5.0%Bulwark+ Takes: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.6 ptsWriter: 3.6%Bulwark+ Takes: 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.