Raw Story⁠93%

'Got himself a race': Biographer reveals dubious plot behind Hegseth's testosterone stunt ⁠98%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/16/2026, 6:00:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 52.4% saturation with 164 hits. Analysis detected 1,459 faulty-reasoning hits from 313 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 97.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠98% (517 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 97.60% of the article peer group.

'Got himself a race': Biographer reveals dubious plot behind Hegseth's testosterone stunt 
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's obsession with proving the military's manliness might not just be a personality quirk — it could be a presidential campaign in disguise. 
That's the theory from Michael Wolff, President Donald Trump's longtime biographer, who dropped the bombshell take on the "Inside Trump's Head" podcast this week and was profiled by The Daily Beast. 
Wolff argues Hegseth's newly announced plan to screen military service members over 30 for their testosterone levels is less about troop readiness and more about building his own political brand ahead of 2028. 
"I think, actually, the Heggers is running for president," Wolff told co-host Joanna Coles, the outlet's chief content officer. 
Wolff broke down the strategy behind the so-called "Secretary of War's" macho antics, explaining that in MAGA world, cultural signaling often beats policy substance when it comes to winning over voters. 
By leaning hard into testosterone talk, Wolff says Hegseth is courting the "Trump bro" base — the same crowd he'd need if he ever wants to leapfrog Republican heavyweights Marco Rubio and JD Vance for the party's future ticket. 
It's not the first time Hegseth's masculinity kick has raised eyebrows. 
Since taking over the Pentagon, he's cracked down on troops' facial hair , gutted diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies across the armed forces, and been accused of blocking promotions for senior female Navy officers — all while flexing for the cameras in workout videos alongside enlisted troops. 
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly fired back at the allegation in a statement, crediting Hegseth with restoring a Pentagon "focused on readiness, lethality, and supporting our warfighters." 
Whether it's a genuine fitness push or a not-so-subtle campaign launch, Wolff argued the ambitious Cabinet member has, at minimum, "got himself a race." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 28.4%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias28.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic15.3%This article: 12.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic12.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias6.1%This article: 34.2%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect34.2%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias7.7%This article: 44.7%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias44.7%This article: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias8.6%This article: 15.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error15.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.9%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias9.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.5%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority18.5%This article: 26.5%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma26.5%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 22.4%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization22.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 12.5%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon12.5%This article: 17.6%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion17.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 15.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 24.3%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof24.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 18.8%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal18.8%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 39.9%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)39.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 52.4%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice52.4%This article: 9.9%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination9.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 15.3%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias15.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

313 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers55%attributed speech140writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 33 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 19 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 31 words • 100.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageAnna Kelly • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMichael Wolff • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Michael Wolff

100%flagged-word coverage
146 attributed words84% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-83.6 ptsWriter: 100.0%Michael Wolff: 16.4%16.4%Politically Right Leaning -34.3 ptsWriter: 34.3%Michael Wolff: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+21.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Michael Wolff: 21.2%21.2%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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