Pentagon abruptly removes four Iran war troop deaths from casualties website 54%

By Claire Carter29%

7/23/2026, 11:45:13 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Anchoring Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 14.4% saturation with 68 hits. Analysis detected 463 faulty-reasoning hits from 471 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 52.6% and a BS Rank of 54% (9,755 of 21,174 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 53.90% of the article peer group.

The Pentagon removed three troops killed in Jordan and one killed in Iraq from the list of casualties related to Operation Epic Fury in the Defense Casualty Analysis System. 
Before Thursday, the system listed the total number of U.S. service members killed in the Iran war as 18, accounting for the casualties in Iraq and Jordan, but the total is now reported as 14. 
Sgt. 
Angel S. 
Rampersad, 1st Lt. 
Tyler Feehan, and Pvt. 
Isabella Gonzales were killed in an Iranian missile attack on July 17 on Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan. 
Sgt. 
Michael Emmanuel Swinton was killed while dismantling a downed Iranian one-way attack drone on Sunday at Erbil Air Base in Iraq. 
According to the New York Times , which spoke to three military officials, the four were removed from the casualties list because their deaths occurred during a period in which President Donald Trump had declared a ceasefire. 
The Washington Examiner reached out to the Pentagon for comment. 
Trump included the four service members in the casualty count when discussing the war earlier in the day. 
In comparing the Iran war to past conflicts, Trump noted that he participated in the dignified transfer of “four great American patriots” killed in Iran. 
“It’s 18,” Trump said. 
“Whereas in Vietnam we lost 200,000.” 
Earlier in the week, Trump framed the killing of those in Jordan as avoidable . 
The president had implied their death would not have happened if there had been “other operators.” 
War Secretary Pete Hegseth suggested that Democrats lack the “political courage” to support U.S. troops in a fiery Senate hearing on Tuesday about the department’s $67 billion supplemental budget request. 
“Why don’t you give us the money?” 
Hegseth said during a shouting match at the hearing. 
“You want to stand up here and talk about the troops? 
You won’t show any political courage to actually fund our department because you have Trump derangement syndrome and can’t actually commit to anything meaningful.” 
There has been little information released from the Department of War about U.S. operations in Iran since the ceasefire agreement between Washington and Tehran fell apart. 
While service member deaths are legally required to be reported, injuries are not. 
TIMELINE: ALL THE INCIDENTS WHERE US TROOPS HAVE BEEN KILLED DURING THE IRAN WAR 
U.S. officials told the New York Times that the Pentagon withheld information about three Iranian strikes last week in Jordan that injured dozens of U.S. service members and damaged several helicopters. 
According to the Pentagon’s casualty reporting system, roughly 420 troops, mostly in the Army, have been wounded in Iran. 
Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said nearly 100 U.S. service members have sustained injuries since July 7. 
He said most were from minor concussions, with 96% of soldiers returning to duty. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.6%Claire Carter: 2.4%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias6.6%This article: 7.4%Claire Carter: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias7.4%This article: 1.3%Claire Carter: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic1.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Claire Carter: 4.3%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 5.5%Claire Carter: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 7.4%Claire Carter: 8.5%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Claire Carter: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Claire Carter: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.2%Claire Carter: 3.2%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Claire Carter: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem11.5%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 14.4%Claire Carter: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority14.4%This article: 5.1%Claire Carter: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.3%Claire Carter: 4.3%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.2%Claire Carter: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.2%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.4%Claire Carter: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote6.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 2.3%Claire Carter: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice2.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

471 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers28%attributed speech340writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWashington Examiner • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 30 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 7 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 9 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageSean Parnell • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSean Parnell • 14 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Pete Hegseth

67%flagged-word coverage
81 attributed words62% of attributed speech61% writer coverage
0%20.0%40.0%Unattributed Quote+37.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Pete Hegseth: 37.0%37.0%Biased Writer Voice-3.2 ptsWriter: 3.2%Pete Hegseth: 0.0%0.0%

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.