Trump Can’t Stop Talking About Communists ⁠81%

By Sophie Hurwitz⁠63%

7/8/2026, 9:48:22 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Recency Bias, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 64.3% saturation with 295 hits. Analysis detected 1,898 faulty-reasoning hits from 459 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.4% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,235 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.70% of the article peer group.

When Donald Trump gets into a loop, it’s hard to get him out. 
He’ll just talk in a circle until he’s bored and moves on to the next thing. 
He has fixated on Greenland and ruminated on his reflecting pool . 
Right now, though, his focus is The Communists. 
And as a new Reuters analysis reveals, he’s really into it: Over the past two weeks, Trump has brought up communism a full 81 times. 
Communism is an old rhetorical obsession for Trump—who was in first grade when Joseph Stalin died—and his allies. 
In 2025, he introduced a “ National Anti-Communism Week .” 
He blamed communists for his 2023 criminal indictments. 
During his 2020 campaign, he accused his opponents of (you guessed it) communism. 
It may be a product of his deep relationship with Roy Cohn , a lackey of Red Scare architect Sen. 
Joseph McCarthy and Trump’s longtime mentor and personal lawyer. 
But over the past week, the president appears to have hit overdrive, sermonizing against communism at fever pitch. 
And like his Red Scare predecessors, Trump is also using the label to go after immigrants, decrying a “resurgent communist menace” from “newcomers to our country” in a July 3 speech at Mount Rushmore—designed by an anti-immigrant crusader and Ku Klux Klan associate —that also characterized communism as “a mortal threat to American liberty” and “the greatest threat” to the United States, surpassing Pearl Harbor, both World Wars, the September 11 attacks, et cetera. 
Then Trump really got going: “You can be loyal to Karl Marx, or you can be loyal to America,” he continued. 
“You can be a communist, or you can be a patriot. 
You cannot be both. 
The godless communist morality states that anything is justified to bring about inhuman visions…They don’t want good. 
They don’t love God, and they don’t want God. 
They don’t love religion, and they don’t want religion, and they won’t have it, but we will not let them win.” 
The actual communists of the Communist Party USA have spent the past week sending strident press releases to clarify that they are not, in fact, the Democratic Socialists of America. 
Maybe Trump’s handwringing over so-called communists isn’t entirely misguided. 
After all, capitalism hasn’t been looking too good lately. 
A recent Gallup poll showed that less than half of young Americans feel positively toward our economic system. 
The libertarian Cato Institute found last week that a majority of Americans under 30 feel positively about socialism, and more than a third report a favorable view of communism. 
So if communism is a “cancer” that Trump must “cut out fast,” as he threatened to do at an America250 event , he certainly has his work cut out for him. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 6.2%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.7%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic9.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.4%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect17.2%This article: 6.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion6.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias2.0%This article: 64.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 13.0%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias64.3%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 17.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error17.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 6.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.5%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias6.5%This article: 16.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 39.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias39.4%This article: 3.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.9%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.6%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem7.2%This article: 3.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man3.7%This article: 15.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 3.1%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority15.7%This article: 7.8%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 7.9%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization5.9%This article: 16.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.8%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring16.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 31.2%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.9%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion31.2%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division6.5%This article: 3.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 5.4%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal3.5%This article: 6.5%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman6.5%This article: 18.1%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.7%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.1%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 4.4%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.1%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading4.4%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 10.9%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.7%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote10.9%This article: 10.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 62.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 9.6%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice62.3%This article: 8.3%Sophie Hurwitz: 2.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination8.3%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 4.9%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Sophie Hurwitz: 1.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias10.7%This article: 0.0%Sophie Hurwitz: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

459 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers22%attributed speech358writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageReuters • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageRoy Cohn • 20 words • 100.0% coverageJoseph McCarthy • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 74 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageGallup • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCato Institute • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Roy Cohn

100%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words20% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Politically Right Leaning +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Roy Cohn: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+28.2 ptsWriter: 71.8%Roy Cohn: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-14.0 ptsWriter: 14.0%Roy Cohn: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-10.6 ptsWriter: 10.6%Roy Cohn: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Roy Cohn: 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.