Belgium’s Trump Dance Exposes the Collapse of the President’s Soft Power 30%

By Artis Curiskis0%

7/8/2026, 10:46:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Availability Heuristic, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 38.1% saturation with 376 hits. Analysis detected 1,976 faulty-reasoning hits from 986 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.1% and a BS Rank of 30% (15,318 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 70.00% of the article peer group.

Moments after scoring Belgium’s fourth goal against the hapless US men’s national soccer team, Romelu Lukaku ran to the corner flag and joined his teammates in a mocking “Trump dance.” 
The scene was repeated soon after in the Belgium locker room , this time as they sang the Village People’s “YMCA”—a staple of President Donald Trump’s political rallies. 
It was a final humiliation on one of the worst days in US soccer history. 
It was also a sign of how quickly things have changed—of how toxic the US president’s attempts to rig everything from the economy to soccer tournaments have become. 
Back in 2024 , right after Trump was elected for the second time, his signature dance move was everywhere. 
NFL stars, third-tier British professional soccer players, and even Team USA’s Christian Pulisic and his teammates were seen celebrating with the stunted boogie. 
The dance’s cultural emergence was an indicator of Trump’s personal soft power as he reclaimed the White House in the wake of the January 6 insurrection and multiple criminal prosecutions. 
But now—18 months into a second term marked by chaos, corruption, and war—Trump’s brand has been reduced to a symbol of American failure. 
WATCH: Belgium players do President Trump’s ‘YMCA’ dance after eliminating the US from the World Cup pic.twitter.com/dA2rAbDwRR 
- Politics Global (@PolitlcsGlobal) July 7, 2026 
But as this fiasco makes clear, Trump’s no longer able to convince the world to dance along. 
The US men’s national team is not new to humiliation or drama. 
The team crashed out of World Cup group stages in 1998 and 2006 and failed to even qualify for the tournament in 2018. 
Its 2022 campaign ended in the bizarre  ReynaGate  controversy. 
But none of that compares to what happened in the week between the team’s triumph against Bosnia-Herzegovina and its lopsided loss to Belgium on Monday night. 
In the Bosnia-Herzegovina game, US striker Folarin Balogun received a controversial red card just past halftime, leaving the US down a man as it clung to a narrow lead. 
Throughout the rest of the match, the team showed a fight and grittiness that propelled it to a historic win. 
But the red card meant that Balogun—the team’s leading scorer—would miss the round of 16 match against Belgium. 
The next day, Trump called Gianni Infantino—the FIFA president who infamously awarded Trump a knock-off “peace prize”—to discuss Balogun’s red card, according to Politico . 
This was followed by days of lobbying and legal maneuvering as US government and US Soccer Federation officials explored arguments to convince FIFA to overturn the decision. 
This reportedly included White House FIFA World Cup Task Force Executive Director Andrew Giuliani and Scott Goodwin—a hedge fund founder who personally contributed the salary of US coach Mauricio Pochettino—researching other controversial calls from the referee who dished out the red card. 
Trump would soon describe the referee as “very suspect.” 
Then came Sunday, a day before the Belgium game. 
Suddenly, FIFA announced that an independent committee had decided to “suspend” Balogun’s red card suspension and he would be allowed to play after all. 
As news spread about the lifted suspension, fingers started to point to Trump and his close relationship with FIFA—a relationship that Mother Jones  Tim Murphy laid out in a recent Reveal episode about the World Cup. 
Subscribe to Mother Jones podcasts on Apple Podcasts or your favorite podcast app. 
FIFA’s announcement sparked an uproar. 
The Royal Belgian Football Association appealed the decision, and Belgium’s coach, Rudi Garcia, portrayed the fight as an existential one for the sport itself. 
Belgium was  defending football ,” Garcia said. 
Europe’s governing soccer body, UEFA, said FIFA’s move “crossed a red line.” 
“Where does this start and where does this end now?” 
England coach Thomas Tuchel asked reporters as he discussed the implications for other refereeing decisions in the tournament. 
One reporter asked, presumably jokingly, whether Harry Kane could persuade Trump to reverse a red card issue to an England fullback. 
“Maybe, yeah,” Tuchel said with a smile. 
At the White House on Monday morning, Trump spoke triumphantly about the outcome, acknowledging that he’d reached out to Infantino but insisting FIFA made its decision independently. 
“All I did: I asked for a review because I didn’t think it was a foul,” the president said. 
“I didn’t tell him what to do.” 
Trump said it would be a  big stain  on the World Cup if the best players didn’t get to play. 
The president was apparently oblivious to the inevitability that it was his own actions that would leave the biggest stain on US soccer and the World Cup itself. 
Trump: "I didn't know what the hell a red card was. 
When I found out, I said, 'You gotta be kidding!'" 
pic.twitter.com/SsTrMwLVDg 
- Open Source Intel (@Osint613) July 6, 2026 
After the US lost in a 4–1 blowout, Belgian players said the scandal gave them additional motivation, with midfielder Nicolas Raskin stating that “there’s always a justice somewhere in life.” 
Announcers from around the world mocked Trump’s intervention. 
The Belgian football association tweeted , “Overturn this.” 
It would probably be unreasonable to blame Trump for the US loss on the field. 
But the president’s attempt to insert himself into the game—and the international blowback it caused—was a far bigger blunder for the sport and the country than the shambolic defending by Matt Freese and Tim Ream. 
Another look at Belgium's third goal pic.twitter.com/71ldzuhbAk 
- FOX Sports (@FOXSports) July 7, 2026 
Trump still has the ability to corruptly wield power. 
But as this fiasco makes clear, he’s no longer able to convince the world to dance along. 
After the game, Balogun approached Belgium’s coach and attempted to clean up at least some of the political stain. 
“It is not his fault,” Garcia told reporters, praising the US forward’s gesture. 
“He is not the one to blame.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Artis Curiskis: 2.6%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 3.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias3.0%This article: 17.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic17.0%This article: 2.3%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic2.3%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 2.7%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Artis Curiskis: 10.1%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 2.2%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion2.2%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.2%This article: 38.1%Artis Curiskis: 15.9%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias38.1%This article: 2.7%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias2.7%This article: 2.7%Artis Curiskis: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error2.7%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias1.3%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 3.7%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias3.7%This article: 2.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.4%Artis Curiskis: 1.4%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem5.4%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 3.8%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority3.8%This article: 5.9%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma5.9%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.5%Artis Curiskis: 7.3%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization16.5%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 6.1%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion6.1%This article: 3.8%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question3.8%This article: 8.3%Artis Curiskis: 1.9%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.3%This article: 2.7%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque2.7%This article: 2.2%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.2%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.8%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal16.8%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.8%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.8%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.9%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading1.9%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.9%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.9%This article: 2.8%Artis Curiskis: 0.5%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 19.4%Artis Curiskis: 26.3%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice19.4%This article: 3.2%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 3.6%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Artis Curiskis: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Artis Curiskis: 1.3%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.3%

986 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers16%attributed speech830writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coveragePolitics Global • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageMother Jones • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageRudi Garcia • 8 words • 0.0% coverageUEFA • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Tuchel • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageThomas Tuchel • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 19 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageOpen Source Intel • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageBelgian football association • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageFOX Sports • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageRudi Garcia • 13 words • 0.0% coverageRudi Garcia • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Rudi Garcia

100%flagged-word coverage
28 attributed words18% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.2 ptsWriter: 22.2%Rudi Garcia: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Rudi Garcia: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.4 ptsWriter: 3.4%Rudi Garcia: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%Rudi Garcia: 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.