Newsmax⁠75%

Still Stung by Iran Snub, Trump Blasts NATO After Closed-Door Rutte Meeting ⁠65%

By Danny KEMP⁠0%

4/8/2026, 5:52:31 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 36.2% saturation with 222 hits. Analysis detected 1,403 faulty-reasoning hits from 613 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 59.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠65% (7,769 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 64.50% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump bashed NATO and appeared to renew his threats over Greenland after a closed-door meeting with alliance chief Mark Rutte, during which he was expected to discuss possibly leaving the pivotal security bloc. 
Trump's outrage at NATO allies over their failure to join in his war against Iran had prompted fears he would seek to pull the United States out of the nearly eight-decade-old alliance. 
However, in his first remarks after the meeting, he simply reiterated his frustration. 
"NATO WASN'T THERE WHEN WE NEEDED THEM, AND THEY WON'T BE THERE IF WE NEED THEM AGAIN," he posted on Truth Social. 
"REMEMBER GREENLAND, THAT BIG, POORLY RUN, PIECE OF ICE!!!" 
he added, without any further explanation. 
Before Trump launched his war on Iran, his threat to seize the vast Arctic island from NATO ally Denmark was a key issue roiling the alliance. 
Rutte -- the former Dutch premier dubbed the "Trump whisperer" for his skill in flattering the U.S. leader -- entered the West Wing through a side gate and their meeting was held behind closed doors. 
"It was a very frank, it was a very open discussion," Rutte later told CNN in a televised interview. 
Asked multiple times if Trump had said if he would leave the alliance, Rutte did not answer directly. 
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters ahead of the meeting that a possible withdrawal is "something the president has discussed, and I think it's something the president will be discussing in a couple of hours with Secretary General Rutte." 
The Wall Street Journal meanwhile reported that Trump was alternatively looking at punishing some NATO members he believed were unhelpful during the conflict by moving US troops out of their countries. 
The meeting came one day after the United States and Iran agreed to a fragile two-week ceasefire. 
The U.S. president has branded NATO a "paper tiger" for refusing to lead efforts to open the strategic Strait of Hormuz and for limiting US forces from using bases on their territories. 
Trump has lashed out at several leaders personally, lambasting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer as "no Winston Churchill" and ridiculing Britain's aircraft carriers as "toys." 
The plan reported by the Wall Street Journal would fall short of Trump's oft-hinted threats to pull the United States out of NATO entirely -- a move for which he would need the approval of Congress. 
- 'Daddy' - 
NATO's secretary general, however, boasts a record of pulling Trump back onto his side. 
Ahead of the White House visit, Rutte met with US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to talk about Iran, Russia's war against Ukraine and NATO responsibilities. 
"The two leaders discussed Operation Epic Fury, ongoing U.S.-led efforts to bring a negotiated end to the Russia-Ukraine war, and increasing coordination and burden shifting with NATO Allies," said State Department Principal Deputy Spokesperson Tommy Pigott. 
Rutte is also expected to meet with War Secretary Pete Hegseth during his time in Washington. 
NATO has been buffeted by crisis after crisis since Trump returned to power last year -- most acutely by his threat to seize Greenland. 
In recent months he has also raised concerns about levels of Ukraine support in its war against Russia, and threatened to not protect allies unless they spend more on defense. 
Russia and China have been watching with glee as Trump critiques the alliance. 
Rutte has been central to allied efforts to appease the U.S. leader, whom he called "daddy" at a summit last year. 
On Iran, he has sought to thread the needle by calling U.S. efforts to degrade Tehran's military capability something to "applaud." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.8%Danny KEMP: 2.2%Newsmax: 3.4%Confirmation Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.7%Newsmax: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.9%Danny KEMP: 3.3%Newsmax: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.9%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 6.8%Newsmax: 3.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.7%Danny KEMP: 13.0%Newsmax: 11.0%Framing Effect20.7%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Danny KEMP: 5.3%Newsmax: 4.1%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 3.1%Newsmax: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%Danny KEMP: 22.7%Newsmax: 10.3%Negativity Bias36.1%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 1.4%Newsmax: 3.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 2.1%Danny KEMP: 3.3%Newsmax: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error2.1%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.5%Newsmax: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Danny KEMP: 0.3%Newsmax: 2.7%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.9%Newsmax: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 11.4%Danny KEMP: 3.6%Newsmax: 2.0%Halo Effect11.4%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 1.2%Newsmax: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%Danny KEMP: 2.6%Newsmax: 1.9%Recency Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.8%Newsmax: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 9.8%Danny KEMP: 3.0%Newsmax: 1.3%Ad Hominem9.8%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 3.4%Newsmax: 4.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.1%Danny KEMP: 2.0%Newsmax: 2.4%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 11.4%Danny KEMP: 4.8%Newsmax: 4.2%Hasty Generalization11.4%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.2%Newsmax: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.4%Danny KEMP: 4.4%Newsmax: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion12.4%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.6%Newsmax: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 12.2%Danny KEMP: 3.3%Newsmax: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.2%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.4%Newsmax: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.7%Danny KEMP: 0.6%Newsmax: 0.5%Burden of Proof6.7%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.1%Danny KEMP: 1.2%Newsmax: 0.9%Anecdotal2.1%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Danny KEMP: 1.2%Newsmax: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.1%Newsmax: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.3%Newsmax: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.0%Danny KEMP: 2.1%Newsmax: 3.1%Unattributed Quote7.0%This article: 5.5%Danny KEMP: 2.0%Newsmax: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection5.5%This article: 36.2%Danny KEMP: 15.4%Newsmax: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice36.2%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.5%Newsmax: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.9%Newsmax: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.3%Newsmax: 1.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Danny KEMP: 0.0%Newsmax: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

613 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers21%attributed speech486writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageMark Rutte • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKaroline Leavitt • 41 words • 0.0% coverageThe Wall Street Journal • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageTommy Pigott • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Karoline Leavitt

100%flagged-word coverage
41 attributed words32% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-45.7 ptsWriter: 45.7%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.8 ptsWriter: 8.8%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Karoline Leavitt: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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