People Think Trump Hallucinated Teddy Roosevelt. The Truth Is Weirder. 53%

By Edith Olmsted82%

7/1/2026, 9:26:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Biased Writer Voice, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 39.9% saturation with 127 hits. Analysis detected 867 faulty-reasoning hits from 318 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51.8% and a BS Rank of 53% (10,345 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 52.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump shocked Americans Wednesday when he claimed to have spoken to former President Theodore Roosevelt. 
Speaking at the opening ceremony of the Theodore Roosevelt Presidential Library in North Dakota, Trump announced to the crowd that he’d just spoken with the twenty-sixth president, who died more than 100 years ago. 
“I even had a conversation with Theodore Roosevelt,” Trump said. 
“I said, ‘What did you think about the Panama Canal? 
Do you consider that your greatest achievement? 
How do you feel about the fact that the Democrats gave the Panama Canal away to Panama for $1?’” 
Despite what many people on the internet seemed to think, the 80-year-old president was not publicly sundowning. 
He was referring to an interaction he’d just had with an eerie, lifelike AI simulation of Roosevelt. 
A video posted by Special Assistant Margo Martin showed Trump listening intently as the fake Roosevelt reminded Trump that “the nation comes first.” 
“Well, I appreciate those words, those words are fantastic,” Trump said. 
“I just want to say it was an honor to be with you today, we are taking a little bit of a tour of some of the fantastic things you’ve done.” 
There’s something deeply sad about watching the forty-seventh president speak to a computer-generated version of the twenty-sixth. 
It has a similar effect to watching your elderly grandfather chat with a young, hot single on an online forum: It’s not real, grandpa. 
Now, go back to bed. 
Trump’s fascination with AI presidents is nothing new. 
The president’s lackluster Great American State Fair features its own AI George Washington to chat with attendees—what few of them there are. 
Trump has previously used his praise for Roosevelt to push his agenda to “take back” the Panama Canal—which, along with the threatened annexations of Greenland and Canada, are at the heart of his disastrous “Donroe Doctrine.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 33.3%Edith Olmsted: 4.8%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias33.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Edith Olmsted: 3.2%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic5.3%This article: 7.5%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 18.6%Edith Olmsted: 11.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect18.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Edith Olmsted: 3.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 39.9%Edith Olmsted: 21.0%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias39.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 6.9%Edith Olmsted: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect6.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect2.5%This article: 5.3%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias5.3%This article: 1.6%Edith Olmsted: 6.0%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem1.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.2%Edith Olmsted: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority7.2%This article: 10.7%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma10.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.9%Edith Olmsted: 9.7%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization7.9%This article: 1.3%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring1.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 35.5%Edith Olmsted: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion35.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.2%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.4%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 12.9%Edith Olmsted: 2.2%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal12.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 1.9%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)1.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 11.3%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading11.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%Edith Olmsted: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote8.5%This article: 1.3%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection1.3%This article: 35.2%Edith Olmsted: 25.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice35.2%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 11.9%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

318 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers35%attributed speech207writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 7 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageSpecial Assistant Margo Martin • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words21% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Biased Writer Voice-54.1 ptsWriter: 54.1%Special Assistant Margo Martin: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -17.4 ptsWriter: 17.4%Special Assistant Margo Martin: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Special Assistant Margo Martin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-1.9 ptsWriter: 1.9%Special Assistant Margo Martin: 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.