Pete Hegseth Overturns Review of Pilots in July 4 Stunt ⁠19%

By Edith Olmsted⁠86%

7/10/2026, 7:17:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Ambiguity (Equivocation), Negativity Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 554 faulty-reasoning hits from 252 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 33.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠19% (17,284 of 21,175 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 81.60% of the article peer group.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth cut off a safety investigation into eight National Guard pilots who were suspended after they used military helicopters to buzz a crowded beach. 
Crowds gathered to celebrate the Fourth of July on the coast of South Carolina were treated to a “Salute to the Shore” demonstration, featuring low-flying Apache helicopters manned by members of the South Carolina Army National Guard. 
But the moment that the officers landed, they all received notice that they had been suspended, ABC15 reported. 
In a statement , Maj. 
Lisa Allen confirmed that the officers were suspended pending an investigation into possible safety violations that occurred during their demonstration. 
She said she could not provide further details or speculate on any specific allegations, but she stressed that the suspension was “not punitive.” 
“A temporary suspension from flight duties is a routine administrative measure whenever a flight profile is under review,” she said. 
MAGA was abuzz over the fact that no reason had been given—and it caught the eye of Hegseth. 
“We’ll fix this. 
Carry on, Patriots,” Hegseth wrote in a post on X Thursday. 
The next day, Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell announced that “effective immediately, the suspension of all involved South Carolina pilots has been lifted.” 
This isn’t the first time Hegseth has personally intervened to get officers out of trouble. 
He previously reinstated two suspended pilots who’d decided to fly their helicopters around Kid Rock’s house during a No Kings protest in March. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 4.7%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.1%Edith Olmsted: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic9.1%This article: 14.7%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic14.7%This article: 6.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.1%Edith Olmsted: 12.1%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect13.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 7.9%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%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: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.7%Edith Olmsted: 22.1%newrepublic.com: 13.0%Negativity Bias16.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Edith Olmsted: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Fundamental Attribution Error10.7%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Edith Olmsted: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Edith Olmsted: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 6.4%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 24.6%Edith Olmsted: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority24.6%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.0%Edith Olmsted: 9.9%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization6.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.7%Bandwagon7.1%This article: 4.4%Edith Olmsted: 7.6%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion4.4%This article: 7.9%Edith Olmsted: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 6.7%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 0.9%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: 9.1%Edith Olmsted: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal9.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 21.8%Edith Olmsted: 2.5%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)21.8%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: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.9%Edith Olmsted: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote11.9%This article: 3.2%Edith Olmsted: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 4.0%Edith Olmsted: 26.7%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice4.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 12.2%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Edith Olmsted: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Edith Olmsted: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

252 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech138writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageABC15 • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageLisa Allen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLisa Allen • 23 words • 0.0% coverageLisa Allen • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePentagon spokesman Sean Parnell • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words19% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote-21.7 ptsWriter: 21.7%Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -13.0 ptsWriter: 13.0%Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell: 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.