MS NOW95%

Two months after Hegseth’s regressive move, Air Force base faces major flu outbreak 68%

By Steve Benen95%

6/18/2026, 7:52:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Status Quo Bias, Negativity Bias, and Anecdotal, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 26.6% saturation with 159 hits. Analysis detected 1,659 faulty-reasoning hits from 597 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.6% and a BS Rank of 68% (7,017 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 67.90% of the article peer group.

The latest flu season generated 340,000 hospitalizations and 21,000 deaths in the United States. 
Nevertheless, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, instead of focusing his energies on the ongoing war, came up with a bold idea in April: The Pentagon he leads would no longer mandate flu vaccines for service members. 
While service members could voluntarily get a flu vaccine, Hegseth decided to reverse the military’s longstanding policy and end the requirement as a condition of service. 
The change led to a variety of questions, including the obvious one: How long would it take before this misguided, regressive and unnecessary decision backfired on the armed forces? 
The answer, it turns out, is not quite two months. 
The New York Times reported: 
A major flu outbreak has sickened nearly 160 troops at Lackland Air Force Base in Texas less than two months after Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that U.S. troops would no longer be required to be vaccinated for the flu, defense officials said. 
The outbreak at the base in San Antonio raced through an Air Force Basic Military Training wing, where new recruits sleep on bunk beds in open bays and share meals at large communal tables. 
The Times’ report noted that one trainee in his sixth week of basic training died after falling ill late last week, although the exact cause of death is still under investigation. 
The report added that only about 40% of Air Force trainees have opted to take the flu vaccine  a total that used to be 100%, because it wasn’t optional. 
In response to the outbreak at Lackland, the base received an exception from Hegseth’s policy and is now requiring recruits to get vaccinated. 
Of course, by that reasoning, it’s unclear why every other base wouldn’t take similar steps to prevent its own outbreak. 
Everyone really should’ve seen this coming. 
During the Revolutionary War, smallpox took such a brutal toll on the American military that George Washington believed he had no choice but to “inoculate all the troops.” 
The general did exactly that in 1777, and as historian Craig Bruce Smith explained in a memorable piece for Time magazine in 2021, Washington’s decision helped save the lives of countless patriots and “undoubtedly helped ensure the survival of the United States.” 
In the generations that followed, the American military has looked out for its troops in the same way Washington did. 
And in contemporary times, service members have long been required to get plenty of shots as part of their service, including protections against ailments such as diphtheria and measles. 
Depending on where service members could be deployed, troops are required to receive up to 17 different vaccinations. 
The point is not to intrude on “medical autonomy,” a phrase Hegseth emphasized when he made the change in April. 
Rather, military leaders, during Democratic and Republican administrations, have long understood that readiness requires healthy troops, many of whom often serve in close quarters with fellow service members, here and abroad. 
As The Atlantic’s Adam Serwer noted, “Nothing has killed more soldiers in the history of humanity than disease.” 
American leaders have wisely taken steps for generations to try to prevent this from happening. 
It might be tempting to think officials at the Defense Department would see what happened at Lackland Air Force Base and reassess Hegseth’s mistake from two months ago. 
But that’s apparently not going to happen: The Pentagon’s chief spokesman told the Times that the department stands by the secretary’s decision. 
This post updates our related earlier coverage. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 5.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias5.0%This article: 11.1%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.1%This article: 3.4%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.4%This article: 7.5%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect9.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 21.9%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias21.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.6%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias21.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect9.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 17.3%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias17.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 17.4%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 8.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma8.0%This article: 4.9%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope4.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.4%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon1.0%This article: 2.5%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion2.5%This article: 4.9%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question4.9%This article: 26.6%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)26.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.7%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature4.7%This article: 8.5%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division8.5%This article: 19.3%Steve Benen: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal19.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.4%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 10.1%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 16.2%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice16.2%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

597 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers10%attributed speech537writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageCraig Bruce Smith • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Serwer • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Craig Bruce Smith

100%flagged-word coverage
42 attributed words70% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Craig Bruce Smith: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-18.1 ptsWriter: 18.1%Craig Bruce Smith: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Craig Bruce Smith: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -6.5 ptsWriter: 6.5%Craig Bruce Smith: 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.