MS NOW⁠94%

Trump, despite his record, eyes prime-time address on foreign election interference ⁠51%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

7/14/2026, 1:02:44 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 862 faulty-reasoning hits from 505 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 51% and a BS Rank of ⁠51% (10,085 of 20,364 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

As this week got underway, Donald Trump announced by way of his social media platform that he’d deliver “a Speech to the Nation” on Thursday night, though the president initially didn’t say a word about why or what he intended to say. 
Hours later, however, he spoke via phone to Newsmax and shed some light on what the public can expect to hear. 
Trump previews his Thursday speech: "Our elections are crooked and we've gotta straighten them out." 
“Our elections are crooked and we’ve got to straighten them out,” Trump said, peddling familiar, tiresome nonsense. 
“We’ve got to have voter ID; we’ve got to have proof of citizenship; and we have got to do something about the mail-in ballots, which are just corrupt, crooked and should not be allowed.” 
In other words, the president remains focused on his voter-suppression proposal, which the White House has labeled the Save America Act and which congressional Republicans have already conceded they can’t pass. 
We’ll learn soon enough what makes its way onto the Republican’s teleprompter, but there’s one thing of particular interest that’s likely to make the cut. 
MS NOW, citing comments from two White House officials granted anonymity to discuss internal plans, reported on Monday afternoon that Trump plans to address newly declassified intelligence reports that the White House asserts reveal plans by foreign nations to interfere in the 2020 election. 
One obviously can’t fact-check claims that have yet to be made, but if the president and his team follow through on these plans, there are a few things the public should keep in mind. 
First, there is some irony to the idea that Trump, of all people, would voice concerns along these lines: In 2016, Russia launched a military intelligence operation that targeted the American presidential election for the express purpose of putting Trump in power. 
Confronted with overwhelming evidence of that effort, Trump falsely dismissed the evidence as a “hoax” and ultimately said he trusted Russian President Vladimir Putin more than his own country’s intelligence agencies. 
Second, if the president really wants to talk about foreign interference in the 2020 election, the White House should probably expect a few questions about that time Trump explicitly said he would welcome foreign election interference in the 2020 election. 
Third, ahead of Election Day 2020, congressional Democrats pushed a variety of measures intended to discourage foreign election interference. 
Republicans rejected all of those proposals . 
And finally, let’s not forget that when U.S. intelligence again showed that Russia was targeting the 2020 election to help Trump stay in power, the Trump administration responded by announcing it would no longer provide briefings to Congress about foreign interference in the 2020 election. 
In other words, if the president wants to renew a public conversation about foreign election interference six years ago, he might not like where the conversation ends up. 
The post Trump, despite his record, eyes prime-time address on foreign election interference appeared first on MS NOW . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.1%Steve Benen: 10.6%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias14.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.3%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Steve Benen: 23.2%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect4.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias5.0%This article: 5.5%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias5.5%This article: 22.0%Steve Benen: 29.4%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.5%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: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%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: 9.5%Steve Benen: 7.9%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem9.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.7%Steve Benen: 6.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority8.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 5.5%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope5.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 11.4%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 17.2%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.2%This article: 7.9%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque7.9%This article: 7.9%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof7.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 3.0%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection3.0%This article: 5.5%Steve Benen: 22.8%MS NOW: 14.3%Biased Writer Voice5.5%This article: 12.3%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination12.3%This article: 6.1%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.7%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…8.7%

505 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech391writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMS NOW • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageMS NOW • 19 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

MS NOW

70%flagged-word coverage
63 attributed words55% of attributed speech84% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +69.8 ptsWriter: 0.0%MS NOW: 69.8%69.8%Indoctrination-15.9 ptsWriter: 15.9%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.8 ptsWriter: 3.8%MS NOW: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%MS NOW: 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.