MS NOW⁠95%

Despite the hype, Trump leaves China empty-handed and no better off than he was before ⁠86%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

5/15/2026, 10:21:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 53.1% saturation with 327 hits. Analysis detected 1,695 faulty-reasoning hits from 616 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠86% (3,107 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.80% of the article peer group.

Before Donald Trump arrived in China, some of his supporters expressed confidence in his ability to deliver real results during the trip. 
Republican Rep. 
James Comer of Kentucky, for example, emphasized Trump’s ghostwritten book “The Art of the Deal” and said the president had “what he needs” to reach breakthroughs with Xi Jinping. 
Around the same time, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin also cited the president’s book before telling Fox News viewers, “He’s the strongest leader of your and I’s time, period.” 
Apparently, officials in Beijing were less impressed. 
Reuters reported: 
U.S. 
President Donald Trump left China on Friday with no major breakthroughs on trade or tangible help from ​Beijing to end the Iran war, despite two days spent heaping praise on his host, Xi Jinping. 
Trump’s visit to America’s main strategic and economic rival, the first by a U.S. president since his last trip in 2017, had ‌aimed for tangible results to lift his sagging approval ratings before midterm elections in November. 
Xi will visit the U.S. in the fall at Trump’s invitation, China’s Foreign Minister Wang Yi said. 
Trump reportedly hoped to make some progress on Chinese policy toward Iran, but by all accounts, there were no breakthroughs. 
He also hoped to advance U.S. trade policy, but despite some rhetoric about vague “deals,” the White House had nothing of substance to point to after the trip wrapped up. 
A related report from the Financial Times added that Xi “conceded little” to Trump and said that their discussions “yielded no clear breakthroughs on the big foreign policy and economic fissures between the two countries and fell short of delivering the sort of big business deals the White House covets from international summits.” 
Indeed, the American president who arrived in China in a position of weakness was no better off upon exiting the country. 
If anything, Trump established a new equilibrium that elevated the U.S. rival. 
As a New York Times analysis explained: 
Mr. 
Xi arrived highly scripted, leaving no doubt that for all of China’s problems — deflation, depopulation, the bursting of the real estate bubble — the moment when China acts as a peer superpower had arrived. 
At every turn, at least as he began his two-day trip to China, Mr. 
Trump sounded conciliatory, the exact opposite of his portrayals of China in public appearances back home, where during his presidential campaigns he has talked about the country as a job-stealer and national security threat. 
Mr. 
Xi, while smiling and welcoming to Mr. 
Trump, was quietly more confrontational — especially on Taiwan, where he delivered an unequivocal warning. 
No progress on Iran, no progress on trade, no progress on tariffs, but a stern lecture on Taiwan. 
Behold, the towering dealmaker of our time. 
After the trip wrapped up, the Republican apparently felt compelled to respond to a rather brutal claim from the Chinese leader that the public hadn’t heard. 
“When President Xi very elegantly referred to the United States as perhaps being a declining nation, he was referring to the tremendous damage we suffered during the four years of Sleepy Joe Biden and the Biden Administration, and on that score, he was 100% correct,” Trump argued by way of his social media platform. 
So to recap, the Republican who traveled around the planet to make headway with China left empty-handed, though he was inclined to endorse the Chinese president’s unheard insult regarding the United States — amid reports that Beijing actually sees Trump as evidence of American decline. 
Trump’s first trip to China, in November 2017, was largely a flop. 
Nearly a decade later, his second excursion was worse. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 25.0%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias25.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.8%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic2.8%This article: 5.7%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 10.9%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 16.2%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect16.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.9%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias1.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias8.8%This article: 4.7%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias4.7%This article: 53.1%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias53.1%This article: 8.8%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias8.8%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: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%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: 4.4%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: 4.2%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias4.2%This article: 2.4%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.6%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority10.6%This article: 7.8%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma7.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 20.6%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization20.6%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: 1.1%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion1.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.5%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.5%This article: 8.8%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque8.8%This article: 4.9%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof4.9%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: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 16.9%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)16.9%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: 9.4%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote9.4%This article: 4.2%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.2%This article: 40.9%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice40.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

616 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers48%attributed speech319writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJames Comer of Kentucky • 29 words • 100.0% coverageMarkwayne Mullin • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageReuters • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWang Yi • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageFinancial Times • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 35 words • 100.0% coverageNew York Times • 14 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 34 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 1 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 7 words • 0.0% coverageNew York Times • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 54 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
54 attributed words18% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-63.3 ptsWriter: 63.3%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-8.2 ptsWriter: 8.2%Donald Trump: 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.