‘The Trump effect’: President ridiculed in US after team thrashed by Belgium at World Cup 60%

By Joe Sommerlad0%

7/7/2026, 11:12:06 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 28 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Appeal to Emotion, and Ad Hominem, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 47.1% saturation with 283 hits. Analysis detected 1,668 faulty-reasoning hits from 601 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 56.2% and a BS Rank of 60% (8,774 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump has been ridiculed after his controversial intervention in the FIFA World Cup proved fruitless and the U.S. crashed out of the tournament in a comprehensive 4-1 thrashing by Belgium. 
Trump had lobbied FIFA President Gianni Infantino to review a red card shown to star striker Folarin Balogun in their last-32 match against Bosnia-Herzegovina, prompting the organizing body to announce Sunday that the player’s one-match ban would be suspended, sparking a global outcry. 
Speaking at the White House before the game, Trump admitted to appealing to Infantino for Balogun to be allowed to play and said of Belgium: “If they beat us, they can be really proud. 
The other way, if they beat us, we’ll say  I’ll say it was rigged, just like the election was rigged in 2020, but I won’t get into that.” 
In the end, the Europeans ran out worthy winners in Seattle, knocking out a curiously lacklustre U.S. and prompting California Democratic Sen. 
Alex Padilla to brand the whole affair the latest example of “the Trump effect” in action. 
Padilla posted a short clip of himself on X carrying the scoreline and saying of Trump: “He’s like the reverse Midas touch  everything he touches turns to… you know what.” 
The Belgian players certainly enjoyed their victory, appearing to mock the president’s signature dance at full time while their official Instagram account posted a picture of forward Romelu Lukaku celebrating with the caption: “Overturn this.” 
The Republicans Against Trump account on X had already joked about the president imposing 6,000 percent tariffs on Belgian exports as revenge for the result and followed it up with a clip of dance alongside the caption: “Make it 12,000 percent.” 
Trump was also derided by podcaster Spencer Hakiman, who invoked the recent Iran war by saying: “JUST IN: Trump says Belgium is 2 weeks away from developing a nuclear bomb.” 
Others spoofed the president by posting memes of a world map marking out the “Gulf of Belgium,” a cherub statue dressed in replica Belgium kit urinating on the commander-in-chief and Satan giving him a spanking (the country’s national side is nicknamed the Red Devils). 
Lawyer Adam Cohen pointed out that the president had also proven to be a bad luck charm to the New York Knicks recently when they lost the NBA Finals game against the San Antonio Spurs that he attended and suggested the curse had repeated itself, concluding: “Everything. 
Trump. 
Touches. 
Dies.” 
Geopolitics expert Cyrus Janssen had similarly called it a “lose-lose situation” for the host nation, explaining: “We beat Belgium and the victory will be tainted as we needed our President to cheat to help us win. 
“If we lose than [sic] even our President cheating couldn’t help us win.” 
Other politicians reacting to Monday’s disappointment tried to place the emphasis on the U.S. team’s efforts on the pitch, with California Gov. 
Gavin Newsom writing on X: “Thank you USMNT for the thrills, the joy, and the belief these last few weeks. 
“It was an honor to host you in California  see you on the field in 2030!! 
Forever and always, go #TeamUSA!” 
New York Gov. 
Kathy Hochul wrote: “The USMNT left it all on the field tonight and showed the world what we’re made of. 
I couldn’t be more proud.” 
“We must have watched different games,” came one withering response. 
Trump himself, en route to a Nato summit in Turkey, has yet to comment on his unpopular intervention backfiring, despite spending another busy evening posting on Truth Social. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 12.6%Joe Sommerlad: 4.9%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 20.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.7%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic20.0%This article: 5.3%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 4.8%Joe Sommerlad: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.6%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.2%Joe Sommerlad: 9.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect5.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 13.1%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias13.1%This article: 13.8%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias13.8%This article: 47.1%Joe Sommerlad: 20.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias47.1%This article: 5.5%Joe Sommerlad: 3.2%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 5.3%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error5.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Joe Sommerlad: 4.8%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.8%This article: 3.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.2%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.7%This article: 3.3%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.4%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 15.8%Joe Sommerlad: 6.8%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem15.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 4.2%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 8.2%Joe Sommerlad: 2.7%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma8.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.8%Joe Sommerlad: 8.3%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization3.8%This article: 5.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring5.0%This article: 7.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.8%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon7.7%This article: 18.3%Joe Sommerlad: 8.1%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion18.3%This article: 8.7%Joe Sommerlad: 1.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question8.7%This article: 15.0%Joe Sommerlad: 5.2%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)15.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.5%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 13.0%Joe Sommerlad: 4.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal13.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.8%Joe Sommerlad: 2.0%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.2%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading2.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Joe Sommerlad: 2.8%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 10.1%Joe Sommerlad: 2.9%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.1%This article: 12.5%Joe Sommerlad: 11.7%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice12.5%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 3.4%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 2.6%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Sommerlad: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

601 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers58%attributed speech254writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 34 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Padilla • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Padilla • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageRepublicans Against Trump • 41 words • 0.0% coverageSpencer Hakiman • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cohen • 47 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cohen • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cohen • 1 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Cohen • 1 words • 0.0% coverageCyrus Janssen • 36 words • 0.0% coverageCyrus Janssen • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 20 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 17 words • 0.0% coverageGavin Newsom • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 20 words • 0.0% coverageKathy Hochul • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Spencer Hakiman

100%flagged-word coverage
30 attributed words8.6% of attributed speech99% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Spencer Hakiman: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-29.5 ptsWriter: 29.5%Spencer Hakiman: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-3.9 ptsWriter: 3.9%Spencer Hakiman: 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.