Daily Kos84%

Trump’s sons owe their corrupt daddy big-time 92%

By Lisa Needham97%

7/13/2026, 5:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Politically Left Leaning Bias, and Framing Effect, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 81.4% saturation with 480 hits. Analysis detected 2,338 faulty-reasoning hits from 590 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 85.4% and a BS Rank of 92% (1,953 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.10% of the article peer group.

By now, nearly everyone is no longer even really pretending that the Trump sons are legitimate businessmen making their own way in the world. 
Even the Washington Post, currently in the midst of transforming itself into a hype man for the Trump administration, can’t quite avoid saying what we all know: Don Jr. and Eric have “amassed a portfolio of defense technology start-ups that are benefiting from new Pentagon priorities and spending.” 
You don’t say. 
Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump now have investments in over a dozen defense tech companies. 
Thanks to the nature of defense tech companies, their only real viability is if they can get sweet, sweet government contracts, and hey, guess what! 
Turns out it is pretty easy to get government contracts when your dad is the most corrupt president in history. 
Since the Trump sons bought into these various companies, they’ve landed over $6 billion in government business. 
Some are now also on an extra-special list that lets them bid as exclusive preapproved contractors for another $200 billion in work. 
The Post tried for some both-sidesing here, explaining that a bunch of the Trump failsons’ investment money has been with SpaceX and Anduril, which the government was always going to contract with no matter what, and that some of the companies they invested in had previous contracts under former President Joe Biden’s administration. 
Sure, maybe, but that doesn’t make the conflicts of interest go away. 
Imagine, if you will, Hunter Biden going on a tear investing in, let’s say, companies that do DEI training while former President Joe Biden made DEI mandatory everywhere or something. 
Or Hunter investing in a gazillion defense startups as Joe surged resources to Ukraine. 
Think of the howls of rage. 
But where everyone looks the other way with the Trump boys, the conservative fixation on Hunter’s alleged corruption continues to this day. 
Speaking of Hunter and conservative fixations: He just won $1.7 million in his defamation lawsuit against the genuinely unhinged Patrick Byrne, former Overstock CEO and current election denier. 
Byrne had said Hunter sought an $800 million bribe from Iran in 2021, a thing that was very much untrue and very much defamation. 
After Byrne did some absurd shenanigans to drag everything out, the judge had enough: ”The defendant has sustained a campaign of dilatory tactics that have indefinitely extended this years-long litigation, while denying plaintiff his day in court. 
This was not a product of excusable neglect but rather of coordinated strategy.” 
Aww. 
Small silver lining, but we’ll take it. 
But back to the Trump brothers. 
It’s nice that the WaPo is finally on it, given that none of this is new and the Trump bros have been seeing their investments soar since daddy retook office. 
Last October, Unusual Machines, in which Don Jr. has a nice big stake, got a big old Department of Defense contract to sell us drones. 
Now, that’s different from the other drone company, Powerus, which is backed by both failsons. 
That big sleazy drone contract happened a couple months ago, with American taxpayers picking up the tab after the Trump boys failed to use daddy’s war in Iran to pressure Gulf countries to buy drones from them. 
While Trump and his bootlickers remain in power, there will never be a reckoning over the Trump sons inserting themselves into defense contractors to rake in cash. 
How could there be when the president himself is consistently, constantly on the take? 
Corruption begets corruption—in this case, quite literally. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.1%Lisa Needham: 11.3%Daily Kos: 5.7%Confirmation Bias17.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.1%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 3.3%Availability Heuristic4.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 24.6%Lisa Needham: 11.1%Daily Kos: 8.9%Framing Effect24.6%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias1.2%This article: 8.0%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Pessimism Bias8.0%This article: 71.5%Lisa Needham: 32.7%Daily Kos: 15.4%Negativity Bias71.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Lisa Needham: 4.8%Daily Kos: 2.6%Fundamental Attribution Error1.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 2.1%In-Group Bias3.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.7%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 1.8%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.8%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.5%Recency Bias9.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Lisa Needham: 17.6%Daily Kos: 5.8%Ad Hominem11.0%This article: 5.1%Lisa Needham: 4.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Straw Man5.1%This article: 8.1%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority8.1%This article: 2.4%Lisa Needham: 3.3%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma2.4%This article: 4.6%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.6%This article: 1.2%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning1.2%This article: 10.5%Lisa Needham: 15.7%Daily Kos: 9.8%Hasty Generalization10.5%This article: 9.0%Lisa Needham: 1.1%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring9.0%This article: 4.1%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.6%Bandwagon4.1%This article: 15.3%Lisa Needham: 12.0%Daily Kos: 7.3%Appeal to Emotion15.3%This article: 10.3%Lisa Needham: 5.7%Daily Kos: 1.9%Begging the Question10.3%This article: 18.8%Lisa Needham: 5.9%Daily Kos: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.8%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 4.1%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.8%Burden of Proof4.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.5%Lisa Needham: 1.8%Daily Kos: 2.0%Anecdotal7.5%This article: 3.7%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman3.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.3%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.0%Lisa Needham: 0.7%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading2.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.2%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.5%Lisa Needham: 5.3%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote8.5%This article: 14.4%Lisa Needham: 3.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection14.4%This article: 81.4%Lisa Needham: 59.4%Daily Kos: 23.1%Biased Writer Voice81.4%This article: 5.8%Lisa Needham: 3.7%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 27.5%Lisa Needham: 18.0%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias27.5%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

590 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.0%attributed speech537writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWashington Post • 53 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
53 attributed words100% of attributed speech96% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+20.5 ptsWriter: 79.5%Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-30.2 ptsWriter: 30.2%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-15.8 ptsWriter: 15.8%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-9.3 ptsWriter: 9.3%Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-6.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Washington Post: 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.