Raw Story⁠93%

Critics ridicule Trump's bizarre 'Freedom Fuel' gas price stunt: 'What a joke' ⁠88%

By Matthew Chapman⁠86%

7/7/2026, 1:29:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Quote-first Misdirection, and Hasty Generalization, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.6% saturation with 128 hits. Analysis detected 1,054 faulty-reasoning hits from 350 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠88% (2,711 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump's White House unveiled a new promotional gimmick this week: "Freedom Fuel," or a network of 25 gas stations offering what is being billed as cut-rate gasoline to deliver savings to American voters. 
"FREEDOM FUEL HAS ARRIVED," said the White House official account on X. 
"The FIRST Freedom Fuel Network gas station has LANDED in Philadelphia, lowering the price at the pump to $3.47 for our 47th President. 
President Trump is leading the charge to lower gas prices this summer — putting more money in your pocket." 
MAGA-supportive pundits instantly lauded the announcement, with far-right conspiracy theorist reporter Lara Logan posting, "Everyone is going to want this." 
But elsewhere, the idea was met with scorn, as people laughed at the idea of the Trump administration setting prices at a tiny handful of branded gas stations — and others pointed out that gas is only so expensive due to Trump's war against Iran. 
"Arsonist puts out fire," wrote political commentator Travis Akers. 
"Going through all that trouble and the best they can do is $3.47 per gallon?" 
wrote Open Measures senior researcher Jared Holt. 
"What a joke." 
"The average price of gas when Biden left office was $3.12," wrote liberal journalist Aaron Rupar. 
"Trump wants to throw a parade for himself over one station where it's $3.47." 
"You raise prices, then pretend when they go down you’re some savior," wrote former Rep. 
Adam Kinzinger (R-IL). 
"Besides, all your supporters spent the last half year telling us presidents don’t control gas prices?" 
"25 gas stations out of 120,000 in the US," wrote blogger Jim Stewartson. 
"This is Trump’s entire con in a nutshell: Try to fix a problem that isn’t a problem. 
Make it a problem. 
Deny you made it a problem. 
'Fix' the problem with propaganda instead of a solution. 
Make the problem worse." 
"So I this a state-owned gas station? 
A Trump-owned gas station? 
Or does this belong to one of his rich donors?" 
wrote the LDS Democrats account. 
"There is a racket in here somewhere." 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.6%Matthew Chapman: 7.5%Rawstory: 8.4%Confirmation Bias8.6%This article: 8.3%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias8.3%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.1%Rawstory: 4.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.7%Matthew Chapman: 0.4%Rawstory: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.7%This article: 4.6%Matthew Chapman: 1.7%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias4.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.8%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Matthew Chapman: 17.2%Rawstory: 13.4%Framing Effect8.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.9%Rawstory: 2.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 36.6%Matthew Chapman: 22.8%Rawstory: 21.6%Negativity Bias36.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.9%Matthew Chapman: 3.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error4.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.4%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect6.6%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.9%Matthew Chapman: 6.5%Rawstory: 6.3%Ad Hominem0.9%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 4.1%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 5.7%Matthew Chapman: 3.9%Rawstory: 3.0%False Dilemma5.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 21.7%Matthew Chapman: 10.2%Rawstory: 12.1%Hasty Generalization21.7%This article: 12.6%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring12.6%This article: 5.7%Matthew Chapman: 0.9%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon5.7%This article: 4.3%Matthew Chapman: 7.9%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion4.3%This article: 9.4%Matthew Chapman: 2.1%Rawstory: 1.6%Begging the Question9.4%This article: 18.3%Matthew Chapman: 3.5%Rawstory: 3.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)18.3%This article: 11.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque11.4%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 1.3%Rawstory: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 3.7%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.5%Composition/Division3.7%This article: 9.7%Matthew Chapman: 4.0%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal9.7%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 3.0%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.9%Matthew Chapman: 0.3%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading2.9%This article: 2.0%Matthew Chapman: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy2.0%This article: 20.3%Matthew Chapman: 4.6%Rawstory: 5.3%Unattributed Quote20.3%This article: 23.4%Matthew Chapman: 4.4%Rawstory: 4.1%Quote-first Misdirection23.4%This article: 31.1%Matthew Chapman: 16.7%Rawstory: 15.7%Biased Writer Voice31.1%This article: 5.4%Matthew Chapman: 1.9%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 4.0%Matthew Chapman: 6.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.0%This article: 5.7%Matthew Chapman: 2.5%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.7%This article: 15.4%Matthew Chapman: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…15.4%

350 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers51%attributed speech173writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageLara Logan • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 45 words • 100.0% coverageTravis Akers • 9 words • 100.0% coverageJared Holt • 15 words • 0.0% coverageOpen Measures • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageAaron Rupar • 16 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Rupar • 14 words • 100.0% coverageAdam Kinzinger • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAdam Kinzinger • 16 words • 100.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 17 words • 100.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 4 words • 0.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 9 words • 0.0% coverageJim Stewartson • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageLDS Democrats • 5 words • 100.0% coverageLDS Democrats • 7 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Adam Kinzinger

100%flagged-word coverage
31 attributed words18% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+79.8 ptsWriter: 20.2%Adam Kinzinger: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-53.2 ptsWriter: 53.2%Adam Kinzinger: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-34.1 ptsWriter: 34.1%Adam Kinzinger: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -31.2 ptsWriter: 31.2%Adam Kinzinger: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-11.0 ptsWriter: 11.0%Adam Kinzinger: 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.