CNN⁠0%

Trump wants to ditch his signature trade deal ⁠40%

7/4/2026, 6:00:01 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Fundamental Attribution Error, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.9% saturation with 182 hits. Analysis detected 1,532 faulty-reasoning hits from 962 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠40% (13,317 of 21,887 videos). This video is better (less manipulative) than 60.80% of the video peer group.

President Trump calling a mulligan on one of the signature trade deals of his first term. 
The White House announced yesterday that it will not renew the USMCA trade agreement with Mexico and Canada. 
The decision comes as no surprise. 
Here's President Trump just a few weeks ago. 
I don't know that I'm going to renew it because to be honest with you, 
the United States does much better. 
Hey, we don't need anything that Canada has. 
We don't need anything that Mexico has, but they need everything that we have. 
So, in 2024, the US imported more than $900 billion in goods from both Mexico and Canada. 
The White House blames the deal for worsening the US trade deficits with Mexico and Canada. 
Now, 
the decision raises economic uncertainty for businesses. 
The supply chains they have run through all three countries and critics fear significant changes could raise prices on everything from new cars to lumber and groceries. 
Group chat is back. 
Mike is taking notes. 
What are you 
I am taking notes. 
That's actually a badge of honor on this show. 
Well, I appreciate that. 
So, 
tell me what you think of this. 
I look at this as NAFTA 3.0, which we know they didn't really like 
NAFTA in the first place, and it sounds like they don't like the UMCA any much better. 
So I think 
the the the most important part of this reporting is the unpredictability of what we're talking 
about here. 
This trade agreement goes through 2036 I believe. 
So if we didn't renegotiate and do this the way that they want to which is every year which creates that unpredictability which is 
unpredictability 
which is terrible for business. 
Um you know looking down the road we we should know what the the deal 
is. 
But why is Trump doing this now? 
I think it's it's the trans shshipment of Chinese goods through 
uh through Mexico. 
He feels that they're cheating. 
It is the trade deficit um that that you're talking about. 
And he likes bilateral deals rather than these trilateral deals. 
He doesn't really like any group anything 
and he's already in he's not in a group one. 
He's not No, I don't think so. 
His group chat is with America and Truth Social. 
Um so this would be review uh reviewed every six years. 
It expires July 2036 as you said. 
So that was many years of certainty which could be out the window. 
How do Democrats talk about this? 
I think about this era of dealm which was pushed by globalization as just a huge part of especially a centrist argument by the Clinton style Democrat. 
Do you go to bat to this now in a populist age? No. 
This is it's to your point this is going 
to create more uncertainty when people can't afford food and the majority of our fruits and 
vegetables come from Mexico. 
People can't afford housing. 
Lumber comes from Canada. 
The fact that 
he is so arrogant that he just said we don't need anything from these two countries is completely false. 
We have cars that are made in Mexico that then come here and are assembled here than then 
are considered made in the USA. 
There is so much that these two countries Democrats might fight 
it. 
I mean, there are some Democrats in border states, Washington, Michigan, Arizona, California, 
and then we had Representative Susan Delben on here yesterday. 
She's the head of the um the group 
that's supposed to help Democrats get elected. 
And she said that online, "Washington has particularly 
benefited from this agreement, and it's one of the states with the most to lose by withdrawing." 
She says withdrawing will harm our already war and tariff raged economy, threaten jobs. 
This is a gravely misguided step by the president. 
I am curious about how this intersects with tariffs and 
that regime has not gone well. 
Well, I just think that it just is creating more uncertainty in our economy 
when people can't afford the uncertainty and when you can't afford your groceries and our groceries are coming and a lot of it is coming from Mexico. 
That is a problem. 
So, it's not even 
to me it's not even necessarily about the minutia of the actual trade agreement and figuring out 
the specifics of it. 
See it as insult to economic injury. 
Exactly. 
And he's just it's like he does 
not care literally about anybody. 
I am going to push back on that because where he where it it is 
going to be bad for border states which are mostly blue states but we don't we won't get into that 
political conversation to the north and to the north. 
Okay, let me finish my sentence. 
Texas is 
so big though because when I said it I realized i needed to say to the north but um when we're 
talking about autos for instance that that is part of the that is part of the upset with Mexican with 
Chinese manufacturing of automobile parts being shipped to Mexico then put in as part of this 
agreement and then shipped to the United States. 
It's a way to skirt all of the tariffs on Chinese 
manufacturing on goods and services, especially agricultural products that we ship both north and 
south from middle of America. 
Those those um shipments are we're we're being uh hurt with 
those shipments as well. 
So there are two sides of this argument. 
But but where I agree with you is 
on the uncertainty. 
The problem you want some level of certainty with trade agreements. 
bring this up has benefited from the uncertainty is the president in the stock market right now. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.9%CNN: 5.0%Confirmation Bias7.9%This article: 2.9%CNN: 1.2%Anchoring Bias2.9%This article: 8.6%CNN: 8.4%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 5.7%CNN: 1.7%Representativeness Heuristic5.7%This article: 0.6%CNN: 2.1%Hindsight Bias0.6%This article: 6.3%CNN: 5.2%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 7.6%CNN: 5.2%Framing Effect7.6%This article: 4.2%CNN: 2.0%Loss Aversion4.2%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.6%CNN: 2.1%Optimism Bias1.6%This article: 0.6%CNN: 0.5%Pessimism Bias0.6%This article: 18.9%CNN: 6.0%Negativity Bias18.9%This article: 5.3%CNN: 3.8%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 9.0%CNN: 3.4%Fundamental Attribution Error9.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%CNN: 3.7%In-Group Bias3.4%This article: 2.1%CNN: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias2.1%This article: 0.9%CNN: 1.7%Halo Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.5%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%CNN: 0.6%Primacy Effect4.0%This article: 1.0%CNN: 0.5%Blind-Spot Bias1.0%This article: 3.0%CNN: 2.1%Ad Hominem3.0%This article: 2.8%CNN: 0.0%Straw Man2.8%This article: 4.3%CNN: 2.6%Appeal to Authority4.3%This article: 1.4%CNN: 2.0%False Dilemma1.4%This article: 1.4%CNN: 1.6%Slippery Slope1.4%This article: 0.0%CNN: 1.7%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.6%CNN: 8.4%Hasty Generalization5.6%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 1.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.3%CNN: 10.6%Appeal to Emotion11.3%This article: 2.3%CNN: 1.1%Begging the Question2.3%This article: 17.3%CNN: 2.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)17.3%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.2%CNN: 0.9%Burden of Proof3.2%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.6%CNN: 0.9%Composition/Division0.6%This article: 6.2%CNN: 3.2%Anecdotal6.2%This article: 1.8%CNN: 0.0%No True Scotsman1.8%This article: 2.3%CNN: 0.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.3%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.5%CNN: 0.0%Middle Ground2.5%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 1.8%CNN: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy1.8%This article: 0.8%CNN: 0.4%Unattributed Quote0.8%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.6%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNN: 0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

962 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker4.1%attributed speech923writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 16 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 18 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 15 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 17 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 16 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 27 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 17 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 16 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 24 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 15 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 27 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 16 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 19 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 18 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 13 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageSusan Delben ‱ 8 words ‱ 100.0% coverageSusan Delben ‱ 17 words ‱ 0.0% coverageSusan Delben ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 10 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 27 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 17 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 1 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 7 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 15 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 20 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 9 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 6 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 2 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 21 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 20 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 16 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 14 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 5 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 4 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 8 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 3 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 11 words ‱ 0.0% coverageWriter's voice ‱ 17 words ‱ 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Susan Delben

100%flagged-word coverage
39 attributed words100% of attributed speech75% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+20.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Susan Delben: 20.5%20.5%

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.