Trump condemned Obama’s Iran deal. Here’s how his own compares. ⁠72%

By Sammy Westfall⁠0%

6/19/2026, 2:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Anecdotal, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 85.7% saturation with 60 hits. Analysis detected 245 faulty-reasoning hits from 70 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠72% (6,228 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.50% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump left no ambiguity as to how he felt about the Obama administration’s 2015 nuclear deal with Iran. 
In Trump’s first term as president, he withdrew from the accord, having called it “horrible,” “defective at its core,” “one sided,” a “road to a nuclear weapon,” and “one of the worst and dumbest” agreements “ever made by the U.S.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 57.1%Sammy Westfall: 3.4%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias57.1%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 4.1%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.5%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.1%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Sammy Westfall: 15.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect7.1%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.3%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.7%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 5.3%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 4.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 85.7%Sammy Westfall: 23.9%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias85.7%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 3.1%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 3.8%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 2.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 2.1%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 3.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 7.9%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.6%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 5.4%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.5%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.3%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 57.1%Sammy Westfall: 1.1%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal57.1%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 3.4%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.5%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.8%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 57.1%Sammy Westfall: 6.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote57.1%This article: 57.1%Sammy Westfall: 5.3%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection57.1%This article: 28.6%Sammy Westfall: 10.6%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice28.6%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 1.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sammy Westfall: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

70 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker64%attributed speech25writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 40 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

89%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%45.0%90.0%Unattributed Quote+88.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 88.9%88.9%Quote-first Misdirection+88.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 88.9%88.9%Biased Writer Voice-80.0 ptsWriter: 80.0%Trump: 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.