Pete Hegseth’s D-day speech on immigration condemned as ‘grotesque stupidity’ 75%

By Ashifa Kassam0%

6/7/2026, 5:22:32 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 30 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Framing Effect, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 70.9% saturation with 500 hits. Analysis detected 2,025 faulty-reasoning hits from 705 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 66.5% and a BS Rank of 75% (5,636 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 74.30% of the article peer group.

The US defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, has been accused by historians and rights campaigners of “grotesque stupidity” and desecrating the memory of the soldiers who stormed the beaches of Normandy after he sought to link immigration to the D-day anniversary, saying Europe was facing a different “invasion” of its shores. 
Speaking in north-west France on Saturday to mark the 82nd anniversary of the D-day landings, Hegseth seized on the moment marking the wartime liberation of Europe to reiterate the US administration’s longstanding attack on European immigration policies. 
“Sadly, today, different European beaches are stormed by different, dangerous ideologies,” Hegseth told those gathered at the American military cemetery in Colleville-sur-Mer. 
“Beaches in Spain, Italy, Greece and Bulgaria, boats and men arrive. 
When will European capitals do something about that invasion, or is it too late? 
I pray not, and I believe not,” he said. 
“The men who fought and died here restored freedom to Europe,” added Hegseth, a former Fox News host. 
“That freedom must be maintained by this generation of leaders and war fighters, or what they fought for was merely temporary.” 
The remarks were swiftly condemned on social media. 
The English historian, author and television presenter Simon Schama described them as a “special kind of loathsomeness: a blend of historical deafness, grotesque stupidity and comically ludicrous self-importance”. 
Schama added: “As if the little people’s rage against immigration somehow is superior to the war against the 3rd Reich and entitles this comic book nobody to lecture the actual heroes.” 
From Jerusalem, the Israeli human rights lawyer Daniel Seidemann also weighed in. 
“This is an obscene desecration of the memories of those who stormed the beaches of Normandy, and especially of those who fell,” he wrote. 
Anders Åslund, a Swedish economist and former senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, contrasted the comments with Hegseth’s later remarks on the US standing alongside its allies. 
“So much nonsense,” he wrote on social media. 
“‘We stand by our allies!’ 
No you don’t. 
You just attacked them. 
Immigration policies are internal matters.” 
Åslund said Hegseth’s comments were particularly “clueless” given his recent decision to skip a key Nato meeting and Donald Trump’s vows to cut the number of troops in Europe. 
“Doesn’t Hegseth know that the most unreliable ‘ally’ by far is the US?” 
he said. 
Hegseth’s outsized focus on EU migration echoes comments made by other American officials, including Trump, who have consistently sought to criticise the impact of migration on the continent, despite the US having a higher proportion of foreign-born residents than the EU. 
Hours before Hegseth’s speech, the US vice-president, JD Vance, also waded into the matter with a social media post that blamed immigration for the killing of Henry Nowak, an 18-year-old British student stabbed in the UK. 
Nowak’s killer, a British-born Sikh, was convicted of murder and jailed for life with a minimum of 21 years. 
On Sunday, the UK justice secretary and deputy prime minister, David Lammy, said he had had an “agreeable” conversation in which he had sought to set the record straight with Vance. 
“This has got nothing to do with mass migration. 
This young man was a Brit,” Lammy told Sky News. 
“Let’s be clear about that. 
And I said: ‘Look, Mr Vice-president, you’re wrong about this.’” 
In the days before Hegseth’s visit to France, the plans had stirred up controversy, with one residents’ association calling for the trip to be cancelled. 
“This individual promotes values that go against democracy, human rights and peace,” the Langrune en Commun association, which advocates for environmentalism and solidarity among the village’s residents, said in a press release last week. 
Speaking to the broadcaster BFMTV, one member of the association cautioned against acting as though everything was normal. 
“What’s happening with the Trump administration isn’t business as usual. 
The fact that Pete Hegseth is challenging all the international organisations that emerged from the second world war isn’t business as usual,” said Chantal Richard. 
“The words must be spoken, he must be called out for who he is, for the values he represents: colonial, warmongering, racist, far-right values,” she added. 
“Silence seems to us to be the worst thing we can do on these issues.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.2%Ashifa Kassam: 5.0%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias10.2%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%Ashifa Kassam: 4.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic7.4%This article: 7.9%Ashifa Kassam: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic7.9%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.4%Ashifa Kassam: 12.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect21.4%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.7%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.5%Ashifa Kassam: 0.9%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.3%Ashifa Kassam: 0.6%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias1.3%This article: 8.1%Ashifa Kassam: 3.0%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 70.9%Ashifa Kassam: 21.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias70.9%This article: 5.8%Ashifa Kassam: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias5.8%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Ashifa Kassam: 3.4%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 4.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.6%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%Ashifa Kassam: 2.9%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias10.6%This article: 2.6%Ashifa Kassam: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%Ashifa Kassam: 20.2%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem14.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 2.2%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Ashifa Kassam: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 9.4%Ashifa Kassam: 4.6%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma9.4%This article: 1.4%Ashifa Kassam: 2.6%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope1.4%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.4%Ashifa Kassam: 7.6%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization2.4%This article: 1.3%Ashifa Kassam: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring1.3%This article: 4.7%Ashifa Kassam: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon4.7%This article: 27.4%Ashifa Kassam: 14.8%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion27.4%This article: 0.7%Ashifa Kassam: 0.2%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.7%This article: 9.2%Ashifa Kassam: 3.6%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 3.4%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 4.8%Ashifa Kassam: 1.2%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature4.8%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.7%Ashifa Kassam: 2.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal2.7%This article: 4.4%Ashifa Kassam: 1.1%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman4.4%This article: 7.9%Ashifa Kassam: 2.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.9%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.6%Ashifa Kassam: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote2.6%This article: 7.8%Ashifa Kassam: 4.8%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection7.8%This article: 15.2%Ashifa Kassam: 8.2%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice15.2%This article: 5.8%Ashifa Kassam: 4.9%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination5.8%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 1.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ashifa Kassam: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

705 words analyzed.

Speakers

7speakers43%attributed speech401writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 22 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 11 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 14 words • 0.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coveragePete Hegseth • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageSimon Schama • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageDaniel Seidemann • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 8 words • 0.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 5 words • 100.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 3 words • 0.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 4 words • 0.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAnders Åslund • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Lammy • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Lammy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Lammy • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDavid Lammy • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageLangrune en Commun association • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageChantal Richard • 25 words • 0.0% coverageChantal Richard • 26 words • 100.0% coverageChantal Richard • 15 words • 100.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
34 attributed words11% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-26.7 ptsWriter: 26.7%Langrune en Commun association: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Langrune en Commun association: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.5 ptsWriter: 4.5%Langrune en Commun association: 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.