Did Biden hand Trump a depleted military stockpile? Fact-checking Mike Waltz 35%

By Samantha Putterman26%

7/27/2026, 10:49:46 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Confirmation Bias, and Ambiguity (Equivocation), with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 34.1% saturation with 233 hits. Analysis detected 1,350 faulty-reasoning hits from 683 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.6% and a BS Rank of 35% (17,704 of 26,881 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 65.90% of the article peer group.

Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, said the U.S. military has “everything it needs” to fight the Iran war, but also blamed the Biden administration for depleting stockpiles by supplying Ukraine with weapons. 
“We have to take a step back here in that a lot of stockpiles were depleted not only from what we gave Ukraine over the last however many years, four or five years,” Waltz told Kristen Welker July 26 on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” 
“Secretary Hegseth inherited a depleted situation from not only Ukraine, but also the ongoing fight with the Houthis under the Biden administration and a depleted military under the Biden administration.” 
Waltz dismissed a July 24 NBC News report that said the U.S. military was rationing munitions and allowing some Iranian attacks because of the diminishing stockpile. 
Several reports have found that U.S. weapons stockpiles are rapidly decreasing as the Iran war continues. 
A May 2026 analysis by the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a national security-focused think tank, projected that certain heavily-used munitions in the Iran war  such as the Tomahawk missile system and Patriot and THAAD interceptors that defend against missiles and drones  will take around three to four years to replenish. 
Does that mean the Trump administration inherited a depleted stockpile from Biden? 
Not exactly. 
Defense experts have said that aid to Ukraine under Biden reduced the U.S.’ weapons reserve, but the Biden administration started a process to expand production and replenish the stockpile. 
From 2022 to 2024 under the Biden administration, the U.S. transferred large amounts of munitions to Ukraine and Israel, including artillery shells, anti-tank and aircraft missiles and Patriot air defense interceptors. 
 U.S. stockpiles, particularly high-end air and missile defense interceptors, were already under significant stress when (the Trump) administration took office, and Ukraine aid was one contributor to that,” Kelly Grieco, a defense policy expert at the Stimson Center think tank, said. 
“But the administration should also look at its own choices. 
Whatever munitions hole the administration inherited, its own decisions made it considerably deeper.” 
Defense experts also pointed out that many of the weapons that went to Ukraine haven’t been used in Iran. 
The munitions the Biden administration sent to Ukraine “were mostly for ground combat,” which has not been an issue for the Iran war, said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine Corps colonel and military specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 
The U.S. sent about 600 Patriot missile systems to Ukraine and those are now in short supply, Cancian said. 
He also said Army Tactical Missile Systems sent to Ukraine have been deployed in the Iran war, but that the U.S. is leaning more heavily on other systems. 
None of the munitions the U.S. has provided to Israel are on the military stockpile short list, Cancian said, as Israel builds most of its own missiles. 
Biden started the process of replenishing military equipment, scaled up production 
Biden signed bills that included funding to replace weapons the U.S. gave to Ukraine. 
His administration also ramped up munitions production , awarding billions in defense contracts to expand factory capacity and modernize facilities. 
“The Biden administration began the process of expanding the industrial base to meet increased demand for weapons and munitions,” Cancian said. 
“The Trump administration has accelerated that.” 
When it comes to U.S. conflict with the Houthis, an Iran-backed military group in Yemen, both the Biden and Trump administrations have deployed weapons at a high rate, experts said. 
Under Biden, U.S. forces used around 200 standard missiles to intercept Houthi and Iranian launches, said Chris Park, a Center for Strategic and International Studies researcher. 
Trump, meanwhile, led a monthlong bombing campaign against the group, which led to more standard missile use, likely in the dozens, Park said. 
The Twelve Day War, which the U.S. and Israel instigated against Iran in June 2025, also used large quantities of the missiles. 
RELATED: Trump said US has a ‘virtually unlimited supply’ of munitions to fight Iran ‘forever.’ 
Is that true? 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 13.2%Samantha Putterman: 2.7%@politifact: 2.0%Confirmation Bias13.2%This article: 1.8%Samantha Putterman: 1.0%@politifact: 0.6%Anchoring Bias1.8%This article: 10.7%Samantha Putterman: 2.6%@politifact: 2.4%Availability Heuristic10.7%This article: 6.1%Samantha Putterman: 2.7%@politifact: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic6.1%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.1%@politifact: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Samantha Putterman: 1.1%@politifact: 1.3%Overconfidence Bias7.9%This article: 5.6%Samantha Putterman: 3.4%@politifact: 3.0%Framing Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.7%@politifact: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.3%@politifact: 0.3%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 10.1%Samantha Putterman: 0.7%@politifact: 0.8%Optimism Bias10.1%This article: 3.4%Samantha Putterman: 2.8%@politifact: 1.2%Pessimism Bias3.4%This article: 11.1%Samantha Putterman: 5.6%@politifact: 4.9%Negativity Bias11.1%This article: 5.3%Samantha Putterman: 0.3%@politifact: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias5.3%This article: 11.4%Samantha Putterman: 0.8%@politifact: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error11.4%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Samantha Putterman: 0.9%@politifact: 0.4%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.8%@politifact: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.3%@politifact: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.9%Samantha Putterman: 0.5%@politifact: 1.0%Recency Bias0.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.1%@politifact: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.6%@politifact: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 34.1%Samantha Putterman: 6.1%@politifact: 4.2%Appeal to Authority34.1%This article: 2.9%Samantha Putterman: 0.9%@politifact: 0.7%False Dilemma2.9%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 1.3%@politifact: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 16.8%Samantha Putterman: 3.3%@politifact: 2.8%Hasty Generalization16.8%This article: 3.8%Samantha Putterman: 0.2%@politifact: 0.2%Red Herring3.8%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.4%@politifact: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 2.2%Samantha Putterman: 2.6%@politifact: 2.0%Appeal to Emotion2.2%This article: 0.3%Samantha Putterman: 0.2%@politifact: 0.5%Begging the Question0.3%This article: 12.6%Samantha Putterman: 2.1%@politifact: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)12.6%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.4%Samantha Putterman: 0.2%@politifact: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.4%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.7%@politifact: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.6%@politifact: 0.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 13.0%Samantha Putterman: 1.0%@politifact: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)13.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.4%Samantha Putterman: 0.6%@politifact: 0.1%Middle Ground4.4%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.0%Samantha Putterman: 2.0%@politifact: 1.4%Unattributed Quote11.0%This article: 2.2%Samantha Putterman: 1.7%@politifact: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.2%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.9%@politifact: 1.5%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.4%@politifact: 0.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.0%@politifact: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Samantha Putterman: 0.3%@politifact: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

683 words analyzed.

Speakers

8speakers70%attributed speech206writer words
Selected voice

Kristen Welker

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words9.4% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Kristen Welker: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.3 ptsWriter: 7.3%Kristen Welker: 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.