Snopes.com⁠21%

USS Abraham Lincoln crew reportedly faces food shortages, low morale. Here's what we know ⁠43%

By Anna Rascouët-Paz⁠24%

8/7/2026, 5:36:22 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Biased Writer Voice, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 29.1% saturation with 192 hits. Analysis detected 1,111 faulty-reasoning hits from 659 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.7% and a BS Rank of ⁠43% (17,670 of 30,584 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 57.80% of the article peer group.

The claim that sailors and Marines aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln aircraft carrier are facing deteriorating conditions after nearly 260 days at sea is still under investigation. 
It stemmed from an MS NOW report published on Aug. 
5, 2026. 
MS NOW says the sailors are running out of food and other essential supplies, such as soap and toothpaste. 
The article also says there are safety concerns and the crew's morale is low. 
The news media outlet quoted Cmdr. 
Joseph Hontz, the spokesperson for the Navy's 5th Fleet, as saying the crew is "resilient." 
In April 2026, U.S. 
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth deemed previous reports of food shortages on the USS Abraham Lincoln to be "fake news" in an X post. 
Snopes will update this report if additional information surfaces. 
We have reached out to the U.S. 
Navy, the 5th Fleet and the Department of Defense and are waiting for responses. 
We also contacted the office of Sen. 
Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, who amplified the claim. 
A rumor spread online in August 2026 that sailors and Marines on the U.S. 
Navy aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, deployed in the Arabian Sea as of this writing, are facing food and supply shortages, mold and other deteriorating conditions. 
The claim spread on X and Facebook as the U.S. war against Iran entered its sixth month. 
Sen. 
Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, amplified the alleged story in an X post, saying (archived), in part, "We cannot claim to support the troops while leaving them hungry. 
Our service members deserve better." 
Booker's post includes a video by @pullupspastapolitics, a woman who refers to herself as an "independent reporter" and makes content on YouTube, TikTok and Instagram. 
In the clip, the woman quoted from an MS NOW (formerly MSNBC) report published on Aug. 5 (archived). 
She said families of those on the ship "are upset and they're blaming" U.S. 
President Donald Trump. 
MS NOW's report says that sailors and Marines are lacking basic necessities and families are speaking out: 
Moldy showers. 
Food shortages. 
Sailors running out of toothpaste, deodorant and soap. 
Families of the sailors and Marines aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln are sounding the alarm that their loved ones are so exhausted they fear it could lead to deadly mistakes, as the carrier enters its ninth month at sea and its fifth consecutive month of combat operations against Iran. 
The report then says the families are concerned that the low morale and safety conditions are making the deployment very risky as the Trump administration continues its military campaign against Iran. 
The article also quotes Cmdr. 
Joseph Hontz, the spokesperson for the Navy's 5th Fleet, as saying the crew is "resilient." 
It was not possible to directly obtain confirmation of the reportedly dire conditions on the ship. 
For this reason, we left this claim unrated. 
Snopes contacted the U.S. 
Navy, the 5th Fleet and the Department of Defense seeking details. 
We also reached out to Booker's office, asking if he had received direct reports from crew members or their families. 
We will update this report should any of them respond. 
It is true that the USS Abraham Lincoln has been at sea for 259 days as of this writing, according to Cruising Earth, a website that tracks ships. 
It reportedly left its homeport of San Diego on Nov. 21, 2025, for routine operations and was then deployed to the Arabian Sea after the war on Iran began. 
This is not the first time families have reported food shortages on the same ship since its deployment. 
In April 2026, some news outlets reported concerns that the roughly 5,000-member crew was surviving on little food. 
At the time, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth took to X (archived) to dismiss this as "FAKE NEWS." 
For further reading, Snopes previously investigated photographs that accompanied these reports in April 2026. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.4%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 3.0%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias6.4%This article: 4.2%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.2%This article: 8.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.4%Snopes: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 6.1%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.3%Snopes: 2.1%Framing Effect6.1%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.5%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.8%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias16.5%This article: 29.1%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 4.8%Snopes: 4.2%Negativity Bias29.1%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.8%Snopes: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.8%Snopes: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.4%In-Group Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.6%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 0.4%Halo Effect4.6%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.8%Snopes: 1.3%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.6%Snopes: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.9%Snopes: 1.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 9.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 4.7%Snopes: 4.8%Appeal to Authority9.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.4%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.3%Snopes: 0.5%Slippery Slope7.4%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.8%Snopes: 2.9%Hasty Generalization3.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.1%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.9%Snopes: 1.2%Bandwagon2.1%This article: 5.3%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.7%Snopes: 2.4%Appeal to Emotion5.3%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.3%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.1%Snopes: 1.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.8%Snopes: 1.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 17.9%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.4%Snopes: 1.6%Anecdotal17.9%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 6.4%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 2.2%Snopes: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)6.4%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.2%Snopes: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.1%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.7%Snopes: 2.5%Unattributed Quote7.1%This article: 4.6%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.8%Snopes: 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection4.6%This article: 17.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 1.9%Snopes: 2.0%Biased Writer Voice17.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.5%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Anna RascouĂ«t-Paz: 0.1%Snopes: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S
0.0%

659 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers25%attributed speech491writer words
Selected voice

MS NOW

100%flagged-word coverage
50 attributed words30% of attributed speech62% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Unattributed Quote+63.1 ptsWriter: 2.9%MS NOW: 66.0%66.0%Biased Writer Voice-22.8 ptsWriter: 22.8%MS NOW: 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.