Trump warns gas prices could rise again: ‘We may have to send it up’ 51%

By Claire Carter52%

8/5/2026, 4:36:51 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Self-Serving Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 31.7% saturation with 123 hits. Analysis detected 900 faulty-reasoning hits from 388 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 43.7% and a BS Rank of 51% (14,056 of 28,389 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 50.50% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump warned on Wednesday that gasoline prices could climb again as the conflict with Iran continues, saying lower prices would return once the war is over. 
Speaking in Las Vegas, Trump touted his administration’s economic success, but acknowledged how the war with Iran, which led to the closure of the Strait of Hormuz , has affected gas and oil prices for Americans. 
“As soon as the situation with Iran ends, oil is going to go down, and we will have completed something in such a short amount of time, that is a miracle,” Trump said. 
“When oil goes down, and it’s going to go down very rapidly and is already happening. 
We may have to send it up again. 
We may have to  you know what happens when we send it up,” Trump later added, referring to prices reacting to warfare. 
“But we don’t have to. 
But when the oil and gasoline go down, everything else goes down.” 
Oil and gas prices have fluctuated as a result of the conflict in the Middle East, with markets reacting strongly to U.S. strikes on Iran and Tehran’s actions in the strait. 
On Wednesday, AAA reported the average price of gas was $4.08 per gallon. 
The Trump administration has been under pressure to answer for the war’s effect on prices for Americans. 
Earlier this week, the president expressed his displeasure with Chevron and Exxon Mobil for making “too much” in profits during the second quarter of this year. 
“They’ve got to give some of that back to the public, and they better cut the retail price, the consumer price. 
Too much money,” he said in the Oval Office on Monday. 
“You’re surprised I’m saying it? 
I’ll say it loud and clear. 
I’m not happy about it.” 
GAS PRICES FELL DURING JUNE AND INTO EARLY JULY AS WASHINGTON AND TEHRAN MADE PROGRESS ON PEACE NEGOTIATIONS, AGREEING TO A 60-DAY PRELIMINARY CEASEFIRE EXTENSION IN MID-JUNE. 
BUT THE CEASEFIRE HAS SINCE FALLEN THROUGH, SENDING OIL AND GAS PRICES UPWARD AGAIN. 
Trump has also voiced optimism about Iranian-Omani talks to reopen the Strait of Hormuz through which one-fifth of the world’s oil supply flows. 
The president said if peace talks fall through, Iran will “get hit very hard.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 5.9%Claire Carter: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 4.8%Confirmation Bias5.9%This article: 5.9%Claire Carter: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Anchoring Bias5.9%This article: 15.2%Claire Carter: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.9%Availability Heuristic15.2%This article: 8.0%Claire Carter: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic8.0%This article: 7.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Hindsight Bias7.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%Claire Carter: 3.8%Washington Examiner: 8.0%Framing Effect3.6%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 5.4%Claire Carter: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias5.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 14.4%Claire Carter: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias14.4%This article: 9.3%Claire Carter: 1.8%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Pessimism Bias9.3%This article: 11.6%Claire Carter: 6.9%Washington Examiner: 8.7%Negativity Bias11.6%This article: 16.0%Claire Carter: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias16.0%This article: 9.3%Claire Carter: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error9.3%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Claire Carter: 1.1%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Halo Effect8.5%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.7%Claire Carter: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Recency Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 2.9%Washington Examiner: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 6.7%Claire Carter: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 2.7%False Dilemma6.7%This article: 4.1%Claire Carter: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Slippery Slope4.1%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 3.8%Washington Examiner: 7.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 4.4%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon4.4%This article: 5.2%Claire Carter: 4.2%Washington Examiner: 5.8%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 1.3%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Begging the Question1.3%This article: 31.7%Claire Carter: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)31.7%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 5.4%Claire Carter: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Burden of Proof5.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 7.0%Claire Carter: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Anecdotal7.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Claire Carter: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 6.7%Claire Carter: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 2.0%Unattributed Quote6.7%This article: 3.6%Claire Carter: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection3.6%This article: 16.2%Claire Carter: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 10.5%Biased Writer Voice16.2%This article: 5.4%Claire Carter: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 3.3%Indoctrination5.4%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Claire Carter: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

388 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers70%attributed speech117writer words
Selected voice

Trump

94%flagged-word coverage
258 attributed words95% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 23.1%Trump: 14.0%14.0%Unattributed Quote+10.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 10.1%10.1%Indoctrination+8.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 8.1%8.1%Quote-first Misdirection+5.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 5.4%5.4%

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.