Trump Exaggerates Previous Spending on Reflecting Pool 27%

By Saranac Hale Spencer0%

6/11/2026, 5:30:18 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Quote-first Misdirection, Availability Heuristic, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 25.6% saturation with 179 hits. Analysis detected 1,188 faulty-reasoning hits from 699 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 38.2% and a BS Rank of 27% (16,126 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 73.70% of the article peer group.

The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool began filling with water on June 4 following maintenance work that President Donald Trump called a “big project.” 
In late May, Trump claimed that “the Biden administration and the Obama administration spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to get it to work, and they failed,” adding that his administration was spending “$10 million, maybe, $12 million.” 
But that exaggerates the amount spent by previous administrations. 
We could find no record of any major work done during former President Joe Biden’s term, and the total spent for an overhaul of the pool during former President Barack Obama’s term was about $35 million. 
According to the publicly available federal contract, the Trump administration has spent about $14 million to repaint and seal the bottom of the pool, which has a history of leaks. 
The pool was completely refilled with water by June 9, as shown in a PBS News timelapse of the progress. 
During the May Cabinet meeting, Trump referred to the condition of the pool. 
“It was filthy, dirty. 
It was Biden. 
And they spent, between the two of them, they spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to fix this thing. 
Now, when Biden  when Obama did it, he spent way over $100 million.” 
The work done by the current administration, Trump said, included sandblasting the surface and painting it blue. 
“We made the surface as good as it can be and we’re now covering it with the most beautiful blue, very thick,” he said. 
“You think of it as a very sophisticated form of rubber, no leaks, no problems. 
And it’s beautiful. 
It’s called American Flag blue. 
That was the color we chose.” 
We asked the National Park Service for details about the scope of the recent work, but we didn’t get a response. 
Trump has mentioned repeatedly that the pool was being repainted, which is reflected in the publicly available information about the contract. 
Based on government documents it obtained, the New York Times reported that the scope of work also involves repairs to some of the leaking crevices between the concrete slabs at the bottom of the pool. 
Extensive work to rebuild the pool started in 2010 and concluded in 2012 during the Obama administration. 
That project used funds from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act  stimulus legislation enacted in response to the Great Recession  to essentially replace the original pool that was first built in the early 1920s. 
“The old reflecting pool was built with an asphalt and tile bottom on poorly supported soil consisting primarily of marshes,” one of the companies that worked on that project had written at the time, explaining that the pool had sunk a foot into the ground over time. 
That project also switched the source of the water from the city’s municipal system to the nearby Tidal Basin fed by the Potomac River, with an ozone water filtration system, according to the National Park Service. 
There was an unexpected amount of algae when the new pool first opened, according to a Washington Post report at the time, which said that the ozone levels in the filtration system needed adjustment. 
Some maintenance issues over the years  such as a broken water line in 2019, according to the National Park Service  led to water quality issues in the pool that required repair. 
During the May Cabinet meeting, Trump referred to the change in the water source during the 2012 project, saying, “the water from the Potomac was not suitable for this, to put it mildly. 
It was disgusting what happened.” 
But we couldn’t find any information indicating that the source of the water for the pool has changed under Trump. 
We asked the White House, the Interior Department and the NPS about the water source, but we didn’t get a response. 
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. 
We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. 
Please consider a donation. 
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page. 
If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. 
Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.0%FactCheck.org: 2.0%Confirmation Bias4.0%This article: 9.2%Saranac Hale Spencer: 4.9%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Anchoring Bias9.2%This article: 20.2%Saranac Hale Spencer: 5.0%FactCheck.org: 1.3%Availability Heuristic20.2%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 1.3%Saranac Hale Spencer: 4.9%FactCheck.org: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias1.3%This article: 2.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 1.9%Framing Effect2.0%This article: 0.6%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Loss Aversion0.6%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Saranac Hale Spencer: 2.3%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 2.3%FactCheck.org: 4.0%Negativity Bias2.0%This article: 8.4%Saranac Hale Spencer: 4.6%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.2%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 4.7%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.4%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.4%This article: 4.9%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.3%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Halo Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.9%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Recency Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.1%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 25.6%Saranac Hale Spencer: 6.4%FactCheck.org: 5.0%Appeal to Authority25.6%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.4%FactCheck.org: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.9%Saranac Hale Spencer: 6.2%FactCheck.org: 3.2%Hasty Generalization4.9%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.2%Saranac Hale Spencer: 2.9%FactCheck.org: 3.1%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.2%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.3%FactCheck.org: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 2.8%FactCheck.org: 0.9%Burden of Proof11.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.2%FactCheck.org: 1.5%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 2.1%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.5%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.1%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.3%Saranac Hale Spencer: 1.8%FactCheck.org: 1.5%Unattributed Quote7.3%This article: 22.9%Saranac Hale Spencer: 7.5%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection22.9%This article: 1.3%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.3%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Biased Writer Voice1.3%This article: 1.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.3%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Indoctrination1.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.6%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Saranac Hale Spencer: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 10.7%Saranac Hale Spencer: 5.5%FactCheck.org: 1.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…10.7%

699 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers45%attributed speech382writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 13 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 20 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 100.0% coverageNational Park Service • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 33 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageFactCheck.org • 11 words • 100.0% coverageFactCheck.org • 4 words • 100.0% coverageFactCheck.org • 10 words • 100.0% coverageFactCheck.org • 15 words • 100.0% coverageFactCheck.org • 5 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

80%flagged-word coverage
201 attributed words63% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Quote-first Misdirection+79.6 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 79.6%79.6%Unattributed Quote-10.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Donald Trump: 2.0%2.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -7.9 ptsWriter: 7.9%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-1.8 ptsWriter: 1.8%Donald 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.