White House suggests ‘no better addition’ to Mount Rushmore than Trump 42%

By Molly Parks22%

7/4/2026, 12:47:30 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Quote-first Misdirection, and Availability Heuristic, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 24.7% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 535 faulty-reasoning hits from 381 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46.1% and a BS Rank of 42% (12,373 of 21,175 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.40% of the article peer group.

As President Donald Trump is set to take the stage in front of Mount Rushmore on Friday evening to deliver an Independence Day speech, his White House thinks the monument could include a fifth president. 
“There would be no better addition to the iconic Mount Rushmore than the 45th and 47th President of the United States, Donald Trump,” White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement to multiple outlets, including ABC News. 
This is not the first time Republicans have floated this idea. 
Just days after Trump was inaugurated to serve his second presidential term, Rep. 
Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) introduced a bill to add Trump to the monument, saying he “will be forever remembered among the great” alongside Presidents George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln, and Theodore Roosevelt. 
“President Trump’s bold leadership and steadfast dedication to America’s greatness have cemented his place in history,” Luna said in a January 2025 statement. 
“Mount Rushmore, a timeless symbol of our nation’s freedom and strength, deserves to reflect his towering legacy—a legacy further solidified by the powerful start to his second term.” 
Trump himself has never publicly endorsed the idea, but he has also not shot it down. 
He called a story that he had broached the idea to the South Dakota governor in 2020 “fake news,” but he said he could see how it “sounds like a good idea.” 
“Never suggested it although, based on all of the many things accomplished during the first 3 1/2 years, perhaps more than any other Presidency, sounds like a good idea to me!” 
Trump wrote on social media in August 2020. 
TRUMP AND THUNE LOOK FOR RESET AT MOUNT RUSHMORE 
Adding Trump as the fifth Mount Rushmore president is just one of several ideas Republican lawmakers have suggested as ways to preserve the president’s legacy. 
Many have floated the idea of giving him the Nobel Peace Prize, naming airports after him, and making his birthday a federal holiday. 
The president is set to give his Fourth of July speech in South Dakota at 8:30 p.m. local time on Friday. 
He is also set to give another Independence Day speech on the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence on Saturday. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.2%Molly Parks: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Molly Parks: 3.9%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.9%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Molly Parks: 2.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias8.1%This article: 22.6%Molly Parks: 8.4%Washington Examiner: 8.5%Framing Effect22.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Molly Parks: 8.0%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias6.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 3.5%Washington Examiner: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 6.6%Molly Parks: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias6.6%This article: 24.7%Molly Parks: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect24.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 4.1%Washington Examiner: 3.9%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.1%Molly Parks: 2.5%Washington Examiner: 9.0%Hasty Generalization8.1%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 6.6%Molly Parks: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Bandwagon6.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 6.3%Washington Examiner: 5.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 7.3%Molly Parks: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Begging the Question7.3%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.3%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 1.9%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 7.6%Molly Parks: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)7.6%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.1%Molly Parks: 4.0%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote8.1%This article: 10.0%Molly Parks: 3.3%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection10.0%This article: 2.9%Molly Parks: 4.5%Washington Examiner: 11.7%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 8.7%Molly Parks: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination8.7%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 2.3%Washington Examiner: 4.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Molly Parks: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

381 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers40%attributed speech228writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Rogers • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnna Paulina Luna • 33 words • 100.0% coverageAnna Paulina Luna • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAnna Paulina Luna • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Taylor Rogers

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words25% of attributed speech47% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Taylor Rogers: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.8 ptsWriter: 4.8%Taylor Rogers: 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.