Trump orders temporary warnings signs be put in front of Smithsonian after report finds ‘extreme political activism’ 95%

By Emily Hallas53%

7/25/2026, 1:07:48 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Appeal to Emotion, and Indoctrination, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 56.9% saturation with 282 hits. Analysis detected 1,627 faulty-reasoning hits from 496 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 92.1% and a BS Rank of 95% (1,109 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 94.90% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump on Friday ordered the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History to put up signs highlighting a report that concluded the country’s leading cultural center put ideological bias over historical facts. 
The 162-page report from the White House’s Domestic Policy Council was released earlier this month, and it wrote that “ideological capture has moved the Museum’s mission away from straightforward historical education and scholarship toward an extreme political activism that seeks to transform our country.” 
In response, Trump ordered Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and the National Park Service, which maintains the sidewalks outside the museum, to point visitors to the report on temporary signage along walkways that lead to the museum, in addition to signage above each entrance that reads: “Warning: the exhibits in this museum were prepared by people who don’t want you to love your country.” 
The signage will correct “inaccurate information presented in the Museum” and direct visitors to “locations and resources for accurate information regarding America’s history,” according to Trump. 
The move comes as the president and his team have long targeted the Smithsonian Institution, which receives roughly two-thirds of its approximately $1 billion annual budget through federal appropriations, over concerns it puts leftist ideology over an accurate portrayal of U.S. history. 
In March, Trump directed Vice President JD Vance and the Domestic Policy Council to “remove improper ideology” from Smithsonian museums and suggest “actions necessary to fully effectuate such policies.” 
Through an executive order , he targeted funding for programs that advanced “divisive narratives” and “improper ideology.” 
Earlier this week, Smithsonian National Museum of American History director Anthea Hartig was pressed by Republicans on several exhibits at the institution, including one lawmakers said suggested Mickey Mouse was racist, and concerns about children engaging with a sexually explicit LGBT exhibit that displayed a “crotch harness” in “Illegal to be You: Gay History Beyond Stonewall” exhibit. 
Hartig defended the institution and clapped back against the July 4 White House report. 
“As we continue to fact-check the report, we unwaveringly attest that it does not fairly or accurately characterize the full body of work at the museum,” she told lawmakers. 
“There is always room for improvement. 
But I also know the beauty and the inspiration and the expertise that lies in our collections, our exhibits, and our programming.” 
PLANNED PARENTHOOD ACCUSED OF POSSIBLE FRAUD OVER SEX-CHANGE ‘CARE’ 
Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch also defended the institution in comments to NBC News earlier this month, arguing that the White House’s July 4 report writing that the White House’s report “is not a fair characterization of the work and totality of the National Museum of American History.” 
“At the Smithsonian, our work is driven by scholarship, accuracy and an uncompromising commitment to tell the fullness of America’s story,” Bunch wrote. 
The institution remains “focused on what grounds us: a steadfast commitment to scholarship, nonpartisanship, independence, accuracy, and integrity.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.9%Emily Hallas: 3.9%Washington Examiner: 5.3%Confirmation Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.2%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Emily Hallas: 5.6%Washington Examiner: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 36.1%Emily Hallas: 9.2%Washington Examiner: 8.6%Framing Effect36.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 8.9%Emily Hallas: 0.7%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Status Quo Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 1.2%Emily Hallas: 2.7%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Optimism Bias1.2%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 56.9%Emily Hallas: 11.1%Washington Examiner: 9.3%Negativity Bias56.9%This article: 18.1%Emily Hallas: 4.6%Washington Examiner: 1.4%Self-Serving Bias18.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.4%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Emily Hallas: 1.6%Washington Examiner: 2.2%In-Group Bias8.5%This article: 11.5%Emily Hallas: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias11.5%This article: 12.7%Emily Hallas: 3.1%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Halo Effect12.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.4%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.1%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 12.7%Emily Hallas: 0.8%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Straw Man12.7%This article: 6.7%Emily Hallas: 4.8%Washington Examiner: 4.0%Appeal to Authority6.7%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 3.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.9%Washington Examiner: 1.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.6%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.5%Emily Hallas: 4.5%Washington Examiner: 8.9%Hasty Generalization8.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.5%Washington Examiner: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.4%Emily Hallas: 7.9%Washington Examiner: 6.0%Appeal to Emotion29.4%This article: 8.9%Emily Hallas: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 1.8%Begging the Question8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.5%Washington Examiner: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 11.1%Emily Hallas: 1.0%Washington Examiner: 0.7%Burden of Proof11.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.5%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.5%Emily Hallas: 3.8%Washington Examiner: 2.2%Anecdotal11.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 18.1%Emily Hallas: 3.0%Washington Examiner: 2.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)18.1%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.2%Washington Examiner: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.0%Washington Examiner: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.9%Emily Hallas: 3.4%Washington Examiner: 2.3%Unattributed Quote8.9%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 2.1%Washington Examiner: 1.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 8.1%Emily Hallas: 3.5%Washington Examiner: 11.5%Biased Writer Voice8.1%This article: 18.5%Emily Hallas: 2.6%Washington Examiner: 3.5%Indoctrination18.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 1.7%Washington Examiner: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Emily Hallas: 2.2%Washington Examiner: 4.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Emily Hallas: 0.3%Washington Examiner: 0.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

496 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers41%attributed speech293writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House’s Domestic Policy Council • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 63 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 57 words • 0.0% coverageAnthea Hartig • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAnthea Hartig • 29 words • 0.0% coverageAnthea Hartig • 6 words • 0.0% coverageAnthea Hartig • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageLonnie Bunch • 47 words • 0.0% coverageLonnie Bunch • 23 words • 100.0% coverageLonnie Bunch • 18 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words22% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%White House’s Domestic Policy Council: 100.0%100.0%Indoctrination-31.4 ptsWriter: 31.4%White House’s Domestic Policy Council: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -14.3 ptsWriter: 14.3%White House’s Domestic Policy Council: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.8 ptsWriter: 5.8%White House’s Domestic Policy Council: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.