DC Ellipse reduced to just dirt after viewing party for Trump’s UFC cage fight 71%

By Brendan Rascius75%

6/20/2026, 8:39:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and Confirmation Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 48.3% saturation with 184 hits. Analysis detected 864 faulty-reasoning hits from 381 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64% and a BS Rank of 71% (6,159 of 21,196 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.90% of the article peer group.

The once-green lawn on the Ellipse is now colorless and scarred following President Donald Trump's UFC extravaganza where the famed park served as home for the official viewing party. 
An aerial photo taken Friday by a Reuters photographer shows the 52-acre public park nearly entirely covered in yellow grass and dirt, with only a few patches of lush vegetation remaining. 
Located just south of the White House, the Ellipse served as a viewing area for Sunday's UFC Freedom 250 event, where fighters competed in an octagon while President Donald Trump sat ringside. 
Thousands of spectators filled the park to watch the spectacle on jumbo screens, with the UFC estimating about 85,000 people would attend. 
Photos of the park went viral on social media on Friday, with its barren landscape standing in stark contrast to the bright green National Mall  and the Reflecting Pool, which has become engulfed by algae. 
“What a f****** mess,” wrote one X user, while another added, “They’re destroying the city, public space by public space.” 
Much of the South Lawn, where the fights took place, also contains remnants of the $60 million event, which coincided with Trump's 80th birthday. 
Large platforms remain in place, along with the massive lighting rig that towers over the White House. 
The White House announced this week on X that the National Park Service and ScottsMiracle-Gro, a lawn product company, will restore the grass on the South Lawn “making it stronger than ever before.” 
The company committed $1 million to the restoration project, which will include laying down a “proprietary grass blend.” 
The White House made no mention of the Ellipse in its post. 
In a court filing earlier this month, the National Park Service said it anticipated all equipment would be removed “from the Ellipse and its surrounding area by June 23, 2026.” 
It also made no mention of lawn restoration. 
Trump's UFC event  and the hulking infrastructure tied to it  represents just one of many physical changes he's made to the Capitol. 
Since returning to office, he has torn down the East Wing to build a massive ballroom, paved over the Rose Garden and proposed a 250-foot triumphal arch on the Potomac River. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.4%Brendan Rascius: 1.8%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias14.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 17.6%Brendan Rascius: 3.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic17.6%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.2%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 3.1%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.8%Brendan Rascius: 12.2%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect11.8%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.4%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Brendan Rascius: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect6.3%This article: 8.7%Brendan Rascius: 2.8%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias8.7%This article: 8.1%Brendan Rascius: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%Pessimism Bias8.1%This article: 48.3%Brendan Rascius: 14.6%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias48.3%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 3.1%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.2%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 2.8%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.0%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Brendan Rascius: 2.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect4.7%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.5%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 27.0%Brendan Rascius: 3.1%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority27.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 2.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.7%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.1%Brendan Rascius: 5.3%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization12.1%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.2%Brendan Rascius: 0.8%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon5.2%This article: 5.2%Brendan Rascius: 7.3%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion5.2%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.5%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 13.9%Brendan Rascius: 2.6%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.9%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 9.4%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division9.4%This article: 13.4%Brendan Rascius: 1.5%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal13.4%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.3%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.2%Brendan Rascius: 3.6%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote5.2%This article: 5.2%Brendan Rascius: 2.2%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection5.2%This article: 5.2%Brendan Rascius: 8.2%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice5.2%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.1%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 2.2%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Brendan Rascius: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Brendan Rascius: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.7%

381 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers27%attributed speech278writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageUFC • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWhite House • 33 words • 0.0% coverageScottsMiracle-Gro • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageNational Park Service • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

ScottsMiracle-Gro

100%flagged-word coverage
18 attributed words17% of attributed speech88% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%ScottsMiracle-Gro: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%ScottsMiracle-Gro: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%ScottsMiracle-Gro: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-7.2 ptsWriter: 7.2%ScottsMiracle-Gro: 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.