Agency packed with Trump appointees looks to bypass federal regulations to speed up construction of his DC arch ⁠64%

By Rachel Dobkin⁠54%

7/21/2026, 1:00:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 677 faulty-reasoning hits from 471 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠64% (8,032 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 63.30% of the article peer group.

An independent federal agency packed with Donald Trump appointees has been looking to bypass long-standing federal regulations to speed up construction of the president’s Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C. 
The 250-foot arch would sit at the end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, across from the Lincoln Memorial. 
The massive granite structure would be topped with a golden winged figure flanked by two gilded eagles. 
Trump has been attempting to leave his mark on D.C. before his second term ends through several rushed projects, including an expensive White House ballroom and a renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that turned green from algae shortly after it was complete. 
The president hopes to finish his arch in a few short years, and The Atlantic reported Sunday that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation might make changes to a requirement known as Section 106 to do it. 
The preservation council will consider a vote to revise the rules governing Section 106, according to a July 17 email and draft amendments obtained by the publication. 
“If adopted, the proposal would give federal agencies broader discretion over preservation reviews, prioritize mitigation over avoiding harm to historic places, and scale back long-standing expectations that officials consider alternative designs or locations before moving forward with building projects,” The Atlantic’s Janay Kingsberry writes. 
In the Friday email, Travis Voyles, the vice chair of the council, instructed members to vote on the proposed changes by this Friday. 
At least seven of the 24 members were appointed by Trump. 
A White House official told The Atlantic that the Trump administration “has and will follow all legal requirements in constructing the Triumphal Arch.” 
The Independent has reached out to the White House and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for comment. 
If given the green light to break ground, there will be 20-hour workdays to build Trump’s arch over two to three years, CBS News reported last month, citing federal documents. 
The arch is also expected to cost a pretty penny, with an estimated $100 million price tag, according to an Axios report from November. 
Earlier this month, the National Capital Planning Commission, chaired by Trump appointee William Scharf, voted to advance the president’s arch project, The Washington Post reported at the time. 
The vote brings Trump one step closer to building his arch, even as he rejects the need for congressional approval. 
“We don’t need anything from Congress,” the president told reporters in May. 
Three Vietnam War veterans sued Trump in February to stop the arch’s construction, claiming the president did not seek proper approval for it. 
Meanwhile, 52 percent of Americans voiced opposition to the arch, compared with 21 percent who favored it in a Washington Post/ABC News/Ispsos poll from April. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Rachel Dobkin: 2.5%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic2.3%This article: 5.3%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 23.6%Rachel Dobkin: 8.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect23.6%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.0%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%Rachel Dobkin: 9.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias19.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.4%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias6.4%This article: 5.9%Rachel Dobkin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect5.9%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.8%Rachel Dobkin: 2.9%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority10.8%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.1%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 3.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.3%Rachel Dobkin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon5.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 5.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.5%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question2.5%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal9.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.2%Rachel Dobkin: 3.3%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote14.2%This article: 9.3%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.3%This article: 19.3%Rachel Dobkin: 7.9%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.8%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rachel Dobkin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

471 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers30%attributed speech328writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageJanay Kingsberry • 44 words • 100.0% coverageTravis Voyles • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageThe Independent • 18 words • 0.0% coverageCBS News • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWilliam Scharf • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Janay Kingsberry

100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words31% of attributed speech70% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Janay Kingsberry: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+93.0 ptsWriter: 7.0%Janay Kingsberry: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.7 ptsWriter: 27.7%Janay Kingsberry: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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