Trump rebukes female reporter over ‘stupid question’ after Lincoln Memorial drive-by to check out work by his ‘pool guy’ 86%

By Josh Marcus57%

5/7/2026, 6:56:58 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Recency Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.7% saturation with 300 hits. Analysis detected 1,255 faulty-reasoning hits from 657 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 78.2% and a BS Rank of 86% (3,120 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 85.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump and members of his administration made an unusual visit to the Lincoln Memorial on Thursday, driving the presidential motorcade through the empty Reflecting Pool that the president recently ordered contractors to renovate. 
When pressed with questions about why he was focused on an ornamental project when gas prices are soaring because of the Iran war, President Trump castigated ABC News reporter Rachel Scott. 
The president claimed the memorial had previously been “disgusting” and that truckloads of trash had been removed since the pool project began last month. 
“That’s not what our country is about,” Trump said. 
“Our country is about beauty, cleanliness, safety, great people. 
Not a filthy capital. 
That’s such a stupid question that you asked. 
We’re fixing up the reflecting pond to the Lincoln Memorial, the Washington Monument, and you say, ‘Why are you fixing it up?’ 
Because you can understand dirt maybe better than I can, but I don’t allow it.” 
The president, who is prone to outbursts against female reporters, accused Scott of being a “horror show” and “a disgrace to our country.” 
The Independent has contacted Scott for comment. 
Negotiations remain deadlocked to end the Iran war, and the president threatened to respond to Iran “a lot more violently” in the days ahead, after an alleged Iranian attempt was intercepted by U.S. 
Navy guided-missile destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz. 
Last month, complaining of the state of the iconic Washington site, the president said his pool “guy” would resurface the Reflecting Pool with an upgraded “industrial grade” finish in “American flag blue.” 
White House communications advisor Margo Martin wrote on X on Thursday that the visit to the pool was meant to “see the progress of the project and meet the hardworking team behind it.” 
The president, with Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin in tow, chatted with the Oklahoma-based painting crew working on the project, bragging about his electoral success in the state. 
“We love you in Oklahoma,” one of the workers said. 
“I love you guys, too,” Trump said in response. 
The sight of government limos cruising up the empty pool is just the latest unusual aspect of the project, which is part of the president’s goal to rapidly remake many of Washington’s most famous landmarks according to his tastes. 
The president previously touted the project during a string of posts on Truth Social last month, alternating threats against Iran with claims the pool project would “take a fraction of that time, at a fraction of the cost  and it will be much more beautiful than the day it was built!” 
Trump has said he would turn to a contractor who previously worked on his real estate projects. 
“I have a guy who’s unbelievable at doing swimming pools up the road,” the president said last month. 
Trump has also touted the project with an AI image of members of his administration sitting shirtless in the Reflecting Pool with an unidentified woman in a bikini. 
The president has been floating the idea that he would redo the Reflecting Pool since last year. 
The pool was previously renovated under the Obama administration and has been periodically drained for maintenance since. 
President Trump has sought to put his stamp on Washington across multiple projects, including his unilateral effort to raze the East Wing of the White House to build a new ballroom and a proposed project to build a towering triumphal arch on the banks of the Potomac River. 
The administration also plans to shutter the Kennedy Center, which the president has sought to rename after himself, for the next two years for renovations. 
The president also cited concerns about the safety and beauty of Washington, D.C., when he deployed federal agents and the National Guard for a law enforcement crackdown in the capital last year. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 4.5%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic11.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 2.1%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 32.3%Josh Marcus: 8.9%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect32.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 2.6%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect2.6%This article: 2.7%Josh Marcus: 1.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.4%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 45.7%Josh Marcus: 12.4%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias45.7%This article: 5.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias5.0%This article: 10.8%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error10.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.7%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.7%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.9%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias12.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.7%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem4.7%This article: 3.3%Josh Marcus: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man3.3%This article: 7.6%Josh Marcus: 3.6%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority7.6%This article: 4.7%Josh Marcus: 1.2%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma4.7%This article: 7.3%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope7.3%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 4.1%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.5%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon1.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 7.9%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 1.4%Josh Marcus: 0.9%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question1.4%This article: 5.9%Josh Marcus: 3.8%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.8%Josh Marcus: 2.5%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal3.8%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.4%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.2%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.9%Josh Marcus: 2.4%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote4.9%This article: 4.3%Josh Marcus: 2.6%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection4.3%This article: 2.9%Josh Marcus: 5.5%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice2.9%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.5%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.6%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Josh Marcus: 1.0%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 4.3%Josh Marcus: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…4.3%

657 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers32%attributed speech450writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 22 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageThe Independent • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 32 words • 0.0% coverageMargo Martin • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Margo Martin

100%flagged-word coverage
33 attributed words16% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%5.0%10.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -6.2 ptsWriter: 6.2%Margo Martin: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Margo Martin: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.2 ptsWriter: 4.2%Margo Martin: 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.