Company hired in earlier Reflecting Pool renovations declined to work for Trump because his plan was ‘unfeasible’: report 58%

By Rhian Lubin0%

6/26/2026, 5:19:19 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Anecdotal, and Recency Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 47.6% saturation with 148 hits. Analysis detected 569 faulty-reasoning hits from 311 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.9% and a BS Rank of 58% (9,187 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 58.00% of the article peer group.

A construction company previously hired to work on the blighted Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool under the Obama administration turned down work for the Trump administration’s renovation because the plans were “unfeasible,” according to a report. 
President Donald Trump’s $14 million project, which was supposed to be completed in time for the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations, has run into major problems in recent weeks. 
The water turned green with algae blooms days after the work was “completed”, dead ducks have been recovered, and blue material has been peeling off from the bottom, prompting Trump to blame vandals and arrest several people. 
New Jersey firm Sika Corporation provided construction and sealing products for work on the pool in 2010 under the Obama administration, which spent $34 million at the time, but problems persisted, according to CNN. 
Two employees told the network that the company was approached in March to support Trump’s renovation, but the deadline of July 4 and the demand that the pool floor had to be blue rendered the job “unfeasible.” 
The company’s previous work on the pool and its decision to turn down the contract following a routine feasibility and risk assessment “could further enflame mounting criticism that the project was rushed and potentially improperly completed,” according to CNN. 
Rhino Linings was ultimately awarded the contract and supplied the spray-on lining used to refinish the pool. 
The company’s vice president recently told Politico that the renovation would not be complete in time for the July 4 celebrations. 
It comes as Trump claimed this week that a “300-foot-long gash” had been carved into the bottom of the pool and “chemicals have been illegally placed in the water.”​ 
U.S. 
Park Police also released footage of a person wanted in connection with the alleged damage. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.9%Rhian Lubin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.4%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 4.8%Rhian Lubin: 1.5%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.4%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 3.9%The Independent: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Rhian Lubin: 8.9%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect11.3%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 2.1%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 4.9%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 2.4%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 47.6%Rhian Lubin: 16.6%The Independent: 12.2%Negativity Bias47.6%This article: 11.9%Rhian Lubin: 3.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias11.9%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.8%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 15.8%Rhian Lubin: 1.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias15.8%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 3.4%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 3.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 2.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.6%The Independent: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.7%The Independent: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.2%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%Rhian Lubin: 8.6%The Independent: 6.5%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 12.5%Rhian Lubin: 1.7%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question12.5%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 1.7%The Independent: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.8%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.1%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 16.7%Rhian Lubin: 2.1%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal16.7%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 2.7%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 21.9%Rhian Lubin: 5.7%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote21.9%This article: 9.3%Rhian Lubin: 3.9%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection9.3%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 5.6%The Independent: 7.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 2.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 10.9%Rhian Lubin: 2.7%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias10.9%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.3%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rhian Lubin: 0.7%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

311 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers20%attributed speech250writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageRhino Linings • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coveragePark Police • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words48% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+84.4 ptsWriter: 15.6%Donald Trump: 100.0%100.0%Politically Left Leaning B-13.6 ptsWriter: 13.6%Donald Trump: 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.