Trump administration blames Obama after ‘blue’ Reflecting Pool turns green after $14M refurb 56%

By Owen Scott0%

6/16/2026, 10:34:41 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Primacy Effect, Negativity Bias, and Framing Effect, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 29.5% saturation with 154 hits. Analysis detected 1,476 faulty-reasoning hits from 522 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.1% and a BS Rank of 56% (8,960 of 20,372 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.00% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has hit out at former President Obama after the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool water turned green, despite a much-touted $14 million renovation. 
Work on the pool was completed last week, after President Donald Trump vowed to paint the space an “American flag blue.”​ 
However, the familiar green algae often spotted in the pool returned just days later. 
In response, a spokesperson for the Department of the Interior took a swipe at the Obama administration in a statement obtained by The New York Post.  
“The nanobubbler technology has successfully destroyed the algae bloom that has plagued every pool reopening since 1922, most infamously, the Obama pool reopening that resulted in massive algae clumps taking over the pool’s surface,” the spokesperson said.  
“Now, due to deploying the advanced nanobubbler technology, the algae is dead and being vacuumed up as we speak.” 
The spokesperson went on to claim the National Park Service was “actually maintaining” the pool “versus previous administrations.”​ 
According to online federal contracting records analyzed by the publication, the Trump administration spent $1.7 million on an upgraded ozone nanobubbler filtration system, aimed at disrupting algae’s food supply.  
Communications Director Katie Martin told CNN that the algae had been sitting dormant for eight weeks while construction had been taking place, adding that the return of the aquatic organism was a “part of the normal start-up process.”​ 
“We are removing the algae, and the nanobubblers will maintain the pool and keep it algae-free,” she added.​ 
The Obama administration spent at least $34 million on a two-year reconstruction project that ended in 2012, The Associated Press reported, aimed at addressing issues such as stagnant water and the fact that the pool had begun to leak and sink into the land dredged from the Potomac River in order to build it.  
Pipes underneath the National Mall bring the pool’s water to and from a nearby filtration plant, although they often leak. 
The Department of the Interior told The New York Times that it plans to repair those pipes in the fall. 
Before the president’s latest renovations, the Reflecting Pool leaked around 16 million gallons of water every year, the Interior Department told The Post.​ 
Trump touted the revamped reflecting pool in a Truth Social post Monday, as part of ‘tribute to America’ celebrations planned for July 4. 
“On July 4th, at The Lincoln Memorial and Washington Monument, in beautiful and safe Washington D.C., we are going to host the most spectacular TRUMP RALLY of them all, a “TRIBUTE TO AMERICA.” the president wrote. 
“Starting at 7 P.M. 
EST, this HUGE Celebration will honor our Country's People, Spirit, Strength, Resolve, and Triumphs. 
With the backdrop of the Lincoln Memorial and surrounding the beautifully new Reflecting Pool, more than 300 Members of our strong and talented Military Bands, Orchestras, and Ceremonial Units, will perform Patriotic Melodies and American Classics, and my Playlist (We will have none of those people that put you to sleep and constantly complain!), as we celebrate our Country, and Rally into the next 250 years.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.7%Anchoring Bias4.4%This article: 9.8%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 3.2%Availability Heuristic9.8%This article: 10.5%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic10.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 7.1%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias7.1%This article: 21.3%Owen Scott: 5.5%The Independent: 8.2%Framing Effect21.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.5%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.8%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.8%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.4%Optimism Bias7.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.0%Owen Scott: 8.4%The Independent: 12.1%Negativity Bias22.0%This article: 15.5%Owen Scott: 2.4%The Independent: 2.5%Self-Serving Bias15.5%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 1.1%The Independent: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error7.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Owen Scott: 2.2%The Independent: 1.6%In-Group Bias7.9%This article: 3.4%Owen Scott: 0.8%The Independent: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias3.4%This article: 12.6%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 2.2%Halo Effect12.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%Owen Scott: 0.7%The Independent: 1.5%Recency Bias2.7%This article: 23.2%Owen Scott: 0.6%The Independent: 0.4%Primacy Effect23.2%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 2.9%The Independent: 2.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 4.4%The Independent: 3.8%Appeal to Authority7.3%This article: 3.4%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 1.5%False Dilemma3.4%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.3%Owen Scott: 2.3%The Independent: 4.2%Hasty Generalization7.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.4%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.4%The Independent: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 29.5%Owen Scott: 5.9%The Independent: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion29.5%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 6.3%Owen Scott: 3.2%The Independent: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)6.3%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.5%The Independent: 0.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 1.4%The Independent: 2.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.9%Owen Scott: 1.8%The Independent: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.0%The Independent: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.3%The Independent: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 4.4%Owen Scott: 0.1%The Independent: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy4.4%This article: 14.4%Owen Scott: 2.5%The Independent: 2.6%Unattributed Quote14.4%This article: 10.9%Owen Scott: 2.8%The Independent: 2.1%Quote-first Misdirection10.9%This article: 10.0%Owen Scott: 3.1%The Independent: 7.9%Biased Writer Voice10.0%This article: 12.6%Owen Scott: 1.6%The Independent: 1.3%Indoctrination12.6%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.9%The Independent: 2.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Owen Scott: 0.2%The Independent: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.9%Owen Scott: 1.3%The Independent: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.9%

522 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers47%attributed speech276writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of the Interior • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageKatie Martin • 38 words • 0.0% coverageKatie Martin • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of the Interior • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of the Interior • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 36 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 4 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTrump • 66 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump

97%flagged-word coverage
120 attributed words49% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Indoctrination+55.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 55.0%55.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +30.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Trump: 30.0%30.0%Unattributed Quote-27.2 ptsWriter: 27.2%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-20.7 ptsWriter: 20.7%Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-9.1 ptsWriter: 9.1%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.