MS NOW95%

Opinion | Trump’s big, beautiful helipad 63%

By Paul Waldman0%

7/8/2026, 3:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 33 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Post Hoc (False Cause), with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 58.8% saturation with 556 hits. Analysis detected 2,715 faulty-reasoning hits from 945 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 57.6% and a BS Rank of 63% (8,296 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.10% of the article peer group.

When Congress passed a bipartisan plan to address housing affordability, President Donald Trump pronounced it “a big yawn.” 
But give him a construction project to work on  especially one meant for his personal use  and he’s as happy as a kid tearing the wrapping paper off a Barbie Dreamhouse on Christmas. 
Trump is altering the White House grounds again. 
This time, he’s building a helipad so he can land on the White House lawn in style. 
But instead of a typical helipad  a circle of concrete with a capital “H” visible from the air  this one will embody the spirit of Trump’s presidency. 
It will be expensive, driven by Trump’s insecurity, and involve a corporate payoff. 
For those of you worried it might lack Trump’s unique aesthetic, rest assured: This helipad will be gorgeous. 
Exactly how much the helipad will cost is unclear. 
It is part of a $13 million contract that includes some other work around the White House. 
But $5 million of the cost is being picked up by Lockheed Martin, the defense contractor that makes the Marine One helicopters through its Sikorsky Aircraft subsidiary. 
Unlike Trump’s wasteful ballroom project or the gargantuan arch he wants to build to loom over Arlington National Cemetery, the planned helipad construction arises from a genuine need. 
The helicopters used as Marine One have exhaust vents that point downward, which can burn the grass. 
Trump already ruined the South Lawn by putting a UFC stadium on it, so this is a good time to build a helipad  but not just any helipad. 
For those of you worried it might lack Trump’s unique aesthetic, rest assured: This helipad will be gorgeous. 
“We’re building a helipad, a beautiful helipad, and it’s got the seal of the White House on it, in granite, in carved granite,” Trump said Monday. 
“It’s really a beautiful thing.” 
Trump did not say whether the helipad would be festooned with gold appliques, but one can hope. 
Just imagine how envious leaders of other countries will be when they behold its wonder and then return home and land on their drab, uninspiring helipads. 
Truly we are the world’s most exceptional nation.  
Speaking of world leaders and Trump’s need to impress them, The Washington Post reported the new goal is to have the helipad completed by Sept. 17 for an “upcoming state visit.” 
The documents the paper obtained did not identify the foreign leader in question, but Chinese President Xi Jinping is scheduled to visit the White House the following week. 
The helipad contractor will get $875,000 more than was initially contracted to have its workers on site 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to meet that sped-up deadline. 
Trump’s urgency to complete his latest upgrade before Xi arrives fits his almost limitless admiration for the Chinese leader. 
For years, he has complimented Xi’s strength and intelligence. 
In 2024, he said admiringly that Xi “controls 1.4 billion people with an iron fist.” 
Lately, he has been talking about how handsome Xi is. 
“The look of Xi, he’s got a great look,” Trump told Axios in June. 
“He’s tall. 
He’s 6-foot-2. 
He’s got a great stature. 
He’s got great confidence, and he is smart.” 
In May, when speaking to Fox News’ Sean Hannity, he gave Xi his ultimate compliment: “If you went to Hollywood and you looked for a leader of China to play a role in a movie, he’s central casting, you couldn’t find a guy like him.” 
He’s tall. 
He’s 6-foot-2. 
He’s got a great stature. 
He’s got great confidence, and he is smart.president donald trump on Xi jinping 
Imagine Trump’s embarrassment if Xi arrived and the helipad were only half-finished. 
Presuming it gets completed, we can expect Trump to give him a VIP tour of the helipad, showing off all its breathtaking design features, his voice swelling with pride. 
We can imagine Xi will smile patiently, then probably lean over to one of his aides and whisper the Mandarin equivalent of “Get a load of this jabroni.” 
“Sikorsky is paying for it,” Trump told reporters about the helipad. 
“You know why? 
Because they didn’t tell us how powerful these helicopters were and they felt a little bit guilty.” 
Guilt likely had nothing to do with it. 
For Lockheed, it’s a $5 million investment that represents a tiny fraction of the Marine One contract  which itself is just a small portion of the billions the company takes in from the federal government. 
It is America’s largest defense contractor. 
In 2025, it made just under $7 billion in profit on $67 billion in revenue. 
Keeping that train rolling requires good relations with Congress, the Pentagon and the White House. 
Lockheed spent more than $15 million on lobbying last year. 
But in the Trump era, something more personal than typical lobbying is required, which is why Lockheed also pledged more than $10 million to Trump’s ballroom, after giving $1 million to his inaugural committee. 
Ponying up for Trump’s latest vanity project is good business. 
To repeat, it’s perfectly fine to have a helipad for Marine One. 
Unlike some of Trump’s other garish projects, this one has a legitimate use. 
The problem is we can be sure that it will take precedent over access to healthcare, the broad affordability crisis and all the other problems facing the country that should dominate a president’s attention. 
If we can’t trust him to focus on those issues, then we can at least hope this project will be just as wondrous as Trump claims  and that the result will be a helipad all Americans can be proud of. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 8.9%Paul Waldman: 9.7%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias8.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.2%Paul Waldman: 4.5%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic6.2%This article: 3.8%Paul Waldman: 1.2%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic3.8%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%Paul Waldman: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias6.0%This article: 0.6%Paul Waldman: 10.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect0.6%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.2%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias4.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 9.9%Paul Waldman: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias9.9%This article: 11.4%Paul Waldman: 4.9%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias11.4%This article: 23.5%Paul Waldman: 24.6%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias23.5%This article: 1.1%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias1.1%This article: 10.5%Paul Waldman: 4.2%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error10.5%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 4.2%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 5.4%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Paul Waldman: 3.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.9%Paul Waldman: 1.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Paul Waldman: 9.2%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem5.5%This article: 3.0%Paul Waldman: 3.7%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man3.0%This article: 3.9%Paul Waldman: 3.0%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority3.9%This article: 9.3%Paul Waldman: 3.0%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma9.3%This article: 3.1%Paul Waldman: 3.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope3.1%This article: 3.8%Paul Waldman: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning3.8%This article: 4.7%Paul Waldman: 11.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization4.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.8%Paul Waldman: 1.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.8%This article: 21.8%Paul Waldman: 13.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion21.8%This article: 9.0%Paul Waldman: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question9.0%This article: 13.4%Paul Waldman: 5.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 1.5%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 11.9%Paul Waldman: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal11.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.7%Paul Waldman: 0.8%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.7%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%Paul Waldman: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 2.1%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.5%Paul Waldman: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote3.5%This article: 10.9%Paul Waldman: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection10.9%This article: 58.8%Paul Waldman: 21.6%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice58.8%This article: 11.7%Paul Waldman: 5.8%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination11.7%This article: 7.9%Paul Waldman: 9.4%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%Paul Waldman: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.8%Paul Waldman: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.8%

945 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers21%attributed speech748writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 26 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 31 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 2 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 5 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 45 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

53%flagged-word coverage
59 attributed words30% of attributed speech86% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Biased Writer Voice-17.6 ptsWriter: 70.2%The Washington Post: 52.5%52.5%Politically Left Leaning B+46.7 ptsWriter: 5.9%The Washington Post: 52.5%52.5%Indoctrination-14.8 ptsWriter: 14.8%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.4 ptsWriter: 4.4%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.4 ptsWriter: 2.4%The Washington Post: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -1.1 ptsWriter: 1.1%The Washington Post: 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.