Trump fought to keep the ballroom fundraising contract secret. Here’s what’s in it. ⁠42%

By Jonathan Edwards⁠0% Dan Diamond⁠0%

4/21/2026, 3:03:53 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Unattributed Quote, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 74% saturation with 74 hits. Analysis detected 289 faulty-reasoning hits from 100 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 46% and a BS Rank of ⁠42% (12,803 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 58.50% of the article peer group.

Trump fought to keep the ballroom fundraising contract secret. 
Here’s what’s in it. 
The agreement governing hundreds of millions in private donations was kept secret until a watchdog group sued and a judge ordered it disclosed. 
The Trump administration’s contract governing hundreds of millions of dollars in private donations to build President Donald Trump’s White House ballroom shields donors’ identities, excludes the White House from conflict of interest protections and was disclosed only after a lawsuit and a judge’s order, records obtained by The Washington Post show. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 6.6%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Jonathan Edwards: 24.6%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 74.0%Jonathan Edwards: 39.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias74.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 9.0%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority51.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.6%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 23.0%Jonathan Edwards: 2.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)23.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 4.5%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 51.0%Jonathan Edwards: 23.1%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote51.0%This article: 8.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.7%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection8.0%This article: 74.0%Jonathan Edwards: 30.6%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice74.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 8.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jonathan Edwards: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

100 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers69%attributed speech31writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Trump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageTrump • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 51 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
51 attributed words74% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+25.8 ptsWriter: 74.2%The Washington Post: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection-25.8 ptsWriter: 25.8%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…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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