Trump’s Handpicked Company Screwed Up Reflecting Pool Reno From Start 67%

By Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling59%

7/16/2026, 5:35:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 20 faulty reasoning types, including Unattributed Quote, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 22.9% saturation with 97 hits. Analysis detected 840 faulty-reasoning hits from 424 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.1% and a BS Rank of 67% (6,820 of 20,496 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 66.70% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration has repeatedly claimed without evidence that the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool’s peeling lining was the work of vandals. 
An independent analysis has concluded otherwise. 
After reviewing photographs and satellite imagery, and speaking with experts, The Washington Post found that the extensive gashes in the pool liner were likely the result of improper application. 
The Thursday report noted that the tears appeared in at least seven places “along seams that were created when the material was applied in large rectangular sections.” 
Noting that reporters were not able to access the center of the pool during a June 25 visit, the Post chronicled that the peeling occurred in irregularly shaped patches along the edges of the patchwork seams, with sloughing pieces ranging in size from several inches to as much as six feet. 
Some sections of the lining were so damaged that reporters were able to see the bare concrete underneath. 
Rhino Linings, a popular truck-bed coating company that received the no-bid contract to do the job, has been named in several lawsuits since 2021 alleging that its liners were inadequate and resulted in hundreds of leaks. 
Nonetheless, Donald Trump and his entourage have pinned the problem on supposed troublemakers dead set on destroying his $16 million renovation project (a cost that’s a far cry from his promised $1.8 million price tag for the endeavor). 
The White House has not provided any great evidence for the theory but has raised tensions around the Reflecting Pool, anyway. 
By late June, at least seven individuals were arrested for allegedly destroying the pool, including former Olympic canoe racer David Hearn. 
The White House denied that any mistakes had been made during the renovation process. 
“Unfortunately, deranged individuals made several gashes in the side of the pool and destroyed over 300 feet of the pool’s siding,” White House spokeswoman Taylor Rogers told the Post . 
“Once the necessary repairs to fix the vandalism are complete, the Reflecting Pool will be restored to all its glory.” 
The company that had handled the memorial’s last renovation in 2010, the New Jersey–based Sika Corporation, was offered the chance to do this renovation before the job was offered to Rhino Linings. 
Speaking with CNN last month, two employees at Sika said the company had declined the offer due to Trump’s demands. 
Those included requirements that the pool be painted “American flag blue,” and that the restoration be completed by July 4. 
Both demands made the project “unfeasible,” according to the employees. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 6.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.8%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic6.4%This article: 8.5%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 9.5%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias4.7%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 22.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.5%newrepublic.com: 13.0%Negativity Bias22.9%This article: 12.3%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.3%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias12.3%This article: 5.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.7%newrepublic.com: 1.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.0%This article: 9.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias9.0%This article: 7.1%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias7.1%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.6%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 3.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 4.1%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority13.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.7%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.8%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 5.2%newrepublic.com: 7.9%Hasty Generalization15.8%This article: 9.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring9.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 15.6%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.0%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion15.6%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 3.9%newrepublic.com: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 9.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.4%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Burden of Proof9.9%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 4.7%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.3%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal4.7%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 12.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)12.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 17.2%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.6%newrepublic.com: 2.2%Unattributed Quote17.2%This article: 14.9%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection14.9%This article: 2.4%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 17.4%newrepublic.com: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice2.4%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 8.8%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ellie Quinlan Houghtaling: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

424 words analyzed.

Speakers

5speakers55%attributed speech191writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageThe Washington Post • 51 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 38 words • 0.0% coverageThe White House • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageThe White House • 14 words • 0.0% coverageTaylor Rogers • 30 words • 100.0% coverageTaylor Rogers • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageSika Corporation • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSika Corporation • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

100%flagged-word coverage
38 attributed words16% of attributed speech63% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Unattributed Quote-33.0 ptsWriter: 33.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-17.3 ptsWriter: 17.3%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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