MS NOW⁠95%

Facing pushback over his Reflecting Pool fixation, Trump quietly changes his story ⁠73%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

5/13/2026, 1:07:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Quote-first Misdirection, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 46.8% saturation with 246 hits. Analysis detected 1,109 faulty-reasoning hits from 526 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠73% (6,090 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 72.20% of the article peer group.

It’s never been altogether clear why exactly Donald Trump began fixating on renovating the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, but like his beloved ballroom vanity project, it’s not going smoothly. 
The endeavor is not only facing a new lawsuit, the price tag has climbed to $13.1 million — more than seven times the original cost the president touted — as part of a no-bid contract that circumvented federal procurement laws for dubious reasons. 
In fact, it’s reached the point where Trump has quietly changed his story about his role in the project, in ways that suggest he would prefer to put some distance between himself and the undertaking. 
A few weeks ago, for example, the president boasted in an official White House video about his direct, hands-on role in choosing a contractor: “I said, ‘What we’re going to do is, I’m going to call all three of these people that have worked for me in the past, doing swimming pools.’ ... 
And I said, ‘Give me a good price.’” 
Last week, he repeated the story in similar terms: “I said, ‘Do me a favor, fellas, go take a look at the Reflecting Pool that sits in between Lincoln and Washington, the beautiful, what should be beautiful, Reflecting Pool.’ 
And one of them who came back, who’s really, I would say the best, but they’re all good. 
He came back, he said, ‘What an exciting job, sir.’” 
As CNN’s Daniel Dale noted, this week Trump replaced his recent claims with an entirely new story. 
On Tuesday morning, the president published a lengthy rant to his social media platform that included this nugget: 
... 
I didn’t give out the contract, “Interior” did, to a contractor I did not know, and have never used before. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter! 
That the president’s version of events is already evolving suggests he realizes he has a burgeoning political problem on his hands. 
Complicating matters, the list of troubles appears to be getting longer. 
The New York Times reported Tuesday: 
Interior Department staff members have raised concerns about the quality and speed of the repair work that a contractor is performing on the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool in Washington, according to government documents seen by The New York Times. 
The staff members said that bubbles and small holes had appeared in one of the layers meant to waterproof the iconic pool. 
And uneven application of the tinted waterproofing left the pool mottled in varying shades of blue, the documents indicate. 
A day later, Interior Secretary Doug Burgum faced questions about the project from House Democrats, and his answers clearly fell short. 
Democratic Rep. 
Joe Neguse of Colorado, for example, reminded Burgum that the Trump administration, to justify its no-bid contract, relied on a power designed for emergencies, under a statute that specifies that a bureaucratic delay would bring “serious injury” to the government. 
Burgum replied that there are several fountains across Washington, D.C., that didn’t work. 
No wonder Trump is trying to pass the buck before this mess gets messier. 
This post updates our related earlier coverage. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.5%Steve Benen: 10.5%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias17.5%This article: 8.2%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias8.2%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 5.5%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.5%This article: 4.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias4.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Steve Benen: 23.0%MS NOW: 15.4%Framing Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.3%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias10.3%This article: 34.8%Steve Benen: 29.0%MS NOW: 19.2%Negativity Bias34.8%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias6.7%This article: 4.0%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error4.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.2%MS NOW: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.4%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 10.6%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias10.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 7.8%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 4.4%Steve Benen: 6.3%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority4.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 2.7%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope2.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 11.6%Steve Benen: 11.3%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion11.6%This article: 4.0%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question4.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.6%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.5%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.2%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote0.2%This article: 17.5%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection17.5%This article: 46.8%Steve Benen: 22.9%MS NOW: 14.2%Biased Writer Voice46.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 5.9%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias5.9%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

526 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers23%attributed speech403writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageThe New York Times • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageJoe Neguse • 40 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New York Times

100%flagged-word coverage
6 attributed words4.9% of attributed speech78% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice-61.0 ptsWriter: 61.0%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-22.8 ptsWriter: 22.8%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%The New York Times: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-0.2 ptsWriter: 0.2%The New York Times: 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.