MS NOW⁠95%

Team Trump’s latest no-bid contract: $5 million to coat horse statues in gold ⁠79%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

5/29/2026, 1:00:52 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 21 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Confirmation Bias, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 49.4% saturation with 271 hits. Analysis detected 1,372 faulty-reasoning hits from 549 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 70.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠79% (4,421 of 20,182 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 78.10% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump and his team haven’t exactly been subtle about their gold fixation. 
Since the president returned to power, Americans have seen an emphasis on everything from “Gold Cards” to a “Golden Dome” to a “Golden Fleet” of U.S. battleships. 
(And don’t get me started on the many gold trinkets Trump plastered on the walls of the Oval Office.) 
So perhaps it’s not too surprising that the Republican’s administration is also adding gold coats to the White House’s aggressive renovation agenda for the nation’s capital. 
NOTUS reported: 
Four massive bronze horses positioned along the roads surrounding the Lincoln Memorial still shine in the sun from their first restoration in the 1970s. 
But their gold-toned coating is faded and patchy, and their heavy stone bases are cracked and dirty. 
The Trump administration wants them glittering with a fresh coat of gold in time for America’s 250th anniversary on July 4. 
So in mid-April, the National Park Service handed a $5 million contract to a gilding studio in Maryland to repair the statues and cover them with a thick layer of 23.75-karat gold leaf. 
According to National Park Service documents reviewed by NOTUS, this was one of the administration’s many no-bid contracts. 
It’s easy to imagine the White House and its allies arguing that there’s nothing inherently wrong with trying to make some cosmetic improvements around Washington, D.C., ahead of the nation’s 250th birthday celebrations in July. 
Indeed, that might seem vaguely reasonable under the historic circumstances. 
But the details matter. 
For one thing, we’ve known that the United States’ semiquincentennial was coming — it’s not like the occasion sneaked up on anyone — so the administration’s overreliance on no-bid contracts, based on “emergency” conditions, is inherently dubious. 
What’s more, there are practical considerations to keep in mind. 
As The New Republic summarized, “All of these projects are being rushed so that they are completed before the July 4 America 250th anniversary. 
The lack of a bidding process means that the government, and by extension, taxpayers, could easily be overcharged by contractors, and the rushed projects mean that the work could be shoddy and cause permanent damage to important landmarks in the nation’s capital.” 
As for the politics, all of this is likely to be a tough sell with the American mainstream. 
As families struggle with weak economic growth, weak job growth and an affordability crisis, they see their executive branch spending $5 million to apply a gold coat to some horse statues. 
It comes against a backdrop of a president focused on his ballroom vanity project, the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, the installation of a White House helipad, the construction of a massive “triumphal arch” near Arlington National Cemetery, renovating the White House Treaty Room and the Kennedy Center, his plans for a “statue garden,” his sudden interest in fountains around the nation’s capital and a dozen or so additional renovation projects he’s prioritized in and around the White House complex. 
A recent Fox News poll asked respondents, “Do you think Donald Trump cares about people like you, or not?” 
Only 37% of Americans said they believe the president does in fact care about people like them. 
There’s no reason to assume that number can’t sink lower. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 20.8%Steve Benen: 10.6%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias20.8%This article: 3.1%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias3.1%This article: 19.3%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic19.3%This article: 8.2%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.2%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.1%Steve Benen: 23.2%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect17.1%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: 1.8%Steve Benen: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias1.8%This article: 17.5%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias17.5%This article: 26.8%Steve Benen: 29.4%MS NOW: 19.4%Negativity Bias26.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 4.7%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%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: 3.3%MS NOW: 2.6%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: 4.5%MS NOW: 1.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 3.1%Steve Benen: 0.8%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect3.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 7.9%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.1%Steve Benen: 6.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority11.1%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 7.7%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope7.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 1.8%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization1.8%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: 5.6%Steve Benen: 11.4%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 6.7%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 4.7%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.7%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 7.7%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof7.7%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: 14.4%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal14.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%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: 12.0%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote12.0%This article: 4.4%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection4.4%This article: 49.4%Steve Benen: 22.8%MS NOW: 14.3%Biased Writer Voice49.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%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: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

549 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers25%attributed speech411writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageNOTUS • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageNational Park Service • 33 words • 0.0% coverageNOTUS • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageThe New Republic • 24 words • 100.0% coverageThe New Republic • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 79 words • 100.0% coverageFox News • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New Republic

100%flagged-word coverage
66 attributed words48% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%The New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-65.9 ptsWriter: 65.9%The New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection+36.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%The New Republic: 36.4%36.4%

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.