MS NOW⁠94%

Reported no-bid contract pushes White House ballroom controversy to a new level ⁠84%

By Steve Benen⁠95%

6/30/2026, 7:30:56 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 25 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.7% saturation with 283 hits. Analysis detected 1,821 faulty-reasoning hits from 499 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 76.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠84% (3,260 of 20,371 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 84.00% of the article peer group.

Those looking for a simple phrase to help summarize Donald Trump’s second term could do worse than “no-bid contract.” 
Indeed, it has been difficult to keep up on all of the assorted projects championed by the president that have bypassed the normal bidding process the federal government has relied on for many years. 
Reflecting Pool renovations? 
No-bid contract. 
Applying gold-toned coating to horse statues by the Lincoln Memorial? 
No-bid contract. 
Repairing ornamental fountains in Lafayette Park? 
No-bid contract. 
And then, of course, there’s Trump’s beloved White House ballroom project, which is the subject of a striking new report from The Washington Post. 
White House officials last year secretly awarded a no-bid contract worth up to $500 million for the construction of the East Wing ballroom in an unusual arrangement that sidestepped typical contracting procedures designed to control costs, according to a copy of the agreement obtained by The Washington Post. 
The confidential contract went to Maryland-based Clark Construction, the same company Trump also awarded a no-bid contract to for the Lafayette Park project. 
According to the Post’s report, which has not been independently verified by MS NOW, the president was “directly involved” in negotiating some details of the project. 
The White House budget has long included funds for Office of the Executive Residence, which covers spending on things such as furniture and routine repairs. 
According to the documents obtained by the Post, Team Trump routed a massive no-bid contract for the president’s ballroom through this office, which is “exempt from rules that require federal agencies to solicit competitive bids and disclose details to the public.” 
The White House made no effort to deny any of this. 
On the contrary, a spokesperson claimed the contract was issued through the Executive Residence because that office “will be the primary support of the facility.” 
So let’s take stock. 
Trump destroyed the East Wing after saying he wouldn’t. 
He said the ballroom would cost $200 million and taxpayers wouldn’t have to pay a dime, only to have the price tag balloon, with evidence showing taxpayers on the hook for more than half the project’s costs. 
It’s against this backdrop that the Post reported that Trump also personally helped negotiate the terms of a no-bid contract for a business he likes, running it through an office that allowed him to circumvent competitive contract rules. 
In case this isn’t obvious, The New Republic recently summarized, “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.” 
Last week, Sen. 
Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, and Sen. 
Chris Murphy of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the Homeland Security Appropriations Subcommittee, called on the Government Accountability Office to investigate the funding surrounding the ballroom project. 
Watch this space. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.4%Steve Benen: 10.6%MS NOW: 7.6%Confirmation Bias19.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.6%Steve Benen: 3.7%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic9.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.4%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias7.4%This article: 5.2%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias5.2%This article: 6.2%Steve Benen: 23.2%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect6.2%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: 10.4%Steve Benen: 3.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias10.4%This article: 39.1%Steve Benen: 29.4%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias39.1%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: 2.6%Steve Benen: 3.4%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias2.6%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: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.4%Steve Benen: 2.9%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias5.4%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: 7.9%MS NOW: 4.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 16.0%Steve Benen: 6.4%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority16.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.5%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 17.2%Steve Benen: 8.9%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization17.2%This article: 3.8%Steve Benen: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring3.8%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 1.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 30.3%Steve Benen: 11.4%MS NOW: 9.9%Appeal to Emotion30.3%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 3.5%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.4%Steve Benen: 3.3%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.4%This article: 1.8%Steve Benen: 0.9%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque1.8%This article: 14.8%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof14.8%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: 3.4%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal3.4%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 19.6%Steve Benen: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)19.6%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: 5.0%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading5.0%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 2.2%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 35.7%Steve Benen: 3.8%MS NOW: 2.5%Unattributed Quote35.7%This article: 20.6%Steve Benen: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection20.6%This article: 56.7%Steve Benen: 22.8%MS NOW: 14.3%Biased Writer Voice56.7%This article: 3.8%Steve Benen: 1.4%MS NOW: 2.1%Indoctrination3.8%This article: 20.6%Steve Benen: 8.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias20.6%This article: 0.0%Steve Benen: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.6%Steve Benen: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.6%

499 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker10%attributed speech447writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageThe New Republic • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

The New Republic

100%flagged-word coverage
52 attributed words100% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+88.6 ptsWriter: 11.4%The New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+48.3 ptsWriter: 51.7%The New Republic: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-39.8 ptsWriter: 39.8%The New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-23.0 ptsWriter: 23.0%The New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.3 ptsWriter: 4.3%The New Republic: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -0.7 ptsWriter: 0.7%The New Republic: 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.