Daily Kos85%

We’re sure paying a lot for the ballroom we’re not paying for 87%

By Lisa Needham97%

6/30/2026, 10:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 38 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Unattributed Quote, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 56.5% saturation with 419 hits. Analysis detected 3,448 faulty-reasoning hits from 741 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 80% and a BS Rank of 87% (2,699 of 20,473 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 86.80% of the article peer group.

In a bit of news that we all should have seen coming, President Donald Trump is using a secret no-bid contract—that means taxpayer dollars, y’all—to build his big, dumb ballroom. 
How much, you ask? 
Just a wee bit, hardly worth mentioning, really: $500 million. 
Honestly, this whole thing is like a greatest hits of how Trump has utterly corrupted the government. 
First, the contract was routed through the office of the Executive Residence, which is exempt from competitive bidding and disclosure rules. 
It’s meant for things like repairing the HVAC and buying new drapes, not tearing down the East Wing to build a monument to mammon. 
Indeed, a court already ruled months ago that, no, the scope of the law allowing the Executive Residence to have no-bid contracts for minor repairs does not mean that Trump can destroy the White House and call it maintenance. 
By comparison, in federal fiscal year 2022, the Executive Office of the President under the Biden administration spent about $16 million in total—an amount that was reviewed top to bottom by the Government Accountability Office. 
How quaint. 
Then, add the fact that Trump was personally involved in negotiating this secret no-bid contract. 
Let’s all close our eyes for a moment and think of the conservative banshee howls that would happen if former president Barack Obama had intervened in government negotiations for one solitary tan suit to make sure he got his fit taken care of in secret by his favorite tailor. 
When asked about this decidedly odd process, a White House official said that it was routed through the Executive Residence office because it “will be the primary support of the facility.” 
Wait. 
The ballroom with the snipers and the drone turret and laser beams and bulletproof glass and a top-secret military facility and a bunker and an airplane hanger and an American Doll factory is going to be run by the office that does things like buy new drapes for the Oval Office? 
We had already learned earlier this month that we lucky taxpayers were on the hook for $155 million in Secret Service funds, $149 million from the White House Military Office, and $3 million from the Executive Residence being diverted to the ballroom. 
But somehow, the office that paid the least toward this project also got to control the biggest secret contract and will also somehow run the facility. 
Do we know if this $500 million is in addition to all of that? 
NO WE DO NOT! 
The contract is with Clark Construction, which we already knew was getting $200 million to build the ballroom, but that was back when we were pretending that $200 million came from donors. 
Clark also got a sweet no-bid side hustle for an additional $17.4 million to repair two fountains in Lafayette Park, which was estimated to cost $3.3 million but somehow turned into five times more because it was “an unusual and compelling urgency.” 
Look, if you’re a long-time—or even a short-time—Daily Kos reader, you probably knew everything about the ballroom was wrong from the jump—and also that it being funded by bribes from people seeking the favor of the president didn’t really make it any better. 
But for a while, a lot of other people were able to self-soothe about how at least we weren’t paying for it. 
In fact, that’s what the White House has been insisting in every court filing, with such Trumpian flourishes as: “This project is a gift to our Country from President Trump, and other Donors. 
It is free of charge to the American Taxpayer. 
Who could ever object to that?” 
And who could forget this: “Private donors and American Patriots singlehandedly funded the 300 to 400 Million Dollar project (depending on finishes), which is on budget and ahead of schedule. 
No taxpayer dollars are being used for the funding of this beautiful, desperately needed, and completely secure (for national security purposes) ballroom.” 
And what was the White House response to the news that the free ballroom is actually costing taxpayers $500 million? 
Well, it’s that the Executive Residence “consistently executes contracts following the law.” 
Even if that were technically true—which it very much is not—that still doesn’t explain away the whole $500 million from taxpayers, now does it? 
But why would Trump care? 
No one who has the power to stop him is going to stop him. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 36.0%Lisa Needham: 9.9%Daily Kos: 5.5%Confirmation Bias36.0%This article: 7.0%Lisa Needham: 0.6%Daily Kos: 0.7%Anchoring Bias7.0%This article: 8.8%Lisa Needham: 2.8%Daily Kos: 3.2%Availability Heuristic8.8%This article: 10.1%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic10.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.4%Lisa Needham: 1.9%Daily Kos: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias2.4%This article: 7.0%Lisa Needham: 11.0%Daily Kos: 9.0%Framing Effect7.0%This article: 5.7%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.6%Loss Aversion5.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.0%Lisa Needham: 0.7%Daily Kos: 1.4%Optimism Bias3.0%This article: 5.1%Lisa Needham: 2.7%Daily Kos: 1.9%Pessimism Bias5.1%This article: 50.9%Lisa Needham: 31.2%Daily Kos: 15.1%Negativity Bias50.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Lisa Needham: 3.7%Daily Kos: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.7%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.4%Lisa Needham: 3.1%Daily Kos: 2.2%In-Group Bias12.4%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.9%Daily Kos: 1.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.7%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 1.4%Recency Bias4.7%This article: 4.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Primacy Effect4.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 6.7%Lisa Needham: 18.3%Daily Kos: 5.9%Ad Hominem6.7%This article: 13.1%Lisa Needham: 5.3%Daily Kos: 1.5%Straw Man13.1%This article: 9.7%Lisa Needham: 3.3%Daily Kos: 3.2%Appeal to Authority9.7%This article: 1.9%Lisa Needham: 3.2%Daily Kos: 2.3%False Dilemma1.9%This article: 7.2%Lisa Needham: 3.5%Daily Kos: 1.2%Slippery Slope7.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 8.0%Lisa Needham: 14.8%Daily Kos: 9.7%Hasty Generalization8.0%This article: 2.7%Lisa Needham: 1.0%Daily Kos: 0.5%Red Herring2.7%This article: 6.6%Lisa Needham: 0.5%Daily Kos: 0.7%Bandwagon6.6%This article: 33.3%Lisa Needham: 12.3%Daily Kos: 7.2%Appeal to Emotion33.3%This article: 7.2%Lisa Needham: 5.5%Daily Kos: 1.8%Begging the Question7.2%This article: 9.2%Lisa Needham: 5.2%Daily Kos: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.2%This article: 6.6%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.5%Tu Quoque6.6%This article: 1.9%Lisa Needham: 0.9%Daily Kos: 0.7%Burden of Proof1.9%This article: 3.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Appeal to Nature3.0%This article: 4.7%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.3%Composition/Division4.7%This article: 8.1%Lisa Needham: 2.0%Daily Kos: 2.1%Anecdotal8.1%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.3%Daily Kos: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.9%Lisa Needham: 2.4%Daily Kos: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.9%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.0%Daily Kos: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.1%Daily Kos: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.4%Daily Kos: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 6.7%Lisa Needham: 0.8%Daily Kos: 0.2%Special Pleading6.7%This article: 8.4%Lisa Needham: 1.4%Daily Kos: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy8.4%This article: 38.6%Lisa Needham: 5.4%Daily Kos: 2.8%Unattributed Quote38.6%This article: 13.6%Lisa Needham: 3.1%Daily Kos: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection13.6%This article: 56.5%Lisa Needham: 58.8%Daily Kos: 22.8%Biased Writer Voice56.5%This article: 12.7%Lisa Needham: 3.6%Daily Kos: 2.1%Indoctrination12.7%This article: 31.2%Lisa Needham: 18.0%Daily Kos: 10.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias31.2%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 1.1%Daily Kos: 0.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Lisa Needham: 0.2%Daily Kos: 2.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

741 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers18%attributed speech610writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 49 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House official • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWhite House • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

White House

100%flagged-word coverage
100 attributed words76% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+74.6 ptsWriter: 25.4%White House: 100.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+82.4 ptsWriter: 2.6%White House: 85.0%85.0%Biased Writer Voice-68.7 ptsWriter: 68.7%White House: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-37.9 ptsWriter: 37.9%White House: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-15.4 ptsWriter: 15.4%White House: 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.