Raw Story93%

Whistleblowers flag shady deals and questionable work in Trump's Kennedy Center project 48%

By Robert Davis72%

7/14/2026, 12:47:42 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Confirmation Bias, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 36.2% saturation with 106 hits. Analysis detected 629 faulty-reasoning hits from 293 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.4% and a BS Rank of 48% (10,776 of 20,497 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 52.60% of the article peer group.

Whistleblowers flagged shady deals and questionable work performed by Trump administration contractors during an investigation into the administration's renovation of the Kennedy Center, according to a new report. 
The Washington Post reported on Monday that Sen. 
Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), who sits on the Kennedy Center's board, had expanded his inquiry into President Donald Trump's renovation project . 
Whitehouse is seeking documents from contracting firms that have worked on the project after whistleblowers came forward with details about what has been going on behind the scenes, according to the report. 
"Whitehouse’s allegations build on an investigation he launched in November into what he called cronyism and self-dealing at the center under its previous president," the Post reported. 
"And they land amid a broader pattern of Trump’s second term: oversight bodies stacked with allies, presidential norms bent or broken, and lawsuits challenging speedy construction in Trump’s race to put his physical stamp  and sometimes his name  on the nation’s capital. 
In the case of the Kennedy Center, the rush to appease Trump led to unnecessary work and substandard craftsmanship requiring more money to repair, Whitehouse alleged." 
For instance, whistleblowers said that the steel columns at the Kennedy Center rusted after a contractor, Cypress Painting Systems, used a different primer without submitting a change order. 
The move cost about $1.5 million in damages, according to the report. 
The Trump administration also hired a contractor to replace the Kennedy Center's floors for roughly $8 million. 
However, the contractor that the administration hired showed "no evidence it had ever installed concert hall stage flooring," according to the report. 
The Kennedy Center described the characterization of the flooring contractor as "fundamentally misleading," the report added. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 18.8%Robert Davis: 5.8%Rawstory: 7.6%Confirmation Bias18.8%This article: 4.1%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.8%Anchoring Bias4.1%This article: 10.9%Robert Davis: 3.5%Rawstory: 4.4%Availability Heuristic10.9%This article: 15.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic15.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.5%Rawstory: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Robert Davis: 15.5%Rawstory: 13.7%Framing Effect13.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.9%Robert Davis: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.8%Pessimism Bias8.9%This article: 36.2%Robert Davis: 20.3%Rawstory: 21.8%Negativity Bias36.2%This article: 5.5%Robert Davis: 0.3%Rawstory: 1.1%Self-Serving Bias5.5%This article: 8.9%Robert Davis: 3.3%Rawstory: 2.9%Fundamental Attribution Error8.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.4%Rawstory: 2.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.6%Rawstory: 1.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 0.9%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.5%Rawstory: 1.7%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.2%Robert Davis: 1.8%Rawstory: 0.7%Primacy Effect7.2%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.4%Rawstory: 6.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.7%Robert Davis: 5.9%Rawstory: 3.8%Appeal to Authority2.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.0%Rawstory: 2.9%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.1%Rawstory: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.0%Robert Davis: 13.8%Rawstory: 11.9%Hasty Generalization15.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 1.1%Rawstory: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 7.7%Rawstory: 9.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.8%Rawstory: 1.5%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 9.6%Robert Davis: 1.5%Rawstory: 3.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.6%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 10.9%Robert Davis: 2.0%Rawstory: 1.5%Burden of Proof10.9%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 9.6%Robert Davis: 5.3%Rawstory: 3.9%Anecdotal9.6%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.6%Rawstory: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 6.5%Rawstory: 2.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.4%Rawstory: 0.4%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 6.1%Rawstory: 5.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 9.2%Robert Davis: 6.5%Rawstory: 4.2%Quote-first Misdirection9.2%This article: 28.7%Robert Davis: 12.9%Rawstory: 15.6%Biased Writer Voice28.7%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.5%Rawstory: 3.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 4.3%Rawstory: 8.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.2%Rawstory: 1.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Robert Davis: 0.0%Rawstory: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

293 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers57%attributed speech127writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSheldon Whitehouse • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSheldon Whitehouse • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWashington Post • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWashington Post • 44 words • 100.0% coverageSheldon Whitehouse • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageKennedy Center • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Washington Post

100%flagged-word coverage
71 attributed words43% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%32.5%65.0%Biased Writer Voice+30.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%Washington Post: 62.0%62.0%Quote-first Misdirection+38.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Washington Post: 38.0%38.0%

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.