Workers begin to remove Trump’s name from Kennedy Center after court rulings 25%

By Donna Ferguson0%

6/13/2026, 11:30:23 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 24.6% saturation with 144 hits. Analysis detected 1,107 faulty-reasoning hits from 586 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.9% and a BS Rank of 25% (16,622 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.90% of the article peer group.

A crew of workers spent the night removing Donald Trump’s name from the facade of the Kennedy Center in Washington DC, hours after a judge rejected an emergency appeal to block the removal of the former president’s name. 
Work began in the early hours of Saturday, shortly after the performing arts venue missed a federal judge’s two-week deadline to excise the words ‘The Donald J Trump and’ from its exterior by Friday at 11.59pm. 
The extra words were added last December after Trump’s hand-picked board of trustees voted unanimously to rename the venue, which was designated as a living memorial to the 35th US president John F Kennedy by Congress in 1964 and opened in 1971. 
After erecting scaffolding on Friday evening, workers in hard hats and hi-viz vests draped tarpaulin over the temporary structure at 2am to block public views of their progress but were seen, through a small opening in the scaffolding covering, to be removing the letters at about 3am. 
A crowd had gathered in the front of the centre to cheer on the workers and witness the moment the words would be restored to The John F Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts. 
People chanted “Shame!” 
and “Take it down.”. 
US district judge Christopher Cooper ruled last month that Trump’s name had been illegally added and ordered its removal this week, after a legal challenge brought by Joyce Beatty, a Democratic representative of Ohio, who is an ex-officio member of the Kennedy Center’s board. 
“Congress gave the Kennedy Center its name,” the judge wrote in his 94-page opinion, “and only Congress can change it.” 
Cooper also issued a temporary block on Trump’s demand to close the Kennedy Center for two years of renovations, which was due to start in July. 
Trump reacted by saying he was giving up control of the venue, which he seized in February by removing the 18 trustees appointed to its board by former president Joe Biden, handpicking new ones and naming himself chair. 
Yet less than 36 hours before the deadline, lawyers acting for Trump and the Kennedy Center board mounted a last-minute attempt to keep his name on the building. 
By then, the venue had already removed Trump’s name from its website and had reportedly sent out emails offering tickets to an event at “the Kennedy Center”  without including the 47th president’s name. 
At 1pm on Friday, Cooper ruled that the centre’s lawyers had failed to demonstrate they were likely to win their appeal or that the centre would suffer “irreparable harm” if Trump’s name were purged. 
Lawyers for the Department of Justice (DOJ), representing the centre, then appealed Cooper’s denial at 3.46pm. 
In urging the appeals court to pause the order, the DOJ said: “It does not make sense to alter the centre’s name and signage now, only to potentially revert the name again after what should be a successful appeal.“ 
But shortly after 7pm, this second attempt was denied, causing the crowd of more than 100 people at the Hands Off the Arts rally in front of the centre to erupt in cheers and demand the immediate removal of Trump’s name. 
Late on Friday, the Department of Justice said in a court filing it would miss the deadline because of thunderstorms that could pose safety risks for the workers, seeking a 12-hour extension. 
Beatty called that request “inexcusable” and part of “a pattern of non-compliance”, according to the DOJ filing. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.2%Donna Ferguson: 4.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias16.2%This article: 6.1%Donna Ferguson: 1.5%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias6.1%This article: 6.5%Donna Ferguson: 1.6%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic6.5%This article: 14.7%Donna Ferguson: 3.7%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic14.7%This article: 6.5%Donna Ferguson: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias6.5%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Donna Ferguson: 7.0%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Donna Ferguson: 1.7%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias6.7%This article: 10.2%Donna Ferguson: 2.6%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias10.2%This article: 24.6%Donna Ferguson: 9.5%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias24.6%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 1.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.8%Donna Ferguson: 2.9%the Guardian: 1.2%Recency Bias11.8%This article: 10.6%Donna Ferguson: 2.6%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect10.6%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Donna Ferguson: 2.7%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.9%Donna Ferguson: 0.7%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization2.9%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 8.2%Donna Ferguson: 2.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon8.2%This article: 4.1%Donna Ferguson: 1.3%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion4.1%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 1.7%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.0%Donna Ferguson: 1.7%the Guardian: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 12.5%Donna Ferguson: 3.1%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof12.5%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.8%Donna Ferguson: 1.5%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.8%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.9%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 15.7%Donna Ferguson: 7.3%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice15.7%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Donna Ferguson: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

586 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers21%attributed speech462writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 47 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageChristopher Cooper • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 16 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageDepartment of Justice (DOJ) • 32 words • 0.0% coverageJoyce Beatty • 17 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Joyce Beatty

100%flagged-word coverage
17 attributed words14% of attributed speech94% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-19.9 ptsWriter: 19.9%Joyce Beatty: 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.