Agency packed with Trump appointees looks to bypass federal regulations to speed up construction of his DC arch 63%

By Rachel Dobkin51%

7/21/2026, 1:00:40 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Unattributed Quote, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 23.6% saturation with 111 hits. Analysis detected 677 faulty-reasoning hits from 471 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 58.3% and a BS Rank of 63% (7,151 of 18,915 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 62.20% of the article peer group.

An independent federal agency packed with Donald Trump appointees has been looking to bypass long-standing federal regulations to speed up construction of the president’s Triumphal Arch in Washington, D.C. 
The 250-foot arch would sit at the end of the Arlington Memorial Bridge, across from the Lincoln Memorial. 
The massive granite structure would be topped with a golden winged figure flanked by two gilded eagles. 
Trump has been attempting to leave his mark on D.C. before his second term ends through several rushed projects, including an expensive White House ballroom and a renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool that turned green from algae shortly after it was complete. 
The president hopes to finish his arch in a few short years, and The Atlantic reported Sunday that the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation might make changes to a requirement known as Section 106 to do it. 
The preservation council will consider a vote to revise the rules governing Section 106, according to a July 17 email and draft amendments obtained by the publication. 
“If adopted, the proposal would give federal agencies broader discretion over preservation reviews, prioritize mitigation over avoiding harm to historic places, and scale back long-standing expectations that officials consider alternative designs or locations before moving forward with building projects,” The Atlantic’s Janay Kingsberry writes. 
In the Friday email, Travis Voyles, the vice chair of the council, instructed members to vote on the proposed changes by this Friday. 
At least seven of the 24 members were appointed by Trump. 
A White House official told The Atlantic that the Trump administration “has and will follow all legal requirements in constructing the Triumphal Arch.” 
The Independent has reached out to the White House and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for comment. 
If given the green light to break ground, there will be 20-hour workdays to build Trump’s arch over two to three years, CBS News reported last month, citing federal documents. 
The arch is also expected to cost a pretty penny, with an estimated $100 million price tag, according to an Axios report from November. 
Earlier this month, the National Capital Planning Commission, chaired by Trump appointee William Scharf, voted to advance the president’s arch project, The Washington Post reported at the time. 
The vote brings Trump one step closer to building his arch, even as he rejects the need for congressional approval. 
“We don’t need anything from Congress,” the president told reporters in May. 
Three Vietnam War veterans sued Trump in February to stop the arch’s construction, claiming the president did not seek proper approval for it. 
Meanwhile, 52 percent of Americans voiced opposition to the arch, compared with 21 percent who favored it in a Washington Post/ABC News/Ispsos poll from April. 
Confirmation Bias
0%
Anchoring Bias
0%
Availability Heuristic
2.3%
Representativeness Heuristic
5.3%
Hindsight Bias
0%
Overconfidence Bias
0%
Framing Effect
23.6%
Loss Aversion
0%
Status Quo Bias
0%
Sunk Cost Effect
0%
Optimism Bias
0%
Pessimism Bias
0%
Negativity Bias
19.3%
Self-Serving Bias
0%
Fundamental Attribution Error
0%
Actor-Observer Bias
0%
In-Group Bias
0%
Out-Group Homogeneity Bias
0%
Halo Effect
0%
Horn Effect
0%
Dunning-Kruger Effect
0%
Recency Bias
6.4%
Primacy Effect
5.9%
Blind-Spot Bias
0%
Ad Hominem
0%
Straw Man
0%
Appeal to Authority
10.8%
False Dilemma
0%
Slippery Slope
0%
Circular Reasoning
0%
Hasty Generalization
0%
Red Herring
0%
Bandwagon
5.3%
Appeal to Emotion
0%
Begging the Question
2.5%
Post Hoc (False Cause)
0%
Tu Quoque
0%
Burden of Proof
0%
Appeal to Nature
0%
Composition/Division
0%
Anecdotal
9.3%
No True Scotsman
0%
Ambiguity (Equivocation)
10%
Gambler’s Fallacy
0%
Middle Ground
0%
Personal Incredulity
0%
Special Pleading
0%
Genetic Fallacy
0%
Unattributed Quote
14.2%
Quote-first Misdirection
9.3%
Biased Writer Voice
19.3%
Indoctrination
0%
Politically Left Leaning Bias
0%
Politically Right Leaning Bias
0%
Attempt to Sell a Product or Service
0%

471 words analyzed.

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.