Not Everything Is as It Appears: What the Reflecting Pool Taught Me About America’s Culture War
News Analysis / Firsthand Reporting
When I returned home from Washington, D.C., after covering events surrounding America’s 250th anniversary, I came back with a realization that has continued to influence the way I look at politics and the news: not everything is as it appears.
That does not mean everything we see or hear is false. Quite often, the facts themselves are real. The problem is that we may be seeing only part of them. A photograph can be genuine and still leave something important outside the frame. A political claim can contain an element of truth while leaving out information that substantially changes how that truth should be understood.
The Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool became one of the clearest examples of this during my visit to Washington.
By late June, the pool had become another battleground in America’s continuing culture war. President Donald Trump had made its renovation part of a larger effort to restore and beautify Washington ahead of the nation’s 250th anniversary. Then problems emerged. The water turned green with algae. Portions of the newly installed coating deteriorated. Trump and his administration accused vandals of damaging the pool, while critics pointed toward problems with the renovation itself. Protesters appeared near the Lincoln Memorial and used the algae controversy to ridicule Trump and his administration.
Each development became evidence for one political narrative or another.
Standing there myself on June 28, however, I began to see a more complicated picture.
A protest that looked different from inside the scene
There were anti-Trump protesters at the Reflecting Pool. That part of the story was real.
But what I saw on the ground was much smaller than the political significance surrounding the controversy might have suggested. During one period when I observed a group near the fencing, I could identify only about four people who appeared to actually be participating in the demonstration. There were more people gathered around them, but many of those people were tourists.
Some watched. Some stopped to see what was happening. Others tried to debate the protesters.
Later, while I was waiting for the new museum beneath the Lincoln Memorial to open, another two or three protesters appeared. They attracted attention, but once again some of the people around them were not supporters joining a demonstration. They were visitors engaging with what was happening in front of them.
One of the protesters later told me that they had come after learning that media might be present.
Contemporary news coverage confirms at least the broader distinction I was observing. CNN described the activity as a small protest and reported tourists getting into arguments with the demonstrators. PBS NewsHour referred to a handful of self-described pro-algae protesters, and The Washington Post described Team Algae as a small group.
What interested me was not whether the protest existed. It clearly did. It was how easily the meaning of a crowd can change depending upon what we assume about the people standing in it.
Someone standing next to a protester is not necessarily another protester.
(A 360-degree view of the Lincoln Memorial area places the protest activity within the larger environment of tourists visiting the Reflecting Pool and surrounding monuments. 360 image by Rebecca Canales/Whittier 360 News Network.)
The value of the 360-degree image becomes apparent when the viewer begins looking around.
Face one direction and there is political activity. Turn farther and there are tourists visiting the Lincoln Memorial. Look toward another portion of the plaza and people are walking beneath umbrellas, taking photographs and continuing their visits.
They are all occupying the same physical space, but they are not all participating in the same event.
That distinction extends beyond one small protest in Washington. Political photographs and videos frequently show us what happened without necessarily showing us everything else that happened around it. That does not make the image deceptive. It means an image can be accurate while still being incomplete.
Green water and a reflection
The Reflecting Pool itself offered an even simpler example.
The water was green.
My photographs show that clearly. The algae problem was real, and the renovation had developed significant problems shortly after its completion. Anyone criticizing the condition of the pool had something tangible to point toward.
But standing on the Lincoln Memorial side looking toward the Washington Monument, I noticed something else. The pool was still reflecting.
The conditions were hardly ideal for one of the postcard views associated with the National Mall. It was raining. The sky was gray and hazy. The water had an obvious green coloration.
Yet the Washington Monument and its vertical reflection could still be seen in the water.
Neither observation cancels the other.
The pool had an algae problem, and the pool was still performing the visual function for which it was named.
That seems like a trivial distinction until it is placed within the larger way Americans discuss politics. Much of our political conversation encourages us to choose between competing descriptions of reality when the fuller answer may contain parts of both.
A person who saw only a photograph emphasizing green water could reasonably conclude that the renovation had gone badly. A person who saw only a photograph emphasizing the monument's reflection could come away with a considerably different impression. Neither photograph would have to be fake. The difference would be what each one asked us to notice.
The fences had more than one explanation
Temporary fencing surrounding portions of the Reflecting Pool presented another opportunity for assumptions to fill gaps in what a person knew.
The Trump administration had publicly blamed vandals for damage to the newly renovated landmark. The National Park Service had also restricted access to the Reflecting Pool and its adjacent walkway for protection of park resources and public safety.
Looking at the fencing in isolation, it would therefore be easy to interpret everything around the Reflecting Pool as a response to vandalism, protests or security concerns.
Those things were part of the situation. But they were not the entire situation.
Washington was simultaneously preparing for July Fourth and the major events surrounding the nation's 250th anniversary.
Beginning June 28, the National Park Service imposed temporary closures and public-use restrictions across portions of the National Mall in connection with the Salute to America and Grand Fireworks Show. The agency's plans included the installation and later removal of anti-scale fencing.
The same fences could therefore exist within several overlapping realities. There were concerns about the Reflecting Pool. There were security considerations. There was also an enormous national celebration approaching that required extensive preparations across Washington. Knowing about one did not make the others disappear.
(This 360-degree view places temporary fencing around the Reflecting Pool within the larger Lincoln Memorial environment during preparations for July Fourth. 360 image by Rebecca Canales/Whittier 360 News Network.)
The vandalism story changed as more evidence emerged
The controversy over the pool's deteriorating surface provides perhaps the strongest example of why voters should resist treating the first explanation they hear as the final one.
Trump and his administration strongly attributed damage to vandalism. The White House released photographs and video that it said demonstrated deliberate acts against the newly renovated landmark. Federal authorities also investigated suspected destruction of government property.
The allegation was not merely rhetorical. On July 2, federal prosecutors announced that a grand jury had indicted Maryland resident David Hearn on a felony destruction-of-property charge. Prosecutors alleged that he had ripped a piece of recently installed blue pool sealant on June 19. Then additional information emerged.
By the end of July, prosecutors moved to dismiss the case. According to a Justice Department motion later described by FactCheck.org, documents provided by the Interior Department indicated that damage to the Reflecting Pool had resulted from flawed installation by the contractor and the rush to complete the work before events associated with America 250.
That does not require concluding that nobody ever touched or damaged any portion of the pool. It does substantially change the explanation for the widespread deterioration that had become the center of the national controversy. While initial evidence had led officials toward one explanation. Additional evidence led prosecutors somewhere else.
For voters, that distinction matters more than determining which political team gets to declare victory.
How the culture war creates incomplete realities
The Reflecting Pool controversy demonstrated how two groups of Americans can look at many of the same underlying facts and leave with radically different understandings of what happened.
A Trump critic could focus on the algae, the peeling surface, the cost of the project and the later evidence of installation problems. From that perspective, the episode could become an example of a highly publicized presidential project that was rushed and poorly executed.
A Trump supporter could look at the same larger story and focus on a president attempting to restore a nationally significant landmark, activists turning the project's problems into political theater, security concerns surrounding the site and an administration determined to protect federal monuments. Neither voter has to invent everything they believe in order to reach those conclusions. The greater danger is that each may receive or accept only the information that reinforces the conclusion they were already inclined to reach. This is where the culture war becomes particularly damaging to democratic decision-making.
Facts become ammunition rather than information. The objective becomes accumulating evidence against the other side rather than understanding what actually occurred.
The small protest illustrates the same phenomenon. Someone sympathetic to the demonstrators could focus on their ability to attract attention to problems with the renovation and provoke a wider discussion despite their small numbers. On the other hand someone opposed to them could focus on how few people were actually participating and conclude that the political significance of the protest was disproportionate to its public support. Both observations tell us something useful.
The protest was small, yet it's visibility was much larger than its attendance.
Both statements can be true.
Better-informed voters do not have to agree
None of this means Americans should stop disagreeing. Democratic government assumes disagreement. Americans have argued intensely over the direction of their country since before there was a United States.
Nor does having more information require everyone to reach the same conclusion.
A voter could learn that flawed installation was ultimately blamed for the widespread damage to the Reflecting Pool and still believe Trump's decision to renovate the landmark was worthwhile. Another voter could acknowledge that improving the Reflecting Pool was a legitimate objective while criticizing that the administration's management of the project.
A good photo cannot not tell voters what conclusion they must reach. It can only provide them more of the information necessary to make that conclusion for themselves.
That may seem obvious, but it is increasingly important in a country where political identity can influence not only what people believe but what information they are willing to consider in the first place.
Republicans do not become better-informed voters by knowing only facts favorable to Republicans. Democrats do not become better-informed voters by knowing only facts favorable to Democrats. The same is true for independents and everyone else. The question should not be whether a fact helps our side. The question should be whether it helps us understand what happened.
Look beyond the frame
I traveled to Washington expecting to report on America’s 250th anniversary. What I walked away with was a reminder of how much framing matters — not only what information is included, but what is left out, sometimes because it does not fit neatly into a particular argument.
At the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, I could point my camera in one direction and photograph protesters. I could shift slightly and photograph tourists interacting with them. I could turn farther and photograph visitors who appeared to have little involvement in the controversy at all. I could photograph green water and document a real algae problem, then photograph that same water reflecting the Washington Monument. I could photograph imposing temporary fencing around one of America’s most recognizable landmarks, then move closer and find a sign telling visitors that something was “COMING TO YOU ON JULY 4TH.”
Every one of those photographs would be real. Every one would document something that actually existed in front of my camera. Yet none of them, standing alone, would tell the whole story.
That may be one of the central problems in America’s culture war. We sometimes treat the portion of reality visible from where we are standing as though it must invalidate the portion visible to someone standing somewhere else. Sometimes one side is simply wrong. Facts matter, and not every political claim deserves equal weight simply because someone believes it. But at other times, Americans are arguing over different pieces of a larger reality that neither side has fully examined.
The answer is not to abandon our convictions. It is to become more demanding about the information on which those convictions are based. What happened before the photograph was taken, and what happened afterward? Who are the people in the crowd, and why are they there? Did later evidence change an early conclusion? What information would challenge the version of events we are most comfortable believing?
Sometimes the most important thing we can do is turn around and look outside the frame.
On that rainy day in Washington, there were protesters at the Reflecting Pool and tourists debating them. There was green water and a visible reflection of the Washington Monument. There were fences protecting a troubled landmark while preparations were also underway for a national celebration. There were allegations of vandalism, followed by evidence that substantially changed the government’s understanding of what caused the widespread damage.
Those facts do not fit comfortably into a single culture-war narrative. That is precisely why voters should know all of them.
I came back from Washington with the realization that not everything is as it appears. Perhaps the more important lesson is that the information we cannot immediately see is sometimes the information we most need.
Learn More
CNN's June 25 report from the Reflecting Pool described the demonstration as a “small protest,” documented tourists arguing with demonstrators, and reported on concerns over the renovation schedule and contracting. CNN transcript: Anderson Cooper 360, June 25, 2026
PBS NewsHour's June 22 report documented the algae and peeling surface, described the protesters as a “handful,” and discussed possible problems with the preparation and bonding of the pool coating. PBS NewsHour: Beset by algae, Reflecting Pool set to undergo more repairs
The Washington Post reported on the small Team Algae protest and its strategy of using humor and spectacle to draw attention to the Reflecting Pool controversy. The Washington Post: At the Reflecting Pool, these protesters speak for the algae
The National Park Service's June 28 notice details temporary closures, physical barriers and anti-scale fencing associated with the Salute to America and Grand Fireworks Show. National Park Service: July Fourth temporary closure notice
The White House's June 25 statement presents the administration's case that deliberate vandalism had occurred at the newly renovated Reflecting Pool. White House statement on Reflecting Pool damage
The U.S. Attorney's Office announced Hearn's July 2 indictment and specified the allegation that he had ripped a piece of the recently installed pool sealant. Justice Department: Maryland Man Indicted for Vandalizing Reflecting Pool
FactCheck.org later examined the Justice Department's motion to dismiss the case and the Interior Department documents indicating that flawed installation and the rush to finish before America 250 were responsible for the widespread damage. FactCheck.org: Trump's Continued Claims of Vandalism at Reflecting Pool Disputed by U.S. Attorney Memo
Comments