Entities mentioned:
- Dana White: Ambition, Competitive spirit, Professional pride
- Donald Trump: Power, Recognition, Influence
- UFC: Competitive spirit, Recognition, Influence
- Jon Jones: Ambition, Recognition, Competitive spirit
- Conor McGregor: Ambition, Recognition, Competitive spirit

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 65/100
Bias Rating: 55/100 (Center)
Sentiment Score: 70/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 45/100 (Mixed/Neutral)

Bias Analysis:
The article presents information from credible sources like the Wall Street Journal and direct quotes from involved parties. However, it lacks critical analysis of the event's implications and doesn't present opposing viewpoints, slightly leaning towards a neutral-to-positive framing of the event.

Key metric: Public Opinion on Government-Sports Relationship

As a social scientist, I analyze that this unprecedented event of hosting a UFC fight at the White House significantly impacts public perception of the relationship between government and sports. The unconventional use of national landmarks and government buildings for a commercial sporting event blurs the lines between politics, entertainment, and sports. This could potentially influence public opinion on the appropriateness of such collaborations and the use of federal resources. The event's timing, coinciding with the nation's 250th birthday celebration, adds a layer of patriotic significance that may affect how it's received by the public. The involvement of high-profile athletes and the president himself in this event could also shape public discourse on the role of sports in national identity and politics.

Entities mentioned:
- Donald Trump: Power, Control, Influence
- The Onion: Curiosity, Enthusiasm, Recognition
- Stephen Miller: Power, Control, Influence
- National Guard: Duty, Security, Control
- UFC: Competitive spirit, Recognition, Ambition

Article Assessment:
Credibility Score: 30/100
Bias Rating: 35/100 (Lean Left)
Sentiment Score: 45/100
Authoritarianism Risk: 20/100 (Strongly Democratic)

Bias Analysis:
The article leans left, evident in its mockery of Trump and conservative figures like Stephen Miller. While fact-checking is attempted, the satirical nature and clear anti-Trump stance indicate a left-leaning bias.

Key metric: Public Perception of Crime and Safety

As a social scientist, I analyze that this satirical article uses humor to critique and fact-check President Trump's claims about crime rates. The piece highlights the exaggeration and inaccuracy in Trump's statements, potentially influencing public perception of crime statistics and the credibility of presidential communications. The satire may lead readers to question official statements and seek out verified crime data, potentially improving public understanding of actual crime trends. However, the humorous approach might also trivialize serious issues related to crime and public safety.