Lori Chavez-DeRemer, Trump’s Labor Secretary, Steps Down Amid Internal Investigation ⁠69%

By Rebecca Davis O’Brien⁠0%

4/20/2026, 9:33:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 32 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 45.5% saturation with 327 hits. Analysis detected 1,809 faulty-reasoning hits from 719 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.9% and a BS Rank of ⁠69% (6,925 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.40% of the article peer group.

Lori Chavez-DeRemer, President Trump’s embattled labor secretary, stepped down on Monday as multiple scandals and investigations closed in on her. 
“Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer will be leaving the Administration to take a position in the private sector,” Steven Cheung, a White House spokesman, posted on social media. 
He said Keith Sonderling, the deputy secretary of labor, would serve as acting secretary. 
Pressure on Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer had mounted in recent weeks, as investigators and congressional leaders homed in on questions about her conduct in office, and that of her aides and members of her family. 
The Labor Department’s inspector general’s office is nearing the end of a monthslong investigation into a whistle-blower’s allegations of professional misconduct by Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer and her closest aides. 
The claims include that she was having an affair with a member of her security team and used department resources for personal trips. 
Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer was expected to be interviewed in the matter in the coming days. 
Investigators spoke with several dozen witnesses and uncovered evidence that Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer and her staff abused federal spending limits on personal trips, several people familiar with the investigation said, including on fancy hotels, S.U.V. rentals and meals. 
Four people have left or been forced out of their jobs in connection with the investigation. 
Investigators had also reviewed text messages sent to young staff members by Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer, her former deputy chief of staff, her husband and her father. 
The messages, reported last week by The New York Times, suggested that the secretary was drinking during the workday and raised questions about professionalism with her staff. 
Nick Oberheiden, a lawyer representing Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer in the internal investigation, said on Monday said she “did not resign because she violated the law; no such finding exists.” 
“Her resignation,” he continued, “is much more a reflection of her commitment to the overall mission: to avoid further distractions within the U.S. 
Department of Labor.” 
The likelihood that the inspector general’s investigation would reveal embarrassing details was compounded by a parallel inquiry on Capitol Hill: Senator Charles E. 
Grassley of Iowa, the Republican chair of the Judiciary Committee, demanded internal records and statements from the department in connection with the allegations. 
And Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer’s husband, Dr. 
Shawn DeRemer, has been barred from the department’s headquarters, after female staff members accused him of making unwanted sexual advances, including filing a police report. 
Although police and prosecutors have said they would not bring criminal charges against him, the situation continued to reverberate in the secretary’s office. 
In recent weeks, three claims of a hostile work environment were filed against Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer with the department’s civil rights office. 
Many in the department — and in Washington more broadly — sensed that her days as secretary were numbered, with the specter of potentially embarrassing details emerging in an investigative report. 
Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer’s resignation was reported earlier on Monday by Notus. 
On Monday, senators arriving on Capitol Hill for the first vote of the week responded to the news of her departure. 
“The secretary demonstrated a lot of wisdom in resigning, and I think she read the room,” said Senator John Kennedy, Republican of Louisiana. 
Senator Thom Tillis, Republican of North Carolina, said senators, who will vote to confirm her replacement, needed to do a better job vetting Trump administration nominees. 
“I think what we have to do is anywhere where benefit of the doubt was given in the past, you’ve got to doubt,” he said. 
Ms. 
Chavez-DeRemer led the department during a period in which the labor market weakened but proved surprisingly resilient. 
Job growth has slowed to a crawl in recent months, wage growth has slowed and the unemployment rate has ticked up gradually. 
Younger workers, in particular, have struggled to gain a foothold in the labor market, and Americans have become increasingly concerned about the threat that artificial intelligence could pose to their career prospects. 
Yet layoffs across the economy remain historically low, and many economists say weak hiring has more to do with a lack of supply — in part because of Mr. 
Trump’s crackdown on immigration — than a lack of demand from employers. 
Economists describe the labor market with words like “stagnant” and “anemic,” but not necessarily weak. 
Ben Casselman and Megan Mineiro contributed reporting. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.0%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 2.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias2.2%This article: 21.6%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.9%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic21.6%This article: 0.7%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.2%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 3.8%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.4%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect3.8%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 2.0%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias5.6%This article: 20.3%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 4.6%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias20.3%This article: 45.5%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 17.3%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias45.5%This article: 13.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.4%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias13.2%This article: 1.7%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error1.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.6%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias3.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.6%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.4%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect5.6%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.4%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.5%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias7.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.9%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 3.2%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority13.9%This article: 5.1%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.0%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.5%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.7%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization4.5%This article: 3.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring3.2%This article: 4.3%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon4.3%This article: 10.3%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.1%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion10.3%This article: 3.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.6%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 7.4%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.7%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.5%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof3.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 6.8%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 2.1%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal6.8%This article: 3.1%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman3.1%This article: 10.2%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.9%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.2%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.1%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground2.1%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 7.4%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 1.0%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote7.4%This article: 3.8%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.7%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.8%This article: 11.8%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 2.7%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice11.8%This article: 3.5%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.4%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination3.5%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.3%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.7%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.2%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%Rebecca Davis O’Brien: 0.1%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

719 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers24%attributed speech550writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 27 words • 100.0% coverageSteven Cheung • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageNick Oberheiden • 6 words • 0.0% coverageNick Oberheiden • 22 words • 0.0% coverageNick Oberheiden • 23 words • 0.0% coverageNick Oberheiden • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSenator John Kennedy • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSenator Thom Tillis • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSenator Thom Tillis • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Senator John Kennedy

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words14% of attributed speech93% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Biased Writer Voice-15.5 ptsWriter: 15.5%Senator John Kennedy: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-4.7 ptsWriter: 4.7%Senator John Kennedy: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -2.2 ptsWriter: 2.2%Senator John Kennedy: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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