KUER0%

What Trump’s $700M coal investment could mean for the Mountain West 24%

By Hannah Merzbach0%

6/5/2026, 8:02:59 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including False Dilemma, Framing Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 26% saturation with 169 hits. Analysis detected 883 faulty-reasoning hits from 651 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 36.5% and a BS Rank of 24% (16,792 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 76.70% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump has announced a $700 million investment in coal, and Mountain West states could play a major role. 
The administration says it aims to keep electricity prices low, while critics say the effort will only increase rates, hurt the environment and put human health at risk. 
Trump, in his June 4 press conference, referred to the energy source that's been in decline for almost two decades as "beautiful, clean coal." 
Invoking his wartime authority through the Defense Production Act, Trump said $425 million will go toward extending the lives of 13 coal plants nationwide, including one in the Mountain West, paying for upgrades and reinforcing grid reliability. 
The Arizona Electric Power Cooperative is one recipient of those funds. 
Wyoming and New Mexico are among the states supplying coal to those funded plants. 
Another $200 million will go toward opening two new coal plants  one in Alaska and another in West Virginia  and restarting one in Maryland. 
Plus, $75 million in Department of Energy funds will support the construction of a coal export terminal in Oakland, California, which has been held off by the Biden administration. 
The Trump administration said coal communications in Wyoming, Utah and across the West will "benefit tremendously" from the new port. 
"So to be able to open that Oakland port is absolutely essential for the lifeblood of our state and for our coal mines," said Wyoming's Republican Gov. 
Mark Gordon, who was part of a group of governors, congresspeople and other officials flanking Trump in the Oval Office as he made the announcement. 
Wyoming is the largest producer of coal in the U.S. 
"We don't mine coal the way we used to at all," Gordon said. 
"It is very, very technologically proficient, and what's more important, it's environmentally sound." 
But the think tank Center for American Progress said burning more coal will worsen climate change and increase deadly pollution that can cause higher rates of cancer and lung disease. 
"This agenda serves only the fossil fuel industry and does nothing to help Americans struggling with rising utility and energy costs," Shannon Baker-Branstetter, senior director for Climate and Energy Policy at the Center for American Progress, said in a statement. 
At the same time as the Trump administration makes its latest investment in the coal industry, it is blocking development of wind or solar energy, which the Environmental Defense Fund says is cleaner and more affordable. 
U.S. coal production has dropped 56.2% since it peaked in 2008, according to federal data. 
West of the Mississippi River, it's gone down by 58.1% since it peaked that same year. 
"At a time when we need more power on the grid, doubling down on one of the most expensive, polluting energy sources is the worst possible answer," Ted Kelly, director and lead counsel of U.S. 
Clean Energy at the Environmental Defense Fund, said in a press release. 
Much of the new $700 million investment comes through the Defense Production Act, which federal agencies use to "ensure resources critical to national security are available during a public emergency," according to the U.S. 
Governmental Accountability Office. 
For example, the country spent $3.2 billion to secure equipment like gloves and masks during its COVID-19 response. 
Trump declared a national energy emergency on his first day in office, saying, "Energy security is an increasingly crucial theater of global competition." 
This story was produced by the Mountain West News Bureau, a collaboration between Boise State Public Radio, Wyoming Public Media, Nevada Public Radio, KUNR in Nevada, KUNC in Northern Colorado, KANW in New Mexico, Colorado Public Radio and KJZZ in Arizona as well as NPR, with support from affiliate newsrooms across the region. 
Funding for the Mountain West News Bureau is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and Eric and Wendy Schmidt. 
Copyright 2026 Wyoming Public Radio News 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.1%Hannah Merzbach: 1.4%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 1.0%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 4.4%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.6%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.4%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.7%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.4%Hannah Merzbach: 11.5%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect14.4%This article: 4.1%Hannah Merzbach: 1.2%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion4.1%This article: 2.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.9%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias2.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 5.1%Hannah Merzbach: 6.3%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 4.2%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 26.0%Hannah Merzbach: 5.1%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias26.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 2.1%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.2%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 4.7%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.0%Hannah Merzbach: 3.1%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect2.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.5%Hannah Merzbach: 0.4%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias4.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 1.1%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Hannah Merzbach: 5.1%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 16.0%Hannah Merzbach: 1.7%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma16.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 1.4%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.6%Hannah Merzbach: 3.8%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization4.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 2.2%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 12.6%Hannah Merzbach: 6.2%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion12.6%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 4.5%Hannah Merzbach: 2.0%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.5%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 6.1%Hannah Merzbach: 0.7%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof6.1%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.8%Hannah Merzbach: 4.9%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal2.8%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.7%Hannah Merzbach: 1.2%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 5.4%Hannah Merzbach: 0.3%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground5.4%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.9%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.7%Hannah Merzbach: 1.1%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection3.7%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.7%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.3%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hannah Merzbach: 0.0%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

651 words analyzed.

Speakers

9speakers39%attributed speech394writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 24 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 37 words • 0.0% coverageArizona Electric Power Cooperative • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageTrump administration • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gordon • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gordon • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMark Gordon • 13 words • 0.0% coverageCenter for American Progress • 30 words • 0.0% coverageShannon Baker-Branstetter • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageEnvironmental Defense Fund • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageGovernmental Accountability Office • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 53 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWyoming Public Radio News • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
40 attributed words16% of attributed speech47% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.