Trump rule says habitat destruction does not harm endangered species ⁠92%

By Jake Spring⁠0%

7/10/2026, 2:32:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Slippery Slope, and Indoctrination, with Pessimism Bias as the most egregious example at 43.9% saturation with 25 hits. Analysis detected 142 faulty-reasoning hits from 57 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 86% and a BS Rank of ⁠92% (1,883 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 91.40% of the article peer group.

The Trump administration Friday finalized a repeal of decades-old regulation that said habitat destruction was a form of harm to endangered species. 
Overturning that interpretation of one of the country’s bedrock environmental laws could allow for mining, ranching and other development to expand into previously protected areas. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 5.1%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 3.2%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 3.1%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 17.5%Jake Spring: 52.3%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect17.5%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 4.3%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 5.4%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 43.9%Jake Spring: 6.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias43.9%This article: 43.9%Jake Spring: 42.7%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias43.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 38.6%Jake Spring: 3.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect38.6%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 25.4%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 43.9%Jake Spring: 6.8%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope43.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 7.0%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 1.1%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 11.8%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 10.8%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 17.5%Jake Spring: 19.1%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice17.5%This article: 43.9%Jake Spring: 4.3%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination43.9%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 11.1%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 5.4%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jake Spring: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

57 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker39%attributed speech35writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageTrump administration • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Trump administration

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Indoctrination-71.4 ptsWriter: 71.4%Trump administration: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.6 ptsWriter: 28.6%Trump administration: 0.0%0.0%

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.