MS NOW⁠95%

Trump touts plummeting federal employment: ‘Big news for the USA!’⁠0%

By Jordan Rubin⁠0%

12/26/2025, 6:06:09 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Loss Aversion, and Pessimism Bias, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 65.3% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 577 faulty-reasoning hits from 213 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of ⁠0% (0 of 21,188 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

President Donald Trump this week touted his administration’s dramatic cuts to the federal workforce, as remaining workers steeled themselves for another potential government shutdown — and more possible cuts — in the new year. 
“Big news for the USA!” 
Trump wrote in a post on his social media site, over a graph that showed plummeting federal employment. 
The post cited jobs numbers from earlier this month showing federal employment at its lowest in more than a decade, down 271,000 jobs since he took office. 
The Trump administration casts those numbers in a wholly positive light, as indicative of a strong private sector, even as the labor market stalls. 
MS NOW’s Emily Hung recently reported on the depressing holiday season facing federal workers, who fear not only for their jobs, but another government shutdown looming in 2026 and a potential Trump administration regulatory overhaul that would make it easier to terminate career civil servants. 
A Centers for Disease Control and Prevention employee told Hung that there’s “fear in the air” among federal workers, and that they’re “walking on eggshells.” 
A PBS News/NPR/Marist poll this month found that more Americans than ever disapprove of the president’s handling of the economy. 
Americans also expressed concerns over the cost of living, health care prices and personal finances. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 12.7%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 1.2%Anchoring Bias12.7%This article: 11.7%Jordan Rubin: 2.8%MS NOW: 3.7%Availability Heuristic11.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.3%Jordan Rubin: 8.3%MS NOW: 7.5%Confirmation Bias11.3%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 35.7%Jordan Rubin: 21.5%MS NOW: 15.5%Framing Effect35.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.4%MS NOW: 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.9%MS NOW: 1.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.2%MS NOW: 1.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 0.7%Loss Aversion21.1%This article: 65.3%Jordan Rubin: 14.8%MS NOW: 19.3%Negativity Bias65.3%This article: 13.6%Jordan Rubin: 0.8%MS NOW: 2.4%Optimism Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.1%MS NOW: 2.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.6%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 21.1%Jordan Rubin: 2.7%MS NOW: 3.2%Pessimism Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.6%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Jordan Rubin: 1.7%MS NOW: 1.8%Recency Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 13.6%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 2.4%Self-Serving Bias13.6%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.5%MS NOW: 4.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 11.3%Jordan Rubin: 1.9%MS NOW: 1.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.3%This article: 11.7%Jordan Rubin: 1.3%MS NOW: 2.6%Anecdotal11.7%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 4.6%MS NOW: 5.4%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 7.4%MS NOW: 9.8%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 1.0%MS NOW: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.0%MS NOW: 2.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.7%MS NOW: 0.9%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.2%MS NOW: 2.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 2.6%MS NOW: 1.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 3.4%MS NOW: 8.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.1%MS NOW: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.3%MS NOW: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 11.3%Jordan Rubin: 1.1%MS NOW: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)11.3%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.4%MS NOW: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 21.1%Jordan Rubin: 2.4%MS NOW: 2.2%Slippery Slope21.1%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.0%MS NOW: 0.3%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.5%MS NOW: 1.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Jordan Rubin: 0.6%MS NOW: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%

213 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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