As America Baked, Team Trump Axed More Than 1,600 Energy Efficiency Web Pages 69%

By Amy Qin82% Flávio Pessoa46%

7/17/2026, 4:30:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Politically Left Leaning Bias as the most egregious example at 23.2% saturation with 195 hits. Analysis detected 1,660 faulty-reasoning hits from 842 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 61.7% and a BS Rank of 69% (6,974 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 68.10% of the article peer group.

This story was originally published b y the Guardian and is reproduced here as part of the Climate Desk collaboration. 
As millions of Americans prepare for another brutal heatwave , it’s now harder to find information about ways to stay cool while saving energy and keeping utility costs down. 
At least 1,662 Department of Energy (DOE) webpages offering guidance on protecting the electrical grid during heatwaves have gone dark as of July 3, according to a Guardian analysis of a list of deleted URLs provided by researchers at the Internet Archive , a nonprofit that hosts a repository of more than a trillion archived webpages. 
These removals are just the latest example of a broader pattern: Information that conflicts with the administration’s priorities—from data on queer and trans youth to online resources from the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau—is being removed from federal websites and surveys. 
“Republicans love to talk about consumer choice as a tenet of American freedom, but they’re actually taking that away.” 
The Energy Department deletions coincide with the Trump administration’s latest push to undermine federal climate regulations . 
At least 18 webpages were removed within days of the proposed rollback to energy efficiency regulations for home appliances like air conditioners and heaters. 
If enacted, the proposed rollback would effectively undo decades of policies that have been proven to lower household utility bills and make it much harder for the Energy Department to update efficiency standards for new appliances under future administrations, advocates say. 
“Having a functioning air conditioner is a health and safety issue for the elderly, for folks with health conditions, and for the very young,” said Andrew deLaski, executive director at the Appliance Standards Awareness Project, a coalition of environmental, consumer and utility industry groups that advocate for cost-effective efficiency standards. 
“Ensuring that the standards are up to date helps to keep their energy consumption under control so that people can afford to operate these products,” deLaski said. 
It’s unclear the exact day the webpages were deleted, but several news outlets have noted that the deletions seemed to come shortly after New York City mayor, Zohran Mamdani , suggested New Yorkers set their air conditioners to 78 degrees to reduce strain on the city’s electrical grid. 
The DOE did not respond to the Guardian ’s questions about when and why the webpages were deleted and if they were related to the proposed rule to “Permanently End Green New Scam Appliance Mandates.” 
For Itai Vardi, research manager at the Energy and Policy Institute , a nonprofit fossil fuel and utility watchdog, the proposed rule and website deletions are “just absurd.” 
“It’s ironic that the Trump administration and Republicans love to talk about consumer choice as a tenet of American freedom, but they’re actually taking that away,” Vardi said. 
“What they’re doing here is rolling back the rules on energy efficiency, but also trying to hide helpful tips and information for the public, and it’s going to cost people more money.” 
The deleted webpages were filed under the department’s “energy saver” section and included a wide range of advice for energy and cost-saving measures, from ways to keep your home cool during the summer when energy bills and usage can spike to tips on how to  weatherstrip ,” or seal air leaks, around the home. 
More than 300 of the webpages had more than 160,000 page views in the last 30 days, according to a Guardian analysis of government web traffic data from the US General Services Administration. 
Since the 1970s, the DOE’s appliance and equipment standards program has required manufacturers to update appliances every few years to keep their products in line with the latest technological advances. 
The program has been “a real success story,” said deLaski from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project. 
“The strain on our [electrical] grid is a lot lower than it would be, and people’s utility bills are a lot lower than they would be.” 
An analysis from deLaski’s coalition found the next round of efficiency standard updates are estimated to save each household an average of $160 annually on utility bills and could significantly ease peak summer electricity demand, reducing pressure on an electrical grid already strained from AI datacenters and more frequent heatwaves. 
This is not the first time the Trump administration has attempted to weaken energy efficiency standards. 
Last May, the energy department tried to repeal 47 regulations consisting mostly of energy efficiency standards for appliances . 
The administration also tried to end the popular Energy Star program , which certifies energy efficient appliances, but the effort was blocked by both congressional Democrats and Republicans earlier this year. 
Critics say the webpage removals are one way the Trump administration is making the case for a broader campaign, outlined in Project 2025, to push through a slew of measures deregulating the fossil fuel industry and gutting the federal bureaucracy. 
“It’s a senseless dedication to an anti-regulatory agenda driven by what I would say are anti-regulatory zealots,” deLaski said. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 21.1%Amy Qin: 4.9%Mother Jones: 4.0%Confirmation Bias21.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.3%Mother Jones: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 19.0%Amy Qin: 4.9%Mother Jones: 3.3%Availability Heuristic19.0%This article: 4.8%Amy Qin: 0.5%Mother Jones: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic4.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.5%Mother Jones: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 11.0%Amy Qin: 8.3%Mother Jones: 7.2%Framing Effect11.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 1.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.6%Amy Qin: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.1%Amy Qin: 0.1%Mother Jones: 1.6%Optimism Bias3.1%This article: 8.7%Amy Qin: 6.2%Mother Jones: 1.9%Pessimism Bias8.7%This article: 18.2%Amy Qin: 10.8%Mother Jones: 9.6%Negativity Bias18.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.5%Mother Jones: 0.8%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.8%Mother Jones: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.6%Mother Jones: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Amy Qin: 0.9%Mother Jones: 1.5%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.8%Amy Qin: 1.6%Mother Jones: 1.1%Recency Bias4.8%This article: 3.7%Amy Qin: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Primacy Effect3.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.8%Amy Qin: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.9%Ad Hominem7.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 2.0%Mother Jones: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 11.9%Amy Qin: 8.9%Mother Jones: 3.6%Appeal to Authority11.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 1.5%Mother Jones: 1.4%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 4.9%Amy Qin: 4.9%Mother Jones: 1.7%Slippery Slope4.9%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.7%Amy Qin: 5.2%Mother Jones: 4.7%Hasty Generalization6.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.7%Amy Qin: 8.7%Mother Jones: 6.4%Appeal to Emotion5.7%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 1.8%Mother Jones: 1.1%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.6%Amy Qin: 4.4%Mother Jones: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.6%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 3.8%Amy Qin: 0.4%Mother Jones: 0.5%Burden of Proof3.8%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.7%Mother Jones: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 2.2%Mother Jones: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.2%Mother Jones: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.1%Amy Qin: 4.2%Mother Jones: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.1%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.6%Amy Qin: 1.2%Mother Jones: 1.8%Unattributed Quote9.6%This article: 2.3%Amy Qin: 0.8%Mother Jones: 1.5%Quote-first Misdirection2.3%This article: 8.0%Amy Qin: 7.7%Mother Jones: 9.2%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.6%Mother Jones: 1.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 23.2%Amy Qin: 10.9%Mother Jones: 4.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias23.2%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 0.0%Mother Jones: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Amy Qin: 1.1%Mother Jones: 0.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

842 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers27%attributed speech616writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 56 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew deLaski • 50 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew deLaski • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 48 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageItai Vardi • 28 words • 0.0% coverageItai Vardi • 28 words • 0.0% coverageItai Vardi • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 55 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageAndrew deLaski • 16 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew deLaski • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 100.0% coverageAndrew deLaski • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Itai Vardi

100%flagged-word coverage
88 attributed words39% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Politically Left Leaning B-28.6 ptsWriter: 28.6%Itai Vardi: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Itai Vardi: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-5.2 ptsWriter: 5.2%Itai Vardi: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.1 ptsWriter: 3.1%Itai Vardi: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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