Minnesota Set to Lose Massive Wind Energy Projects Thanks to Trump 78%

By Hafiz Rashid68%

7/10/2026, 10:02:25 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 29 faulty reasoning types, including Post Hoc (False Cause), Appeal to Emotion, and Biased Writer Voice, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 43.6% saturation with 206 hits. Analysis detected 1,650 faulty-reasoning hits from 472 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 69% and a BS Rank of 78% (4,980 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 77.30% of the article peer group.

President Trump’s attacks on wind power could have a devastating effect on Minnesota. 
The state has four wind energy projects that could bring 1,200 construction jobs, 4,400 other jobs connected to the projects, and over $168 million in economic impacts to the state, the Minnesota Reformer reports , citing the progressive think tank North Star Policy Action. 
The Trump administration has stopped the Department of Defense from completing legally mandated national security reviews of proposed wind farms, basically halting their construction across the country. 
In total, over 250 such projects have been stalled, four of them in the Gopher State, with $1.6 billion in investments behind them. 
“Minnesota has spent decades building one of the strongest wind energy economies in the country, and the federal government is now actively dismantling that through a permitting process turned into an indefinite roadblock,” said Aaron Rosenthal, North Star Policy Action’s research director, to the Reformer. 
The St. 
Paul-based think tank’s report points out that the four wind projects would have a combined output of 1,119 megawatts, more than that of Xcel Energy’s Prairie Island nuclear power plant in the state. 
Minnesota has a mandate to have 100 percent carbon-free electricity in the state by 2040, and these wind projects would be a big step forward. 
Under President Biden, wind power got a big boost across the U.S., with the 2022 Inflation Reduction Act bringing billions of dollars of federal loans, tax credits, and grants. 
But Trump has a long-standing hatred of wind power going back to a bitter fight years ago against wind turbines built near his Turnberry golf resort in Scotland . 
On the first day of his second term as president, Trump signed an executive order freezing wind power permits both on- and off-shore. 
That lasted until June this year, when the administration abandoned its effort to defend the order in court. 
But Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum said last year that he would have to personally approve any federal solar and wind permits, stalling national projects. 
“We have not approved one windmill since I’ve been in office. 
And we’re going to keep it that way. 
My goal is to not let any windmill be built,” Trump said in March. 
To satisfy the president’s vendetta, the federal government has been buying out developers and companies seeking to build wind projects. 
Wind power is abundant in the U.S., especially in the Midwest, and doesn’t produce carbon emissions or pollution. 
The costs to set up wind farms are rapidly dropping, and it only takes 6 to 9 miles per hour—a gentle breeze—to get turbines to spin and generate electricity. 
But to the anti-green Trump administration, anything that isn’t oil and gas should be shut down, even if it means higher electricity bills . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 16.3%Hafiz Rashid: 7.5%newrepublic.com: 6.1%Confirmation Bias16.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 14.2%Hafiz Rashid: 4.3%newrepublic.com: 3.3%Availability Heuristic14.2%This article: 7.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic7.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.8%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.1%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 20.3%Hafiz Rashid: 10.9%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Framing Effect20.3%This article: 11.9%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.4%Loss Aversion11.9%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.5%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.4%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Optimism Bias11.4%This article: 6.6%Hafiz Rashid: 3.0%newrepublic.com: 2.5%Pessimism Bias6.6%This article: 43.6%Hafiz Rashid: 16.7%newrepublic.com: 13.3%Negativity Bias43.6%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 0.9%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Hafiz Rashid: 2.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 9.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias9.1%This article: 5.1%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 1.7%In-Group Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 1.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.4%Recency Bias6.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 13.3%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.8%Ad Hominem13.3%This article: 5.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 1.1%Straw Man5.1%This article: 16.3%Hafiz Rashid: 4.2%newrepublic.com: 3.4%Appeal to Authority16.3%This article: 5.1%Hafiz Rashid: 1.2%newrepublic.com: 1.9%False Dilemma5.1%This article: 15.3%Hafiz Rashid: 1.0%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Slippery Slope15.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 6.1%Hafiz Rashid: 8.6%newrepublic.com: 8.0%Hasty Generalization6.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.6%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 23.5%Hafiz Rashid: 6.1%newrepublic.com: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion23.5%This article: 9.5%Hafiz Rashid: 1.9%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Begging the Question9.5%This article: 27.8%Hafiz Rashid: 3.5%newrepublic.com: 3.2%Post Hoc (False Cause)27.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.3%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 2.1%newrepublic.com: 0.8%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 9.1%Hafiz Rashid: 0.2%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Appeal to Nature9.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 2.3%Hafiz Rashid: 3.9%newrepublic.com: 2.0%Anecdotal2.3%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 3.8%Hafiz Rashid: 2.0%newrepublic.com: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)3.8%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.0%newrepublic.com: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.4%newrepublic.com: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.3%Hafiz Rashid: 4.0%newrepublic.com: 2.3%Unattributed Quote2.3%This article: 13.1%Hafiz Rashid: 3.1%newrepublic.com: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection13.1%This article: 21.2%Hafiz Rashid: 14.6%newrepublic.com: 15.5%Biased Writer Voice21.2%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 1.8%newrepublic.com: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 14.6%Hafiz Rashid: 7.0%newrepublic.com: 7.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias14.6%This article: 5.1%Hafiz Rashid: 1.5%newrepublic.com: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias5.1%This article: 0.0%Hafiz Rashid: 0.1%newrepublic.com: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

472 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers31%attributed speech324writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageMinnesota Reformer • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageAaron Rosenthal • 45 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 26 words • 0.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 11 words • 100.0% coverageDoug Burgum • 8 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Aaron Rosenthal

100%flagged-word coverage
45 attributed words30% of attributed speech92% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Biased Writer Voice-30.9 ptsWriter: 30.9%Aaron Rosenthal: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-9.0 ptsWriter: 9.0%Aaron Rosenthal: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-7.7 ptsWriter: 7.7%Aaron Rosenthal: 0.0%0.0%Politically Right Leaning -7.4 ptsWriter: 7.4%Aaron Rosenthal: 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.