Futurism88%

Trump Decimated a Satellite Program That Would’ve Vastly Improved Wildfire Smoke Monitoring 82%

By Joe Wilkins84%

7/17/2026, 8:45:35 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Loss Aversion, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 39.7% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 1,103 faulty-reasoning hits from 431 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 73.2% and a BS Rank of 82% (3,991 of 21,197 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 81.20% of the article peer group.

When Donald Trump, Elon Musk and the DOGE boys started snipping wires across DC, they took out critical programs like the government’s premier climate research website and the hurricane-hunter aircraft gathering data on dangerous storms. 
While they were at it, the Trump administration also ripped up a project that would have vastly improved the country’s ability to monitor wildfires. 
The GeoXO program was a project originally encompassing six satellites that would greatly improve the resolution available to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to monitor atmospheric conditions like wildfire smoke, as well as weather events like lightning strikes, and climate observations such as color changes in the ocean’s surface. 
The six satellites were meant to encompass three regions split between the US West, Central, and East. 
Starting in April 2025, however, the Trump administration directed the NOAA to make drastic cuts to GeoXO. 
These included cutting two satellites from the mission altogether  scrapping the central observation region entirely  and canceling major contracts for existing GeoXO instruments. 
The purported goal was to refocus the program on a “core weather mission,” as opposed to long-term climate monitoring, following the administration’s broader attacks on any effort to mitigate or even mention climate change. 
One of those cancelled instruments, the GeoXO Atmospheric Composition device, was a high-resolution spectrometer designed to give the NOAA advanced capabilities to monitor air pollutants, like ozone, nitrogen dioxide, formaldehyde, and excess particulate matter. 
In the long term, the tool would have helped scientists paint a clearer picture of how particular weather events relate to broader climate shifts, an NOAA report explains. 
Of course, the timing of the cancellation couldn’t have been worse. 
Huge swaths of the United States and Canada are currently being smoked out by noxious fumes emanating from hundreds of wildfires across North America. 
Though the GeoXO program wouldn’t have gone live until the 2030s, Trump’s decision represents a devastating loss for our future ability to monitor this exact phenomenon, which is becoming something of an annual tradition for millions of people. 
As Susan Anenberg, chair of environmental and occupational health at George Washington University observed , the NOAA “had spent years planning an air pollution instrument on the GeoXO satellite which would provide near-real-time, location-specific data on smoke levels, giving people the information they need to avoid exposure.” 
Anenberg explained that the public health benefits this kind of monitoring would provide “could amount to about $13 billion per year.” 
“As smoke events happen more often,” Anenberg continued, “we need more data, not less.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 6.7%Futurism: 6.0%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 13.7%Joe Wilkins: 6.4%Futurism: 6.2%Availability Heuristic13.7%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.5%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.8%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.6%Hindsight Bias8.8%This article: 4.9%Joe Wilkins: 3.9%Futurism: 2.7%Overconfidence Bias4.9%This article: 8.4%Joe Wilkins: 13.2%Futurism: 11.5%Framing Effect8.4%This article: 20.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.1%Futurism: 1.2%Loss Aversion20.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 11.6%Joe Wilkins: 2.0%Futurism: 2.2%Optimism Bias11.6%This article: 5.8%Joe Wilkins: 4.5%Futurism: 4.3%Pessimism Bias5.8%This article: 34.1%Joe Wilkins: 25.5%Futurism: 22.7%Negativity Bias34.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.6%Futurism: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Fundamental Attribution Error7.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.2%Futurism: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 7.9%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Halo Effect7.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.7%Futurism: 0.6%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.8%Joe Wilkins: 2.2%Futurism: 2.1%Recency Bias8.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 8.1%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.4%Ad Hominem8.1%This article: 5.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.6%Straw Man5.6%This article: 17.4%Joe Wilkins: 5.9%Futurism: 6.9%Appeal to Authority17.4%This article: 11.1%Joe Wilkins: 2.5%Futurism: 2.5%False Dilemma11.1%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 2.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 2.8%Joe Wilkins: 12.8%Futurism: 10.5%Hasty Generalization2.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.0%Futurism: 0.9%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 5.6%Joe Wilkins: 11.3%Futurism: 9.3%Appeal to Emotion5.6%This article: 2.6%Joe Wilkins: 1.7%Futurism: 1.5%Begging the Question2.6%This article: 8.8%Joe Wilkins: 3.0%Futurism: 3.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)8.8%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.1%Futurism: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.3%Futurism: 1.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 4.3%Futurism: 4.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.9%Joe Wilkins: 2.3%Futurism: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.9%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.0%Futurism: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.2%Futurism: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.3%Futurism: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.6%Futurism: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 3.4%Futurism: 3.9%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 8.1%Joe Wilkins: 2.8%Futurism: 2.6%Quote-first Misdirection8.1%This article: 39.7%Joe Wilkins: 26.8%Futurism: 20.7%Biased Writer Voice39.7%This article: 3.2%Joe Wilkins: 1.8%Futurism: 2.1%Indoctrination3.2%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 5.1%Futurism: 2.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 0.4%Futurism: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Joe Wilkins: 1.5%Futurism: 1.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

431 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech349writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 50 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageSusan Anenberg • 47 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Anenberg • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSusan Anenberg • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Susan Anenberg

100%flagged-word coverage
82 attributed words100% of attributed speech95% writer coverage
0%25.0%50.0%Biased Writer Voice-49.0 ptsWriter: 49.0%Susan Anenberg: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination+17.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Susan Anenberg: 17.1%17.1%Quote-first Misdirection-10.0 ptsWriter: 10.0%Susan Anenberg: 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.