'Terrified Of Written Records': Interior Staffers Are Shredding The Evidence 61%

By Conover Kennard96%

8/8/2026, 12:26:28 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 14 faulty reasoning types, including Ad Hominem, Hasty Generalization, and Anecdotal, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 52.3% saturation with 171 hits. Analysis detected 647 faulty-reasoning hits from 327 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.5% and a BS Rank of 61% (11,919 of 30,213 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 60.60% of the article peer group.

Interior Department staffers are describing a Secretary Doug Burgum operation so allergic to accountability that it's routinely destroying its own paper trail. 
Three current or former officials told Politico that Interior employees have been shredding documents and relying on disappearing Signal messages  both practices that run afoul of the Federal Records Act. 
"They're terrified of written records," one former official said. 
The reporting paints a picture of an agency in freefall: nearly 14% of the workforce has departed under Burgum, including several senior Senate-confirmed and career officials. 
Multiple ex-staffers pointed to chief of staff JoDee Hanson's management style  described as reducing subordinates to tears  as a factor in their decisions to leave. 
A 20-plus-year Interior veteran, Tony Irish, characterized Burgum as combining arrogance with indifference toward career staff expertise. 
The piece also ties this dysfunction to the recently botched effort to prosecute alleged vandals at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, depicting it as part of the larger mismanagement. 
Burgum has continued defending the vandalism narrative, even as Pirro publicly accused him  during a tense, hour-long Oval Office session with Trump on Monday  of dodging blame by hiding the true story behind the botched repairs, per the New York Times. 
Separately, Interior official Karen Budd-Falen is facing her own scrutiny. 
During the first Trump administration, her husband struck a $3.5 million water rights arrangement in Nevada involving his ranch and a lithium mining company that had federal approvals pending before Interior  a financial benefit she never disclosed. 
Now back at Interior since early 2025, she's been shaping grazing and land-management policy despite owning several ranching operations in Wyoming and Nevada, each worth over $1 million, and holding BLM grazing permits. 
The dysfunction Politico notes is actually throughout the Trump administration, starting with the President. 
Just work your way down from there, and you'll see dysfunction and chaos every step of the way. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.0%Conover Kennard: 10.8%Crooks and Liars: 7.8%Confirmation Bias19.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.6%Crooks and Liars: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.5%Conover Kennard: 5.1%Crooks and Liars: 2.7%Availability Heuristic9.5%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.9%Crooks and Liars: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 3.3%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 8.0%Conover Kennard: 13.3%Crooks and Liars: 6.6%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.4%Crooks and Liars: 2.0%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 52.3%Conover Kennard: 17.9%Crooks and Liars: 19.9%Negativity Bias52.3%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 5.8%Crooks and Liars: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.2%Crooks and Liars: 2.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.2%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.4%Crooks and Liars: 2.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 6.7%Conover Kennard: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 3.3%Horn Effect6.7%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 2.9%Crooks and Liars: 1.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.2%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.2%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 26.6%Conover Kennard: 4.5%Crooks and Liars: 12.4%Ad Hominem26.6%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.0%Crooks and Liars: 3.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 3.6%Crooks and Liars: 3.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.8%Crooks and Liars: 2.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 24.8%Conover Kennard: 13.1%Crooks and Liars: 10.0%Hasty Generalization24.8%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 2.0%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 6.6%Crooks and Liars: 9.0%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 5.5%Conover Kennard: 3.2%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Begging the Question5.5%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.9%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 1.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.7%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 4.3%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.1%Composition/Division4.3%This article: 22.9%Conover Kennard: 2.4%Crooks and Liars: 2.3%Anecdotal22.9%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 1.9%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 2.3%Crooks and Liars: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.3%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.6%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.8%Conover Kennard: 3.5%Crooks and Liars: 3.9%Unattributed Quote2.8%This article: 2.8%Conover Kennard: 0.7%Crooks and Liars: 1.6%Quote-first Misdirection2.8%This article: 8.6%Conover Kennard: 27.1%Crooks and Liars: 28.0%Biased Writer Voice8.6%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.5%Crooks and Liars: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 4.3%Conover Kennard: 7.9%Crooks and Liars: 11.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.6%Crooks and Liars: 1.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Conover Kennard: 0.0%Crooks and Liars: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

327 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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