Trump is losing his war on wind power ⁠33%

By John Timmer⁠51%

8/7/2026, 5:58:04 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Post Hoc (False Cause) as the most egregious example at 22.1% saturation with 63 hits. Analysis detected 456 faulty-reasoning hits from 285 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.3% and a BS Rank of ⁠33% (20,368 of 30,209 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 67.40% of the article peer group.

On Thursday, a US District Court in Oregon ordered the US government to restart the process of approving wind projects. 
All new wind development in the US has been on hold since August of 2025, when the Department of Defense (DoD) stopped participating in a process that allows it to compel developers to alter projects in order to limit their interference with radar equipment. 
The court ruled, however, that the DoD's national security claims did not allow it to opt out of a process that is legally mandated. 
The Trump administration has made many attempts to block wind development, both offshore and land based. 
Its attempts to stop offshore wind included the same approach at issue in this case: Claim that drone developments mean that radar interference by wind turbines creates a national security risk . 
The courts were not sympathetic to this claim, including in cases where judges examined a classified report that the DoD was using to justify blocking offshore wind construction. 
As a result, the administration has turned to paying companies not to pursue wind development. 
In parallel, the government was pursuing a similar approach for onshore wind. 
Here, a law lays out a process for the DoD to evaluate any problems posed by wind turbines and negotiate changes to planned wind farms with the developers. 
As laid out in the new decision, the government simply stopped participating in this process in August 2025, first by refusing to sign off on previously negotiated agreements, and later by refusing to draft agreements entirely. 
Eventually, it simply refused to participate in negotiations at all. 
This has brought a halt to all wind development in the US. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 14.0%John Timmer: 4.0%Ars Technica: 2.4%Confirmation Bias14.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.1%Ars Technica: 2.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 9.8%John Timmer: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic9.8%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.2%Ars Technica: 2.0%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 14.0%John Timmer: 1.8%Ars Technica: 2.9%Framing Effect14.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 15.4%John Timmer: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.4%Status Quo Bias15.4%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.8%Ars Technica: 3.7%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 2.5%Ars Technica: 1.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%John Timmer: 8.2%Ars Technica: 5.8%Negativity Bias16.1%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.5%Ars Technica: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.7%Ars Technica: 1.7%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 12.6%John Timmer: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.9%Recency Bias12.6%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.4%Ars Technica: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.5%Ars Technica: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.7%Ars Technica: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 18.2%John Timmer: 3.4%Ars Technica: 3.5%Appeal to Authority18.2%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.2%Ars Technica: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.9%Ars Technica: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 4.2%John Timmer: 6.0%Ars Technica: 3.2%Hasty Generalization4.2%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.3%Ars Technica: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.6%Ars Technica: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 4.1%Ars Technica: 2.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 2.8%John Timmer: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.5%Begging the Question2.8%This article: 22.1%John Timmer: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)22.1%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.0%Ars Technica: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.0%Ars Technica: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.2%Ars Technica: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.2%John Timmer: 0.9%Ars Technica: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.2%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.0%Ars Technica: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.5%Ars Technica: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 2.4%Ars Technica: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.1%Ars Technica: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 19.3%John Timmer: 8.1%Ars Technica: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice19.3%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 4.1%Ars Technica: 0.8%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 1.2%Ars Technica: 0.5%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.1%Ars Technica: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%John Timmer: 0.4%Ars Technica: 1.1%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

285 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers32%attributed speech193writer words
100%flagged-word coverage
44 attributed words48% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%15.0%30.0%Biased Writer Voice-28.5 ptsWriter: 28.5%Department of Defense (DoD): 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.