Yet more government by whim | Sen. Angus King
King argues that the administration should rely more on evidence, risk analysis and expert advice.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCredibility rates Centralmaine.com, which republished this story. The other scores rate the article itself.
CentralMaine.com is a local news publisher, but this piece is an opinion column by a sitting senator rather than independent reporting. The publication's institutional credibility is distinct from the evidentiary strength of the column.
- Source type — An established local news publisher, a source type generally associated with editorial standards.
- Author attribution — The author is identified, and the piece is explicitly presented as Sen. Angus King's viewpoint.
- Editorial standards — The page provides no specific information about the publisher's standards or corrections practices.
The column clearly presents King's argument and gives examples, but it is a one-sided opinion piece. Its broad claims about decision-making and expert advice are not supported with documents, named sources beyond the officials mentioned, or opposing perspectives.
HOW WE SCORE ↗This is an opinion column advancing King's criticism of the administration. It offers no counterargument or response from the officials whose decisions it discusses.
- Opinion vs reporting — The piece is a first-person argument by a politician, not a report weighing competing accounts.
- Counterarguments presented — No administration response or opposing view is presented.
- Loaded language — The column uses forceful negative characterizations of the administration's decision-making.
The column uses strongly critical language about the Trump administration and frames its decisions as reckless and poorly informed. Its selection of examples and lack of countervailing views give it a clear left-leaning slant.
- Language tone — Uses emphatically critical descriptions, including calling decisions bad ideas and describing the administration's approach as lacking analysis.
- Framing — Frames administration decisions as products of whim and intimidation rather than presenting competing interpretations.
- Source selection — Presents King's claims and examples without responses from the administration or other perspectives.
Republished with credit
Republished from Portland Press Herald, with credit to the original publisher.
76 stories · 78–79 · updated Oct 6, 2026
This is Portland Press Herald's own score, and this article is credited to Portland Press Herald. The host score in the Source Check is Centralmaine.com's.
Sen. Angus King argues that the Trump administration is making major decisions without enough fact-gathering, risk analysis or expert consultation. He points to Iran, trade with Canada and military leadership as examples of what he sees as government by whim.
King says major decisions should involve gathering evidence, weighing risks and benefits, and consulting experts. He argues that the Trump administration does not follow that process and that fear of pushing back has compounded the problem. He cites the administration’s approach to Iran and trade with Canada, and the redesign of an aircraft carrier, as examples.
King says Tulsi Gabbard reportedly warned Trump that bombing Iran would not achieve its stated aims and could lead to the Strait of Hormuz closing. He also argues that Pete Hegseth’s purge of senior military officers has compromised advice from officers familiar with the consequences of a lengthy aircraft-carrier deployment.
Community verdict
3 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →Senator and author criticizing the administration's decision-making process
President criticized for the administration's decision-making
Trump's version of this story ↗
Official whom King says warned Trump about the consequences of bombing Iran
Secretary of Defense criticized for purging senior military officers
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…