The article makes several factual claims regarding the Trump administration's actions on nicotine regulation, including the rollback of Biden-era policies. It mentions a proposed FDA rule to limit nicotine in cigarettes to 0.7 mg/g, which aligns with historical proposals. However, the narrative framing this as solely a Biden-era initiative overlooks that the idea originated under Trump's FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb. Additionally, the claim about Brian King's removal from his FDA position and its connection to tobacco policies lacks direct evidence, requiring further verification. The article accurately reflects expert criticisms of Biden's policies but does not substantiate claims about their political impact on Biden and Harris's campaigns.

The article predominantly presents perspectives critical of Biden's tobacco policies, featuring voices like Rich Marianos and Peter Brennan, who argue these policies harm small businesses and fuel illicit markets. While it provides a platform for these criticisms, it lacks balanced representation by not including counterarguments from public health experts or Biden administration officials who might defend the regulations. This creates an impression of bias towards Trump's regulatory approach and against Biden's policies, limiting the diversity of viewpoints presented.

The article is generally clear in its language and structure, presenting its main points in a straightforward manner. The narrative is easy to follow, with a logical progression from discussing the proposed nicotine rule to the broader implications of regulatory changes. However, the tone leans towards advocacy rather than neutral reporting, which may impact the perceived objectivity. Despite this, the article effectively communicates its key arguments, though it could benefit from clearer delineation between opinion and fact.

The article relies on statements from individuals like Rich Marianos and Peter Brennan, whose positions lend some credibility to their critiques. However, it lacks a broader range of authoritative sources such as public health experts or FDA officials who could provide a more comprehensive view. The absence of direct quotes from current FDA representatives or Biden administration officials weakens the overall source quality, as it relies heavily on perspectives aligned with the article's narrative.

The article does not provide detailed information on how claims are sourced or the methodology behind the assertions made by quoted experts. It lacks transparency about potential conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the affiliations of quoted sources like the New England Convenience Store & Energy Marketers Association. Furthermore, the article does not clarify how it obtained information about Brian King's removal or the specific impacts of Biden's policies on political campaigns, leading to a lack of clarity in the basis of these claims.