Apparently Reuters did not view it as their job to persuade you with overwhelming evidence that the group is important. It is their job to convey to you who thinks the group is important and who doesn't.
JASON has a wikipedia page, google exists, etc. etc.
> sensationalized headlines like "Trump-era purge"
A headline is absolutely the least important part of an article, but in this case it's descriptive and appropriate so I'm not sure what the problem is. This is the Trump era of the US executive branch and he owns these decisions, whether you like them or not. This is not controversial.
> A headline is absolutely the least important part of an article
On the contrary, its a one sentence summary of an article. If combined with humor, it sticks better. If its too long, it will stick less. If its too sensationalist readers will feel deceived afterwards (and they'll express it). To be fair, it is difficult to make a good headline. Not everyone's cut for it. A good journalist can, but journalism is a race to the bottom and it is hard to compete with masses who lower the standards (seemingly for free thanks to advertisements).
JASON has a wikipedia page, google exists, etc. etc.