President Trump made headlines when he terminated the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics in early August, following job numbers that didn’t meet expectations and changes to earlier reports.
Without any solid evidence, Trump accused BLS commissioner Erika McEntarfer of providing skewed data for political gain.
Experts in economic data caution that it isn’t easy to manipulate labor statistics. McEntarfer’s interim replacement, Bill Wiatrowski, is well-known in the Bureau, prompting many financial analysts to express skepticism about Trump’s ability to influence the figures immediately.
Yet, some commentators have raised red flags. Thomas Friedman of The New York Times referred to the dismissal as the “most dangerous” move by the president, suggesting that the integrity of BLS data could now be compromised.
In light of this situation, after the Union-Tribune’s inquiry reached members of Econometer, Trump nominated E.J. Antoni, a vocal critic of the BLS, for the influential position. His appointment still awaits Senate confirmation.
Economists Weigh in on Data Trustworthiness
Alan Gin, University of San Diego:
YES: The comprehensive team of over 2,000 people working at BLS makes it tough to intentionally manipulate job data. Any attempts at politicking will likely face whistleblowers coming forward. Essentially, a political appointee might only try to spin the data without altering the hard facts.
James Hamilton, UC-San Diego:
YES: For now, I stand by the data. The BLS relies on well-documented procedures, deeply embedded in the agency’s operations, will likely maintain reporting standards in August similar to July’s. However, McEntarfer’s firing gives me pause. If we see a fundamental shift in how data is produced in the upcoming months, I might change my stance.
Norm Miller, University of San Diego:
YES: Trustworthiness remains as long as solid checks and balances are in play, although normal data adjustments happen as newer information arrives. If figures seem overly optimistic and later prove incorrect, public confidence in BLS will dwindle, raising curiosity towards alternative sources like ADP and LinkedIn.
David Ely, San Diego State University:
YES: The current infrastructure and skilled personnel at BLS offer a level of reliability in the immediate future. The larger concern lies in whether BLS will get adequate funding to update its methods and retain valuable staff. Consistent underfunding could lead to fewer reliable economic statistics.
Ray Major, economist:
YES: The existing data might be as credible as before, but we still need enhancements in methodology to cover the evolving workforce landscape, particularly regarding small businesses and gig work. Only about 65% of surveyed companies contribute, which raises accuracy issues.
Caroline Freund, UC-San Diego:
NO: Trust is slow-won yet can dissipate rapidly. For BLS data to be credible: they need qualified personnel, independence free of political concerns, and resources devoted to data collection. Now, with potentially biased leadership and dwindling resources, my confidence in their figures is shattered and must be regained.
Kelly Cunningham, San Diego Institute for Economic Research:
YES: While estimates are approximated, revisions usually provide better accuracy in reflecting reality. Initial figures are sometimes manipulated due to inherent biases. Subsequent corrections are often not highlighted as they were initially reported.
Executives Share Views on Data Integrity
Bob Rauch, R.A. Rauch & Associates:
YES: BLS data drives decisions of businesses and policymakers. If politicization becomes perceived, confidence in these numbers could falter. Standard revisions reflect achievement in data accuracy over time alongside practices of seasoned statisticians adhering to transparent methodologies that won’t be swayed by a new commissioner.
Gary London, London Moeder Advisors:
NO: This dismissal is both misguided and politically charged. Thus, we’ve entered a phase of disbelief regarding facts from the Trump administration. Trusting future BLS reports can’t come easily right now, even though data compilation could benefit from modernization processes.
Austin Neudecker, Weave Growth:
NO: Allegations of political manipulation and the firings were purely derived from unfavorable reports. Punishing officials diminishes trust and calls into question the credibility of upcoming reports. While the data may initially safeguard against infringements, perceptions around manipulation saturate the atmosphere. Analysts recommend consulting varying data alongside BLS figures.
Chris Van Gorder, Scripps Health:
YES: Recognizing that BLS data draws from numerous experts ensures unique viewpoints widely dispersed through statistical oversight. Should qualified staff hold their positions, I expect continuous accuracy. Lamentably, if the head isn’t suited for their role, then concerns will manifest as they have in prior positions and market dynamics will adjust.
Jamie Moraga, Franklin Revere:
YES: The team verifying BLS numbers remains robust, assuring thorough checks prop up the overall process so political bias infrequently resurfaces in what are primarily try to be accurate reports. However, given recent trust challenges, skepticism lies in determining their future dependability.
Phil Blair, Manpower:
NO: The reaction to uncomfortable messages should not befall those emitting truthful reports. Allowing personal interests to disrupt this essential reporting process undermines its independence.
©2025 The San Diego Union-Tribune. Visit sandiegouniontribune.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.
