President Donald Trump ignited controversy on Friday by abruptly firing the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Dr. Erika McEntarfer, after the release of disappointing employment figures. Without providing any evidence, the president accused the agency’s data of being manipulated and claimed the numbers were inaccurate.
In a lengthy post on social media, Trump announced that he had directed his team to dismiss Dr. McEntarfer, a Senate-confirmed official who had assumed the role of BLS commissioner in 2024. The decision came just hours after the BLS published a report showing unexpectedly sluggish job growth for July and significant downward revisions for the previous two months.
Later that evening, Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner at the agency, confirmed the firing and stated that Deputy Commissioner William Wiatrowski would temporarily step in as acting commissioner.
The July report revealed that employers had added just 73,000 jobs, a figure much lower than what analysts had forecast. Even more striking was the downward revision of 258,000 jobs from May and June combined. While such revisions are part of standard statistical adjustments, the scale of the reduction took many by surprise. Economists began interpreting the data as a potential sign that Trump’s economic policies might be weakening the labor market. Nevertheless, Trump insisted in follow-up posts that the economy remained strong, proclaiming, “We’re doing GREAT!”
Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer took to social media in support of the president’s decision, reinforcing his criticism of McEntarfer and echoing skepticism about the integrity of the report.
Speaking to reporters later in the day, Trump stood by his decision, accusing the BLS figures of being “phony.” “So I fired her,” he said, referring to McEntarfer. “And it was the right thing to do.”
McEntarfer was appointed by President Joe Biden in 2023 and brought with her decades of experience in federal statistics, including time at the U.S. Census Bureau. Her nomination received bipartisan support, with even Republicans such as current Vice President J.D. Vance (then a U.S. Senator) voting to confirm her.
The president’s decision to remove McEntarfer triggered immediate backlash from economists, former government officials, and data professionals who warned that the move could undermine the credibility of government-produced statistics. The Bureau of Labor Statistics is widely relied upon by policymakers, financial markets, and businesses for accurate, nonpartisan economic data. It not only tracks employment figures but also publishes reports on inflation, wages, and productivity.
William Beach, who led the BLS during Trump’s first term, expressed concern about the decision. “It’s a troubling development,” Beach said. “This could establish a dangerous precedent where unfavorable data leads to dismissals.” He noted that during his tenure under both Trump and Biden, he had never been pressured to alter or manipulate data. Beach emphasized that the commissioner cannot directly interfere with revisions, which are handled by long-standing career employees.
Erica Groshen, who served as BLS commissioner under President Barack Obama, also voiced strong opposition to the firing. She characterized the decision as a major blow to the integrity of federal data and called on the administration to reconsider. “It sets a terrible precedent and threatens public trust in our entire statistical system,” Groshen said.
Although McEntarfer’s early days at the agency were marred by missteps—such as an incident where some Wall Street firms accessed labor data before public release—those issues did not involve the reliability of the data itself.
Friday’s job report was the catalyst for her removal. But analysts say the broader issue may be Trump’s discomfort with negative headlines about the economy. Over time, the president has repeatedly targeted federal agencies, researchers, and oversight bodies that have produced findings he deems unfavorable. These actions have led many to fear increased political interference in the operation of the nation’s data institutions.
Until recently, most economists and former officials believed the BLS and similar statistical organizations operated independently. Their trust stemmed in part from experienced leaders like McEntarfer, who were seen as safeguards against politicization. “If political pressure gets too strong, you’ll see people resigning before they doctor the numbers,” said Beach.
Trump’s dismissal of McEntarfer is widely seen as eroding confidence in the impartiality of government data. Martha Gimbel, the executive director at Yale’s Budget Lab and a former Biden administration staffer, said, “If your goal is to destroy public faith in labor statistics, firing the very person entrusted with ensuring their credibility is certainly a step in that direction.”
Dr. McEntarfer has not issued a public statement since her firing.
At the core of the dispute is the data released on Friday, which not only reflected weak July job growth but also major revisions to earlier figures. While month-to-month changes are typical, the scale of the adjustment was notable. Many experts saw the revisions as an honest correction rather than a political maneuver.
Stephen Miran, chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered a contrasting perspective on the jobs report. Speaking on CNBC, he attributed the revisions to statistical irregularities in seasonal adjustments and suggested that immigration policies might have also influenced recent hiring trends. Miran described the July report as “decent” and made no claims of data manipulation.
Later that evening, National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett attempted to frame McEntarfer’s dismissal as a move toward restoring public faith. “The jobs numbers have been concerning for some time,” Hassett said in an interview with Fox Business. “Bringing in new leadership could help figure out what’s really going on.”
Despite these claims, Trump’s critics argue that the president has yet to provide any proof of wrongdoing by McEntarfer. His posts included contradictory and inaccurate claims, including one about a significant job revision from the previous year.
Trump alleged that the BLS had announced a major downward revision of job growth “right after the election.” In reality, the agency released that information nearly three months before Election Day. At the time, Trump himself commented publicly on the revision, branding it a “MASSIVE SCANDAL.”
Experts say these revisions are standard and reflect the agency’s commitment to incorporating the most accurate data as it becomes available. Last August, the BLS announced that job totals had been overestimated by around 818,000 for the prior 12 months. While large, such revisions are part of routine methodological updates. In the final revision, that overcount was revised down to around 600,000 jobs.
To many, this demonstrates that the agency operates without political bias and is willing to publish inconvenient data under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Michael Strain, an economist at the American Enterprise Institute, said, “Trump’s accusations of anti-Trump bias in the labor data are completely baseless.” He added that while the revision was unusually large, it wasn’t suspicious. “This is a normal part of the statistical process.”
Statistical agencies across the federal government have faced increasing challenges in recent years. Americans have become more hesitant to respond to surveys, which are the foundation for most of the country’s economic data. At the same time, these agencies have been grappling with tighter budgets, making it harder to adapt to changing conditions or develop alternative data collection methods.
These struggles began before Trump returned to office but have been exacerbated during his current term. The federal hiring freeze he imposed, along with early-term buyouts, has led to staffing shortages. His proposed budget cuts would further strain the agencies’ ability to collect high-quality data.
In June, the BLS announced that it was scaling back its collection of consumer price data due to limited resources. Economists expressed concern that such reductions could degrade the reliability of inflation statistics. These figures are vital in determining key financial benchmarks, such as interest rates, wage negotiations, and Social Security adjustments.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell weighed in on the issue during a press conference on Wednesday. While affirming that the central bank still receives the data it needs, he emphasized the value of government-produced statistics. “Government data remains the gold standard,” Powell said. “We rely on it and need it to be reliable.”
Source
