Former president Donald Trump called for the immediate firing of Erika McEntarffer after the Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) was accused of rendering inaccurate employment data.
McEntarffer was appointed in 2023 by President Joe Biden and took office head of the agency in January 2024. Practically speaking, it can be assumed that McEntarffer’s term of office for a politically appointed position would go through a very political four-year term, cut short by a mere reservation of the current administration to revoke her position.
Trump demanded her resignation after this week’s release of jobs data, which pointed to weaker job growth than previously estimated. According to the revised numbers, there were only 73,000 new jobs added in July. But more importantly, revisions to May and June numbers showed that the job gains were overstated by 258,000. He used the downward revisions to allege that political bias had affected the reported numbers, declaring they were “manipulated” and calling for McEntarffer to be replaced by someone “more competent and qualified”.
Trump Excoriates ‘Manipulated’ Job Numbers Within the Market Reaction
On his platform Truth Social, Trump wrote: “No one can be that wrong? We need accurate Jobs Numbers.” He insisted that these critical economic indicators must remain nonpartisan and transparent, weighing on the public conscience and financial markets.
It did happen that job reports were able to sway the stock market. After the discouraging data, major U.S. indexes sunk about 1.5% on Friday. The unemployment rate also slightly increased to 4.2%, though still at historical low levels.
For a long time, the BLS has commanded respect as a nonpartisan establishment, filled primarily with career civil servants. While the revision of job numbers as new information becomes available isn’t unheard of, such politically charged revisionism in the midst of an election season is becoming more and more frequent.
Despite what Trump says, the majority of economists and market analysts generally have trust in BLS data. Though sizeable, revisions of that nature usually occur by the book and are best explained by the late reporting of business activities than by political motives.
Once more, the public targeting of the BLS director brings more tension to what a highly political situation was already. Whether the White House acts on Trump’s call for her removal remains to be seen, but either way it serves as a reminder of how tenuous the balance between politics and public economic data is.
