Accurate information on employment market and inflation data is crucial for policymakers in the United States. This information forms the core mission of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). In recent years, there has been public skepticism about the reliability and potential biases in the employment data published by this federal agency.
On September 9, the Bureau of Labor Statistics made the largest data revision in history, downwardly adjusting the annual job growth figures by a retrospective 911,000 positions as of March 2025. This revision further intensified public doubts.
The Trump administration criticized this revision, as it showed a decrease of nearly 76,000 monthly job additions compared to initial reports, most of which occurred during the Biden administration’s term in office.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated in a September 9 press release, “President Trump was right: the Biden administration’s economic record has been a disaster, and the Bureau of Labor Statistics is flawed.”
On the same day, President Trump posted on the Truth Social platform, quoting Jay Hatfield, the CEO of Infrastructure Capital Advisors based in New York, who stated on Fox Business, “The entire Bureau of Labor Statistics has problems. It needs fixing. They need to adopt modern sources of information.”
Hatfield mentioned that if the Federal Reserve had followed their data, they should have raised rates as early as the beginning of 2021.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics plays a crucial role in formulating monetary policies for the Federal Reserve, as its monthly reports on job growth, unemployment rates, and wages directly influence the Fed’s view on the labor market. Strong job data could prompt the Fed to raise rates to curb inflation, while weak data could lead to rate cuts to stimulate economic growth.
Experts have emphasized the importance of the accuracy and credibility of BLS data, as these decisions directly impact borrowing costs for households and businesses, including mortgages, car loans, and commercial financing. Inaccurate data could mislead policymakers and disrupt markets, affecting economic activities.
The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a think tank based in Washington, DC, whose research focuses on labor and employment issues, pointed out that the recent revision stemmed from outdated methods used by the Bureau of Labor Statistics to estimate job growth.
Sean Higgins, a researcher at CEI, told The Epoch Times, “The operations of this system are almost like a pre-digital age simulation. They simply send out survey questionnaires to businesses and then wait for the responses.”
He also mentioned that the BLS sends staff for on-site statistical sampling, conducting interviews with businesses to inquire about salary disbursements and monthly performance.
“This data may not necessarily be bad data, but it is indeed crucial data that reflects the overall economic situation,” he stated.
President Trump expressed dissatisfaction with the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) since August 1, when the agency reported that the U.S. economy added only 73,000 jobs in July, significantly below economists’ expectations. The announcement also revised down job data for May and June, totaling a decrease of 253,000 positions.
President Trump hinted that job data had been “manipulated for political purposes.”
On August 1, President Trump wrote on Truth Social, “I just learned that our country’s ’employment data’ was fabricated by Dr. Erika McEntarfer, the BLS director appointed by Biden, who falsified employment data before the election to try to boost [Democratic presidential candidate] Hillary’s chances.”
Subsequently, President Trump dismissed McEntarfer and nominated E.J. Antoni, the Chief Economist of The Heritage Foundation based in Washington, DC, to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Antoni has long been critical of various practices of BLS.
Antoni, during an interview with American Thought Leaders host Jan Jekielek in June, stated, “I care more about the living standards of American families and the cost of living rather than these official figures claimed by the government.”
The United States Bureau of Labor Statistics is a federal agency under the Department of Labor responsible for releasing a series of data on labor market, prices, and productivity. Apart from labor statistics, it also releases crucial inflation reports, including the Consumer Price Index (CPI) and Producer Price Index (PPI).
The BLS gathers data from private and public entities in the U.S. and releases the monthly nonfarm payroll report on the first Friday of each month at 8:30 AM Eastern Time, formally known as the Employment Situation Summary.
This report is based on two main data sources: the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey and the Current Population Survey (CPS).
The CES survey provides data on employment conditions by industry, average weekly hours, and hourly earnings. It covers approximately 121,000 businesses and government agencies nationwide, tracking over 630,000 nonfarm job locations.
In contrast, the CPS, or household survey, interviews around 60,000 households to gather information on unemployment rates, labor force participation, and types of employment such as full-time, part-time, and self-employment.
Both surveys are conducted via various means such as phone calls, emails, and mail.
Following data collection, BLS officials review the data, make corrections, clarify information, and report statistical discrepancies. After the initial data processing, officials also consider factors like seasonal hiring trends and data adjustments.
The monthly reports provide employment data for the previous month as well as revisions to previously released employment figures.
Higgins explained that delays occur in receiving survey data and other adjustments during the statistical process, slowing down the entire statistical process. Hence, there are valid reasons to doubt the accuracy and reliability of monthly data.
However, Higgins noted that the recent revisions by the BLS were not politically motivated. He explained that collecting monthly data is a “very difficult task.”
“In fact, many companies shut down directly, while new ones sprang up. It’s very challenging to track these changes and adjust based on them,” he said.
Additionally, he pointed out that the gig economy includes non-traditional jobs, such as driving for Uber or Lyft.
While significant discrepancies in statistics have occurred regularly over the years, the most significant and enduring revisions that emerged during and after the COVID-19 pandemic have raised widespread concerns.
Initially, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported drastic fluctuations in job data at the onset of the pandemic due to the rapid rebound following mass unemployment. Many initial data points were later revised as delayed survey responses from businesses arrived, reflecting the challenges in capturing real-time labor market dynamics during economic turmoil.
To more accurately reflect employment conditions, the BLS annually releases preliminary benchmark revision data.
For the past 90 years, the agency has conducted annual benchmark revisions to produce accurate labor trends using more comprehensive datasets. Over the past 30 years, BLS officials have compared monthly employment data with the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW) data, which includes information from quarterly unemployment insurance tax filings.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics’ latest report stated that job growth in the U.S. from April 2024 to March 2025 was overestimated by 911,000 positions. This means that the data was revised down by 37% from the initial estimate of 2.4 million new jobs, equivalent to 0.6% of total employment—compared to a ten-year average of 0.2%.
For the overestimation of job growth, BLS attributed it to “response and non-response errors by employers in the statistical process.”
The agency explained, “First, the employment numbers reported by employers to the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages are lower than those reported to the Current Employment Statistics survey (response error). Second, the employment numbers reported by non-responding employers selected to participate in the CES survey are lower than those reported by responding employers (non-response error).”
Moreover, a key challenge faced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics is the declining response rate. Since April 2015, the response rate has decreased from 61% to around 43%.
In fact, similar revisions have occurred in previous years.
From April 2023 to March 2024, the Bureau of Labor Statistics revised job growth data downward by 818,000, a 30% decrease. Additionally, during the period from April 2022 to March 2023, BLS officials found 306,000 fewer job positions than initially reported.
Following the release of the preliminary benchmark revision, U.S. Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer issued a press release, pledging to modernize the data collection system to seek solutions.
“These reports form the basis for economic forecasts and major policy decisions. Given this, such significant and prolonged errors cannot be tolerated,” she said.
“During the Biden administration, BLS leadership failed to improve operations and used outdated methods to collect data, leading to a breakdown of the once reliable system. The motivations behind this inaction are also questionable.”
The internal oversight agency of the U.S. Department of Labor confirmed in a letter on September 10 that the Office of the Inspector General is initiating a review of the challenges faced by the Bureau of Labor Statistics in collecting and reporting “critical economic data,” including inflation and employment.
Nancy Tengler, the CEO and CIO of Laffer Tengler Investments based in Arizona, also expressed skepticism over the reliability of all other data while acknowledging the daunting task of calculating national employment figures.
“In short, the process is fraught with areas to question, at the very least,” she stated in an email to The Epoch Times.
House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Rep. Jason Smith (R-MO), believes that Americans are suffering from high interest rates because the Federal Reserve made decisions based on inflated job data.
In a statement on September 12, Smith said, “If the Federal Reserve has been making rate decisions based on preliminary data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, then the Fed should do a major correction for the American families losing out due to high rates.”
When the U.S. central bank paused its easing cycle in January following three consecutive rate cuts, policymakers argued that they had the ability to remain “patient” with rate cuts.
The Fed stated that as the U.S. economic outlook remained robust and the labor market continued to show strength, they could delay further rate cuts and assess the impact of President Trump’s tariff policies on the economy, especially inflation trends.
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell told reporters at a news conference in May, “The labor market in the U.S. has been solid, and inflation remains low. We can afford to be patient. Currently, our patience has no real costs.”
Neel Kashkari, President of the Minneapolis Fed, stated in a June speech that in the comprehensive trade agenda, policymakers are seeking clearer signals in monetary policy.
“The Fed has largely remained on hold, and our view is that we need a clearer understanding of how all this impacts the economy before we can determine how tariffs may affect inflation,” he said.
However, some policymakers have already issued warnings about the slowdown in job growth and urged immediate rate cuts.
Since June, Federal Reserve Board Governor Christopher Waller has been saying that it’s time to shift policy direction. He noted that there is no inflation from tariffs in the U.S. currently, and the job situation is deteriorating.
In a statement on August 1, Waller defended his dissenting opinion at the July Federal Open Market Committee meeting, stating, “The last reason I advocate for cutting rates now is that even though the labor market appears good on the surface, if we consider the data corrections expected, wage growth in the private sector has nearly stagnated, and other data show increasing downside risks in the labor market.”
Waller argued that current data indicates that the policy rate should be around 3% rather than the current range of 4.25% to 4.5%.
Dan Varroney, President and CEO of Potomac Core Consulting based in Virginia and author of the new book “Rethinking Economic Growth,” agreed with calls by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for more aggressive rate cuts by the Federal Reserve.
“Yes, absolutely. It’s true,” Varroney told The Epoch Times.
Varroney stated that the Fed policymakers waited 12 to 14 months before raising rates in 2022 and that they have delayed the need for action in loosening monetary policy.
The federal funds rate is a key policy rate that affects borrowing costs for businesses, consumers, and government.
According to data from the FedWatch Tool by the CME Group, Wall Street generally expects the Fed to cut its target range of 4.25% to 4.5% by a quarter point at the policy meeting on September 16-17.
During the Federal Reserve’s annual retreat in Jackson Hole, Wyoming, Chairman Powell signaled a shift in monetary policy direction.
On August 22, Powell stated, “Changes in risk balances may require us to adjust our policy stance.”
Varroney endorsed calls by President Trump and Treasury Secretary Bessent for the Fed to accelerate and adopt more proactive rate-cutting measures.
The futures market currently anticipates two more rate cuts before the end of the year, each by 25 basis points.
For months, President Trump has been urging Powell to lower rates, believing that doing so would boost the U.S. economy and save the federal government billions of dollars in interest costs annually.
“Jerome ‘Too Late’ Powell should have lowered rates a long time ago. That’s all he ever was, ‘Too Late!'” President Trump wrote in a post on Truth Social on September 5. The sluggish August U.S. job report indicated that the economy added only 22,000 jobs, significantly dropping from the previous month.
While President Trump has confirmed that he will not dismiss Powell before his term ends in May 2026, the Trump administration is still searching for his successor.
President Trump recently unveiled three main candidates for the Fed chairmanship, including former Federal Reserve Board member Kevin Warsh, current Fed Governor Christopher Waller, and Kevin Hassett, the National Economic Council head.
President Trump has expressed his desire to appoint a candidate more inclined towards rate cuts.
The article was originally published in the English edition of The Epoch Times.