Why Politicizing Economic Data Is Bad For Business

When the nation’s economic scoreboard loses credibility, companies of all sizes pay the price.

Douglas Rissing | iStock

When President Trump fired Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on August 1st, he accused her, without evidence, of producing “phony” and “rigged” jobs numbers. In doing so, he planted a seed of distrust that risks becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even if no data manipulation ever occurs, the perception that economic data can be politically influenced will make the public, businesses, investors and policymakers more likely to question their accuracy.

If future economic reports happen to favor the current administration, suspicion will only grow. Once trust erodes, it will be difficult to win back, causing damage that could outlast any single presidency.

A break from 140 years of tradition

Reliable federal statistics have been a cornerstone of U.S. business advantage for over 140 years. Founded in 1884, the BLS has built a global reputation as the “gold standard” for economic data. It has operated as an independent, non-partisan agency, serving the interests of the country over those of any political party in power. Prior to McEntarfer’s dismissal, no previous BLS commissioner had ever been fired. Many served across multiple administrations, Republican and Democrat alike.

The BLS’s monthly jobs report is one of the most closely watched economic indicators in the world, influencing business planning, global markets, Federal Reserve monetary policy and international economic policy. Last Friday, the agency reported 73,000 jobs were added in July, which was weaker than the 100,000 to 110,000 anticipated by most economists. Furthermore, the job estimates for May and June were revised down by a combined 258,000 jobs, which was the largest two-month downward revision outside of a recession, according to Goldman Sachs.

In reaction to this report, President Trump removed McEntarfer and dismissed the agency’s work as “wrong” and “a scam,” signaling without any proof that it was done to “make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.” The firing drew immediate concern from economists and former BLS leaders. William Beach, who was appointed by Trump and served as its commissioner from 2019 to 2023, called it a “dangerous precedent” that undermines the agency’s mission.

Firing the BLS commissioner because you don’t like the jobs numbers is like removing the scorekeeper when you don’t like your team’s score. The scorekeeper didn’t design the game plan or play poorly—they simply recorded what happened and reported the results for the benefit of fans, players and coaches alike.

If team owners could influence scorekeeping, fans would lose interest, players would be demoralized and sponsors would back away as public trust collapses. The same dynamic applies to economic data. Once people believe the numbers are being influenced, confidence erodes and the entire system suffers.

Challenging the integrity of this data puts future commissioners in a no-win situation. If upcoming numbers are strong, critics may suspect they were manipulated. If they are weak, they may invite retaliation from the executive branch. Over time, this dynamic encourages the very politicization that the firing was supposed to combat. For a nation that has long prided itself on the reliability of its government statistics, we are now entering uncharted, stormy waters.

The controversial nomination of a BLS critic

If President Trump wanted to quell fears about politicizing the BLS, his nomination of EJ Antoni as its next commissioner had the opposite effect. Antoni, who is a conservative economist at the Heritage Foundation and a contributor to the Project 2025 initiative, is an outspoken critic of the agency. In the past, he said the monthly jobs reports were like a “random number generator”, claimed “DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) needs to take a chainsaw to the BLS” and suggested suspending the monthly reporting until it could be made more accurate.

Supporters of the nomination feel Antoni could help modernize the agency’s antiquated methodologies and address conservative concerns about its economic numbers. His critics question his highly partisan profile and lack of deep statistical/methodological expertise over political commentary experience. Antoni is expected to face a high level of scrutiny during the Senate confirmation hearings. McEntarfer drew bi-partisan support for her confirmation with 86 votes in favor and only 8 opposed. Antoni’s past rhetoric against the BLS may limit his appeal beyond party lines.

While the confirmation process will be contested and bumpy, Antoni’s appointment is more or less assured since the GOP controls the Senate (53-to-47). For businesses relying on BLS data for planning, Antoni’s appointment signals a shift from technical expertise to political alignment in agency leadership.

Why businesses should care

Whether your organization depends directly or indirectly on BLS data, the danger of political interference could impact you in several ways if trust in the numbers is eroded:

• Impaired market intelligence. Without reliable government data on employment, wages, productivity and prices, it will be harder to assess market conditions and identify customer needs. For example, it will be harder to identify retail locations or tailor product and service offerings to market trends.
• Increased business risk. Unreliable government data amplifies operational, financial and strategic risk factors for firms. Without reliable economic indicators, organizations will lose valuable inputs for workforce planning, pricing strategies and capital investments.
• Barriers to funding and investment. Investors and lenders rely on government economic data for assessing risk and performing due diligence. If the data integrity is compromised, capital will be more expensive and harder to access.
• Ineffective planning and forecasting. Economic data on employment, inflation and productivity trends are critical input for projecting future scenarios. Without trusted data, businesses will struggle to forecast demand and plan their operations, leading to overstocking, understaffing or missed sales opportunities.
• Missed policy opportunities. Having a shared data foundation between businesses and policymakers is essential for effective advocacy on regulations, tax policies and economic programs. When data becomes politically contested, the business community loses its ability to make evidence-based policy arguments.
• Harder to navigate uncertainty. Businesses face an increasingly complex environment filled with federal spending cuts, international tariffs and AI in the workplace. Without reliable data, many will be forced to take more conservative, risk-averse strategies, which will hurt innovation and slow growth.

If flagship datasets like the jobs or Consumer Price Index (CPI) reports become viewed as politicized, skepticism will spread across all federal statistics like a virus. The ability for organizations to inform decisions, reduce risk and seize opportunities will be muted. Larger firms can compensate by investing in private market data, but small and midsize businesses will be left with less insight, higher uncertainty and greater risk.

A global perspective

Around the world, other major economies have taken steps to safeguard their statistical agencies from political interference. The European Union’s statistical office, Eurostat, operates under a legal framework that explicitly protects its independence. Canada, Australia and the United Kingdom follow similar protections that align with global standards set by the International Labor Organization (ILO). Unlike in the United States, statistical agency commissioners in these countries cannot be fired simply for producing unfavorable economic data.

In contrast, the United States relies largely on professional norms and executive branch policies to preserve objectivity. Previous administrations have consistently respected these boundaries even when economic data didn’t shine the most convenient light on their policies and performance. The BLS adheres to the Office of Management and Budget’s Statistical Policy Directive No. 1, which promises relevance, accuracy, objectivity and accessibility, but this is policy, not law. Any administration can change or ignore it.

The BLS’s longstanding norms and internal policies will be stress-tested like never before. There’s a very real chance they may not survive mounting partisan pressure without more robust legal protections.

A five-point plan to restore and protect trust

In modern democracies like the United States, data is not merely a byproduct of governance—it is the infrastructure of truth that businesses and citizens depend on. Without adequate protective measures, any administration—Republican or Democrat—could suppress inconvenient statistics, prioritize partisan studies or quietly shift survey methodologies. They could also influence staffing decisions or frame data in misleading ways. Safeguarding the BLS ensures all businesses, investors, policymakers and voters can trust the nation’s economic scoreboard. The following measures would help achieve this public trust:

1. Modernize to reduce volatility and revisions. Improve data collection by supplementing traditional surveys with secure online methods, administrative records and other digital sources to address declining response rates and reduce large revisions.
2. Restore disbanded advisory panels. Reinstate the expert committees that were disbanded last February so they can continue to guide methodology improvements, strengthen innovation and provide independent oversight.
3. Lock in release schedules by law. Enshrine the existing release times for principal economic indicators in a statute to prevent delays or strategic timing. This would ensure nothing can be changed or adjusted without Congress’s consent.
4. Codify transparent methodology change logs. Legally require advance public notice, impact estimates and historical restatements when definitions or calculations change.
5. Introduce statutory independence. Give the BLS legal insulation similar to the Federal Reserve, with fixed-term leadership removable only “for cause” such as misconduct or incapacity. This would represent an ambitious structural change and would likely face the strongest political resistance.

These steps would not only protect the BLS but set a precedent for safeguarding all 13 principal federal statistical agencies from political interference. These reforms would also give businesses greater confidence that the economic data flowing from the BLS can be trusted for critical planning and investment decisions. In light of the Antoni nomination, the urgency of these protections has only increased. The next commissioner will take office under heightened scrutiny and a fractured trust environment, which is precisely when these strong structural protections are most needed.

Accuracy over “fairness”

In discussing the jobs report after firing McEntarfer, President Trump said, “Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate, they can’t be manipulated for political purposes.” Few would disagree with the need for accuracy and freedom from manipulation. But “fair” is a troublesome word because it is ultimately subjective. One administration’s idea of fairness may be another’s distortion.

Economic data should not be shaped to appear fair. It should be accurate, objective and transparent. Once we begin altering the numbers to match political narratives, we are no longer describing reality—we are manufacturing it. In that moment, trust collapses, and the statistical infrastructure of truth becomes a platform for propaganda and misinformation.

Instead of providing the reliable foundation businesses need for planning and investment, our economic data would become an added source of uncertainty and risk. Such a scenario would undermine government credibility, destabilize business planning and weaken the nation’s economic competitiveness. That’s bad for business—and the nation. In an era of global economic competition, America cannot afford to forfeit one of its most valuable strategic assets—the world’s trust in our data.