Rejecting jobs report, Trump doubles down on discrediting unfavorable data
When the corona virus surged during President Donald Trump's first term, he sought to downplay the outbreak by urging fewer tests. After losing the 2020 election, he claimed – without evidence – that the vote was rigged.
And on Friday, faced with a weak July jobs report, Trump followed a familiar pattern: He dismissed the report as 'phony' and fired the official in charge of the data.
Trump has a go-to playbook if the numbers reveal uncomfortable realities, and that's to discredit or conceal the figures and to attack the messenger – all of which can hurt the president's efforts to convince the world that America is getting stronger.
'Our democratic system and the strength of our private economy depend on the honest flow of information about our economy, our government and our society,' said Douglas Elmendorf, a Harvard University professor who was formerly director of the Congressional Budget Office. 'The Trump administration is trying to suppress honest analysis.' The president's strategy carries significant risks for his own administration and a broader economy that depends on politics-free data.
His denouncements threaten to lower trust in government and erode public accountability, and any manipulation of federal data could result in policy choices made on faulty numbers, causing larger problems for both the president and the country.
The White House disputes any claims that Trump wants to hide numbers that undermine his preferred narratives.
It emphasized that Goldman Sachs found that the two-month revisions on the jobs report were the largest since 1968, outside of a recession, and that should be a source of concern regarding the integrity of the data. Trump's aides say their fundamental focus is ensuring that any data gives an accurate view of reality.
Trump has a long history of dismissing data when it reflects poorly on him and extolling or even fabricating more favorable numbers, a pattern that includes his net worth, his family business, election results and government figures: Judge Arthur Engoron ruled in a lawsuit brought by the state of New York that Trump and his company deceived banks, insurers and others by massively overvaluing his assets and exaggerating his net worth on paperwork used in making deals and securing loans.
Trump has claimed that the 2016 and 2020 presidential elections were each rigged. Trump won the 2016 presidential election by clinching the Electoral College, but he lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton, a sore spot that led him to falsely claim that millions of immigrants living in the country illegally had cast ballots.
He lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden but falsely claimed he had won it, despite multiple lawsuits failing to prove his case.
In 2019, as Hurricane Dorian neared the East Coast, Trump warned Alabama that the storm was coming its way. Forecasters pushed back, saying Alabama was not at risk. Trump later displayed a map in the Oval Office that had been altered with a black Sharpie – his signature pen – to include Alabama in the potential path of the storm.
Trump's administration has stopped posting reports on climate change, canceled studies on vaccine access and removed data on gender identity from government sites.
As pandemic deaths mounted, Trump suggested that there should be less testing. 'When you do testing to that extent, you're going to find more people,' Trump said at a June 2020 rally in Oklahoma. 'You're going to find more cases.
So I said to my people, 'Slow the testing down, please.'' While Trump's actions have drawn outcry from economists, scientists and public interest groups, Elmendorf noted that Trump's actions regarding economic data could be tempered by Congress, which could put limits on the president by whom he chooses to lead federal agencies, for example.
'Outside observers can only do so much,' Elmendorf said. 'The power to push back against the president rests with the Congress. They have not exercised that power, but they could.' Kevin Hassett, director of the White House National Economic Council, took aim at the size of the downward revisions in the jobs report (a combined 258,000 reduction in May and June) to suggest that the report had credibility issues.
He said Trump is focused on getting dependable numbers, despite the president linking the issue to politics by claiming the revisions were meant to make Republicans look bad.
'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable,' Hassett said Sunday on NBC News.Jed Kolko, a senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics who oversaw the Census Bureau and Bureau of Economic Analysis during the Biden administration, stressed that revisions to the jobs data are standard. That's because the numbers are published monthly, but not all surveys used are returned quickly enough to be in the initial publishing of the jobs report.
'Revisions solve the tension between timeliness and accuracy,' Kolko said. 'We want timely data because policymakers and businesses and investors need to make decisions with the best data that's available, but we also want accuracy.'
Kolko stressed the importance of ensuring that federal statistics are trustworthy, not just for government policymakers but for the companies trying to gauge the overall direction of the economy when making hiring and investment choices.
'Businesses are less likely to make investments if they can't trust data about how the economy is doing,' he said.
Not every part of the jobs report was deemed suspect by the Trump administration.
Before Trump ordered the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, the White House rapid response social media account reposted a statement by Vice President JD Vance noting that native-born citizens were getting jobs and immigrants were not, drawing from data in the household tables in the jobs report.
Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer also trumpeted the findings on native-born citizens, noting on Fox Business Network's 'Varney & Co.' that they are accounting 'for all of the job growth, and that's key.' During his first run for the presidency, Trump criticized the economic data as being fake, only to fully embrace the positive numbers shortly after he first entered the White House in 2017.
Transparency is value The challenge of reliable data goes beyond economic figures to basic information on climate change and scientific research.
In July, taxpayer-funded reports on the problems climate change is creating for America and its population disappeared from government websites.
The White House initially said NASA would post the reports in compliance with a 1990 law, but the agency later said it would not because any legal obligations were already met by having reports submitted to Congress.
The White House maintains that it has operated with complete openness, posting a picture of Trump on Monday on social media with the caption, 'The Most Transparent President in History.' In the picture, Trump had his back to the camera and was covered in shadows, visibly blocking out most of the light in front of him.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
15 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Who counts in America? Trump wants to decide
Do undocumented immigrants count as people?Anyone watching as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents increasingly bypass due process to detain and deport unauthorised immigrants might assume the Trump administration's answer is a resounding 'no'. Now, regardless of deportation policies, the approximately 11 million unauthorised immigrants in the United States could soon disappear, statistically at least, if Republicans have their way. President Trump recently instructed the US Department of Commerce to prepare for a new census that excludes undocumented immigrants. This marks the latest and boldest attempt by Trump and his congressional allies to alter how the census accounts for unauthorised immigrants. Although not explicitly stated, Trump may be trying to push this off-cycle census through ahead of the 2028 presidential election or even before next year's midterms, which he appears intent on influencing. Assuming Trump was being literal in his social media declaration that 'People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS,' millions could effectively vanish from the official population count. If this incomplete census were used for congressional apportionment, it would reduce representation in Congress and the Electoral College for states with large numbers of unauthorised immigrants. The immediate partisan impact is unclear. According to the Pew Research Center, if non-citizens had been excluded before the 2020 election, California, Florida and Texas would each have lost one congressional seat and Electoral College vote, while Alabama, Minnesota and Ohio would each have gained one. Political gerrymandering would likely shape who benefits from redistricting. Republicans are already aggressively redrawing maps in states like Texas, with possible retaliatory moves in California and other Democrat-led states. Beyond electoral shifts, the broader goal appears to be marginalising undocumented people and punishing 'sanctuary' jurisdictions. This reinforces the Republican narrative that Democrats deliberately tolerate illegal immigration for political gain. Legally, how to count unauthorised immigrants depends on interpreting the Constitution, the framers' intent and the scope of executive authority in conducting the census. Non-citizens have historically been included in the count, and the Supreme Court has never ruled directly on excluding them. However, with a conservative supermajority on the court, there is a real chance the justices could allow it – either by reinterpreting the Constitution's language or deferring to the executive branch. Even if Trump fails to push through a new census, his administration could still suppress the count by other means. During his first term, he tried to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census. The Census Bureau stopped collecting this data from all respondents in 1950 and removed the question entirely by 2000, instead gathering it through separate surveys such as the American Community Survey. Many feared its return would deter participation from undocumented, and even legal, immigrants, leading to an undercount. The Supreme Court blocked the effort in 2019, citing insufficient justification. But it left the door open to future attempts with more credible rationales. Socially, the question of how to count non-citizens recalls earlier and sometimes shameful practices in the United States. For much of its early history, significant groups were denied full recognition in the political system despite living in the country. The Constitution's original enumeration formula stated that state populations would be calculated 'by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all other Persons.' Slave and free states struck the infamous 'three-fifths' compromise, counting enslaved people as three-fifths of a person for congressional and Electoral College apportionment. Meanwhile, 'Indians not taxed' were excluded altogether, as most Native Americans were not considered US citizens despite residing within the country's borders. They were instead seen as members of sovereign nations – such as the Cherokee, Creek or Iroquois – even as their land, rights and dignity were stripped away. Only with the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 were Native Americans granted birthright citizenship and formally included in the population count. These examples show two marginalised non-citizen groups, enslaved Black people and Indigenous Americans, treated in opposite ways: one partially counted, the other excluded. With history offering no clear precedent, today's debate raises valid questions about how non-citizens, including the undocumented, should be represented. One view holds that because only citizens vote, non-citizens should not affect apportionment. The opposing view argues that excluding undocumented immigrants worsens their vulnerability and denies their very existence, even as government policies directly affect their lives. Unauthorised immigrants both use and support public systems. While they are barred from most federal benefits such as Social Security and Medicare, they still access emergency healthcare, school meal programmes and limited housing support. They also factor into education and policing budgets in the communities where they live. At the federal level, immigration policy disproportionately affects states where undocumented residents make up a larger share of the population. At the state level, policies must be shaped with their presence in mind. For example, California now offers food assistance to all elderly residents regardless of immigration status. Undocumented immigrants also contribute to public finances, paying nearly $100bn annually in federal, state and local taxes. This includes more than $30bn for programmes they largely cannot use, such as Social Security, Medicare and unemployment insurance. In 40 of 50 states, they pay higher state and local tax rates than the wealthiest 1 percent. States' economic contributions to the federal budget are directly influenced by these residents. It makes sense, therefore, to acknowledge them through accurate enumeration. The Trump administration is instead enforcing a skewed, incomplete and politically motivated interpretation of its constitutional duties regarding census-taking and apportionment. This approach could also affect other debates with far-reaching implications. The Department of Justice is urging the Supreme Court to fast-track a ruling on Trump's challenge to birthright citizenship. This is another area where the Constitution appears clear. The 14th Amendment affirms that anyone born in the US is a citizen, with few exceptions, such as the children of diplomats. Trump is also seeking to expand the grounds for revoking naturalised citizenship, a penalty currently applied only in rare cases that usually involve fraud. A narrower definition of who 'counts' in the census could fuel arguments for a narrower definition of who counts as a citizen. Similarly, a policy of excluding non-citizens could encourage efforts to strip citizenship from naturalised or US-born residents in order to exclude them as well. The presence of millions of undocumented immigrants reflects an immigration system that has failed under both Democratic and Republican administrations. Until meaningful reform is enacted, pretending these individuals do not exist is a misguided, politicised and harmful response to the reality of their lives within US borders, regardless of how they arrived. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
15 minutes ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump and the global rise of fascist anti-psychiatry
Despite spending more on psychiatric services and prescribing psychiatric medications at a higher rate than almost any other nation, mental health in the United States over the last two decades has only been getting worse. Rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, overdose, chronic disability due to mental health conditions, and loneliness have all been rapidly increasing. No quantity of psychiatric drugs or hospitalisations appears adequate to reverse these trends. Despite this, the US medical and psychiatric establishment has persistently refused to use its substantial political power to demand the transformation of care by expanding non-medical support systems to address the root social causes of mental illness, such as poverty, childhood trauma and incarceration, rather than focusing on reactive treatment via lucrative medication-centric norms. This failing status quo has created an opening for President Donald Trump and Secretary of Health Robert F Kennedy Jr's emerging plans to remake the nation's approach to mental health, with disastrous consequences now coming into focus. Trump and Kennedy have hijacked legitimate anger at a broken system to justify destroying public care infrastructure, including Medicaid, food and housing assistance, harm-reduction and overdose prevention programmes, and suicide-prevention hotlines for LGBTQ youth, while promoting wellness scams and expanding the police state. They focus on the 'threat' supposedly posed by psychiatric medications and call to reopen the asylums that once confined approximately 560,000 people, or one in 295 US residents, in horrific conditions, until protests against their cruelty led to their closure beginning in the 1950s. Trump invokes false claims about mental illness to demonise immigrants, whom he is now hunting via a mass arrest and incarceration campaign. Last month, he signed an executive order that allows police to arrest and forcibly institutionalise poor Americans who are unhoused, deemed mentally ill, or struggling with addiction, effectively incarcerating them for indefinite periods. Trump's order, which also defunds housing-first programmes and harm-reduction services, while criminalising homelessness and encampments, contains no provisions to protect people from abuse or from the political misuse of psychiatric labels and institutionalisation to target his opponents. This raises concerns about risks to LGBTQ youth and other vulnerable groups. It also threatens groups upon which the administration has shown a eugenicist fixation: transgender people, people with autism, and others with disabilities that RFK Jr and Trump have characterised as a threat or burden on society. The order appears to grant the government the power to deem anyone mentally ill or abusing substances, and to confine them indefinitely in any designated treatment facility, without due process. In a context where there is already a profound shortage of psychiatric beds even for short-term treatment, there are no provisions for new funding or regulatory systems to ensure that facilities are therapeutic or humane, rather than violent, coercive warehouses like American asylums of decades past. Trump's allies, including some medical professionals aligned with ideologies of social control and state coercion, may dismiss this as overly pessimistic. But that requires ignoring the fact that Trump's executive order follows Kennedy's proposal for federally funded 'wellness farms', where people, particularly Black youth taking SSRIs (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors primarily used to treat anxiety and depression) and stimulants, would be subjected to forced labour and 're‑parenting' to overcome supposed drug dependence. These proposals revive the legacy of coercive institutions built on forced labour and racialised interventions. Kennedy has also promoted the conspiracy theory that anti-depressants like SSRIs cause school shootings, comparing their risks with heroin, despite a total lack of scientific support for such claims. In his early tenure as health and human services secretary, he has already gutted key federal mental health research and services, including at the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA), Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Given this, it is unclear what kind of 'treatment', other than confinement and cruelty, Trump and RFK Jr plan to deliver in their new asylums. Trump and Kennedy's lies about mental health, cuts to public care and vision for expanding the incarceration of immigrants, homeless people, and anyone they label as mentally ill, worsen mental health while creating more opportunities to profit from preventable suffering, disability and death. These tactics are not new, and their harmful consequences and political motivations are well established. From Hungary to the Philippines, right-wing politicians have deployed similar rhetoric for comparable purposes. In a precedent that likely informs Trump's plan, Brazil's former president, Jair Bolsonaro, attacked psychiatric reformsas leftist indoctrination and defunded successful community mental health services, replacing them with coercive asylum and profit-based models, while advocating pseudoscience linked to evangelical movements. Bolsonaro claimed to defend family values and national identity against globalist medical ideologies, while sacrificing countless Brazilian lives via policies later characterised by the Senate as crimes against humanity. Bolsonaro's record is instructive for anticipating Trump's plans. Trump has made no secret of his admiration for Brazil's disgraced former president and their shared political ideologies. Bolsonaro's reversal of Brazil's internationally recognised psychiatric reform movement, which emphasised deinstitutionalisation, community-based psychosocial care and autonomy, inflicted profound harm. Under his rule, institutionalisation in coercive 'therapeutic communities', often operated by evangelical organisations, with little oversight, and similar to RFK Jr's proposed 'wellness farms', skyrocketed. Investigations revealed widespread abuses in these communities, including forced confinement, unpaid labour, religious indoctrination, denial of medication, and physical and psychological violence. Bolsonaro's government poured large sums into expanding these dystopian asylums while defunding community mental health centres, leaving people with severe mental illness and substance use disorders abandoned to punitive care or the streets. This needless suffering pushed more people into Brazil's overcrowded prisons, where psychiatric care is absent, abuse rampant and systemic racism overwhelming, with Black people accounting for more than 68 percent of the incarcerated population. Bolsonaro's psychiatric agenda enhanced carceral control under the guise of care, reproducing racist and eugenicist hierarchies of social worth under an anti-psychiatry banner of neo-fascist nationalism. Trump and Bolsonaro's reactionary approaches underline a crucial truth: Both psychiatry and critiques of it can serve very different ends, depending on the politics to which they are attached. Far-right politicians often use anti-psychiatry to justify privatisation, eugenics and incarceration. They draw on ideas from the libertarian psychiatrist Thomas Szasz, who argued in the 1960s that mental illness was a 'myth', and called for the abolition of psychiatric institutions. In the US today, these political actors distort Szasz's ideas, ignoring his opposition to coercion, by gutting public mental health services under the guise of 'healthcare freedom'. This leaves vulnerable populations to suffer in isolation, at the hands of police or fellow citizens who feel increasingly empowered to publicly abuse, or even, as seen in the killing of Jordan Neely in New York City, execute them on subways, in prisons, or on the streets. By contrast, critics of psychiatry on the left demand rights to non-medical care, economic security and democratic participation. Thinkers such as Michel Foucault, Frantz Fanon, RD Laing and Ivan Illich advocated for deinstitutionalisation not to abandon people, but to replace coercion with community-led social care that supports rights to individual difference. Their critiques targeted not psychiatry itself, but its use by exploitative, homogenising political systems. To oppose reactionary anti-psychiatry, mental health professionals and politicians cannot simply defend the status quo of over-medicalisation, profit-driven care and the pathologisation of poverty. Millions justifiably feel betrayed by current psychiatric norms that offer little more than labels and pills while ignoring the political causes of their suffering. If the left does not harness this anger towards constructive change, the right will continue to exploit it. The solution is not to shield America's mental health systems from critique, but to insist on an expansive political vision of care that affirms the need for psychiatric support while refusing to treat it as a substitute for the political struggle for social services. This means investing in public housing, guaranteed income, peer-led community care worker programmes, non-police crisis teams and strong social safety nets that address the root causes of distress, addiction and disease. Mental health is fundamentally a political issue. It cannot be resolved with medications alone, nor, as Trump and RFK Jr are doing, by dismantling psychiatric services and replacing them with psychiatric coercion. The fight over mental health policy is a fight over the meaning of society and the survival of democratic ideals in an era where oligarchic power and fascist regimes are attempting to strangle them. Will we respond to suffering with solidarity, or with abandonment and punishment? Will we recognise the collective causes of distress and invest in systems of care, or allow political opportunists to exploit public disillusionment for authoritarian ends? These are the questions at stake, not just in the United States, but globally. If the psychiatric establishment refuses to support progressive transformation of mental health systems, we may soon lose them altogether as thinly disguised prisons rise in their place. If you or someone you know is at risk of suicide, these organisations may be able to help. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
Al Jazeera
an hour ago
- Al Jazeera
Trump to host Azerbaijan, Armenia leaders to sign US-brokered deal
United States President Donald Trump has confirmed that he will host the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia for a 'historic peace summit'. Ilham Aliyev, the president of Azerbaijan, and Nikol Pashinyan, the prime minister of Armenia, will meet with Trump at the White House on Friday for an official 'peace signing ceremony,' the president wrote on his Truth Social platform. 'These two Nations have been at War for many years, resulting in the deaths of thousands of people. Many Leaders have tried to end the War, with no success, until now, thanks to 'TRUMP,'' he wrote. News of the talks in Washington was reported earlier this week when Pashinyan's government announced the meeting in a statement on Telegram. The two countries, former Soviet republics, have faced off over the region of Nagorno-Karabakh since the late 1980s, when Nagorno-Karabakh broke away from Azerbaijan with support from Armenia. The region, which was claimed by both Azerbaijan and Armenia after the fall of the Russian Empire in 1917, had a mostly ethnic Armenian population at the time. The two sides fought a bloody war that lasted into the early 1990s, and the region has remained a major flashpoint ever since. The conflict resumed in 2020 when Azerbaijan tried to retake Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia. Azerbaijan recaptured Nagorno-Karabakh in September 2023, prompting almost all of the territory's 100,000 Armenians to flee to Armenia. The leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates, for peace talks last month, but no breakthrough in the decades-old conflict was announced. The Trump administration intensified its efforts to seek a resolution in March when the president dispatched his special envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the region. The prospective agreement could potentially put an end to decades of conflict and set the stage for a reopening of key transportation corridors across the South Caucasus that have been shut since the early 1990s. US officials told The Associated Press news agency that the agreements included a major breakthrough establishing a key transit corridor across the region, which had been an obstacle in peace talks. The agreement, according to the officials, would give the US leasing rights to develop the corridor and name it the Trump Route for International Peace and Prosperity. It would link Azerbaijan to its Nakhchivan region, which is separated from the rest of the country by a 32-kilometre (20-mile) patch of Armenia's territory. The transit corridor is expected to eventually include a rail line, oil and gas lines, and fibre optic lines, allowing for the movement of goods and eventually people.
