Dismissal of U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Chief: Reckless Exercise of Power Threatens to Undermine Reliability
In early August, Trump fired Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics at the U.S. Labor Department. Following significant revisions to July's employment statistics data, he criticized the data as having been 'rigged in order to make the Republicans, and me, look bad.'
He intends to nominate E.J. Antoni, an economist from a conservative policy research institute, as her successor. As Antoni has praised Trump and seen statistics as problematic, it has led to growing concerns about political interference in economic data.
McEntarfer was appointed the commissioner by former U.S. President Joe Biden and confirmed by Congress. Given this background, Trump appears to want to suggest that the statistics data was manipulated to favor the Democratic Party.
However, Trump has not provided clear evidence of any alleged wrongdoing.
Significant revisions to employment statistics data are not uncommon. It takes time for most of the responses from businesses to be collected and for the accuracy of the statistics to improve. Issues such as the pace of gathering statistics data slowing down after the COVID-19 pandemic have also been pointed out.
This time, the growth in nonfarm employment, which reflects economic trends, was significantly revised, from when the June figure was released, downward by 258,000.
The data indicates that the economic slowdown may have been influenced by factors such as increased uncertainty due to Trump's tariff policies and strict crackdowns on illegal immigrants. The dismissal of the labor statistics chief should be seen as using power to try to distort the statistics.
Trump has recently become more confident in his economic policies. In early July, Trump passed a large-scale tax-cut bill into law, which was one of his signature policies. He also used 'reciprocal tariffs' as a way to conclude a series of deals.
Given that he had been boasting about these achievements, Trump may have been unable to tolerate the statistics data, as it threw cold water on them.
Highly reliable statistics are the foundation for appropriate economic policy management and a healthy financial market. The United States, which is at the core of the international financial system, bears heavy responsibilities. The country must not undermine the reliability of statistics.
Employment statistics, in particular, are crucial for assessing the state of the economy. They are a key indicator to which the U.S. Federal Reserve Board attaches extreme importance, influencing monetary policy, as well as stock, foreign exchange and other markets.
Political interference in statistics can often be seen in authoritarian nations like China. If U.S. statistics become opaque, the negative impact will be immeasurable. It is hoped that Trump will consider the issues and exercise restraint.
(From The Yomiuri Shimbun, Aug. 14, 2025)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Mainichi
2 hours ago
- The Mainichi
Editorial: 80 years after World War II, now is the time for Japan to act for global peace
Eighty years have passed since the end of a war that brought Japan to the brink of destruction and claimed countless lives in the Asian countries it invaded. It is time to reaffirm the weight of the peace built on such immense sacrifices. The journey of postwar Japan, marked by reconstruction and economic growth while upholding a vow to never wage war again, is something to be proud of. This was made possible by the postwar international order, underpinned by the rule of law and free trade. However, this foundation is on the verge of collapse. The international community has failed to stop the two wars continuing in Europe and the Middle East, while the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump is disrupting the global economy with coercive high tariffs. The risk of nuclear weapons being used is increasing, and natural disasters caused by climate change are unending. The "Doomsday Clock," which warns of how close humanity is to its final hour, is set at its shortest time ever at 89 seconds to midnight. The logic of the powerful prevails In these turbulent times, the arrogance of powerful nations is rampant. The Israeli military is destroying the Gaza Strip in the Palestinian territories, while Russia is pressuring Ukraine, once referred to as "Little Russia," to surrender. This is a structure where the weak are suppressed. Nazi Germany incited hostility toward Jews and drove its people into World War II. As the number of people who experienced the war dwindles and the preservation of their memories becomes challenging, there is concern about the rise of distorted nationalism and exclusionism. Japan is no exception. Politicians have made remarks denying the historical facts about the Battle of Okinawa and the Nanjing Massacre. During the recent House of Councillors election, false rumors such as "foreigners are being given preferential treatment" and "crime rates are high" were rampant. "It is tough for us, though we're the ones supporting Japan's convenient lifestyle." This was a comment received by Jiho Yoshimizu, the representative director of the nonprofit Nichietsu Tomoiki Shienkai (the Japan Vietnam Mutual Support Association), which supports Vietnamese residents in Japan. Intolerance that excludes minorities is continuous with the logic of "survival of the fittest." We must not allow the clock to be turned back to an era of war. Postwar Japan has maintained war-renouncing Article 9 of its Constitution and bases its security on the Japan-U.S. alliance to avoid direct involvement in armed conflict. By relying on the U.S. military for security, rapid economic growth was also possible. However, there is no denying that postwar Japan's societal trend was strongly influenced by the idea of "one-country pacifism," or a desire never to be caught up in war again, as noted by University of Tokyo professor Tadashi Karube. Now that the Trump administration has turned its back on global stability, Japan's ability to devise and create peace on its own initiative based on its postwar experience is put to the test. The most urgent task is to rebuild order. Japan must listen to the voices of the Global South and help create fair international rules. Instead of lamenting its declining national power, Japan should work to strengthen the function of the United Nations as "a forum where middle powers can join hands with small countries to exert their presence," as stated by U.N. Under-Secretary-General Izumi Nakamitsu. The free trade system must be protected. Deepening dialogue with Southeast Asian countries and the European Union, and expanding the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), is a logical step. The creation of an environment that brings stability to East Asia is also urgent. Japan is in a position to propose the establishment of a regional framework for dialogue aimed at building trust. It is crucial not to impose "Japan-centric Asianism" as seen before the war, but to work as equal partners. Breaking away from 'own country first' policy According to a public awareness survey by the Japanese Red Cross Society, more than half of respondents believe "Japan is peaceful," while less than 20% feel "the world is peaceful." How can this gap be bridged? Professor Toshikazu Inoue of Gakushuin University, an expert on Showa-era (1926-1989) history, pointed out, "Japan must fulfill its fair share of responsibility in building world peace." There are notable citizen efforts. The Kyoto-based nonprofit Terra Renaissance sends staff to countries including Uganda in East Africa to help children, who were abducted by anti-government forces and forced to become soldiers, return home and reintegrate into society. Founder Masaya Onimaru explained, "We want to reclaim child soldiers and dismantle armed rebel groups. What is needed is to end conflicts through means other than violence." Now is the moment for Japan's political leadership to reflect on history and present a vision for a "world without war." It is perplexing that Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba chose not to issue a statement to mark the anniversary of the end of WWII. Diplomatic critic Kiyoshi Kiyosawa, who was slammed as a "pacifist" during wartime, lamented the narrow, self-centered nationalism in his "A Diary of Darkness," writing, "Japan sees only its own position." His words still strike at the heart of the issue, even 80 years later. We must not shut ourselves off from the world and be bystanders to others' plights. At this 80-year postwar milestone, what is required of Japan is action that spreads the practice of peace across the globe.
NHK
2 hours ago
- NHK
Trump administration in talks to take Intel stake, Bloomberg reports
The US media outlet Bloomberg says the administration of President Donald Trump is in talks with Intel Corp. to have the government take a stake in the struggling chipmaker. Bloomberg published the report on Thursday, quoting people familiar with the plan. The Trump administration apparently aims to boost domestic chip production by supporting the delayed construction of Intel's planned factory hub in the Midwest state of Ohio. Bloomberg said the size of the potential stake is not clear. It also said the details are still being worked out and the plans remain fluid. Intel has fallen behind in the development of chips for artificial intelligence. It posted a large operating loss last year and faces the challenge of turning its business around. Chip giants Nvidia and AMD have reportedly agreed to pay the US government 15 percent of their revenues from chip sales in China as part of an arrangement to secure export licenses. Bloomberg describes the talks with Intel as "the latest direct intervention by Trump into a key industry."
Japan Times
2 hours ago
- Japan Times
Trump's attack on Goldman could prompt watering down of Wall Street's independent analysis
U.S. President Donald Trump's criticism of Goldman Sachs' research on tariff risks could prompt some analysts to water down their research, investors and academics said, an outcome that could leave investors with less reliable information. The reams of research that banks such as Goldman produce are used by institutional investors, such as hedge funds and asset managers, in deciding how to allocate capital. Trump's comments — in which he lambasted Goldman, its economics team and CEO David Solomon and accused them of making "a bad prediction" — have triggered a debate on Wall Street about the possible fallout, according to interviews with banking industry sources and investors. At one Wall Street bank, Trump's comments spurred informal conversations among staff, a source familiar with the matter said. The source said they also discussed how to incorporate government data in the wake of Trump's decision to fire the head of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, claiming — without evidence — that its data had been politicized. Still, the bank was not considering changing the way research operates. "This is going to come down to a person's ability to withstand a barrage of criticism from the Oval Office, and the extent to which these banks provide support for their chief economists," said Dave Rosenberg of Rosenberg Research, who has worked in the economics departments at several banks. "If we notice that research is being watered down ... then we'll know that this has had an effect." Jack Ablin, chief investment strategist at Cresset Capital, said if banks do start self-censoring, smaller investors who do not have the resources to do their own analysis are likely to suffer most. Trump's criticism is his latest attack on corporate America and other institutions, and is a break from historical norms, where presidents have typically avoided calling out private companies and executives for things they do not like. Some companies that have considered passing on tariff costs to customers have faced public criticism, and Trump, who came to politics after running businesses, has intervened directly in private business decisions by making a deal with Nvidia to give a portion of its revenues from sales to China of AI chips to the government. Trump "certainly is taking a number of steps that diverge from the traditional view of the respective roles of the government and private industry,' said Henry Hu, a securities law professor at the University of Texas. In a social media post earlier this week, Trump said foreign companies and governments were mostly absorbing the cost of his tariffs, counter to Goldman's research. "Given that sell-side Wall Street analyst predictions have been about as accurate as random guessing, small investors will do just fine with the president exercising his First Amendment right about flawed Wall Street research," a White House official said. On Wednesday, Goldman's U.S. head economist David Mericle defended its research on CNBC, vowing to "keep doing" what the bank considers informative research. Goldman declined requests for further comment. Other major banks, including Wells Fargo, JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley, Deutsche Bank, Bank of America and Citigroup, declined to comment. There has already been evidence of self-censorship. A senior JPMorgan Asset Management investment strategist, Michael Cembalest, earlier this year said during a webinar that he refrained from voicing some of his thoughts on U.S. tariffs publicly. Shortly after Cembalest's comments, Jamie Dimon, JPMorgan's CEO, said that he expects analysts to speak their minds. Both Cembalest and the bank declined to comment for this story. Hu said there is a risk involved in even appearing to give way to political pressure. "Goldman's reputational capital is at stake here,' he said. "If their views on the economy become biased, and they are shown to be wrong, why would anyone choose Goldman to advise them on anything?' Mike Mayo, banking analyst at Wells Fargo, said independent research is critical for an investment bank's reputation. "Investment banks live and die by their reputation and independence. That transcends all other considerations." Wall Street research has long been tightly overseen, one source said, with supervisory analysts reviewing research reports to ensure that language is not inflammatory, emotive or partisan and that reports are objective and cite sources. That person said that if analysts feel unable to speak openly then investors will pay more or take greater risk. Liquidity will suffer and there will be less foreign participation in U.S. markets, the person said. It was large losses by smaller investors that triggered the first major probe of Wall Street research in the aftermath of the dot-com stock bubble of the late 1990s. Eliot Spitzer, then New York's attorney general, found that Wall Street analysts had swapped their honest opinions for unwarranted "buy" ratings on companies to help their banks win underwriting and advisory business. The result: a $1.5 billion global settlement payout by Wall Street and lifetime bans for some analysts. It remains to be seen whether the current kerfuffle will have an outsized impact on Wall Street or if it is a storm in a teacup, said Steve Sosnick, market strategist at IBKR. "It does raise a lot of questions," he added.
