
Trump's nominee to oversee jobs, inflation data faces shower of criticism
But like so much in President Donald Trump's second administration, this time is different.
Trump has selected E.J. Antoni , chief economist at the conservative Heritage Foundation , to be the next commissioner at the Labor Department's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Antoni's nomination was quickly met with a cascade of criticism from other economists, from across the political spectrum.
His selection threatens to bring a new level of politicization to what for decades has been a nonpartisan agency widely accepted as a producer of reliable measures of the nation's economic health. While many former Labor Department officials say it it unlikely Antoni will be able to distort or alter the data, particularly in the short run, he could change the currently dry-as-dust way it is presented.
Antoni was nominated by Trump after the BLS released a jobs report Aug. 1 that showed that hiring had weakened in July and was much lower in May and June than the agency had previously reported. Trump, without evidence, charged that the data had been 'rigged' for political reasons and fired the then-BLS chair , Erika McEntarfer , much to the dismay of many within the agency.
Antoni has been a vocal critic of the government's jobs data in frequent appearances on podcasts and cable TV. His partisan commentary is unusual for someone who may end up leading the BLS.
For instance, on Aug. 4 — a week before he was nominated — Antoni said in an interview on Fox News Digital that the Labor Department should stop publishing the monthly jobs reports until its data collection processes improve, and rely on quarterly data based on actual employment filings with state unemployment offices.
The monthly employment reports are probably the closest-watched economic data on Wall Street, and can frequently cause swings in stock prices.
When asked at Tuesday's White House briefing whether the jobs report would continue to be released, press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the administration hoped it would be.
'I believe that is the plan and that's the hope,' Leavitt said.
Leavitt also defended Antoni's nomination, calling him an 'economic expert' who has testified before Congress and adding that, 'the president trusts him to lead this important department.'
Yet Antoni's TV and podcast appearances have created more of a portrait of a conservative ideologue, instead of a careful economist who considers tradeoffs and prioritizes getting the math correct.
'There's just nothing in his writing or his resume to suggest that he's qualified for the position, besides that he is always manipulating the data to favor Trump in some way,' said Brian Albrecht, chief economist at the International Center for Law and Economics.
Antoni wrongly claimed in the last year of Biden's presidency that the economy had been in recession since 2022; called on the entire Federal Reserve board to be fired for not earning a profit on its Treasury securities holdings; and posted a chart on social media that conflated timelines to suggest inflation was headed to 15%.
His argument that the U.S. was in a recession rested on a vastly exaggerated measure of housing inflation, based on newly-purchased home prices, to artificially make the nation's gross domestic product appear smaller than it was.
'This is actually maybe the worst Antoni content I've seen yet,' Alan Cole of the center-right Tax Foundation said on social media, referring to his recession claim.
On a 2024 podcast, Antoni wanted to sunset Social Security payments for workers paying into the system, saying that 'you'll need a generation of people who pay Social Security taxes but never actually receive any of those benefits.' As head of the BLS, Antoni would oversee the release of the consumer price index by which Social Security payments are adjusted for inflation.
Many economists share, to some degree, Antoni's concerns that the government's jobs data has flaws and is threatened by trends such as declining response rates to its surveys. The drop has made the jobs figures more volatile, though not necessarily less accurate over time.
'The stock market moves clearly based on these job numbers, and so people with skin in the game think it's telling them something about the future of their investments,' Albrecht said. 'Could it be improved? Absolutely.'
Katharine Abraham, an economist at the University of Maryland who was BLS Commissioner under President Bill Clinton, said updating the jobs report's methods would require at least some initial investment.
The government could use more modern data sources, she said, such as figures from payroll processing companies, and fill in gaps with surveys.
'There's an inconsistency between saying you want higher response rates and you want to spend less money,' she said, referring to the administration's proposals to cut BLS funding.
Still, Abraham and other former BLS commissioners don't think Antoni, if confirmed, would be able to alter the figures. He could push for changes in the monthly press release and seek to portray the numbers in a more positive light.
William Beach, who was appointed BLS commissioner by Trump in his first term and also served under Biden, said he is confident that BLS procedures are strong enough to prevent political meddling. He said he didn't see the figures himself until two days before publication when he served as commissioner.
'The commissioner does not affect the numbers,'' Beach said. 'They don't collect the data. They don't massage the data. They don't organize it.'
Regarding the odds of rigging the numbers, Beach said, 'I wouldn't put it at complete zero, but I'd put it pretty close to zero.''
It took about six months after McEntarfer was nominated in July 2023 for her to be approved. Antoni will likely face stiff opposition from Democrats, but that may not be enough to derail his appointment.
Sen. Patty Murray, a senior Democrat from Washington, on Tuesday slammed Antoni as 'an unqualified right-wing extremist' and demanded that the GOP chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, hold a confirmation hearing for him.
___
Associated Press Staff Writers Paul Wiseman and Stephen Groves contributed to this story.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Cross Timbers: Q2 Earnings Snapshot
DALLAS (AP) — DALLAS (AP) — Cross Timbers Royalty Trust (CRT) on Wednesday reported profit of $893,000 in its second quarter. On a per-share basis, the Dallas-based company said it had profit of 15 cents. The express trust posted revenue of $1.3 million in the period. _____ This story was generated by Automated Insights ( using data from Zacks Investment Research. Access a Zacks stock report on CRT at
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'Bonuses are obviously going up,' according to UFC CEO Dana White, but by how much?
Picture this: It's 2007 and UFC lightweight Leonard Garcia has just received a $35,000 bonus for his Fight of the Night performance against Roger Huerta on the undercard of UFC 69. He lost the decision, but fought his heart out — as he always did — and the UFC rewarded him for it. Garcia felt pretty sure he was rich. I mean, $35,000? He had plenty of years when he didn't make nearly that much combined. That was some people's whole salary, and they worked hard for it. 'I just blew through that money real fast,' Garcia told me back in 2010. 'Coming from being in the smaller shows and then getting all that money all at once, it seemed like it was never going to run out. I just rode it into the dirt.' He learned from it, though. So three years later, when the UFC's parent company gave him a $65,000 bonus for another Fight of the Night, this time in what many also hailed as the Fight of the Year against Chan Sung Jung, he saved and invested it. He opened a three-year CD. He renovated his bathroom. You know, adult stuff. The last performance bonus Garcia received from the UFC was in 2011, when he lost another decision in another Fight of the Night, this time against Nam Phan at UFC 136. This time the bonuses were all $75,000. In other words, the bonuses had more than doubled in the span of four years. Garcia and other fighters could be forgiven, then, if they assumed this trend would continue. After all, the UFC and its parent company at the time only made more and more money each year. The events went from being broadcast on a niche men's-interest cable network like Spike TV to a major network TV partner in Fox. Then from there the UFC moved on to an even more lucrative deal with ESPN. And in 2026, as we learned this week, it will essentially double its broadcast rights revenue in a deal with Paramount. But in 2025, UFC bonuses are stuck at $50,000. With the exception of special events like UFC 300, they've held steady at that level for over a decade now. When adjusted for inflation, the $75,000 that Garcia and others received in 2011 is worth approximately $110,000 in today's money. While some events around the same time handed out bonuses worth far less, even the $35,000 Garcia received in 2007 would have been worth around $56,000 in 2025 money. All that is about to change, according to UFC CEO Dana White. Speaking to reporters Tuesday night, White promised some unspecified revisions to UFC fighter pay in the wake of this blockbuster deal with Paramount. But he did make one concrete financial promise: 'Bonuses are obviously going up, so that will be big.' White did not say how much bonuses would increase by. But clearly, these bonuses are a big deal to fighters. It's why they regularly plead for them in post-fight interviews. UFC featherweight Dan '50K' Ige even incorporated it as his nickname. Conor McGregor, the biggest star in either MMA or UFC history, delivered an iconic and oft-imitated moment early on in his career, following an impressive TKO win with the exhortation: 'Dana, 60 G's, baby!' (Again, that was 2013, when $60,000 had the the purchasing power of about $88,000 today.) So how much would UFC performance bonuses actually have to increase in order for it to be a true improvement on those handed out in the past? One starting point is to perform the simplest math available. The UFC's new broadcast rights deal is bringing in double the money of the previous one? Fine, double the bonuses. That would get us to $100,000 per bonus. But even that would fall short of keeping pace with inflation when compared with those 2011 bonuses. The biggest performance bonuses the UFC ever handed out were at UFC 300 last year, when each one was worth $300,000. (Max Holloway pocketed two of the four bonuses available, for a total of $600,000 for his knockout win over Justin Gaethje.) If that became the standard, it would mean $1.2 million in bonuses for every UFC event. Multiplied by 43 events per year, that comes out to $51.6 million per year in performance bonuses, which, to a lot of people, probably sounds like a lot. But it's also about 5% of the UFC's average yearly take in this new broadcast rights deal with Paramount. And that doesn't even factor in any of the other revenue sources, like ticket sales or site fees or international broadcast rights. Would the UFC actually consider a bonus increase of that magnitude? Based on everything we know it seems … doubtful. That's likely not just because TKO would rather keep the money than pay it out to people who have no real leverage or recourse to force such a reckoning. It's also probably because a fighter who suddenly has $300,000 in the bank is a lot less compliant when it comes to things like stepping in on short notice to plug holes in upcoming fight cards. Then again, hasn't the UFC told us again and again that it's a meritocracy where you 'eat what you kill'? The whole idea behind the performance bonuses is to motivate fighters to fight hard and put on a show for the fans. Imagine how much harder a prelim fighter making $20,000 to show would fight if you gave him a crack at a $300,000 bonus. And imagine what a bunch of fights like that might do for Paramount+ subscriptions.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Goldman Flags Falling Survey Responses as Key Driver of Big Data Revisions
Goldman Sachs says a key reason behind the unusually large revisions to recent U.S. economic data could be falling survey response rates. Analysts led by Jan Hatzius examined more than 30 indicators over the past decade and found measures like JOLTS job openings, retail sales, and nonfarm payroll growth have seen bigger revisions partly due to fewer responses. Warning! GuruFocus has detected 6 Warning Signs with AMD. The debate intensified after the July jobs report delivered one of the largest two-month payroll revisions in decades outside the pandemic, prompting former President Donald Trump to fire Bureau of Labor Statistics chief Erika McEntarfer. Trump accused her of rigging numbers before last year's election a claim she denied. Goldman noted other forces at play, including pandemic-related seasonal distortions that skewed initial prints for jobless claims and manufacturing surveys. Trump's replacement pick suggested halting the monthly jobs report, though the White House confirmed it would continue. Markets shrugged off the data drama, with Wall Street hitting record highs Tuesday on softer July inflation and Fed rate cut hopes. This article first appeared on GuruFocus. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data