Three big questions about 2026
With help from Eli Okun, Bethany Irvine and Ali Bianco
On today's Playbook Podcast, Adam Wren and Dasha Burns discuss three questions that could decide how 2026 plays out — and why they're coming into focus now.
Good morning. It's Tuesday. This is Adam Wren. Drop me a line.
In today's Playbook …
— Are Republicans in better shape in 2026 than conventional wisdom would have you think?
— Could Trump's polling floor 'finally crack'?
— House GOP leadership looks for a pressure-release valve on the Jeffrey Epstein issue.
DRIVING THE DAY
THREE QUESTIONS: This morning, with no new enterprise journalism recently published on the 'Epstein files' front, President Donald Trump's allies are using the moment to regroup and catch their collective breath. House GOP leadership is doing much the same after scrapping several votes planned for this week as internal battles over how to handle the crisis have divided the Republican conference. And Democrats are viewing it all while riding what could be a sugar high.
Widening the aperture a bit from the Epstein drama, we're struck right now by three big questions with huge implications for 2026.
QUESTION 1: Are Republicans actually in better shape than conventional wisdom would suggest as the midterms ramp up?
The money angle: We learned this week that the Republican National Committee is sitting on vastly more cash than its Democratic counterpart. The RNC has nearly $81 million in cash on hand. The DNC? Just $15 million. And while the Q2 sums raised by the NRCC and DCCC are roughly similar, there too, Republicans have the financial edge: $32 million to $29 million.
Democrats attribute that fundraising disparity to Trump's brand strength — and the relative weakness of the Dems' own. 'You're seeing Democratic institutions like the DNC have some trouble raising grassroots money because these institutions are so tied to the national party brand …. which to state the obvious is not a popular brand right now,' one prominent Democratic strategist tells Playbook.
Now, exploring who has the upper hand as the midterms inch closer is something of a Rorschach test, with people seeing what they want to. But Republicans like what they have seen in polling in response to the question 'cares more for needs of people like you,' where the parties are tied for the first time in three decades (though this was long before the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill). And congressional Democrats, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released last week, have an approval rating of 19 percent.
'The trends are real,' an NRCC official tells Playbook. 'We feel really good about where the polling is. … We feel really confident about the momentum we have. The donor base is fired up.'
QUESTION 2: Can Democrats stay focused on a message that moves voters?
There is a certain allure animating Democrats' Epstein trolling, even as it forces them to momentarily set aside their better-bet polling issues — like, say, focusing on Medicaid or the cost of living. Of course, they can make a larger argument rolling the Epstein issue into what they characterize as Trump's 'billionaire protection racket' — and are doing just that.
How Dems are spinning it: 'Republicans are literally shutting down the House floor and getting ready to go on vacation early just to weasel out of releasing the Epstein files,' DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement last night (more on the House situation in a bit). 'While the American people elected leaders to fight for law and order and do their damn jobs, Republicans are bending the knee to Donald Trump and protecting an infamous sex trafficker.'
Added DCCC spokesperson Viet Shelton, in a statement to Playbook: 'The midterms are shaping up to be a referendum on who is going to lower costs and help improve the lives of everyday Americans, not the wealthy and well-connected.'
But the Epstein issue's real salience isn't with voters who are up for grabs in the middle; it's in depressing the MAGA base.
Redefining the floor: This morning, Carroll Doherty, the former director of political research at the Pew Research Center, has one of the more provocative pieces of analysis we've read recently: Could Trump's polling floor 'finally crack'?
Trump's poll numbers are relatively steady, buoyed by his 80-plus percent support among Republican voters. But what if those voters' support of Trump dips? 'Because Trump's approval ratings move in such a narrow range, even small changes — positive or negative — over the next several months could have major consequences,' Doherty writes.
Here's why that matters for 2026: 'Even at his current level of support, Trump's job rating almost certainly will act as a drag for Republican candidates for the House and Senate,' Doherty writes. Were that level of support to drop by a few percentage points, the contours of the midterms could be much, much worse for Republicans — and their attempts to pad the majority by, for instance, redrawing the maps in Texas could end up providing Democrats with major pickup opportunities in a wave election.
Worth emphasizing: None of this is bound to happen or inevitable in any way. And on the road to 2026, Democrats have some major messaging potholes that can serve to either distract them or divide them.
One thing that could distract Dems: Where's Hunter Biden? Doing exactly what Bidens seem to do these days: interrupting a negative news cycle for Trump. This time, he gave a three-hour video podcast interview to Channel 5 with Andrew Callaghan, and used it to rip into Democratic critics of former President Joe Biden — from George Clooney to Jon Favreau to David Axelrod to James Carville. (Team Trump watched with glee.)
One thing that could divide Dems: Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is 'quietly turning his caucus toward a critical decision on how to handle a fall funding showdown, after he and Senate Democrats faced blistering criticism from the party's base earlier this year,' POLITICO's Jordain Carney writes this morning. Today, as the chamber is set to vote 'to tee up the first tranche of government funding bills, [Schumer] is holding discussions with his colleagues about what their strategy should be ahead of the Sept. 30 shutdown deadline.'
What is that strategy? 'Democrats are mulling a range of proposals internally with Schumer about what conditions they can place on Republicans in exchange for voting to move ahead with shutdown-averting legislation,' Jordain writes. 'So far, Democrats have floated the idea of making Republicans agree to a deal on the budget process and specific policy concessions, or locking in a commitment from Senate Republicans that they will not support additional rescissions packages — potentially publicly or in writing.' But there has been 'no agreement among Democrats … about what formal demands they will make of Senate Republicans.'
QUESTION 3: Can Trump stay focused?
It's incredibly likely that issues like inflation and Medicaid will be more determinative in 2026 than the Epstein storyline. But we also wonder if Trump's own temptation to (a) fight back and (b) change the topic might end up backfiring by sucking up the oxygen that might otherwise go towards selling a positive message of Republicans' own — flooding the zone, so to say, against himself.
First in Playbook — Trump's new legal drama: One such zone-flooding opportunity comes from his new $20 billion lawsuit against the Wall Street Journal and its ownership over its reporting on his past friendship with Epstein, as POLITICO's Ankush Khardori explores in a trenchant column this morning.
Just one way it could backfire: If the case is not dismissed or settled, it 'would proceed to discovery, in which the Journal's lawyers would almost certainly get the chance to depose Trump both about the alleged letter and drawing as well as his broader relationship with Epstein — the latter of which would be relevant in assessing the credibility of Trump's denial of his authorship. The Journal would also presumably seek all of Trump's records or correspondence with Epstein — which again are relevant to the credibility of Trump's denial and any potential motive to mislead the public about the letter.'
Here, Trump's temptation to fight back — at least in the way he's accustomed to — is somewhat at odds with the GOP's political interests. Republican members would almost certainly prefer to spend August recess back home selling the benefits of the One Big Beautiful Bill to voters rather than anything to do with Epstein. (In that way, we do wonder about the political wisdom of House Republicans postponing the Epstein vote until after the recess, which potentially changes the narrative from a controversy contained to the Trump administration to one that applies to Washington Republicans writ large.)
One early test of Trump in a somewhat unguarded moment comes at 11:15 a.m., when he'll sit down in the Oval Office with Philippine President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. and reporters will inevitably try to get in a few questions. We'll be watching.
CONGRESS
RULES AND CONSEQUENCES: The House Rules Committee had yet another eventful evening last night as a bipartisan group of lawmakers tried to force a floor vote to compel the publication of materials related to Epstein — ultimately bringing committee business to a halt, POLITICO's crack Congress team reports.
How it went down: The situation was expected to mirror last Thursday's committee slog, but rather that 'work through the Democratic disruption, Republicans chose instead … to recess the rest of the Rules meeting altogether, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) saying it was 'unlikely' that the panel would reconvene this week at all. Later, lawmakers said there were no plans to return at all.'
The work goes on: House Speaker Mike Johnson said last night that despite Rules being at a standstill, he is not canceling votes later this week — they'll just happen under suspension of the rules, as The Hill's Mychael Schnell reports. Now, 'Republican leaders are considering sending the House home as early as Wednesday, after a bipartisan clash over the so-called Epstein files broke the Rules Committee Monday night,' POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill reports. Read the latest in POLITICO's Inside Congress newsletter
The cause endures: Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) remains steadfast in his effort to force a floor vote on his proposal with Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) via a discharge petition. An alternative being offered by GOP leadership as something of a pressure-release mechanism is 'non-binding, so it's kind of fake,' Massie said, as POLITICO's Meredith Lee Hill reports. 'The resolution I have with Khanna would be binding on the president.'
Buying some time: Meanwhile, Johnson confirmed to reporters that the full House will not vote on an Epstein measure before August recess. 'My belief is we need the administration to have the space to do what it is doing, and if further congressional action is necessary or appropriate, then we'll look at that, but I don't think we're at that point right now, because we agree with the president,' Johnson said. (One guy who's not a fan of waiting: Theo Von.)
We'll be watching tonight … for a readout after Trump hosts Republican members of Congress for a reception in the East Room at 7 p.m.
WHITHER RECESS?: Senate Majority Leader John Thune told reporters he was sympathetic to Trump's calls to nix the planned August recess and proceed with nomination votes. 'We're thinking about it, he said. 'We want to get as many [nominations] through the pipeline as we can.' But that might be a hard sell with his members, as NBC News' Frank Thorp and Zoë Richards report.
What they're saying: Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.): 'I'd rather not.' … Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska): 'For so many of us, this is the time that we spend in our state connecting with the people that we serve, getting out into the villages.' … Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.): 'Please wipe that suggestion off of your DNA.'
OUT-THE-DOOR PRICE: The final Congressional Budget Office forecast for the Trump administration's tax-and-spending megalaw is out: Over the next decade, it 'could increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion and cause 10 million people to lose health insurance,' POLITICO's Jennifer Scholtes and colleagues report. Notably, the latest CBO estimate of the number of Americans who may lose insurance coverage 'is below its prior estimate of 11.8 million people.'
GARBARINO WINS THE GAVEL: Rep. Andrew Garbarino (R-N.Y.) beat out three GOP colleagues last night to secure the top job on the House Homeland Security Committee following Rep. Mark Green's (R-Tenn.) resignation, POLITICO's Mia McCarthy reports.
BEST OF THE REST
CRIMSON TIDE: Judge Allison Burroughs appeared 'deeply skeptical on Monday of the Trump administration's efforts to strip Harvard University of billions of dollars in research funding, suggesting the school might prevail in its legal battle against the government,' NYT's Alan Blinder reports. During a two-hour hearing, Burroughs 'unleashed a barrage of pointed questions at the lone Justice Department lawyer,' including 'how the administration could reasonably tie withdrawal of medical research funding to concerns about the civil rights of Jewish people.' In a post on Truth Social, Trump lashed out at both Harvard and Burroughs, whom he described as a 'TOTAL DISASTER.'
CALIFORNIA DREAMIN': Pentagon officials announced yesterday that the 700 U.S. Marines that have remained in Los Angeles since early June will begin to withdraw, LA Times' Julia Wick reports. 'Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell credited the troops with helping to bring calm to the area … 'With stability returning to Los Angeles, the Secretary has directed the redeployment of the 700 Marines whose presence sent a clear message: lawlessness will not be tolerated.''
PERSONNEL ISSUES: The Office of Personnel Management will have lost around 1,000 employees, roughly a third of its workforce, by year's end, WaPo's Meryl Kornfield reports.
MORE DEPORTATIONS TO BEGIN: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit on Monday opted to allow the Trump administration 'to end a program that grants temporary deportation protections and work permits to more than 10,000 people from Afghanistan and Cameroon,' CBS News' Joe Walsh reports.
FED UP: 'Bessent calls on Fed to do comprehensive review of its mission,' by POLITICO's Victoria Guida: ''What we need to do is examine the entire Federal Reserve institution and whether they have been successful,' Bessent said on CNBC. ''They were fear-mongering over tariffs, and thus far we have seen very little, if any, inflation.'
TRAIL MIX: Jonathan Nez, former president of Navajo Nation, has formally launched a campaign for Rep. Eli Crane's (R-Ariz.) seat. 'If elected, Nez would be the first Native American congressperson from Arizona. Home to 14 tribes, nearly 20% of people living in AZ-02 are Native American,' his campaign said in a release this morning. … Perry Meade, a 26-year-old Democratic labor organizer, has jumped into the roster of challengers running for the seat held by Rep. Young Kim (R-Calif.), POLITICO's Juliann Ventura reports. 'Meade, the youngest member of the Democratic Party of Orange County's central committee, is making affordability the thrust of his campaign.'
TALK OF THE TOWN
Patrick Soon-Shiong wants to take the L.A. Times public.
FIRST IN PLAYBOOK — A new nonpartisan policy group, the Food Security Leadership Council, is launching today with the aim of figuring out a new way forward for U.S. leadership on global food security. Cary Fowler, previously U.S. special envoy for global food security, is the president.
TRANSITIONS — PhRMA's public affairs team has added Elise Shutzer as VP (previously at ExxonMobil), Mark Allen as deputy VP (previously at Purple Strategies), Cait DeBaun as chief of staff (previously at American Beverage Association) and Kristen Booze as senior director (previously at the FDA). … Ian Banks is joining the Foundation for American Innovation to run its new Science Policy Program, focused on reforms to restore the U.S.' scientific enterprise and competitive edge. He previously was at the Conservative Coalition for Climate Solutions. …
… Christian Morgan will be head of government relations at BJC HealthCare. He currently is managing principal at HB Strategies and is an Ann Wagner alum. … Freya Charlesworth is joining Frontline Strategies as a digital account director. She most recently was an email marketing specialist at Push Digital Group.
ENGAGED — Chris Bien, floor director for Speaker Mike Johnson, and Katherine Sears, chief of staff for Rep. Vince Fong (R-Calif.), got engaged this weekend in Middleburg, Virginia. The two Californians met in 2023 at a birthday party through mutual friends on Capitol Hill.
HAPPY BIRTHDAY: Reps. John Larson (D-Conn.), Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.) (6-0) and Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) … Andrew Feinberg … The Boston Globe's Sam Brodey … Erin Maguire … Judge Amy Berman Jackson … Caleb Smith … Port Side Strategies' Will Fischer … Annie Lowrey … CNN's Terence Burlij … Travis Korson … National Association of Counties' Seamus Dowdall … Amanda Kules … John Shelton of Advancing American Freedom … Whitney VanMeter … former Reps. George Santos (R-N.Y.), Mike Ferguson (R-N.J.) and Curt Weldon (R-Pa.) … Soren Dayton … Elise Shutzer of PhRMA … Tarun Chhabra … Arshi Siddiqui of Bellwether Government Affairs … Nathan Naylor … Mike DiRienzo of the Silver Institute … AJ Jorgenson … former VA Secretary David Shulkin … Brandt Anderson … Warren Bass … Joy Lee … Emily Carpeaux … Leila Elmergawi … Ben Leubsdorf … Kay Bailey Hutchison … POLITICO's Alon Naor, Ella Feinstein, Linnea Carchedi and Rebecca Barnes … Don Van Natta Jr. … Craig Howie
Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Send Playbookers tips to playbook@politico.com or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy editor Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath.
Correction: Yesterday's Playbook misstated the number of judges on a panel deciding the future of Alina Habba's appointment.
Did someone forward this email to you? Sign up here.
Send Playbookers tips to playbook@politico.com or text us on Signal here. Playbook couldn't happen without our editor Zack Stanton, deputy editor Garrett Ross and Playbook Podcast producer Callan Tansill-Suddath.
Hashtags

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


New York Post
3 minutes ago
- New York Post
Kamala Harris' latest Stephen Colbert flop shows exactly what's wrong with both of them
Kamala Harris' visit Thursday to Stephen Colbert's 'Late Show' was a fine reminder of why both of them are failures. Mind you, this marked Harris' eighth Late Show appearance — one more illustration of the futility of doing the same thing over and over and somehow expecting different results. What made her think this would help promote her new book? Advertisement The marquee moment was her inability to say who's leading the Democratic Party just now — which was actually simple honesty, since neither Dems nor Republicans have clear leaders these days unless it's a sitting president. But she couldn't explain that simple truth, nor did Colbert show any sign of getting it as he pushed for an answer. Her incoherence was part of another classic Kam performance, full of word salads and non-answers. Advertisement So why did Colbert even bring her on a supposed comedy show? Because he's followed most of the late-night crew down the 'we need to promote liberal politics' toilet, of course — hosting 176 Dem politicians and one Republican since 2022, and hewing one side of the aisle every minute in between. That formula earned him cancellation and may well take out all his peers. It's another puzzle of modern life that so much of the entertainment industry somehow forgot that sanctimoniousness (political or otherwise) is the enemy of humor.


Politico
4 minutes ago
- Politico
The Supreme Court just dropped a hint about its next big Voting Rights Act case
The order came in a case challenging Louisiana's congressional map, which contains two majority-Black districts out of the state's six House seats. The court heard arguments in the case in March and had been expected to rule by June. But on June 27, the justices punted the case into their next term and ordered that it be reargued. Now, Friday's order loosely sketches the terrain on which the justices want further arguments: the claim that the longstanding practice of drawing majority-minority districts under the Voting Rights Acts may be unconstitutional because of its focus on race in drawing district lines. The voters challenging Louisiana's map had already advanced that constitutional claim in the case, but the justices' call for further briefing on the issue suggests they want to consider the claim more fully. Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a landmark law passed during the civil rights era, generally prohibits race-based discrimination in voting laws and practices. In redistricting, the law is used to protect against racial gerrymandering that would unfairly dilute the voting power of racial and ethnic minority voters. States across the country routinely seek to comply with Section 2 by drawing congressional districts where minority voters can elect their chosen candidates. Louisiana's previous map contained only one majority-Black district, even though Black residents make up about a third of the state's population. After a court struck down that map for likely violating the Voting Rights Act because it diluted the power of Black voters, the state's Republican-controlled legislature drew the new map with two majority-Black districts. A group of voters — who self-identified as non-Black — challenged the new map. That's the case now before the Supreme Court. A ruling overturning the current map could result in Republicans picking up an additional congressional seat in Louisiana. The state's two majority-Black districts are both represented by Democrats, while the other four districts are represented by Republicans.

Miami Herald
14 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Trump, Claiming Weak Jobs Numbers Were 'Rigged,' Fires Labor Official
EDITORS NOTE: EDS: SUBS for full writethru to update, revise and expand; TWEAKS headline to reflect firing; ADDS Ember as contributor.) ; (ART ADV: With photo.); (With: ECON-JOBS, FED-BOARD-EXIT); Sydney Ember contributed reporting. President Donald Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were "rigged" and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month. In a long post on social media, Trump said he had directed his team to fire Erika McEntarfer, the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, who was confirmed on a bipartisan basis in 2024. Emily Liddel, an associate commissioner for the bureau, confirmed late Friday that McEntarfer had been fired and that William Wiatrowski, the deputy commissioner, would serve as acting commissioner. The president fired McEntarfer after the bureau released monthly jobs data showing surprisingly weak hiring in July and large downward revisions to job growth in the previous two months. Economists widely interpreted the report as evidence that Trump's policies were beginning to take a toll on the economy, though the president insisted in a subsequent post that the country was "doing GREAT!" Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the labor secretary, echoed Trump's concerns about McEntarfer in a post on social media. "So you know what I did?" Trump later told reporters, as he claimed the numbers were "phony." "I fired her, and you know what? I did the right thing." McEntarfer was appointed to her post by President Joe Biden in 2023 after a long career at the Census Bureau and other agencies, where she served under presidents of both parties, including Trump. Among the Republicans who voted to confirm her as commissioner was Vice President JD Vance, who was then an Ohio senator. The firing prompted swift criticism from economists, former government officials and others, who said the removal would further erode trust in government statistics and make it more difficult for policymakers, investors and businesses, who rely on having dependable data about the economy to make decisions. In addition to the monthly jobs numbers, the Bureau of Labor Statistics is responsible for producing data on inflation, wages and other aspects of the economy. William W. Beach, who led the bureau during Trump's first term, criticized the move to fire McEntarfer on Friday. "It's unfortunate," he said. "This could set a precedent where bad news on many different fronts is a reason for dismissing a person." Beach, who was appointed by Trump in 2019 and remained in the role for the first two years of the Biden administration, said he had never felt pressure to manipulate the data under either president. Even if there were such pressure, he said, there is "no way" the commissioner could interfere in the revisions process, which is conducted by career employees. Erica Groshen, who led the agency under President Barack Obama, called the decision "a terrible precedent." "I hope will be reversed because it undermines the integrity of our statistical system and really all of government data and science," she added, calling it "a very sad day." McEntarfer's tenure got off to a rough start last year when the agency made a series of missteps in which Wall Street firms had access to data before the general public. But none of those incidents involved issues with the statistics themselves. Trump and his top aides have made a habit of attacking government agencies, researchers and watchdogs when they have produced findings that the president does not like. That has led to concerns that Trump could seek to interfere with the operations of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and other statistical agencies, particularly if the economy begins to take a turn for the worse. Until now, however, most experts on the statistical system said they remained confident in the data produced by the agencies and had seen no evidence of political interference in their operations. Current and former agency staff members consistently echoed that message -- in part, they said, because they trusted McEntarfer and her counterparts at the other major statistical agencies to protect their independence. "If that pressure got too great, you would see people resigning rather than shape the numbers," Beach said. Economists across the ideological spectrum said Trump's move to oust McEntarfer was likely to erode public confidence in the data published by the administration. "If you want people to stop trusting the numbers coming out of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, firing the person who is confirmed by the Senate to make sure those numbers are trustworthy is a real good way to do it," said Martha Gimbel, the executive director of the Budget Lab at Yale, who served in the White House under Biden. McEntarfer could not immediately be reached for comment. On Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released data showing that employers added only 73,000 new jobs in July. It also notably revised data for the previous two months, reducing the number of jobs created by 258,000. While revisions to previous months are common, it was an unusually high number that came as a surprise. It suggested the labor market was not as resilient as it had seemed earlier this summer. Shortly after the numbers were released, Stephen Miran, the chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers, offered an explanation for the jobs revision that was much different from Trump's. On CNBC, he said much of the change was the result of "quirks in the seasonal adjustment process" and even the president's own policies, particularly on immigration, potentially affecting hiring numbers for May and June. He made no mention of any concerns about manipulated data as he sought to recast the slowdown in July as a "pretty decent" jobs report. By evening, Kevin Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, sought to frame the firing as an attempt to restore "trust" at the statistics agency. Unlike Trump, who described the revisions as politically motivated, Hassett said its jobs figures had been "awful" for some time. "I think it is a good time for a fresh set of eyes to look at what the heck is going on," he told Fox Business. In his social media posts Friday, Trump provided no evidence that McEntarfer had injected political bias into her agency's data. And his criticisms contained contradictions and inaccuracies. Trump complained about not just the latest jobs numbers but also a set of revisions from last year. The bureau, like other statistical agencies, routinely updates its figures to incorporate data that wasn't initially available or to reflect information from more authoritative sources. Last August, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said employers had added roughly 818,000 fewer jobs over a 12-month period than previously believed. That announcement was part of a normal annual revision process, although the change was unusually large. (It was also preliminary -- the final figures were revised down by just under 600,000 jobs.) In a social media post Friday, Trump said the revision was made "right after the election." In fact, the announcement was made roughly 2 1/2 months before Election Day. Indeed, Trump posted about the revisions at the time, calling them a "MASSIVE SCANDAL." To the agency's defenders, however, the twin revisions show that it operates without political bias and was willing to announce politically inconvenient news under presidents of both parties. "President Trump is completely wrong in asserting there's been any sort of anti-Trump bias in the labor market data," said Michael Strain, an economist at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "I think that assertion is wholly unsupported." Strain said that government data is revised frequently, and that doing so reflected a "standard" practice to ensure its quality. In this case, he acknowledged that the change was "historically large" but "doesn't smell fishy." Federal statistical agencies have faced mounting challenges in recent years as Americans have become more reluctant to respond to the surveys that are the basis for much of the nation's economic data. Shrinking budgets have made it harder to make up for falling response rates, and to develop new approaches to replace surveys altogether. Those concerns predate the current administration, but have grown worse since Trump returned to office. The statistical agencies have struggled with staff attrition as a result of the president's freeze on federal hiring, combined with the buyouts he offered early in his term. The president's budget also proposed further staff and funding cuts. In June, the Bureau of Labor Statistics said it was reducing its collection of data on consumer prices in response to resource constraints. Economists warned that, over time, such cuts could erode the reliability of the inflation data that Federal Reserve policymakers rely on when setting interest rates, and that determine cost-of-living increases in union contracts and Social Security benefits, among other uses. Asked about those cuts Wednesday, Jerome Powell, the Fed chair, said policymakers were "getting the data that we need to do our jobs." But he stressed the importance of the federal statistical agencies. "The government data is really the gold standard in data," he said. "We need it to be good and to be able to rely on it." This article originally appeared in The New York Times. Copyright 2025