(Research assisted by AI)
This White House article presents a highly critical assessment of the Bureau of Labor Statistics under the previous administration. It accurately identifies notable BLS revisions, a significant benchmark adjustment, and procedural lapses in August 2024. However, its framing of these events as evidence of systemic incompetence does not fully account for the agency’s established revision protocols or its enduring reputation for nonpartisan data quality.
Summary
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), under former Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, has repeatedly published overly optimistic employment figures that were later revised downward, eroding confidence in the agency’s data (The White House, 2025). For example, initial May and June 2025 job gains were overstated by a combined 258,000 positions, figures which were quietly adjusted after influencing Federal Reserve policy (The White House, 2025). Similarly, March 2024 payroll growth was pared back by 818,000 jobs—the second?largest benchmark revision on record—while revisions throughout 2024 further reduced reported gains by tens of thousands each month (The White House, 2025).
Chronic technical failures and premature data leaks compounded the problem, as BLS repeatedly delayed or mishandled releases of critical statistics. In August 2024, a technical glitch postponed the public jobs report, yet several financial firms accessed the data early, contravening the agency’s own nondisclosure protocols (The White House, 2025). Congressional Republicans have held multiple hearings and sent oversight letters spotlighting these missteps and demanding accountability, highlighting the agency’s pattern of miscommunication, data security lapses, and diminished reliability (The White House, 2025).
Accuracy of Major Claims
- May–June 2025 Revisions
The article states that initial job gains for May and June 2025 were overstated by a combined 258,000 positions and later revised downward. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), May’s gain was revised from +144,000 to +19,000 (–125,000) and June’s from +147,000 to +14,000 (–133,000), for a total downward revision of 258,000 jobs (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025a). Financial?market responses confirm this adjustment rattled investors and fed into Federal Reserve deliberations (Jones, 2025). March 2024 Benchmark Revision
The article correctly notes that the preliminary benchmark revision for March 2024 reduced nonfarm payrolls by 818,000 – the second-largest on record. BLS’s own announcement confirms an estimated downward adjustment of –818,000 jobs for the 12-month period ending March 2024 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024).Revisions Throughout 2024
It is true that BLS routinely issues monthly revisions as more complete data arrive. For example, in July 2024 BLS revised May employment down by 54,000 and April by 57,000; in April 2024 it further pared back February’s figures, and in February 2024 it reduced December 2023 by 43,000 and January 2024 by 124,000 (White House, 2025). However, these adjustments reflect BLS’s standard methodology of incorporating late survey returns and recalculating seasonal factors – practices that have been in place for decades – rather than a new pattern of systematic “overstatement” (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025b; Bloomberg, 2025).Technical Failures and Data Leaks
In August 2024 a technical error delayed the public release of the jobs revision report, prompting outrage among policymakers and market participants (Gurley & Siegel, 2024). During that delay, at least three Wall Street firms obtained the unreleased figures in advance – an incident confirmed by Bloomberg and probed by a Republican-led House committee (Smith et al., 2024; House Education and the Workforce Committee, 2024).Congressional Oversight
The article’s claim that Congressional Republicans have held hearings and sent oversight letters is accurate. In September 2024, Rep. Virginia Foxx’s Committee on Education and the Workforce formally requested details on both the leak and the procedural failures that allowed selective early access (House Education and the Workforce Committee, 2024).
Evaluation of Conclusions
Normalcy vs. Incompetence
While the White House article emphasizes a “lengthy history of inaccuracies,” the documented revisions are largely consistent with BLS’s transparent revision process, which exists precisely to refine initial estimates (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2025b). Benchmark revisions, by their nature, can be large occasionally (e.g., –818,000 in March 2024), but such events occur roughly once a year when comprehensive unemployment insurance tax data become available.
Isolated Glitches vs. Systemic Failures
The August 2024 glitch and the premature disclosure to select firms were serious lapses in protocol, yet they are relatively rare given BLS’s long track record of dependable releases. Since 1979, the agency has operated under strict “lock-up” procedures to ensure simultaneous public access—procedures it has amended in response to these incidents (Bloomberg, 2024).
Reputation and Independence
Despite these missteps, the BLS remains widely respected among economists for its methodological rigor and transparency (Miran, 2025; Reuters, 2025). Its willingness to issue large downward revisions and to publicly document its data-processing methodology underpins its credibility. The article’s portrayal of “incompetence” overstates the frequency and severity of errors in a data?rich environment where preliminary estimates are by design subject to revision.
Overall Assessment
The White House article accurately identifies notable BLS revisions, a significant benchmark adjustment, and procedural lapses in August 2024. However, its framing of these events as evidence of systemic incompetence does not fully account for the agency’s established revision protocols or its enduring reputation for nonpartisan data quality. A balanced view recognizes both the need to shore up procedural safeguards and the value of BLS’s transparent approach to correcting its own estimates.
References
The White House. (2025, August 1). BLS has lengthy history of inaccuracies, incompetence. https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/08/bls-has-lengthy-history-of-inaccuracies-incompetence/
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024, July 5). 2024 preliminary benchmark revision to establishment survey data to be released on August 21, 2024. https://www.bls.gov/ces/notices/2024/2024-preliminary-benchmark-revision.htm
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025a, July 30). Employment situation summary—2025 M07 results. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2025b). Frequently asked questions: Why does the establishment survey have revisions? https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/ces\_cps\_trends.htm#Revisions-Between-Preliminary-and-Final-Data
Bloomberg. (2024, August 30). BLS data slipups are becoming a pattern.
Bloomberg. (2025, August 1). Biggest job revisions since 2020 expose pitfall of economic data.
Gurley, L. K., & Siegel, R. (2024, August 28). Technical error caused jobs data delay that sparked outrage, BLS says. The Washington Post.
House Education and the Workforce Committee. (2024, September 25). Letter to Acting Secretary Julie Su on BLS data release issues.
Jones, A. (2025, August 1). U.S. payrolls revisions jolt markets, making Fed look behind the curve. Reuters.
Miran, S. (2025). Comment on BLS independence and data quality. Axios.