Recently, President Trump announced the dismissal of the chief labor statistician, Erica Mantelfer, accusing her of promoting “fake” information.
McEntarfer was the 16th commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, established by Congress in 1884. Her role involved generating consistent and reliable data for Congress and various agencies to guide their policies.
But this situation touches on a politically sensitive area, particularly with election results looming. Interestingly, effective governance often involves pretty mundane work.
McEntarfer garnered significant bipartisan support in the Senate, being confirmed 86-8 for her four-year term beginning in 2024. Trump, however, is within his rights to remove her. While most data analysts in the bureau are civil servants, her position was more politically aligned. She had accumulated over 20 years of experience in various statistical roles within federal service.
Until her recent dismissal, she oversaw the bureau, even though the actual data generation was handled by a team of statisticians in the old post office building near Union Station. William Wiertrowsky, the vice-commissioner and a civil servant, will step in temporarily, as he has done before.
It will be interesting to see how Trump reacts to Wiertrowski and the employment figures set to be released on the first Friday of September. Trump has indicated he is looking for a “superior alternative” to McEntarfer, but that might just be posturing. If the August numbers reflect a troubling summer trend, he could take a more aggressive stance through an acting commissioner until he identifies someone who fits his view of “Republican success.”
For now, let’s delve into why Trump dismissed Mantelfer and what he meant by “fake.”
Trump commented that, just before the election, McEntarfer had released favorable employment figures aimed at aiding the Biden campaign, suggesting that she’d made a mistake.
Interestingly, Mantelfer’s least favorable report came just days before the 2024 election, with a claim of just 12,000 jobs created in October. Post-election revisions later increased that figure to 43,000 due to distortions caused by the fall hurricane season.
Trump had been vocal about his dissatisfaction with the bureau’s long-term revisions to 2023 employment figures, which revealed the economy had added significantly more jobs than initially thought under McEntarfer’s predecessor. This highlights how employment statistics can influence voter perception, which, in Trump’s view, may have turned against him. He expressed more concern about the report than the “mismanagement” accusations against the Harris-Biden administration.
If the Biden team was indeed manipulating data, why would they release it in the midst of their campaign at the Democratic National Convention? If Trump’s aim was to undermine the economic policy of the current administration, McEntarfer had unwittingly provided him with a perfect opportunity for criticism, but he chose to focus on allegations of corruption instead.
It seems Trump may have mixed up the downward revision of the August data with his November report, perhaps unconsciously aligning events to fit his narrative. Regardless, this incident illustrates Trump’s overall skepticism regarding data.
When it comes to election results or economic reports, it’s as if he questions the reliability unless it comes from his preferred sources. “His own people.” This brings us to an interesting crossroads: does Trump believe information is only credible if it’s gathered by people he trusts?
If so, it poses certain challenges. Leaders who appoint loyalists to manage data collection may create an environment where bad news is downplayed due to loyalty and fear. A government that loses its capability to convey the truth could lead to dire consequences for its citizens.
But if Trump views data simply as a tool for political gain, it raises further questions. This perspective aligns with his past requests to electoral officials to “find” votes to change election outcomes. If Trump regards blue state election results as fake, does it not follow that he might seek favorable outcomes through manipulation?
Just as some state officials and others within the system have faced accusations from Trump, it begs the question: if he perceives the Bureau of Labor Statistics as politically biased, wouldn’t he be inclined to expect results that skew to his advantage? Thus, unfortunate truths could become mere tools for reinforcing his narrative.
George Orwell, reflecting on the tumultuous times leading up to the Spanish Civil War, noted that while the truth may be deemed the first casualty of war, its distortion is often part of the pathway to conflict.
Orwell expressed skepticism about historical accuracy and bias, suggesting our era has fostered a concerning abandonment of truth. He articulated that the greatest danger might be in the acceptance to abandon faith in factual accuracy.
Though the employment data might be factual, in a functional democracy, it’s vital that such information emerges from an imperfect yet genuine process that reflects reality. If we let go of this belief, we risk reducing everything to mere party rhetoric.
In this age of misinformation, including responses to online discourse often generated by figures like Trump, we find ourselves in a battle over perceptions rather than facts. While we might already exist in an age saturated with claims to truth, neglecting the importance of facts could lead us down a troublesome path.
