President Trump’s nominee to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics, is facing surprising backlash from conservative economists, and it’s quite understandable.
When dismissing former Commissioner Erica Mantelfer, Trump alleged she was manipulating job numbers to make him appear unfavorable. He has touted her replacement, Dr. E.J. Antoni, as “a highly respected economist,” asserting that he will ensure the released figures are honest and accurate.
But, I wouldn’t take that claim at face value.
Many are skeptical of Trump’s assertion. Antoni possesses minimal qualifications for heading an agency of over 2,000 people and lacks relevant experience. The Bureau is tasked with measuring labor market activity, working conditions, price changes, and productivity in the U.S. economy.
Antoni graduated from Northern Illinois University five years ago and has worked primarily within a conservative policy organization.
He now holds the position of Chief Economist at the Heritage Foundation, which aligns closely with the Trump administration’s views. This raises questions about his suitability for the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
A number of conservative think tank economists are critical of Antoni’s appointment, emphasizing his inexperience and the concerns about his competency.
Stan Veuger from the American Enterprise Institute pointed out that Antoni’s work is full of “basic errors and meaningless choices that skew his findings.” His colleague, Derek Scissors, went even further, characterizing Antoni’s writings as politically driven.
David Herbert from the American Institute of Economics expressed that Antoni’s nomination should be rejected, arguing he shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic economics.
Daniel DiMartino of the Manhattan Institute stated that Antoni isn’t qualified for a role that requires expertise in data collection and analysis related to the labor market. Jessica Riedle, another fellow, described Antoni’s published work as “some of the most error-laden” from think tank economists.
Even the Wall Street Journal editorial board, which usually backs Trump’s candidates, expressed doubt, noting that Antoni’s explanations at Heritage were “very partisan” and that the Bureau’s work demands a nonpartisan approach.
Yet, Antoni does have defenders. Some politicians and colleagues support him more than mainstream economists might be comfortable with.
In a recent piece, Sen. Mark Wayne Mullen (R-Okla.) criticized the Bureau of Labor Statistics for what he deemed “insufficient, incomplete or incorrect statistics,” claiming that Antoni will ensure that data is collected and shared accurately. Interestingly, Mullen didn’t delve into Antoni’s qualifications—perhaps there’s not much to discuss.
Mullen’s piece avoided mentioning Antoni’s role at the Heritage Foundation, which has been under scrutiny for promoting politicized social science over the years.
A controversial report from Heritage in 2021 claimed widespread anti-Semitism among university diversity, equity, and inclusion staff, but actual studies did not support these assertions. Their flawed methodology relied on a narrow sample of Twitter accounts and interpretations that lacked robustness.
The foundation’s reluctance to share underlying data raises serious questions about credibility—something that significantly undercuts Antoni’s qualifications as Chief Economist.
It seems Antoni is channeling Mullen’s main concern about the BLS: the often-revised employment reports, which Mullen suggested were deliberately misleading when they changed figures related to Trump and Biden.
Mullen’s grasp of data collection appears somewhat misguided. Routine revisions reflect diligence rather than deception. The BLS regularly adjusts its estimates based on incoming survey responses.
Perhaps Antoni and Mullen would benefit from reflecting on a quote from economist John Maynard Keynes: “When information changes, I change my conclusions. What do you do?”
Stephen Lubett is Professor Emeritus of Williams Memorial Professor at the Pretzker School of Law, author of “Ethnographic Interrogation: Why Is Evidence Important?” among other works.
