Trump’s Disastrous BLS Pick is a Bad Sign for America’s Future

Summary

Bulwark Takes: “Trump’s Disastrous BLS Pick is a Bad Sign for America’s Future” – Detailed Summary

Release Date: August 12, 2025

In this episode of Bulwark Takes, hosts JVL and Jonathan Cohn engage in an in-depth discussion with special guest Jason Furman, a former economist in the Obama administration and current Harvard professor. The central focus of the episode is President Donald Trump's controversial nomination of E.J. Anthony to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), and the broader implications this appointment has for America's economic data integrity and future.

Introduction

The episode kicks off with JVL introducing the topic of Trump’s nomination of E.J. Anthony to head the BLS. Anthony, a 37-year-old economist affiliated with the Heritage Foundation's Grover M. Herman Center for the Federal Budget, has garnered attention not for his scholarly contributions but for his presence in highly partisan outlets such as Breitbart and The Federalist.

JVL: "[...] he's 37 years old, so it must be a real hotshot economist." [00:00]

Overview of Trump's BLS Appointment

JVL expresses concern over Trump's decision to appoint someone from deeply partisan media outlets to lead a crucial statistical agency. He highlights the potential undermining of trust in government data, which is essential for economic decision-making.

JVL: "If we wanted to give the president the benefit of the doubt, he would appoint somebody who's really beyond reproach, who everybody respects. Instead, he reaches to the bottom of the barrel." [02:37]

Expert Opinions

Jason Furman's Perspective

Jason Furman rates the appointment as a "9" out of 10 in terms of insanity, emphasizing his frustration and the threat it poses to objective economic data.

Furman: "It's probably a 9. And I'm trying to restrain myself, otherwise I'll start foaming at the mouth and yelling." [01:26]

Furman elaborates on why Anthony's appointment is problematic, noting Anthony's lack of peer-reviewed work and his deep partisan leanings. He stresses that Anthony does not have the requisite experience in managing statistical data and is unlikely to foster confidence in the BLS’s outputs.

Furman: "He's extremely partisan, who does not understand the data that the organization produces, has not contributed anything to the understanding of statistics other than misleading mud throwing." [02:37-03:40]

Furthermore, Furman discusses the downstream consequences of undermining the BLS, including impaired policy-making and investment decisions due to unreliable data.

Furman: "Countries that have fired their statisticians have generally seen their currencies depreciate... Greece was cooking the books again." [07:05-10:13]

He warns of the long-term erosion of trust, which is foundational to economic stability and growth.

Furman: "Trust is actually very important. Economists have studied this and the basic issue is... trust really is an important contributor to economic growth." [17:26-18:13]

Jonathan Cohn's Insights

Jonathan Cohn supports Furman’s assessment, highlighting the overt partisanship of the appointment and the absence of subtlety in the administration’s actions. He draws parallels to past appointments, such as those to the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), noting that unlike previous instances where appointed leaders proved to be reliable, Anthony’s appointment signals a blatant disregard for data integrity.

Cohn: "This does not appear to be someone who's like, published extensively in academic literature. There's just not, you know, all his publications are in these highly partisan outlets." [06:18]

Cohn also voices concerns about the gradual degradation of statistical quality across various federal agencies, which could ultimately impair governance and policy effectiveness.

Cohn: "We don't know what's working in education and isn't working in education. And this isn't the kind of thing that's going to just show up as, you know, people dying in the hospital or the currency collapsing." [12:10-13:45]

Implications for Data Integrity and Trust

The hosts discuss the critical role of the BLS in providing unbiased economic data, which serves as a cornerstone for policymakers, businesses, and financial markets. Furman asserts that while immediate impacts may not be drastic, the long-term consequences could be severe, including decreased trust in government data and higher economic volatility.

Furman: "The numbers that BLS produces are probably the single most important... that's how they're trying to navigate what right now, by the way, is a difficult road." [07:05]

Historical Comparisons and Future Consequences

The conversation delves into historical instances where nations compromised their statistical integrity, leading to economic turmoil. Furman cites Argentina and Greece as examples where manipulation of economic data preceded financial crises and massive defaults. He cautions that while the U.S. may not experience similar immediate fallout, the erosion of trust could set the stage for future economic instability.

Furman: "Argentina started faking the inflation data... culminated in a huge default and I believe the largest IMF program in its history." [10:13]

The Role of Trust in Economics

Wrapping up, Furman emphasizes the indispensable role of trust in economic systems. He explains that trust reduces transaction costs and fosters cooperation, which are essential for economic growth and stability. The undermining of trust through partisan manipulation of data threatens to unravel these foundational economic principles.

Furman: "Trust is actually very important. Economists have studied this and the basic issue is... trust really is an important contributor to economic growth and one that rich countries tend to do better on than poor countries." [17:26-18:13]

Conclusion

The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the future of economic governance in the United States. JVL and Cohn express uncertainty about the Senate’s ability to counteract the administration's efforts to politicize economic data. The discussion underscores a growing concern that persistent undermining of trust in government statistics could have far-reaching negative impacts on the nation's economic health and policy effectiveness.

JVL: "If voters don't react to this and don't say, no, no, we don't like that, go back to delivering real world outcomes for us. I don't know where this all leads." [14:20]

Furman: "This is one of many, many things that are deliberately destroying trust." [15:46]

JVL: "We're going to be looking forward to the September numbers." [18:33]

---

This episode of Bulwark Takes serves as a critical examination of the potential ramifications of politicizing economic data, emphasizing the essential role of trust and integrity in maintaining a robust and functional economic system.

Transcript

[JVL]

Hello, everyone. I'm JVL here with my bulwark colleague, Jonathan Cohn and a special guest, Jason Furman, former economist inside the Obama administration, teaches a legendary econ class right now at Harvard. And we're here to talk about a kind of insane Trump appointment to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Donald Trump has nominated E.J. antony. I just want to read from his bio at his current perch at the Heritage foundation. He is 37 years old, so it must be a real hotshot economist. I'm going to start from the top so you can understand what he believes are his, his chief qualifications in his bio. E.J. anthony, Ph.D. is the chief economist and Richard Aster Fellow in the Heritage Foundation's Grover M. Herman center for the Federal Budget. His work has been featured with a variety of news outlets, including Fox News and Fox Business, Wall Street Journal, Hound Hall, Bloomberg Daily Caller, National Review, cnbc, Washington Times, the Washington Examiner, Breitbart, the Federalist and others. So his not a lot of peer reviewed articles and scholarly journals, but he's made it into Breitbart and the Federalist with his work. Jason, I guess we'll start with you. On a scale of 1 to 10, how insane is this appointment?

[Jason Furman]

It's probably a 9. And I'm trying to restrain myself, otherwise I'll start like foaming at the mouth and yelling. And I generally try to be a reasonable and balanced person, but that's all being tested in the current moment.

[JVL]

So tell, I mean, tell me more. I look at this and I, you know, as a layperson who is interested in economics, I think, okay, well, so the president fires the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics because he doesn't like the jobs report and that has to shake confidence in government data. And so the, if the guy, if we wanted to give the president the benefit of the doubt, he would say, okay, well, he's got to go and appoint somebody who's really beyond repose, who everybody respects and that will calm the markets and it'll make people on the outside who are trying to understand what's actually happening under the hood of the economy feel like they can, they can accept the government's data going forward. And instead he reaches to the bottom of the barrel for the dude who writes for the Federalist at Breitbart and the Daily Caller. That seems like it's an attempt to send a message by the president almost.

[Jason Furman]

Yeah, no, that's exactly right. And you know, I don't think anyone thought the president was on the level when he said he Wanted to get better quality data. There are a whole bunch of technical things that could improve the data. It would be wonderful to have a great person. We actually just had a great person there. She was fired. There's other great people out there. But this is not a way to increase confidence in the data. This is someone who's extremely partisan, who is, does not understand the data that the organization produces, has not contributed, you know, anything to the understanding of statistics other than misleading mud throwing, is not in touch with the different stakeholders that really rely on this data in the business community, in financial markets at the Federal Reserve, has no experience managing anything. And, you know, as you said at the very beginning, just sends a really terrible signal about what the president wants to see from the statistical agency.

[JVL]

But a terrible signal, but an intentional one, right? I mean, here's what Trump said on on Truth Social late on Monday. Our economy is booming, and EJ will ensure that the numbers released are honest and accurate, which seems to begin with the conclusion and then work backwards to the right. I mean, he has determined that the economy is booming. So all numbers must show that the economy is booming. I don't know, it just feels like authoritarian ish sort of stuff. Like, you know, the, the, the, the strong man says what, what is, what is the reality? And then deputizes people to go and build up a scaffolding to support that reality. Jonathan Cohn, am I crazy? I feel like I've come back from vacation and all I see is fascism everywhere.

[Jonathan Cohn]

Yeah, I don't think you're crazy. And let me just say something for our viewers and listeners here, just to put Jason's comments in perspective, because I've known Jason for a long time and I think other reporters who COVID policy would back up what I'm about to say, which is that Jason is notoriously mild mannered and careful, someone who, you know, he worked for a Democratic administration but will praise Republicans. So if Jason is saying this is a nine, it's probably really a 15. Like, that's how bad this is. And it's not crazy. And I mean, it's right out. I mean, there's no subtlety to this. You know, I remember there have been episodes in the past where, like, you know, there was a CBO head of someone appointed to run the Congressional Budget Office, which is another agency we depend on for imparting partial analysis. And there was a lot of concern that, you know, maybe they were, you know, there was, they were getting rid of a Democratic appointee and bringing in a Republican appointee who had very clear ideological priors, was really trying to push a point of view. And the fear was there were sort of sudden and it was, it was going to be subtle. And, and, and first of all, actually turned out not to be the case. Most of these CBO heads, even the ones who were thought to be very ideological, turned out to be, you know, quite, you know, good CBO directors. But I mean, this is like, not subtle at all. I mean, this is a guy who is clearly a just partisan. And I don't want to be like a snob or anything about this, and I'm the last person in the world to play the intellectual, you know, the sort of academic credential game. But I mean, this does not appear to be someone who's like, published extensively in academic literature. There's just not, you know, all his publications are in these highly partisan outlets. And so, I mean, I just, you know, it's, there's like no mystery here. It's not no dog whistling, no hidden agenda. Trump is basically coming right out and telling us, like, I want these results. I'm putting a guy in there who's going to give them to me.

[JVL]

Yeah, I mean, I have so many questions. I guess one of them, Jason, for you is what are the downstream consequences of this? Like, in the real world, people have to make decisions about policy, they have to make decisions about investment and, you know, human run a business, you have to make decisions about what you think the environment is like and whether you're going to do, you know, capital expenditures or not or hiring or build a factory once you stop being able to trust the numbers coming out of the government. Like, what, what happens? Like, is everything fine? Does it turn out that we don't really need the numbers? And like, it's like, whatever. Like, because the markets don't seem overnight, the markets don't seem to have reacted to this, which is kind of surprising to me.

[Jason Furman]

Right. So, so first of all, let me say two things. One is the numbers that BLS produces are probably the single most important. They're the first read of inflation that we get every month, the first read of jobs we get every month. If you look at the mandate of the Federal Reserve, it is literally jobs and inflation. So this is basically the way, you know, if you're thinking of like, the Fed is driving a car and they're looking out the window, they're looking out the window at those BLS statistics. That's how they're trying to navigate what right now, by the way, is a difficult road. The good News here though, is I have no doubt what Trump is trying to do. I have no doubt what Antoni would like to do. I am not at all sure that they're going to be able to pull it off.

[JVL]

Tell me more.

[Jason Furman]

There are 2,000 career people at the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The final numbers for both jobs and inflation do not go to the BLS commissioner until their absolutely final PDF cannot change. They don't get to sit in the room and kick the tires and say, are you sure about this? Should this be a little bit higher? You know, I'd like it to be that. So to keep just any impression at all of interference, they are kept very far away from it. Now, is that going to continue happening? Are there other ways you could influence the numbers? Could you announce a change in methodology that's skewed in a certain way? There's all sorts of things that we'll be looking out for. But the one thing is I good news is I think it will be very, very hard to fake the data without people knowing. There will be whistleblowers in the bls. You will read about it in the New York Times, you will hear about it here on the ball work. And that is if it happens. So there's a lot of protections there. So we're going to see this will be a fight between 2000 dedicated career people and a president and a leader who does not have the back of those career people.

[JVL]

To me, this is a lot of it is of a piece with his campaign against Jerome Powell and he's really trying to politicize the underpinnings of economic policy which traditionally just lie outside of that stuff. Right. And he's trying to personalize it and bring those things under his direct control. I guess the question is, are there real world downsides for you and Jonathan?

[Jonathan Cohn]

Right?

[JVL]

I mean, like, does it ultimately matter? I mean, I sit and I think, well, sure it matters because if you are a large corporation who's got to make decisions about what you're going to do and you realize you can't trust the data coming out of the government, which means you can't understand what the reality of the environment is, then you're going to stand patient. Right. Or you're going to hedge, you're going to be really reluctant to try to expand or to do anything new and innovative that carries risk. Everybody's going to become much more risk averse. But maybe that's not true. I know. Like what happens if people can't trust data coming out or think that, like for instance, you know, Jerome Powell, I assume, is going to be replaced at some point. You know, he's replaced with Maria Bartiromo. Right. Like what happens.

[Jason Furman]

Yeah. So, I mean, countries that have fired their statisticians have generally seen their currencies depreciate. Sometimes it's taken years. Argentina started faking the inflation data, but it took a couple years before it really caught up with them in a big way. And it culminated in a huge default and I believe the largest IMF program in its history. Greece was cooking the books again. It took a while to catch up. They're a massive, massive default and another massive IMF program. So I'm not saying that we're getting the same things at the same scale here, but you couldn't necessarily judge this by the next day either. So you do this and you do five other things, including, you know, a hostile takeover of the Federal Reserve and end of its independence. And you end up in a world where in the best case, you have sort of higher interest rates and higher mortgage rates because of the extra risk we have in our economy. And in the worst case, you really do have, you know, a potentially very bad outcome. I think, again, this takes time, though. This is not, none of this is an overnight thing. Even firing Jay Powell tomorrow would be a terrible thing to do. I think there would be a big market reaction, but he's one of 12 people on the committee. It's going to take a little bit more patience and diligence to take away the independence of the Fed than even firing, you know, one very, very important person there.

[Jonathan Cohn]

So, you know, I was thinking when this happened, I kind of flashed back to 2020. Do you guys remember in Covid early, this was like June or July. And Trump made this statement where he basically said, you know, if we just stop testing people, we wouldn't have so many cases.

[Jason Furman]

If you don't test, you don't have any cases.

[JVL]

If we stop testing right now, we'd.

[Jason Furman]

Have very few cases, if any.

[Jonathan Cohn]

I thought about that when this is going on, I mean, and of course that wouldn't have worked and it would not have taken, as opposed to the economic statistics, it would have been pretty apparent pretty quickly. Just, I mean, you would see it in your local hospitals, people were dying. And so I know, part of me thinks this, you know, that absolutely this matters and absolutely you can't get away from for too long. But I also, you know, what I worry. What kind of worries me more in some ways it doesn't worry me more, but I think is Probably a more realistic scenario. You know, as Jason was saying, it is hard to move bls. It's hard to, you know, if you think more broadly, this is part of like tack on census figures and statistics out of Department of Health and Human Services and EPA and every federal agency. Some of this stuff is hard to move because it's got these underpinnings in a large career workforce, all these processes that have been put in place over decades and just blowing them up is tough. And there would be a reaction. I worry about the sort of more subtle gradual degradation of the quality of these that just sort of filters into our policy making and makes it more difficult, you know, if we don't know what the poverty level is, we don't know what's going on. With global warming, you just go down the list. We don't know what's working in education and isn't working in education. And this isn't the kind of thing that's going to like just show up as, you know, people dying in the hospital or the currency collapsing. But it's going to mean in 10 or 20 years, just the quality of our governance is much worse because we need that information and we are, we are losing our ability to generate it and to trust it.

[JVL]

Yeah, I mean if, if we jump up to 30,000ft here, I mean, I would say this is of a piece exactly with the idea of like, you know, well, if you don't test, there are no cases. But that, that is itself is a, a large of politics. Right. So, you know, we have been operating for many generations at this point in a world where the idea is that you win at politics by delivering things in the real world and that that's what people react to. Right. They see that like, oh, I have a job, my job is good. They see that my quality of life is going up, I'm getting more health care, et cetera, et cetera. The, the Trump, the Trump gamble here seems to be, no, we don't need to worry about that stuff. We can. Politics now functions at the level of perception kind of aside from objective reality. And so while the Democrats want to like have their fights over. I just thought about like Mamdani and the, the Democratic angst because he wants to open five municipal run grocery stores and expand rent control. And Democrats are like, like. And meanwhile the Republicans are like, yeah, we're just gonna blow up labor force participation data. And the whole party's like, cool, cool, let's do it. And that's because the two parties really have different views of how to be successful in the this environment with, you know, the voters we have today. And that worries me like that. I mean, that's the sort of thing where I just think to myself, well, if voters don't react to this and don't say, no, no, we don't like that, go back to delivering real world outcomes for us. Like, I don't know where this all leads, I guess. Jason, before we go, is there any way to stop this train? I mean, this is a Senate confirmed position. Is it foolish to think that senators might say, oh, come on?

[Jason Furman]

I don't know. I had, you know, certainly the wonk community is united on this one. Whether it's Republican wonks or Democratic wonks, every single one of them has been scathing about this. In a way, there's a little bit of comfort to me. There is a community out there with a very diverse set of views on, you know, basic principles, on what justice is, even on how the economy operates who do have a shared understanding of, you know, what's reality and what's not reality. So there is a community out there in the wonk world. Does that community translate and influence the Senate? As of now, I have no idea whatsoever. But ultimately, I do think the most concerning thing here is not, you know, the economic crisis or something like that, but just this is one of many, many things that are deliberately destroying trust. If people want to argue about whether 70,000 jobs in a month is fantastic or terrible and spin it one way or the other, that's totally fine with me. If they all want to say, you know, we don't even believe the 70,000 and think it was made up and partisan, that's just another level at which it becomes very, very hard to have a conversation or debate about anything.

[JVL]

All right, I lied. I'm going to ask you one more question because I have you here and I'm such a huge fan of yours. Anyway, just a macroeconomic question. In a, in an advanced economy like the United States has, can you just give me like the, the Econ 101 explanation of how important trust is to the system?

[Jason Furman]

Yeah, trust is actually very important. Economists have studied this and the basic issue is if you could write a contract that covered every single contingency and possibility, then maybe you wouldn't need trust. But writing those contracts is themselves costly, is themselves inevitably going to still have some loopholes, and if everyone's always trying to drive a loophole through it, take advantage of someone else, deliver a product a day late, pay a day late, etcetera, everything unravels. And so trust really is an important contributor to economic growth and one that rich countries tend to do better on than poor countries. But I'm worried about the direction it's going right now.

[JVL]

All right. Jason Furman, thank you for being with us. Jonathan Cohn, thank you for sitting in on this with me, buddy. We will see you guys again soon with, you know, I'm sure there'll be good news at some point. One of these days, we're going to sit down to do a video. We're going to be like, hey, guys, great news. We got something.

[Jason Furman]

A million jobs in a month with you. A million jobs in a month. Who couldn't be happy?

[JVL]

Boy, I'm looking forward to the September numbers. Jason.