{"id":343539,"date":"2025-08-14T09:48:10","date_gmt":"2025-08-14T09:48:10","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/343539\/"},"modified":"2025-08-14T09:48:10","modified_gmt":"2025-08-14T09:48:10","slug":"donald-trumps-firing-of-us-stats-chief-doesnt-add-up","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/uk\/343539\/","title":{"rendered":"Donald Trump\u2019s firing of US stats chief doesn\u2019t add up"},"content":{"rendered":"

Erika McEntarfer can console herself that things could be worse. When the agency she ran, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS<\/a>), produced disappointing employment numbers, Donald Trump gave instructions that she be fired. When statistician Olimpiy Kvitkin produced disappointing numbers in the 1937 census of the Soviet Union, Joseph Stalin gave instructions that he be shot.<\/p>\n

So, yes, it could be worse. But the parallel is not wholly encouraging. No doubt Kvitkin\u2019s successors got the message, and while McEntarfer\u2019s defenestration will not change last month\u2019s estimates, it will certainly sharpen the thinking of everyone working on the numbers next time.<\/p>\n

President Trump alleges that McEntarfer manipulated the data to make him look bad. There is no evidence that she did and, given the likelihood that any conspiracy would be exposed by an outraged bean-counter, there is good reason to think she did not.<\/p>\n

Trump\u2019s decision<\/a> \u2014 shameless even by his standards \u2014 is bad news for at least four reasons. First, like much of what Trump does, it serves as a distraction.<\/p>\n

Second, Trump\u2019s behaviour signals to his supporters that US statistics are not the outcome of an impartial and professional process \u2014 they are invented for political reasons and only a fool would take them seriously.<\/p>\n

Trump has a long track record of smearing statisticians. In 2018 he was tweeting that \u201cCrime in Germany is way up\u201d because of Germany\u2019s \u201cbig mistake\u201d in allowing in so many immigrants. In truth, crime in Germany was at its lowest level for a quarter of a century, but Trump explained that \u201cofficials do not want to report these crimes\u201d. It is no wonder that Trump\u2019s supporters have little confidence in government statistics.<\/p>\n

But while Trump\u2019s fans may applaud McEntarfer\u2019s fate as a suitable punishment for faking the numbers, his opponents will view it as opening the door to future fakery. This is the third piece of bad news: there are many people who used to trust the BLS\u2019s numbers, but no longer will.<\/a><\/p>\n

The fourth problem is that some of those people are investors in financial assets such as inflation-protected securities (TIPS) that are directly linked to the BLS\u2019s estimates of inflation, as well as other assets that depend on the credibility of official US statistics. McEntarfer may not be a household name, but the Consumer Price Index is. It is one of the most critical numbers calculated by the US government, and investors in CPI-linked bonds will not ignore the fact that it has now been tainted by Trump\u2019s interference with the BLS.<\/p>\n

Nobody would claim that statistical agencies in the US \u2014 or the UK \u2014 are perfect. They have been struggling in both countries. Funding for the BLS has been squeezed in real terms for more than a decade, and that squeeze is set to intensify; the bureau has been spreading itself thin and embarrassing errors have emerged. In the UK, the Office for National Statistics has been similarly suffering. Its Labour Force Survey has been widely criticised as unreliable, and both the chair of the ONS board, Sir Robert Chote, and the head of the ONS itself, Sir Ian Diamond, have recently quit.<\/p>\n

So should we care about political interference<\/a> in official statistics, if the institutions are quite capable of foundering without it? A few bold souls would argue we don\u2019t need economic statistics at all. Sir John Cowperthwaite, the laissez-faire financial secretary of Hong Kong throughout its booming 1960s, refused to collect even the most basic data about Hong Kong\u2019s economy \u2014 telling the equally laissez-faire economist Milton Friedman that such data would only encourage London bureaucrats to interfere.<\/p>\n

Cowperthwaite\u2019s position is intriguing<\/strong> but impractical. There are few libertarians in policymaking today: most politicians, and indeed most voters, expect the government to intervene early and often. If good data is scarce, that has rarely been a disincentive.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Still, Cowperthwaite\u2019s philosophy contains some wisdom: it is unwise to expect official statistics to support a burden they cannot bear. One only has to look at the situation in the UK. The chancellor of the exchequer has backed herself into a position where every revision to the economic outlook requires a knee-jerk response to meet her own budgetary rules. If the government\u2019s independent forecaster, the Office for Budget Responsibility, was omniscient, that might make a little more sense. But nobody thinks the OBR is omniscient, particularly not the OBR itself.\u00a0<\/p>\n

It is best to be realistic, then. The best we can hope is that economic data will be honestly gathered and will converge on the truth over time. Policymakers should think of themselves as walking in a fog, armed with a digital map that keeps glitching. Not ideal, but better than nothing. The Trumpian solution \u2014 demand a map of Narnia instead, and then close your eyes anyway \u2014 does nothing except give the president someone else to blame when things go wrong.<\/p>\n

Trump and Stalin are not the only politicians to shoot the messenger. (In Stalin\u2019s case, the metaphor is distressingly unmetaphorical.) Graciela Bevacqua, responsible for Argentina\u2019s inflation statistics in 2006, refused to massage the numbers and was bullied by President N\u00e9stor Kirchner\u2019s administration, suspended and then prosecuted.<\/p>\n

Andreas Georgiou, who became head of Greece\u2019s statistical agency in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, was accused of undermining the Greek state by failing to seek political approval for the numbers he published \u2014 effectively, a form of statistical treason. Over the years since then, he has been endlessly pursued through the Greek courts. Most independent observers believe he is wholly innocent. Anyone pondering a job in Greek statistics will no doubt bear these proceedings in mind.<\/p>\n

Last time I checked, Maga did not stand for \u201cMake America Greece Again\u201d, and Trump is neither Kirchner nor Stalin. But he has made the desired direction of travel all too clear. Independent, professional, trustworthy statistics are the bedrock of well-informed policymaking. America is ambling away from firm ground and towards statistical quicksand.<\/p>\n

Find out about our latest stories first \u2014 follow FT Weekend Magazine on X<\/a> and FT Weekend on Instagram<\/a><\/p>\n