The claim that "we have not seen trustworthy jobs data for years," that "every month there is a revision," and that estimates are "always wrong," is not entirely accurate, though it does capture some real frustrations about recent jobs data reporting.
Here's what's true:
- Monthly jobs data are always revised. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) releases initial jobs numbers each month based on surveys. These numbers are updated twice in the following months as more data is collected and late reports come in. This revision process is a standard and long-standing practice.[1][2][3]
- Recent revisions have been unusually large. While revisions are normal, the past few months have seen some of the biggest downward corrections in years. For example, May and June 2025 were revised down by a total of 258,000 jobs, one of the largest two-month changes outside of the immediate pandemic aftermath.[3][4][5][1]
- Annual benchmarking leads to even more significant revisions. Once a year, BLS compares the survey data to more accurate tax records, resulting in potentially large updates. A recent benchmark revision found 818,000 fewer jobs were created in a 12-month period than initially reported.[2][1]
What is not true or is misleading:
- The data are not "always wrong." Initial estimates are subject to error and revision, but that's because BLS tries to report as quickly as possible. Later data is more accurate as more information arrives. This is how all large-scale government statistics work. Revisions don't mean the data was "wrong" in a deceitful sense, just that early estimates came with acknowledged uncertainty.[6][1][2]
- The revision process is not new, nor is it politically motivated. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have seen large revisions. There is no credible evidence that these regular revisions are due to partisan manipulation or that "the people in charge now" introduced this issue. These methods have been in place for decades, well before the current or previous administration.[7][8][1]
- Statisticians and economists universally agree on the value of rapid-release preliminary data, with known caveats. If BLS withheld data until it was near-final, the public and markets would lack timely insight into the economy. The revision process is transparent and well-documented.[2][6]
Context and Reaction:
- Recent very large revisions have led to political accusations and firings, with President Trump accusing the BLS of "rigging" the numbers and firing its chief statistician. However, experts"including former Trump BLS leaders"have publicly defended the agency's professionalism and transparency, stating that such revisions are expected during periods of economic uncertainty and have no evidence of political interference.[8][9][7]
- The drop in employer survey response rates and population trend changes have made estimation harder and increased volatility and revision size recently, which may partly explain heightened criticism and mistrust.[1][7]
IOW, while jobs data is subject to regular revisions"and recent changes were substantial"this is inherent to how surveys work and is not unique to one political party or administration. The BLS's methods are transparent, not a "scam," and designed to provide the public with timely (if imperfect) data, corrected as more information becomes available. There is no evidence that revisions represent deliberate "wrongness" or systematic deception.[3][7][1][2]
I'm truly surprised at the number of folks who were confused about this topic.