By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following a disappointing jobs report, President Trump has nominated E.J. Antoni, an economist from the Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 contributor, to replace the fired Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) chief, Erika McEntarfer. Trump’s decision to remove McEntarfer came after she released a report showing fewer jobs created than expected and downward revisions of previous months’ figures, a move condemned by economists. Antoni, a BLS data skeptic, has criticized the agency and is expected to focus on data accuracy and timeliness, though he has also indirectly contradicted Trump’s claims of a booming economy. The nomination is now awaiting confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate.
Read the original article here
Trump Picks Project 2025 Mastermind to Be Put in Charge of Stats – it’s a scenario that certainly raises eyebrows and, judging by the overall sentiment, a lot of concerns. It’s not just about a new person in a position; it’s about who that person is, their potential motivations, and the implications for the integrity of data that shapes our understanding of the economy and, frankly, the world. The immediate worry is that the numbers will be “cooked,” as the phrase goes, meaning they will be manipulated to support a specific narrative or agenda. The concerns stem from the involvement of someone linked to Project 2025, which, if you’re not familiar, is a detailed conservative blueprint for dismantling the existing federal government and reshaping it along more right-wing lines.
This raises the specter of a “flood of new stats,” which, at least from the perspective of the comments, is seen as a precursor to a deluge of misinformation. The fear is that these manipulated statistics will impact everyone, regardless of political leaning, by making it harder to assess economic conditions, track progress, and hold those in power accountable. If the data is intentionally flawed, it becomes difficult to fight back against unfair policies or advocate for positive change. This is a big deal because the numbers inform everything from policy decisions to investment strategies and even everyday consumer behavior.
The connection to Project 2025 seems to be a critical factor fueling the anxiety. It’s as if the very integrity of information is at stake, and the potential consequences – including the erosion of public trust in government institutions – seem very worrying to many. This leads to some pretty strong language, painting a picture of a system on the verge of collapse or already past the point of no return, at least in terms of data integrity. There’s a sense of foreboding, a feeling that the situation is dire and that it might be difficult to fight back.
The reaction reflects the general lack of trust. It seems as though the appointment is viewed as an open attempt to disseminate propaganda under the guise of official statistics. The phrase “ministry of truth” pops up, drawing a comparison to regimes known for controlling information. This is not a light accusation, and it indicates the depth of apprehension regarding the move. If this new person is tasked with producing the numbers, their work is, apparently, already viewed with suspicion.
There’s also a sense of disbelief and frustration. How can something so concerning be happening so openly? The idea that a presidential candidate can make promises and then act in ways that seem to contradict those promises – or outright lie – is particularly maddening. It’s the idea that this can happen and we’re essentially helpless to stop it, which is what really gets some folks. The idea is the system has become broken, and the individual’s actions are a reflection of that.
This entire situation really seems to point to the impact of these decisions on income inequality. If you can’t trust the stats, how can you measure inequality, let alone combat it? The fear is that it will be easier to hide real problems if you can control the data, which, in turn, empowers those in power and makes it harder for everyone else to advocate for their interests. This creates a system of sycophants, a theme that really seems to resonate from the perspective of these comments.
In short, there’s a fundamental concern that the appointment is not about accurate data or responsible governance. It’s about leveraging data for political ends, to further a specific agenda, and to maintain power. This isn’t just about economics or employment figures; it’s about the very foundation of an informed society, and many see that foundation as being threatened.