Trump Nominates Outspoken BLS Critic EJ Antoni to Run Agency

Swordsmyth

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
74,737
President Donald Trump has nominated economist EJ Antoni, a prominent figure at the conservative Heritage Foundation, to serve as commissioner of the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The move comes just ten days after Trump abruptly dismissed former commissioner Erika McEntarfer, accusing her of manipulating employment data for political purposes.

Announcing the pick on Truth Social, Trump wrote, “Our Economy is booming, and E.J. will ensure that the Numbers released are HONEST and ACCURATE. I know E.J. Antoni will do an incredible job in this new role.”

The nomination sets up a potential Senate confirmation battle and will reignite debate over the independence of the agency that produces some of the most closely watched economic statistics in the world.


Antoni, who holds a doctorate in economics, is currently chief economist at the Heritage Foundation and previously worked at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He has taught courses in labor economics, money, and banking, and was a contributor to “Project 2025,” a controversial conservative blueprint for restructuring the federal government.

Over the past several years, Antoni has been openly critical of BLS data, especially under the Biden administration. He has described some Consumer Price Index (CPI) readings as “phoney baloney” and, during the Biden administration, claimed the Labor Department existed in "the land of make-believe”.

More at:
Code:
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Trump-Appoints-Outspoken-BLS-Critic-EJ-Antoni-to-Run-Agency.html

 
EJ Antoni is an economist with the Heritage Foundation. He joins Bob to explain different metrics that show the US labor market is not as buoyant as the unemployment rate suggests.




While EJ says the right things in this interview, I can't help but wonder why Trump selected him, and what else he [Pro-Tariff Heritage guy] and Trump talk about behind closed doors.


Trump's Tariff Critics Are Trading On Overblown And Unfounded Fears
February 3, 2025​
The idea that tariffs are always and everywhere passed on to the consumers is a fallacy​
.​
.​
But today, both our friends and foes alike abuse America in international trade and undermine her potential to thrive. For example, Mexico has been working with China to circumvent tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on China and abuse provisions of the trade deal between Mexico and Canada. That makes it impossible for American companies and American workers to compete.​
Slapping a tariff on both Mexico and China penalizes this kind of underhanded dealing and puts American exporters back on a more level playing field. When asked about tariffs on the European Union, Trump said he’ll use the same playbook, and rightfully so.​
.​
.​
Lastly, Trump understands the misnomer of "free trade." If we really want free trade, then why only advocate for it in international markets? Why not domestic transactions too? In other words, if taxes on international trade are so bad, then why do we allow taxes on domestic trade—like the income tax, which is a tax on labor?​
Free trade should apply first and foremost to domestic trade because we should be focused on benefiting our own citizens before we worry about those overseas. We don’t hate foreigners—we just love Americans more.​

________

Who Pay's The Tariffs? Foreign Countries, Or Americans?​

RonPaulLibertyReport
08/12/2025

 
Last edited:
While EJ says the right things in this interview, I can't help but wonder why Trump selected him, and what else he [Pro-Tariff Heritage guy] and Trump talk about behind closed doors.


Trump's Tariff Critics Are Trading On Overblown And Unfounded Fears
February 3, 2025​
The idea that tariffs are always and everywhere passed on to the consumers is a fallacy​
.​
.​
But today, both our friends and foes alike abuse America in international trade and undermine her potential to thrive. For example, Mexico has been working with China to circumvent tariffs and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) on China and abuse provisions of the trade deal between Mexico and Canada. That makes it impossible for American companies and American workers to compete.​
Slapping a tariff on both Mexico and China penalizes this kind of underhanded dealing and puts American exporters back on a more level playing field. When asked about tariffs on the European Union, Trump said he’ll use the same playbook, and rightfully so.​
.​
.​
Lastly, Trump understands the misnomer of "free trade." If we really want free trade, then why only advocate for it in international markets? Why not domestic transactions too? In other words, if taxes on international trade are so bad, then why do we allow taxes on domestic trade—like the income tax, which is a tax on labor?​
Free trade should apply first and foremost to domestic trade because we should be focused on benefiting our own citizens before we worry about those overseas. We don’t hate foreigners—we just love Americans more.​

________

Who Pay's The Tariffs? Foreign Countries, Or Americans?​

RonPaulLibertyReport
08/12/2025


Goldman Finds "Sharp Declines" In Import Prices As Foreigners Absorb Trump's Tariffs

Code:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-finds-sharp-declines-import-prices-foreigners-absorb-trumps-tariffs

 
Goldman Finds "Sharp Declines" In Import Prices As Foreigners Absorb Trump's Tariffs

The premise of this one must be particularly ridiculous, because Zerohedge refuses to show it to anyone not dumb enough to be one of their paid subscribers.
 
The premise of this one must be particularly ridiculous, because Zerohedge refuses to show it to anyone not dumb enough to be one of their paid subscribers.
It was open to the public a day or two ago.

There is no tariff inflation, and the exporters are eating the costs.
 
That's not what I said, is it?

Inflation hasn't stopped. The BBB will ensure it not only continues, but at a much greater rate than under, for example, Obama.

It doesn't matter what you say. It's happening and will continue to happen. It isn't about you. It's about Trump's foolish policies.
 
Goldman Finds "Sharp Declines" In Import Prices As Foreigners Absorb Trump's Tariffs

Code:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/goldman-finds-sharp-declines-import-prices-foreigners-absorb-trumps-tariffs

Goldman Finds “Sharp Declines” In Import Prices As Foreigners Absorb Trump’s Tariffs​



Egregious spamming of a deceptive article. Americans aren't paying less, a larger portion of what's paid is just tax now -- in those rare cases where what we pay can remain the same.
 

Government Statistics Are Always Political​


Mises Wire
Tho Bishop
08/18/2025


In the age of Trump, even the most boring of political positions can find themselves in the center of the political news cycle. In recent weeks, it has been the Bureau of Labor Statistics. After severe revisions to previous job reports, Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer and has nominated E.J. Antoni, who—if nothing else—has claimed to be a fan of Murray Rothbard.

Usually a changing of the guard at a position such as this would go on with little fanfare. In fact, one of the reasons why BLS Commissioners typically overlap from presidential administration to presidential administration is that it has traditionally been seen as a low-priority position for a president’s agenda.

So why has this become an issue now?

The obvious answer is that President Trump is a man who cares about headlines and his social media venting about the disastrous job numbers understandably raises the spectre of concern about the “politicalization” of the statistics bureau. The fact that bad jobs data would traditionally be viewed as an asset in his feud with crusade for rate cuts from the Federal Reserve is secondary to his desire to project his vision of a “Golden Age.”

The backlash to Trump’s focus on BLS is predictable, but also revealing. After all, what is not in question is the bad track record of monthly BLS data in recent years. The news that sparked Trump’s fury wasn’t just the economy underperforming in the area of job creation, but significant revisions downwards from previous reports. This was also true under the prior administration.

While revisions to BLS data isn’t new, the unreliability of their monthly reports have increased in recent years. One clear issue is that survey participation rates used to form their original report have fallen as low as under 43 percent, resulting in estimates increasingly reliant upon projections and modeling. These rates improve in later reports, resulting in the significant revisions.

Antoni has pointed to these underlying issues as a potential reason to suspend the monthly jobs report in favor of just releasing the more accurate quarterly report, which was met by horrifying gasps from critics. While it’s easy to identify a political motivation in preventing unflattering economic data from being released to the public, it is worth noting that it is the inaccurate monthly reports that have projected a rosier depiction of the economy.

The real question is why is a monthly jobs report viewed as so significant, given that there is universal recognition of systemic issues with their methodology and their recent record of poor past performance? The issue is that government statistics are themselves essential to the operations of how Washington operates.

As Murray Rothbard noted in his article, Statistics: Achilles’ Heel of Government:


"Only by statistics, can the federal government make even a fitful attempt to plan, regulate, control, or reform various industries — or impose central planning and socialization on the entire economic system…

Statistics, to repeat, are the eyes and ears of the interventionists: of the intellectual reformer, the politician, and the government bureaucrat. Cut off those eyes and ears, destroy those crucial guidelines to knowledge, and the whole threat of government intervention is almost completely eliminated."​


The perceived importance of government statistics is precisely because they are the tools used to justify and execute the labyrinth of interventions in society. Real-world conditions—be they in markets or the safety of neighbors—are secondary to the ability of politicians to point to the officially-credentialed statistical measures to tout the wisdom of their desired policy aims. In recent years, we’ve seen politicians tout the safety of cities that stopped reporting meaningful violent crime statistics.

As such, questioning the credibility of the government statistics is a means by which to erode credibility in the state itself. Perceiving the collection of government statistics as being partisan, erodes the credibility of the state itself. It is better, then, to maintain the tradition and the perception of norms in the accounting and releasing of government statistics than it is to meaningfully consider the underlying value of what is being recorded in the first place.

This does not mean, of course, that Washington is reflexively against profound changes into how government statistics are compiled. The Consumer Price Index (CPI) has undergone a number of changes over the last several decades, resulting in markets for alternative measures of inflation. Sometimes the Federal Reserve will simply decommission certain data sets. These changes, however, are granted the credentialed veneer of acceptability by the expert class, and often done in an understated way far from public attention.

In short, despite the transparent political aims of the current administration in the battle over the future of the BLS data sets, the emphasis placed on government statistics is inherently intractable to the operations of the interventionist state and, therefore, they should always be viewed through a lens of cynicism. Much like romantic notions of “Federal Reserve independence,” “a federal system of checks and balances,” or the “independent nature of professional bureaucracy,” to suggest otherwise is to ignore the realities of how Washington operates in practice.



 
Back
Top