President Donald Trump’s latest pick to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) has ignited controversy by proposing a pause in the publication of the agency’s hallmark monthly jobs reports, replacing them with quarterly updates.
The nominee, E.J. Antoni, an economist known for his conservative policy positions, argues that shifting to quarterly reporting would improve the accuracy of employment data by allowing more time for survey collection, verification, and adjustments.
But the suggestion has met swift backlash from economists, investors, and policy experts who say that reducing the frequency of employment reporting would weaken transparency, undermine timely economic decision-making, and increase uncertainty in financial markets.
Table of Contents
Why the Proposal Matters
The monthly jobs report—formally the Employment Situation Summary—is one of the most closely watched economic indicators in the United States. Compiled by the BLS, it includes:
- Nonfarm payroll employment changes
- The unemployment rate
- Labor force participation rates
- Average hourly earnings
- Sector-by-sector job trends
It serves as a cornerstone for decisions by:
- The Federal Reserve in setting monetary policy
- Investors in adjusting market positions
- Businesses in planning hiring and investment
- Lawmakers crafting fiscal policy
Antoni’s Argument for Change
In remarks to Senate staffers and during media interviews, Antoni outlined several reasons for his proposal:
- Accuracy Over Speed
Antoni contends that monthly reporting sacrifices accuracy for timeliness. By the time the report is released, it often contains estimates that will be revised—sometimes significantly—in subsequent months. - Reduced Volatility
He believes quarterly reporting would smooth out short-term swings in the data, making trends clearer and reducing overreactions to monthly fluctuations. - Resource Allocation
Collecting, processing, and verifying labor data every month requires substantial BLS resources. Antoni argues these could be redeployed toward methodological improvements.
Critics Push Back
Opponents of the proposal argue that timely data is critical for managing economic risks—especially in periods of volatility.
“This is like asking pilots to fly with fewer instruments because sometimes they’re a little off,” said Diane Swonk, chief economist at KPMG. “The monthly jobs report is essential, even if imperfect.”
Key Concerns Raised:
- Market Stability
Without regular updates, investors might react more sharply to quarterly releases, leading to larger market swings. - Policy Blind Spots
The Federal Reserve could be forced to make monetary policy decisions without current labor market information. - Public Trust
Reducing reporting frequency could feed suspicion that the government is withholding data to shape political narratives.
Hiring? Reach Millions of Job Seekers Today
Post your job on WhatJobs and attract top talent fast
Post a Job Now →Historical Context
The monthly jobs report has been published since 1915 and is widely considered a gold standard for economic reporting.
While revisions are common—often reflecting additional survey responses and updated seasonal adjustments—the report has maintained credibility because of its transparency and methodological consistency.
The Political Backdrop
Antoni’s nomination comes at a politically sensitive moment for the BLS:
- The agency’s previous commissioner, Erika McEntarfer, was dismissed earlier this month after disputes over jobs data revisions that showed weaker employment growth than initially reported.
- The Trump administration has intensified scrutiny of federal economic data agencies, arguing that they need reforms to improve “accuracy” and “objectivity.”
- Critics see these moves as part of a broader effort to reshape economic narratives ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Market and Policy Implications
If Antoni’s proposal were implemented, it could:
- Delay recognition of recessions or recoveries, making it harder for policymakers to respond quickly.
- Force businesses to rely on private-sector surveys, which may be less comprehensive.
- Increase the influence of alternative data sources—such as payroll processor ADP’s employment report—on market sentiment.
Sectoral Impact of Reduced Reporting Frequency
| Sector | Potential Effect |
|---|---|
| Finance | Increased uncertainty in trading strategies; reliance on private data providers. |
| Labor Policy | Slower response to job losses in at-risk industries. |
| Consumer Markets | Delayed recognition of wage trends could mislead retail and service planning. |
| Government Contracting | Less timely workforce data for public procurement decisions. |
Public and Expert Reactions
- Labor unions warn that quarterly reporting could hide rapid layoffs until too late to intervene.
- Wall Street analysts worry that delayed data could lead to “lumpy” market reactions, with big selloffs or rallies concentrated on release days.
- Academics argue that accuracy and timeliness aren’t mutually exclusive—pointing to statistical techniques that could improve monthly reliability.
International Comparisons
Most advanced economies, including Canada, the UK, Germany, and Japan, publish labor statistics monthly.
Moving to quarterly reporting would make the U.S. an outlier among G7 nations and potentially limit global comparability.
FAQ: BLS Monthly Jobs Reports
Q1: What exactly is in the monthly jobs report?
It includes payroll job changes, unemployment rate, labor participation, wages, and industry-specific employment shifts.
Q2: How accurate are these reports?
Initial figures are based on survey samples and later revised as more data becomes available.
Q3: Would quarterly reports be more accurate?
Potentially, but they would lack the timeliness needed for rapid policy and market decisions.
Q4: Has the idea of quarterly jobs reports ever been proposed before?
Not in modern times. The monthly format has been consistent for over a century.
Bottom Line
E.J. Antoni’s proposal to replace monthly jobs reports with quarterly updates has sparked a high-stakes debate about the trade-off between accuracy and timeliness in economic reporting.
Supporters see a chance to improve data quality, while critics warn it would undermine transparency and weaken the ability of policymakers, investors, and businesses to respond to rapid changes in the labor market.
With the Senate confirmation process looming, the future of one of America’s most important economic indicators now hangs in the balance.
