Have a read below, facts are important, not a padded article from the Fox Trump Network.
Especially when you have to look at the headline in the article you want to use as fact
Trump accuses Biden admin of 'MASSIVE SCANDAL' after new jobs numbers dramatically revised downward
Trump would blame Biden for the reason he has to wear diapers.
1. Revisions are built into the system
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) always treats its monthly nonfarm payroll estimates as preliminary. Over time, as more data come in (especially from state unemployment insurance records, employer tax filings, etc.), it revises those numbers. Wikipedia+2Bureau of Labor Statistics+2
- There are monthly revisions (for the two prior months) and an annual “benchmark” revision that occurs later once more complete underlying data are available. PolitiFact+3Bureau of Labor Statistics+3Wikipedia+3
- The benchmark revisions tend to be the largest because they realign the survey-based estimates with administrative records. Wikipedia+2Bureau of Labor Statistics+2
So it's not that the BLS is “suddenly changing” things for political reasons — it’s doing the math as better information arrives. That’s baked into the methodology.
2. What was the August 2024 downward revision episode?
Trump zeroed in on a big revision in August 2024 (a downward adjustment of ~818,000 jobs) as proof of manipulation. But here’s what the actual timeline and mechanics reveal:
- On August 21, 2024, the BLS announced a preliminary downward revision of 818,000 jobs for the 12-month period ending March 2024. Staffing Industry Analysts+4PolitiFact+4ABC News+4
- That revision was before the election, not immediately after it, as Trump sometimes implies. FactCheck.org+3PolitiFact+3ABC News+3
- Later, in February 2025, the BLS issued its final benchmark revision and scaled that adjustment back — to a downward revision of ~589,000 jobs. In other words, the final adjustment was smaller than the initial claim of 818,000. PolitiFact+2ABC News+2
- Analysts note that the 818,000 figure was “preliminary,” subject to revision itself, so you can’t treat it as a fixed “gotcha” number. PolitiFact+2FactCheck.org+2
- PolitiFact explicitly rated one of Trump’s statements about this timeline “Pants on Fire,” because he misrepresented when the revision happened relative to the election. PolitiFact
So yes — there was a large downward revision. But no — that revision doesn’t substantiate the claim that someone “rigged” the data to help Democrats or punish Republicans.
3. Data issues and limitations do exist
That said, the BLS’s jobs data are imperfect. Here are some structural challenges:
- Response rates are declining. More employers are slow to respond to the payroll survey, which forces the BLS to rely more heavily on statistical imputations. Reuters+2Wikipedia+2
- That means the original estimates can drift more than they used to, especially in sectors or small businesses where data are sparse. Wikipedia+2FactCheck.org+2
- Because of that, large revisions have become more visible — but again, they come through the system, not via a plot by a commissioner. Reuters+3Wikipedia+3Bureau of Labor Statistics+3
- Importantly: The BLS commissioner doesn’t directly “make up” numbers. The systems, methodology, and data pipelines are largely independent and well-audited. It's not like she just dialed a “+100,000 jobs” number one day. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
Why Trump's “padding the numbers” claim doesn’t hold up
Putting it all together:
- The revision Trump seized on (–818,000) was preliminary and announced before the election — which contradicts his narrative that the data were adjusted after the election to hide something. FactCheck.org+3PolitiFact+3ABC News+3
- The final adjustment was smaller (–589,000), meaning the initial large number was scaled back. That undermines the idea of a grand conspiracy. PolitiFact+2ABC News+2
- Revisions are a known, built-in feature of how labor statistics are compiled — they happen routinely. Trump frames them as scandals. Wikipedia+4FactCheck.org+4PolitiFact+4
- There is no credible evidence that the BLS manipulated its methodology for political ends. Fact-checkers have repeatedly found that Trump’s claims about “rigged” or “fabricated” job numbers lack evidence.
1. Revisions are built into the system
- The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) always treats its monthly nonfarm payroll estimates as preliminary. Over time, as more data come in (especially from state unemployment insurance records, employer tax filings, etc.), it revises those numbers. Wikipedia+2Bureau of Labor Statistics+2
- There are monthly revisions (for the two prior months) and an annual “benchmark” revision that occurs later once more complete underlying data are available. PolitiFact+3Bureau of Labor Statistics+3Wikipedia+3
- The benchmark revisions tend to be the largest because they realign the survey-based estimates with administrative records. Wikipedia+2Bureau of Labor Statistics+2
So it's not that the BLS is “suddenly changing” things for political reasons — it’s doing the math as better information arrives. That’s baked into the methodology.
2. What was the August 2024 downward revision episode?
Trump zeroed in on a big revision in August 2024 (a downward adjustment of ~818,000 jobs) as proof of manipulation. But here’s what the actual timeline and mechanics reveal:
- On August 21, 2024, the BLS announced a preliminary downward revision of 818,000 jobs for the 12-month period ending March 2024. Staffing Industry Analysts+4PolitiFact+4ABC News+4
- That revision was before the election, not immediately after it, as Trump sometimes implies. FactCheck.org+3PolitiFact+3ABC News+3
- Later, in February 2025, the BLS issued its final benchmark revision and scaled that adjustment back — to a downward revision of ~589,000 jobs. In other words, the final adjustment was smaller than the initial claim of 818,000. PolitiFact+2ABC News+2
- Analysts note that the 818,000 figure was “preliminary,” subject to revision itself, so you can’t treat it as a fixed “gotcha” number. PolitiFact+2FactCheck.org+2
- PolitiFact explicitly rated one of Trump’s statements about this timeline “Pants on Fire,” because he misrepresented when the revision happened relative to the election. PolitiFact
So yes — there was a large downward revision. But no — that revision doesn’t substantiate the claim that someone “rigged” the data to help Democrats or punish Republicans.
3. Data issues and limitations do exist
That said, the BLS’s jobs data are imperfect. Here are some structural challenges:
- Response rates are declining. More employers are slow to respond to the payroll survey, which forces the BLS to rely more heavily on statistical imputations. Reuters+2Wikipedia+2
- That means the original estimates can drift more than they used to, especially in sectors or small businesses where data are sparse. Wikipedia+2FactCheck.org+2
- Because of that, large revisions have become more visible — but again, they come through the system, not via a plot by a commissioner. Reuters+3Wikipedia+3Bureau of Labor Statistics+3
- Importantly: The BLS commissioner doesn’t directly “make up” numbers. The systems, methodology, and data pipelines are largely independent and well-audited. It's not like she just dialed a “+100,000 jobs” number one day. Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2
Why Trump's “padding the numbers” claim doesn’t hold up
Putting it all together:
- The revision Trump seized on (–818,000) was preliminary and announced before the election — which contradicts his narrative that the data were adjusted after the election to hide something. FactCheck.org+3PolitiFact+3ABC News+3
- The final adjustment was smaller (–589,000), meaning the initial large number was scaled back. That undermines the idea of a grand conspiracy. PolitiFact+2ABC News+2
- Revisions are a known, built-in feature of how labor statistics are compiled — they happen routinely. Trump frames them as scandals. Wikipedia+4FactCheck.org+4PolitiFact+4
- There is no credible evidence that the BLS manipulated its methodology for political ends. Fact-checkers have repeatedly found that Trump’s claims about “rigged” or “fabricated” job numbers lack evidence.
babylonbee.com
apnews.com
www.foxnews.com
