The latest Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) jobs report landed like a thunderclap in Washington — and it could send shockwaves to Topeka.
For July, the BLS reported 73,000 net new jobs nationwide, 83,000 in the private sector, offset by a loss of 10,000 in government jobs. The unemployment rate ticked up to 4.2%, and a substantial 258,000 jobs were revised down for the previous two months. Hours later, President Trump fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer, claiming without evidence that the numbers were “rigged.” He later nominated E.J. Antoni, chief economist at The Heritage Foundation and a long-time critic of the BLS, to take over the agency.
For Kansas, this drama isn’t just a political spectacle. It’s about whether policymakers, businesses, and taxpayers will have access to timely and credible labor market data they need to make informed decisions.
Why BLS Data Is Vital for Kansas
Kansas runs on labor market intelligence — and much of it comes from the BLS:
- Budget forecasting: Employment trends directly affect state income and sales tax revenue projections.
- Federal funding formulas: Workforce and social service grants rely on unemployment and labor force data to allocate money.
- Workforce development: Industry hiring trends inform how Kansas invests in job training and apprenticeships.
- Business climate: Employers looking to expand or relocate examine state labor statistics before committing capital.
If the monthly jobs report were replaced with quarterly updates — as Antoni has suggested — Kansas could lose its early warning system for economic shifts. That delay could mean missing the chance to respond to a downturn in Wichita manufacturing, a surge in logistics hiring in Kansas City, or rising rural unemployment.
The Data Problems — and the Politics
The Wall Street Journal editorial board points out that BLS data have become more volatile because survey response rates have plunged. Over the past decade, the establishment survey response rate has decreased from 61% to 43%, and the household survey rate has dropped from 88% to 68%.
Lower response rates mean statisticians rely more on models early in the month and revise the numbers later as more data comes in. These revisions can be significant, especially for smaller sectors and states, but they are standard practice in federal statistics. When measured as a percentage of total employment, first estimates have become more accurate over the decades, not less.
Some of today’s volatility is also a legacy of COVID-19 shutdowns, which disrupted seasonal patterns, altered labor flows, and altered the baselines the BLS uses to estimate job growth. The statisticians didn’t cause those disruptions — but they still cloud today’s reports.
My Connection — and My Concern
I know E.J. Antoni pretty well and congratulated him on his nomination by President Trump. We worked together at theTexas Public Policy Foundation starting in 2021, where we collaborated on projects aimed at eliminating Texas property taxes, opposing COVID-19 lockdowns, and challenging harmful federal policies.
He understands economics, and if he applies that knowledge to improving BLS methods — such as better seasonal adjustments, higher survey participation, and the integration of private-sector data from ADP, Indeed, and Homebase — states like Kansas could receive more accurate and more valuable data.
However, the way this change is happening raises concerns. Firing a commissioner over politically inconvenient numbers risks turning the BLS into a political instrument. For Kansas, politicized data could mean weaker budget forecasts, misdirected workforce investments, and a loss of credibility with businesses and investors. Some of Antoni’s more recent analyses of labor market data and international trade have been questionable at best.
The Stakes for Kansas Policymaking
Consider how Kansas uses BLS data in real time:
- If aviation employment in Wichita dips, the state can quickly ramp up targeted retraining programs.
- If warehouse hiring in Kansas City spikes, revenue forecasts for sales taxes can be adjusted upward, and infrastructure investments can be prioritized.
- If farm labor indicators show stress, rural development funds can be directed where they’re needed most.
Delayed or politically filtered data would render these rapid adjustments impossible, forcing Kansas to react months late, when problems are more severe and solutions more expensive. If the swings of private sector investment, propped up by government subsidies, are hard enough to understand it will only be more the case if official tallies are further called into question.
Reform Without Retrenchment
Yes, the BLS should be modernized:
- Upgrade seasonal adjustments so patterns in education, agriculture, and manufacturing are more accurately reflected.
- Boost survey response rates with automated, streamlined data collection.
- Leverage private-sector data to reduce reliance on models and improve timeliness.
- Maintain monthly reports with clear explanations of uncertainty and revisions.
But eliminating monthly reporting or slowing down releases would hurt Kansas far more than it would help. Timely information is essential for both public and private decision-making.
Lessons From My Time in Washington
When I served at the first Trump White House Office of Management and Budget, I saw firsthand the importance of states having access to reliable federal data. Inaccurate or delayed reporting can result in wasted funds, suboptimal policy design, and missed opportunities for growth. I also learned that independence matters. When I was appointed in 2019, I took heat, but for being too free-market, not for bending numbers to fit a narrative. The BLS needs a leader who will strengthen its work without succumbing to political pressure.
A Kansas-Centered Path Forward
For Kansas to thrive, the state needs:
- Reliable monthly labor data to guide budgeting and policy.
- Accurate industry-level trends to direct private workforce training where it’s needed most.
- Credible statistics that give businesses confidence to invest and expand here.
If the new BLS leadership focuses on these goals, Kansas will be better equipped to respond to economic changes and seize growth opportunities. If it veers into political score-settling, Kansas — and every other state — will be left flying blind.
Bottom Line
Kansas doesn’t just read BLS reports. It builds budgets, funds programs, and attracts investment based on them. Getting this right means better data and better decisions for Kansans. Getting it wrong means risking budget shortfalls, misallocated resources, and lost jobs. The next few months will reveal whether Washington’s fight over the jobs numbers yields lasting reform — or merely more uncertainty. For Kansas, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
