'Big threats': Concerns Grow Among Labor Department Allies Over Musk's Focus
The statistical bureau of the department serves as a crucial source of information that influences the perspectives of both policymakers and Wall Street investors regarding the economy.
TroibNews 
The arrival of Elon Musk’s allies at the Labor Department has raised concerns that the integrity of the agency's reports on crucial topics like inflation and employment may be compromised due to the inexperience of outsiders, potentially leading to global repercussions.
Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is taking an aggressive approach with other federal agencies, prompting former leaders of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to emphasize the necessity of safeguarding its delicate survey data. They warn that any politicization—real or perceived—of BLS’s internal processes could undermine its ability to generate precise reports, which are vital indicators of the U.S. economy's condition and can influence financial markets worldwide.
“If they access data, it would be very problematic," stated William Beach, a former BLS commissioner under President Donald Trump.
The BLS serves as the source of frequent updates that inform policymakers and Wall Street investors about economic conditions. Key outputs, such as the Consumer Price Index and monthly job statistics, are crucial for the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions. Deteriorating data quality could reduce the Fed's ability to navigate between preventing high inflation and high unemployment.
The unexpected presence of DOGE at the Labor Department earlier this month unsettled federal employees and economists, with Musk's associates offering little clarity on their plans for the agency. Unions representing federal workers, along with the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, have initiated legal action to prevent Musk's personnel from accessing Labor Department data, but a federal judge recently declined to halt DOGE’s activities.
A spokesperson for Musk's efficiency group did not respond to requests for comment.
The calls for safeguarding BLS are proactive; there is no current evidence that DOGE has interfered with the agency's data compilation or presentation. Nonetheless, concerns are rising due to limited transparency around the level of access that DOGE-linked officials have to the Treasury Department's payment systems, which have faced litigation as well.
Trump has criticized the BLS for many years, alleging—without proof—that Democratic administrations manipulated data to generate favorable economic reports. He endorsed former GE CEO Jack Welch’s claim about "Chicago guys" inflating payroll estimates during President Barack Obama’s tenure and raised objections last year when BLS issued standard revisions to job numbers under President Joe Biden.
DOGE’s covert operations at the Labor Department have heightened worries about potential threats to long-standing BLS practices amid the larger strategy of the Trump administration to significantly cut federal operations. While BLS's survey data is legally protected, its supporters argue that any erosion of public trust in the agency could diminish its overall effectiveness.
“I see some very big threats. I see threats associated with funding. I see threats associated with personnel. I see threats in the reduction of independence and objectivity,” remarked Erica Groshen, who headed the BLS during the Obama administration.
She noted that many of BLS’s best practices “aren’t written into law,” and she added, “if an administration is less careful about laws, they’re going to be even less careful about norms.”
Democratic committee aides and individuals close to BLS have expressed that they are not alarmed by any current interference with BLS data releases. This is attributed to the likelihood that BLS staff would resist any attempts at manipulation and the high skill needed to alter the figures credibly, as experts analyze every detail of the reported data. Beach also mentioned that he had previously worked to ensure BLS data was kept separate from other Labor Department data.
Instead, aides are more concerned that businesses might hesitate to respond to BLS surveys due to fears that their confidential data could be inadequately protected. The agency has already seen declining response rates in recent years.
“If it is in the headlines, and businesses hear, ‘If you complete surveys, that information could be accessed in an unsecure way, or shared,’ I would assume that as a small business you would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way I’m going to give this out,’” one aide said, indicating that this dynamic could undermine the nation’s ability to accurately assess employment changes.
“We take for granted that we can have national jobs numbers,” the aide added.
Furthermore, the challenges are aggravated by budgetary and staffing issues faced by statistical agencies, including the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau. Among statisticians, there is concern that the new administration’s proposed cuts, along with efforts to simplify the firing of federal employees, could introduce greater uncertainty in these departments.
“If you can more easily fire people, it introduces a mechanism where you could improperly influence the data,” said Steve Pierson, director of science policy at the American Statistical Association. “If there’s a way to improperly influence the data — even if there’s that perception — it undermines their credibility.”
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
Musk's Department of Government Efficiency is taking an aggressive approach with other federal agencies, prompting former leaders of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to emphasize the necessity of safeguarding its delicate survey data. They warn that any politicization—real or perceived—of BLS’s internal processes could undermine its ability to generate precise reports, which are vital indicators of the U.S. economy's condition and can influence financial markets worldwide.
“If they access data, it would be very problematic," stated William Beach, a former BLS commissioner under President Donald Trump.
The BLS serves as the source of frequent updates that inform policymakers and Wall Street investors about economic conditions. Key outputs, such as the Consumer Price Index and monthly job statistics, are crucial for the Federal Reserve's interest rate decisions. Deteriorating data quality could reduce the Fed's ability to navigate between preventing high inflation and high unemployment.
The unexpected presence of DOGE at the Labor Department earlier this month unsettled federal employees and economists, with Musk's associates offering little clarity on their plans for the agency. Unions representing federal workers, along with the labor-oriented Economic Policy Institute, have initiated legal action to prevent Musk's personnel from accessing Labor Department data, but a federal judge recently declined to halt DOGE’s activities.
A spokesperson for Musk's efficiency group did not respond to requests for comment.
The calls for safeguarding BLS are proactive; there is no current evidence that DOGE has interfered with the agency's data compilation or presentation. Nonetheless, concerns are rising due to limited transparency around the level of access that DOGE-linked officials have to the Treasury Department's payment systems, which have faced litigation as well.
Trump has criticized the BLS for many years, alleging—without proof—that Democratic administrations manipulated data to generate favorable economic reports. He endorsed former GE CEO Jack Welch’s claim about "Chicago guys" inflating payroll estimates during President Barack Obama’s tenure and raised objections last year when BLS issued standard revisions to job numbers under President Joe Biden.
DOGE’s covert operations at the Labor Department have heightened worries about potential threats to long-standing BLS practices amid the larger strategy of the Trump administration to significantly cut federal operations. While BLS's survey data is legally protected, its supporters argue that any erosion of public trust in the agency could diminish its overall effectiveness.
“I see some very big threats. I see threats associated with funding. I see threats associated with personnel. I see threats in the reduction of independence and objectivity,” remarked Erica Groshen, who headed the BLS during the Obama administration.
She noted that many of BLS’s best practices “aren’t written into law,” and she added, “if an administration is less careful about laws, they’re going to be even less careful about norms.”
Democratic committee aides and individuals close to BLS have expressed that they are not alarmed by any current interference with BLS data releases. This is attributed to the likelihood that BLS staff would resist any attempts at manipulation and the high skill needed to alter the figures credibly, as experts analyze every detail of the reported data. Beach also mentioned that he had previously worked to ensure BLS data was kept separate from other Labor Department data.
Instead, aides are more concerned that businesses might hesitate to respond to BLS surveys due to fears that their confidential data could be inadequately protected. The agency has already seen declining response rates in recent years.
“If it is in the headlines, and businesses hear, ‘If you complete surveys, that information could be accessed in an unsecure way, or shared,’ I would assume that as a small business you would say, ‘Oh, there’s no way I’m going to give this out,’” one aide said, indicating that this dynamic could undermine the nation’s ability to accurately assess employment changes.
“We take for granted that we can have national jobs numbers,” the aide added.
Furthermore, the challenges are aggravated by budgetary and staffing issues faced by statistical agencies, including the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis and the U.S. Census Bureau. Among statisticians, there is concern that the new administration’s proposed cuts, along with efforts to simplify the firing of federal employees, could introduce greater uncertainty in these departments.
“If you can more easily fire people, it introduces a mechanism where you could improperly influence the data,” said Steve Pierson, director of science policy at the American Statistical Association. “If there’s a way to improperly influence the data — even if there’s that perception — it undermines their credibility.”
Sophie Wagner contributed to this report for TROIB News
