Extra! Extra! The Biden economy was a failure. Read all about it! From January 2021 to January 2025, a variety of metrics indicated an anemic or painful economic landscape, whether at the local supermarket or the gasoline station. The one thing the former administration had going for it was a solid headline US labor market. However, according to new government data, the narrative of a Biden miracle has now been shattered.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) released its annual preliminary benchmark nonfarm payroll revisions on Sept. 9. Every year, the federal agency compares the monthly Current Employment Statistics (the monthly jobs report) to the comprehensive Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (quarterly unemployment insurance tax filings).
Between March 2024 and March 2025, the bureau overstated job growth by 911,000, representing a 37% decline from its original estimate of approximately 2.4 million new jobs. This accounted for a 0.6% share of national employment, higher than the ten-year average of 0.2%. Should the revisions hold, this means monthly job gains averaged a little more than 70,000, down from nearly 147,000 before the report.
In the private sector, there were 880,000 fewer jobs than reported. The changes were observed across multiple industries, including leisure and hospitality (negative 176,000), professional and business services (negative 158,000), retail (negative 126,200), and wholesale trade (negative 110,300). Likewise, government jobs were adjusted lower by 31,000.
It could be uglier in February 2026 when the BLS publishes the final benchmark revisions. Moreover, this is not the first time the revisions have depicted a slower labor market. Liberty Nation News reported in August 2024 that the BLS revised payroll growth by 818,000, or 30%, from March 2023 to March 2024. So, instead of 2.9 million new jobs, the US economy added about 2.1 million. Additionally, the bureau found that payroll figures for March 2022 to March 2023 were overstated by 306,000.
When considering that much of the job growth in the first two years of Biden’s presidency was due to positions returning from the pandemic, the United States added only between 3 and 4 million new jobs under the previous administration. Ouch. By comparison, President Donald Trump’s economy had created almost 7 million new jobs before the COVID-19 pandemic.
These annual benchmark revisions have vast implications for various reasons.
First, the US labor market was already deteriorating well ahead of Trump’s sweeping international tariff agenda. So, while payroll growth is slowing or contracting, the signs were appearing before the White House imposed punitive tariffs on the rest of the world.
Second, the figures suggest the president may have been correct when nicknaming Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell “Mr. Too Late.” He has pleaded with Powell and Co. for months to lower interest rates. Since monetary policy functions with a lag, it would take months for policy easing to influence the broader economic climate. As Fed Gov. Christopher Waller argued in June, why wait for labor conditions to crater before taking action and restarting the central bank’s rate-cutting cycle?
Finally, the ebullient attitude on Wall Street about the job market over the last few years was based on faulty data. Market watchers have repeatedly stated that high employment levels meant strong balance sheets, which indicates they can afford to splurge and prop up the consumption-driven economy. However, as LNN repeatedly noted, the country’s growth was fueled by debt at the micro and macro levels.
The dataset gathered by the Bureau of Labor Statistics has been marketed as the gold standard. It seems, much like America’s gold standard, cracks will begin to form, and the system will be incrementally dismantled.
Everyone in the US economy depends on accurate and timely BLS employment data. Despite his critics howling at the moon that Trump fired commissioner Erika McEntarfer because he wanted data to shine a positive spotlight on his economy, economic observers argue that changes at the federal agency should have occurred a long time ago. If the bureau repeatedly publishes inaccurate data, whether because of low response rates or poor methodology, a pair of fresh eyes would be required, as in any other organization. Why is the bureau immune to criticism and change?