How have independent economists evaluated the job and inflation figures cited by the White House in 2025?

1. Jobs: solid headline payrolls, but economists warn of cooling and survey noise

Many independent economists acknowledged that payrolls have been strong in parts of 2025 — the Treasury noted 671,000 payroll jobs in the first five months of the administration and a pickup in quarterly job creation ^[4] — yet analysts widely cautioned that labor-market indicators are showing signs of cooling and that recent reports contain “more noise than usual” because BLS surveys were disrupted by the shutdown, a point underscored by commentators such as Moody’s Mark Zandi and Newsweek’s coverage ^[5]. Major outlets and independent analysts flagged the rise in the unemployment rate in some monthly reads — for example a move to 4.6% in one report noted by the BBC — which many economists treat as a meaningful signal even when payroll counts remain positive ^[6].

2. Inflation: White House framing vs. economists’ mixed readings

The White House repeatedly framed CPI and core inflation readings as evidence that “inflation is declining” and “on target,” highlighting months of below-expectation core CPI and claiming core inflation tracked at about 2.1% under the administration ^{[1] [7]}. Independent economists and budget analysts pushed back with nuance: while some data points did show slowing PCE and CPI readings in parts of the year — Treasury cited PCE slowing to about 2.3% through May and other measures “stable-to-lower” in Q2 ^[4] — the Congressional Budget Office revised its outlook upward, forecasting inflation nearer 3.1% for the remainder of 2025 versus earlier, lower projections, signaling disagreement about the medium-term trajectory ^[8].

3. Data gaps and methodological caveats shape independent appraisals

Economists repeatedly warned that the 2025 shutdown-created data gaps complicate real-time assessment: Friends of BLS and market economists flagged possible representativeness issues in the Current Population Survey and delayed CPI and jobs releases that could introduce atypical volatility or measurement problems, although many Wall Street economists expected quality impacts to be “limited” ^{[3] [2] [5]}. Independent commentators therefore treated the administration’s positive spin as premature when the underlying time series were incomplete or atypical, stressing that the Fed and forecasters must work with noisier inputs ^{[9] [5]}.

4. Independent fact-checkers and watchdogs: context, not wholesale contradiction

FactCheck.org and similar independent reviewers did not simply dismiss the White House numbers but placed them in context: FactCheck noted the administration’s rhetorical overreach — such as asserting that “inflation is stopped” — and pointed to CPI readings showing the 12‑month rate up 3% for a recent period and core inflation rising year-over-year in some measures, underscoring tension between selective month-to-month drops and longer-run measures ^[10]. In sum, watchdogs emphasized that headline monthly wins are real but do not erase broader signs of stickiness.

5. Political optics and alternative readings: economists versus administration messaging

Independent economists and polling organizations observed that even modest statistical improvements have limited political traction when consumers continue to feel price pressure: polls cited by PBS and Axios show deteriorating public confidence on inflation and the economy, with approval for the president on economic handling at record lows, reflecting that technical readings and lived experience diverge — a point economists use to explain why favorable monthly CPI prints do not automatically translate into broad confidence or a clear vindication of policy ^{[11] [12]}. Critics also noted that the White House’s emphasis on selective metrics can serve partisan messaging goals, while economists call for sustained multi-month trends and unbroken data series before declaring victory ^{[1] [10]}.