The dismissal by President Donald Trump of the commissioner of the Office of Labor Statistics, Erika Mtntarfer, on August 1, 2025, after an unfavorable unemployment report, has generated criticism for its potential to undermine the credibility of the agency. But it is not the first time that its administration takes measures that could weaken the integrity of some government data.
Consider monitoring maternal mortality in the United States, which is the highest among developed nations. Since 1987, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have administered the pregnancy risk assessment monitoring system to better understand when, where and why maternal deaths occur.
In April 2025, the Trump administration put the department in charge of collecting and tracking this data during the license.
So far, there are no indications that no BLS data has been eliminated or interrupted. But there have been reports that this happens in other agencies of all kinds.
The White House is also collecting less information, especially from how many Americans have medical insurance to the number of students enrolled in public schools, and making the data selected by the government of all kinds out of the reach of the public. President Donald Trump is also trying to get rid of entire agencies, such as the Department of Education, which are responsible for collecting important data related to poverty and inequality.
Its administration has also begun to eliminate websites and repositories that share government data with the public.
Why the data are essential for the security network
I study the role played by data in political decision making, including when and how government officials decide to collect them. Through years of research, I have discovered that good data are essential, not only for politicians, but also for journalists, defenders and voters. Without it, it is much harder to find out when a policy is failing, and even more difficult to help people who are not well connected politically.
Since Trump lent oath for the second time, I have been attentive to the interruption, elimination and definance of data on security network programs, such as food assistance and services for people with disabilities.
I think that interrupting data collection will make it more difficult to find out who qualifies for these programs or what happens when people lose their benefits. I also believe that all this missing data will make it difficult for supporters of security networks to rebuild them in the future.
Why the Government collects this data
There is no way to find out if policies and programs work without credible data collected for a long period of time.
For example, without a system to measure precisely how many people need help to put food on their tables, it is difficult to find out how much the country should spend on the supplementary nutrition assistant program, previously known as food coupons, the Federal Supplementary Nutrition Program for women, babies and children, known as WICY related programs. The data on eligibility and registration in Medicaid before and after the approval of the Law on Low Price Health Care in 2010 offers another example. The national data showed that millions of Americans obtained medical insurance coverage after the ACA was implemented.
Many institutions and organizations, such as universities, news organizations, groups of experts and non -profit organizations focused on particular issues such as poverty and inequality or housing, collect data on the impact of security networks policies on low -income Americans.
Without a doubt, these non -governmental data collection efforts will continue, and perhaps even increase. However, it is very unlikely that these independent efforts can replace any of the government data collection programs, much less to all.
The Government, because it takes the initiative in the implementation of official policies, is in a unique position to collect and store confidential data collected for long periods of time. That is why the disappearance of thousands of official websites can have very long -term consequences.
You may be interested: Netanyahu held a 3 -hour meeting with the Army Chief on War in Gaza
Which makes Trump’s approach stand out
Pause, dentanciation and suppression of government data by the Trump administration mark a great deviation with respect to their predecessors.
Already in the 1930s, social scientists and local legislators of the US realized the data potential to show what policies worked and what were a loss of money. Since then, policy formulators of the entire political spectrum have been increasingly interested in using data to make the government work better.
This approach to the data grew from 2001, when President George W. Bush caused the government to pay accounts of the measurable results as a priority.
He saw the data as a powerful tool to reduce waste and evaluate the results of the policies. Its emblematic educational reform, the law that no child stays behind, radically expanded the collection and report of student performance data in public schools K-12.
How this contrasts with the administrations of Obama and Biden
The presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden emphasized the importance of the data to evaluate the impact of their policies on low -income people, who historically have had little political influence.
Obama initiated a working group to identify ways to collect, analyze and incorporate more useful data in security network policies. Biden implemented several of the group’s suggestions.
For example, he insisted on the collection of demographic data and their analysis when evaluating the impacts of the new security network policies. This approach shapes the way in which its administration handled changes in mortgage loans, the expansion of access to broadband and the establishment of extension programs to register people in Medicaid and Medicare.
Why it will be difficult to rebuild
It is more difficult to defend security network programs when there are no relevant data. For example, programs that help low -income people to see a doctor, get fresh food and find housing can be more profitable than simply to continue living in poverty.
Blocking data collection can also make government financing restore after a program is trimmed or closes even more difficult. This is because it will be more difficult for people who benefited from these programs to persuade their fellow taxpayers that there is a need to invest in an expanding program or create a new one.
Without sufficient data, even well -intentioned policies in the future can worsen the same problems that they are supposed to be solved, long after the Trump administration has concluded.
*Sarah James is an assistant professor of Political Science at the University of Gonzaga.
This article was originally published in The Conversation/Reuters
Do you like photos and news? Follow us on our Instagram
