Charlie Kirk Shot at University Event, The Cuomo Hasan Mamdani 9/11 Controversy, & Today's News
PDS Published 09/10/2025
-
Charlie Kirk was just shot in the neck while speaking at Utah Valley University today.
There’s footage of the incident, which we obviously cannot show in full, though you can see utter panic from the crowd after it happens.
According to local news outlets, the school sent a message to students saying:
"A single shot was fired on campus toward a visiting speaker. Police are investigating now, suspect in custody."
There is also video of the alleged shooter being detained, but right now it is unverified.
Right now, Kirk’s condition is unclear, but from the video, it very much looks like he was shot in the neck.
But responses to the situation have been quick, with Utah Senator Mike Lee writing:
“I am tracking the situation at Utah Valley University closely. Please join me in praying for Charlie Kirk and the students gathered there.”
Vice President JD Vance also sending prayers with Trump echoing that and adding.
“ A great guy from top to bottom. GOD BLESS HIM!”
You also had people on the other side of the political aisle condemning this kind of violence, with Gavin Newsom tweeting:
“The attack on Charlie Kirk is disgusting, vile, and reprehensible. In the United States of America, we must reject political violence in EVERY form.”
Kash Patel has said the FBI is closely monitoring the shooting and response.
As far as details, they are very limited right now, but you do have a video circulating online right where Kirk can be heard talking about mass shootings right before the shot rang out.
-
Right, yesterday Cuomo accepted an endorsement from a 9/11 first responder and his family while speaking near Ground Zero.
And at that event, he had two posters on display:
One with a photo of Hasan and the quote “American deserved 9/11,” which is something Hasan said on stream in 2019, though he has since said that comment was inappropriate and he never meant the victims deserved to die.
And then another showing Hasan and Mamdani shaking hands, as Hasan previously interviewed him while on the campaign trail.
And while Cuomo reportedly did not discuss Mamdani’s interview with Hasan directly during his remarks,
Wendi Turturici, (Tur-tur-ree-chee) the wife of an EMT and first responder, did mention him, releasing a statement saying:
“I know firsthand what kind of leader Andrew Cuomo is. As Governor, he fought to secure benefits for 9/11 families…His opponent, Zohran Mamdani, proudly associates with Hasan Piker, a man who said ‘America deserved 9/11.’ To families like mine, that’s not politics, that’s life and death. His association with Hasan Piker disqualifies him to serve in any role for New York City, let alone one as important as Mayor.”
And this event, and those two posters specifically, have gone viral online, with tons of people mocking them, writing things like:
“Hey you know that massively popular streamer who is beloved by millions and resonates with Gen Z? He supports the other guy!”
“Andrew Cuomo standing next to a sign that says in big letters "America deserved 9/11" with no additional context other than a photo of a Twitch streamer that most regular New Yorkers have never heard of…what a fantastically run campaign.”
Hasan also addressed the situation, tweeting:
“judge me by my enemies (another sex pest).”
And then saying on stream:
“The reason why this is such a stupid line of attack is because either nobody knows who I am, and that is the overwhelming majority of normies, or the people who do know who I am are overwhelmingly on the younger side and they’re already pro-Zohran.” (53:55-54:16)
“I already associated with him and he won the primaries, I did my fucking job.” (55:46-55:50)
“It’s also pure racism. Through and through. But it’s an act of pure desperation overall.” (1:04:36-1:04:44)
And while Mamdani has not addressed this situation yet himself, a spokesperson for his campaign told New York Magazine:
“Andrew Cuomo knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s holding a press conference to suggest that Zohran Mamdani — who is poised to become New York’s first Muslim mayor — somehow supported 9/11. It’s vile, it’s dangerous, and it’s deliberate… New Yorkers can see this for what it is — a cynical attempt to recycle the ugliest playbook in our politics. Cuomo is not protecting the memory of 9/11 victims; he’s once again desecrating it by weaponizing grief and pain for his own ambition.”
And this notably comes as new polling found Mamdani way, way ahead of Cuomo.
The New York Times and Siena just released one asking “If the 2025 New York City mayoral election were held today, who would you vote for?”
And 46% said they would vote for Mamdani, compared to Como getting just 24%.
With respondents also strongly favoring Mamdani on issues like affordability, housing, and dealing with the Israel-Palestine conflict.
So that is where we are on this one, obviously this election will be one to watch all the way into November, but I would love to know your thoughts on where we are now, especially the Hasan aspect here.
-
Kamala Harris has admitted that Joe Biden running for reelection was a mistake.
And besides that, she’s given a damning account of her time in his administration.
Though, notably, she also came to old Joe’s defense in one big way – so let’s dive in.
Right, this is all coming out of an excerpt published in The Atlantic from Harris’s upcoming memoir 107 Days – which is a reference to the number of days Harris campaigned for the presidency after Biden dropped out of the race in 2024.
But seemingly, at least this excerpt, it’s more about her beef with her old boss.
Right, for example, you had her saying she felt sidelined within the White House – with her chief of staff having to “constantly…advocate for [her] role at events” – and writing:
“‘She’s not going to stand there like a potted plant. Give her two minutes of remarks. Have her introduce the president.’” []
You also have Harris claiming that “getting anything positive said about [her] work or any defense against untrue attacks was almost impossible”
With one example, according to her, being related to how Biden tasked her with leading his administration’s effort to curb migration at the southern border – with Harris writing:
“When Republicans mischaracterized my role as 'border czar,' no one in the White House comms team helped me to effectively push back and explain what I had really been tasked to do, nor to highlight any of the progress I had achieved.”
And with that, she criticized the team for not defending her in other ways as well – including when conservative media attacked her "on everything from [her] laugh, to [her] tone of voice, to whom [she’d] dated in [her] 20s, or claimed [she] was a 'DEI hire.'"
With her writing that Biden's team "rarely pushed back with my actual résumé: two terms elected DA, top cop in the second-largest department of justice in the United States, senator representing one in eight Americans.”
And in fact, she claimed she "often learned that the president’s staff was adding fuel to negative narratives that sprang up around me."
And notably, there, you have had Biden’s former White House chief of staff not agreeing with Harris – but at least saying in a past interview that Harris didn’t always get what she deserved, saying:
“We were all united behind the idea she should be successful. We just didn’t find the path to do it.”
“People really liked her. There’s a lot of enthusiasm for her. And I don’t think we did a good enough job of selling her.”
But moving on, maybe the biggest bombshell from all this is what Harris had to say about Biden seeking reelection – with her writing:
"'It’s Joe and Jill’s decision.' We all said that, like a mantra, as if we’d all been hypnotized. Was it grace, or was it recklessness?”
“In retrospect, I think it was recklessness. The stakes were simply too high. This wasn’t a choice that should have been left to an individual’s ego, an individual’s ambition. It should have been more than a personal decision.”
And connected to that, you also had her saying she “was in the worst position to make the case that he should drop out” – writing:
“I knew it would come off to him as incredibly self-serving if I advised him not to run. He would see it as naked ambition, perhaps as poisonous disloyalty, even if my only message was: don’t let the other guy win.”
But all that said, what may be more significant than all of Harris’s criticism is her rejection of claims about a cover-up of Biden’s cognitive decline as an attempt at spinning up “some big conspiracy.” – with her writing:
“Joe Biden was a smart guy with long experience and deep conviction, able to discharge the duties of president.”
“On his worst day, he was more deeply knowledgeable, more capable of exercising judgment, and far more compassionate than Donald Trump on his best. But at 81, Joe got tired.”
“That’s when his age showed in physical and verbal stumbles.”
And to that point, she suggested Biden’s poor debate performance was linked to his schedule, writing:
“I don’t think it’s any surprise that the debate debacle happened right after two back-to-back trips to Europe and a flight to the west coast for a Hollywood fundraiser.”
But with that, I’d love to hear your thoughts and reactions to this whole thing – what you make of Harris’s criticisms and also her defense of Biden’s mental capacity? Drop a comment down below.
1:46 - to cam - "Though, notably, it definitely seems like Harris would say it was more than that. With her claiming that ‘when polls indicated [she] was getting more popular, the people around [Biden] didn’t like the contrast that was emerging. And as a specific example, she talked about how he had ‘started taking on water for his perceived blank check to Benjamin Netanyahu in Gaza’ and she gave a “strong speech” on the situation, saying: ‘It was a speech that had been vetted and approved by the White House and the National Security Council. It went viral, and the West Wing was displeased. I was castigated for, apparently, delivering it too well.” And adding: ‘Their thinking was zero-sum: If she’s shining, he’s dimmed. None of them grasped that if I did well, he did well.’”
Visit Wildgrain use code DEFRANCO at checkout and receive $30 off your first box PLUS free Croissants for life!
-
A professor, a department head, and a dean all got removed from their positions thanks to a viral video and one state lawmaker’s crusade!
Right, this whole insane story is centered around Texas A&M University and a video that was taken from within a classroom there.
In the video, a student is objecting to a part of the professor’s instruction that includes discussion of gender and sexuality.
Right, this video was apparently filmed on a hidden camera - with neither the student nor the professor ever appearing onscreen.
And the school hasn’t identified them either.
The video was initially posted by State Representative Brian Harrison and it’s since gotten over 4 million views - with the caption coming in hot, saying that the student was booted from class after, quote, “objecting to transgender indoctrination.”
Harrison then went on to say he plans on referring the university to the Trump administration for investigation and called for Texas Governor Greg Abbott to fire any A&M officials involved.
But this video was just the beginning.
Harrison quickly escalated - sharing screenshots that supposedly show the department head threatening and punishing the student for “disruptive behavior” as well as asking her not to return to class in exchange for maintaining her current grade.
And as this situation got more and more attention, we saw the school responding - with Texas A&M President Mark Welsh initially responding and saying that the English department head and the College of Arts and Sciences Dean have been removed from their administrative positions.
Saying that the school had previously had an issue with a course that, quote, “...contained content that did not align with any reasonable expectation of standard curriculum for the course.”
With Welsh writing,
“At that time, I made it clear to our academic leadership that course content must match catalog descriptions for each and every one of our course sections.”
But he says that same issue persisted with this situation in the video - prompting him to take the action in removing the dean and department head.
Writing,
“This isn’t about academic freedom; it’s about academic responsibility. Our degree programs and courses go through extensive approval processes, and we must ensure that what we ultimately deliver to students is consistent with what was approved.”
But people were quick to notice that Welsh’s initial statement didn’t say anything about the professor in question.
Including Governor Greg Abbott who specifically called for her termination in response to the university’s post on Twitter.
Which brings us to yesterday - when Welsh posted another statement saying that the professor from the video was terminated, effectively immediately.
But that still wasn’t enough for Harrison - he’s out for Welsh’s blood specifically, demanding he be fired.
Harrison went on to share several audio clips on X of what he says is Welsh defending and supporting LGBTQ+ courses.
As well as one that Harrison says is Welsh responding to the student calling for her professor’s termination.
[“1: Tell me exactly what you want changed, Just - you’re trying to pick a fight here. What do you want? 2: I’m not trying to pick a fight, no sir, I’m not. I’m trying to - 1: Tell me what you’re looking for. What do you expect us to do? Fire hire? 2: Yes, absolutely. Because it goes against - 1: Okay, well, that’s not happening.” 0:00-0:14]
Obviously, Welsh didn’t commit very hard to the “not firing the professor” thing.
But the important part about these clips is that they are the basis of Harrison’s push for Welsh’s termination.
With Harrison responding to an announcement about the professor’s firing by saying,
“Why did I have to release hidden camera footage to make this happen? Why has the [Texas A&M University] President who supports LGBTQ indoctrination and who berated this student in an attempt to cover it up not been fired?”
And he went on to tell the Washington Post,
“My ultimate goal is to prevent another penny of Texans’ hard-earned tax money from ever being used to fund [diversity, equity and inclusion] or LGBTQ indoctrination. The president of Texas A&M must be fired. He is a proud proponent of DEI and transgender indoctrination.”
Now, this isn’t the first time Welsh has been a target in the two years that he’s served as the university’s president.
Back in January, Abbott tried to fire Welsh over the university’s decision to participate in a conference hosted by the PhD Project - which promotes classroom diversity.
At first, Welsh defended himself - saying despite Texas’s DEI ban, it wasn’t illegal.
But he quickly backed down and the university didn’t participate in the conference.
Hell, this isn’t even the first time that Harrison specifically has taken issue with Welsh.
Back in July, he recommended the Department of Health and Human Services investigate the school for engaging in targeted recruiting practices - which Harrison called “discriminatory.”
Which prompted a bit of a sparring match between both men about the merits and legality of targeted recruitment.
But as for this situation, we’re just going to have to wait and see how things play out.
We’ve seen some pushback to the whole thing from organizations like ACLU and Equality Texas, an LGBTQ-rights organization.
And we know that the DoJ has opened an investigation into the incident and its handling by the university.
But from here, it’s just about waiting to see what’s going to happen next.
Will Harrison back down? Will Welsh actually get fired?
If it’s the latter, what’s going to be the reason they give?
And if he does get fired, what kind of standard is this setting about education in red states or across the country?
What standard is already being set by firing the professor and removing the department head and dead?
I would love to know your thoughts about this - especially if you’re from Texas or have a connection with A&M.
Let me know in those comments down below.
-
NATO has just opened fire against Russia for the very first time since the war in Ukraine began.
At least, it opened fire against Russian drones that violated Polish airspace – a violation many European leaders believe to have been intentional.
With Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk addressing his country’s parliament this morning and saying:
“There is no doubt that this provocation is incomparably more dangerous…than any previous ones.”
“This situation brings us all closer to open conflict, closer than at any time since the Second World War.”
And with that, he revealed that the country’s military had detected the first violation of Polish airspace at around 11:30 p.m. on Tuesday and the last at around 6:30 Wednesday morning – with Tusk saying:
“That gives you an idea of the scale.”
“It lasted all night.”
He also said 19 violations were recorded overall – with at least three drones confirmed to have been shot down.
One reportedly blew a hole through the roof of a house in a village – with people inside – but somehow nobody was hurt.
And according to NATO, the drones were “met with Polish and NATO air defenses.”
With Poland later clarifying that Dutch F-35 jets took part in the response.
White Italian surveillance planes and mid-air refueling aircraft were also reportedly involved in the operation.
And with all that, Tusk has invoked Article 4 of the NATO Treaty.
Right, and to be very clear, I didn’t say Article 5 – that’s the one which says an armed attack on one ally is considered an attack on all.
Article 4 just asks member states to consult on whether “the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened.”
It could pave the way for joint NATO action, but unlike Article 5, it doesn’t require it.
And actually, the last time it was invoked was in 2022, when Russia invaded Ukraine.
And Poland also invoked it in 2014 after Russia illegally annexed Crimea.
And also, regarding the intrusion into Polish airspace? It’s also not the first time something like that has happened.
Right, besides Poland, for example, Romania has reported multiple airspace violations and have even found drone wreckage in the country.
In fact, these incidents have become so common in Romania that in May it enacted a law allowing the army to shoot down unauthorized drones entering its airspace.
But in any case, a key point is that these “accidents” have long been seen by some as Russia testing NATO’s reaction.
And with the scale of what happened this time, you have many saying that if it wasn’t the case before, it definitely is now.
With the EU’s foreign affairs chief, for example, calling this “the most serious European airspace violation by Russia since the war began, and indications suggest it was intentional, not accidental.”
And as far as what indications she’s talking about, you have Tusk noting, for example, that the drones seemed impossibly far off course from Ukraine, saying:
“....for the first time in the history of this war, [the drones] did not come from over [but] a significant portion…flew over Poland directly from Belarus.”
You then had the Polish foreign minister saying given the number of drones “it simply defies imagination that could be accidental.”
With Ukrainian President Zelensky saying pretty much the same thing – and adding:
“Moscow always pushes the boundaries of what is possible, and if it does not encounter a strong reaction, it remains at the new level of escalation.on.”
And with that, you also had him arguing that the violation of Polish airspace was “an extremely dangerous precedent for Europe” – again calling for Ukraine’s allies to step up sanctions against Russia.
But of course, as far as the United States goes, we’ve so far only seen Trump threatening sanctions and not following through.
He also has reportedly been pressuring the EU to impose 100% tariffs on China and India as a way of pressuring Putin.
And as far as what Russia is saying? Well, you had the top Russian diplomat in Poland denying any violations of Polish airspace, saying:
“We consider the accusations groundless.”
“No evidence that these drones are of Russian origin has been presented.”
But then, you had a slightly different response from the Russian Defense Ministry, with a spokesperson simply saying when asked that “no targets on Polish territory were planned.”
This of course as Russia has only been ramping up its aerial assault on Ukraine.
Right, earlier this week, we talked about the record-breaking attack that hit the main government building in Kyiv and killed five.
And then yesterday, Russian forces bombed a village in eastern Ukraine as retirees were collecting their pensions – killing at least 24.
And the drones that crossed into Poland last night? Those were just a few of the 415 drones – along with 42 cruise missiles and one ballistic missile – that were launched by Russia.
Go to ZipRecruiter to try ZipRecruiter for free.
-
When Donald Trump sat down for dinner at a seafood restaurant yesterday, he was served much more than just shrimp.
[Clip, 00:20 - 00:26]
Those are protesters from Code Pink, a feminist activist group that took credit for the disruption and stated on X: [Continue B roll]
“Trump looked us in the eyes, we made sure he will never dine in peace while communities are under siege.” [Post]
[Same clip, 00:45 - 00:55]
Now this kind of confrontation is a little unusual for the president, because he doesn’t put himself in public spaces where he might be exposed to it very often. [B roll]
With him more regularly dining at the White House, Mar-a-Lago and his exclusive golf clubs. [Image]
But yesterday’s outing with several members of his cabinet appeared to be meant as a demonstration of how much he’s supposedly transformed D.C. [Continue B roll]
With him declaring the day prior that after just one month of his federal agents and national guard roaming the city, D.C. has made a full 180-degree turnaround. [Lead B roll into clip]
[Clip, 39:35 - 39:59; Clip, 38:12 - 38:33] Caption: “We went from a, one of the most, some people say the worst, the most violent city — can you imagine our Capitol being the most violent city? But it was really bad — into a totally safe zone. It’s called a safe zone city. There’s no crime. They said crime’s down 87%. I said no, no, no. It’s more than 87%. Virtually nothing. … Friends of mine call, one in particular, he’s been in D.C. for a long time, and he said, ‘I haven’t gone out in four years for dinner with my wife.’ The restaurants were all closing because people were afraid. Even if they were in the restaurant, it didn’t matter. They were held up. You know, guys would walk in with guns into a restaurant. And that’s over. It’s not happening. It’s safe.”
But that particular comment about restaurants is interesting, because in reality the industry’s been struggling since he began his crackdown.
With tourism, reservations and general foot traffic all decreasing, leading some restaurants to fire staff, cut hours and shrink menus. [Headline, headline, headline]
And last month, the city's restaurant association extended its restaurant week, something it usually does during emergencies like severe weather to boost business. [Quote, find “extended”]
With the group’s president telling Axios: “This is our pandemic 2.0. Between the federal escalation and tipped minimum wage hike, "we could be heading for a potential panic. I've heard from folks that won't renew leases or even consider D.C.” [Quote]
Right, even the Museum of the Bible, where Trump spoke in that clip I just showed you, told CNN “we have seen our visitor intake impacted recently” and “the summer months have been underperforming.” [Quote]
And although it said the decline in business can’t be pinned on any single factor, lots of people are pointing to the federal takeover as the most immediate cause. [Image]
With for example the CEO of Destination DC, a nonprofit that promotes tourism, telling the outlet:
“The visuals are checkpoints, police everywhere, and tanks rolling down the street — which is not our reality. We had 9/11, the anthrax attacks, the DC sniper, government shutdowns, January 6, and now this.” [Quote same link and Image]
But according to Trump, D.C.’s restaurants are “busier than they’ve been in a long time,” and that’s because they’ve cleaned up the streets, both literally and figuratively, by repairing things, pushing out the homeless and arresting criminals. [B roll, 40:22]
With the White House announcing yesterday that some 2,200 arrests have been made since August 7.
But despite the administration’s narrative that it’s bagging gang bangers, child predators, murderers and the like, preliminary data suggests otherwise.
With a Reuters analysis of more than 500 criminal cases last month finding none that were for a violent offense. [Quote, find “none of the cases”]
And a New York Times review of over a thousand cases coming to a similar conclusion, that many if not most of the offenses appear to be relatively minor. [Image and quote, find “targeted”]
Things like traffic infractions, drug possession or carrying an open container of alcohol. [Image]
With one guy who was arrested for smoking pot telling the outlet:
“I’ve never seen this much police presence in my whole life. You guys are worried about some guy smoking a joint on the corner on a Friday night?” [Quote same link]
And while authorities have confiscated some two or three hundred guns, many of those belonged to people who were licensed to carry in other states but simply lacked a D.C. permit. [Image]
So in The Times’ review, just 9% of cases in which federal agents were mentioned involved responding to violent or property crimes. [Quote same link, find “nine percent”]
But to give credit where credit’s due, reported violent crime incidents in the first three weeks of the takeover dropped by 10% from the previous three-week period. [Quote, find “10%”]
With the number of recorded homicides falling from eight to three, and burglaries, robberies and carjackings also down. [Quote same link, find “three homicides”]
Though experts warn that short-term fluctuations like that may just be a symptom of people staying off the streets immediately after the crackdown.
And I should note that Trump seems to be more concerned with certain crimes more than others.
[Clip, 40:00 - 40:13] Caption: “And much lesser things, things that take place in the home, they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime, see? So now I can’t claim 100%.”
So naturally, many people read that comment as the president downplaying the severity of domestic violence, and even suggesting it shouldn’t be considered a crime.
And yesterday a reporter asked Karoline Leavitt about it, and she doubled down.
[Clip, 27:47 - 28:07] Caption: [Reporter:] “Exactly what crimes was the president referring to?” [Karoline Leavitt:] “He wasn’t referring to crimes. That’s exactly the point he was making. What the president is saying is that these crimes will be made up and reported as a crime to undermine the great work that the federal task force is doing to reduce crime in Washington D.C.”
Now the latest update is that today, the federal takeover of D.C. is officially supposed to end, though Trump’s federal agents don’t appear to be leaving.
And in fact, he’s suggested that he’ll repeat the same process in other cities, possibly Chicago or New Orleans, in the coming days.
But if the experiment in D.C. is a model, people there won’t like being occupied by federal troops much more than the Capitol’s residents did.
Right, you had people hanging D.C. flags from their porches, making street art of Pete Hegseth getting hit by a sandwich, and warning each other about ICE checkpoints. [Headline/image, then headline/image, then quote, find “checkpoint”]Then, last week thousands marched in the streets in protest.
[Clip, 00:05 - 00:08, 00:25 - 00:29, 00:31 - 00:34, 01:07 - 01:16]
-
Nearly one million jobs just vanished, according to revised numbers by the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
To say this drop of 911,000 between April 2024 and March 2025 is substantial would be a massive understatement as it was over a 50% reduction.
Essentially every job type across the economy was affected, but the worst hit were hospitality, wholesale, retail, and manufacturing.
And for some groups, these numbers indicate they’re facing an economic crisis.
Right, the general unemployment rate for people 16 and up is just 4.3%.
On the surface that seems pretty good, but the devil is in the details and when you look at individual groups within that the story is very different.
Take people between the ages of 16-to-24… they have an unemployment rate of 10.5%.
Now it’s common for that group to have relatively high unemployment compared to everyone else, but 10.5% is high and it was only higher during the peak of the pandemic.
There could be a lot of reasons for this, but one notable one might be AI as it slowly starts to take over entry-level positions.
(this could have a massive cascading effect as it can slow down someone’s career and lead to getting paid less in the long-term).
It’s also interesting that this increased unemployment is affecting both educated and non-educated young people.
Which normally isn’t the case as often fields where a degree isn’t required have much lower unemployment.
For experts in the field, this revision wasn’t a massive surprise, as quarterly reports indicated that something wasn’t adding up under both the end of Biden’s term and the start of Trump’s.
(and the stock market seemed to agree, as there was little movement).
It’s because of this that supporters of Trump have said that the BLS needs to be overhauled since their initial reports seem to be off so often, with Vice President JD Vance saying:
“It’s difficult to overstate how useless BLS data had become. A change was necessary to restore confidence.”
While White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt added:
“This is exactly why we need new leadership to restore trust and confidence in the B.L.S.’s data on behalf of the financial markets, businesses, policymakers and families that rely on this data to make major decisions.”
Others claimed this was proof that any struggling economy the US might have is because of the Biden administration and not any actions done by Trump.
On the flip side, this report has led people who used to trust the BLS results to now doubt them with takes like:
“Donald Trump's appointee EJ Antoni, formerly chief economist at the Heritage Foundation, is at BLS now. Should we trust any numbers from BLS, including downward revisions of Biden era numbers?”
Although these doubts might be misplaced, as Antoni has yet to be confirmed and isn’t in charge yet.
And he may not be after a Twitter account with his name was discovered to be posting some cooked shit.
And of course there are many who blame the poor outlook on Trump’s economic policies such as tariffs and gutting the federal government.
So we saw figures like Representative Ted Lieu saying:
“Last month, the jobs report was so bad that Donald Trump felt compelled to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics to distract from how bad the report was. This month the report was equally horrible because it turns out when you fire the head of BLS it doesn’t change the math.” [@0:02]
(Hot take, but policies by both can be at fault at the same time to various degrees).
But the fact there was such a massive revision at all has led to many doubting more recent estimates.
On that note, the quarterly reports are exactly that: estimates.
So revisions are extremely common. It’s only recently that they’ve become so politicized.
The difference this time is the scale, and now it’s believed that the next annual report in March 2026 might also show a massive decrease in jobs.
There’s also other evidence that the economy is not doing too hot right now, such as a federal report that shows Americans have an all-time low confidence in their ability to actually get a job.
And that was on top of worries by Americans 40-and-under and those 59-and-over that they don’t think they’ll have a job in the next year.
All of this taken together has renewed calls by some for the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates in the hopes it will speed up the economy and job growth.
But as we’ve talked about A LOT this year, the Fed is extremely conservative when it comes to adjusting those levers since it can quickly spiral out of control.
With that I want to hear from you, are you concerned about your current job or your ability to actually get one in your field?
