Trump’s Grip on Bureaucracy Sparks ‘Professional Depression’
Economist Fears for Institutional Integrity Amidst Political Interference
A growing sense of unease permeates discussions about the executive branch’s operational integrity. As a scholar of global political economy and American foreign policy, recent events have fostered a profound feeling of “professional depression,” impacting outlooks on the nation’s governance and economic stability.
Economic Data Under Fire
Recent jobs and inflation reports have been met with sharp criticism from President Donald Trump. His administration’s response to unexpectedly weak hiring figures included publicly declaring the data “rigged” and announcing the dismissal of the Senate-confirmed Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner, Erika McEntarfer. This action has drawn considerable backlash from economists and former officials.
“President Trump unleashed his fury about weakness in the labor market on Friday, saying without evidence that the data were ‘rigged’ and that he was firing the Senate-confirmed Department of Labor official responsible for pulling together the numbers each month.”
—The New York Times
The firing of Dr. McEntarfer, who was confirmed with bipartisan support in 2024, follows a pattern of the President targeting government agencies and researchers whose findings he dislikes. This behavior has fueled concerns about potential interference in the operations of crucial statistical bodies like the BLS, which also produces data on inflation and wages.
Politicization of Key Institutions
Beyond economic data, worries are mounting over the politicization of the U.S. military’s highest ranks. Reports indicate that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth now requires nominees for four-star general positions to meet with President Trump before final approval. This departure from historical practice has ignited fears that personal loyalty and partisan alignment may supersede merit in military appointments.
“While these officers are nominated by the president and confirmed by the Senate, they are not political appointees. Mr. Trump’s decision to interview most or all of them creates the impression that ‘they’re political appointees selected on the basis of their personal loyalty and partisan alignment.’”
—Heidi Urben, Professor at Georgetown University
The administration’s repeated actions suggest that grievance, anger, and pettiness are guiding policy decisions. This environment reportedly incentivizes individuals within the executive branch to provide information aligning with the President’s views, regardless of factual accuracy. Outlets are now describing the situation with terms like “authoritarian hallmarks.” For example, the U.S. has seen significant shifts in policy, including the imposition of tariffs, with the Brookings Institute noting that U.S. tariffs on imports averaged 5.7% in 2023, up from 2.1% in 2017 (Brookings Institute, 2024).
Broader Concerns and Long-Term Repercussions
These developments occur against a backdrop of other troubling events, including reports of Israel’s extensive starvation tactics in Gaza, reportedly aided by Trump administration policies, and the administration’s own “extortion exercise” targeting Ivy League universities. The administration’s counterproductive tariff announcements, following weeks of uncertain negotiations, further contribute to the dispiriting climate.
The difficulty in reversing these institutional shifts is a significant concern. While some hope legal challenges might overturn the tariffs, agreements with universities are already settled, and the foreign policy community appears to have adjusted. The firing of the BLS head and the ongoing politicization of the bureaucracy present a daunting challenge.
Even a change in political leadership in future elections may not be enough to repair the damage. The experience of the past two decades has demonstrated that established institutions and norms, built over decades, can be dismantled in mere months. This reality fosters a deep sense of professional pessimism regarding the long-term consequences of these actions.
