Analysis: European Americans’ unemployment rate was unchanged from July. Asian Americans decreased 30 basis points and Latino Americans increased 30 basis points from July, respectively. African America’s unemployment rate increased by 30 basis points from July.
AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT REVIEW
AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN:
Unemployment Rate – 7.1%
Participation Rate – 69.8%
Employed – 9,893,000
Unemployed – 753,000
African American Men (AAM) saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 10 basis points in August. The group had an increase in their participation rate in August by 190 basis points, there highest participation rate in the past five months. African American Men gained 270,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed increase by 30,000.
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN:
Unemployment Rate – 6.7%
Participation Rate – 61.4%
Employed – 10,260,000
Unemployed – 739,000
African American Women saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 40 basis points in August. The group increased their participation rate in August by 30 basis points. African American Women gained 13,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed increase by 45,000.
AFRICAN AMERICAN TEENAGERS:
Unemployment Rate – 24.8%
Participation Rate – 29.3%
Employed – 590,000
Unemployed – 195,000
African American Teenagers unemployment rate increased by 310 basis points. The group saw their participation rate increased by 10 basis points in August. African American Teenagers lost 24,000 jobs in August and saw their number of unemployed also increase 25,000.
African American Men-Women Job Gap: African American Women currently have 367,000 more jobs than African American Men in August. This is an decrease from 624,000 in July.
CONCLUSION: The overall economy added 22,000 jobs in August while African America added 260,000 jobs. From Reuters,”The warning bell that rang in the labor market a month ago just got louder,” Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings in New York, said in reference to the U.S. labor market. “A weaker-than-expected jobs report all but seals a 25-basis-point rate cut later this month.” Fed Chair Jerome Powell had already reinforced rate cut speculation with an unexpectedly dovish speech at last month’s Fed symposium in Jackson Hole.”
“You can not win a war that you will not acknowledge you are in, and African America refuses to acknowledge it is in a war and therefore has not built the institutional defense necessary to win.” – William A. Foster, IV
The latest calls for Federal Reserve Governor Lisa D. Cook to resign reveal less about her alleged financial entanglements and more about the precarious place of African American excellence in America’s institutional hierarchy. Cook, an alum of Spelman College—the jewel of the Atlanta University Center—sits as the only Historically Black College and University graduate in the Federal Reserve’s history. Her very presence at the central bank represents a seismic shift in the composition of economic policymaking. It also explains why she has become a lightning rod for partisan attacks.
On August 20, 2025, Donald Trump posted on Truth Social: “Cook must resign, now!!!!” The demand followed remarks from Bill Pulte, the Trump-appointed Director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, who urged the Department of Justice to probe Cook’s role in allegedly questionable mortgages. What might otherwise be dismissed as yet another skirmish in Washington’s perpetual political warfare assumes broader significance when one considers who Cook is, what she represents, and what she symbolizes to African American institutions.
Lisa Cook’s rise to the Federal Reserve Board of Governors in May 2022 marked a watershed moment. For over a century, the Fed had been populated by a homogenous cadre of policymakers—almost exclusively White men with Ivy League or equivalent pedigrees. Cook, a Black woman educated at Spelman College, Oxford, and the University of California, Berkeley, carved a path through both racial and gendered barriers that have long defined the economics profession. Her scholarship is well known in academic circles: her pioneering work on the relationship between racial violence and African American innovation remains a cornerstone of economic history. By quantifying how lynching and Jim Crow violence curtailed patent activity by African Americans, she exposed a structural mechanism by which systemic racism suppressed not just Black lives but also Black wealth creation. At the Fed, she carried this analytical rigor into debates on labor markets, innovation, and most recently, the economic implications of artificial intelligence. For African America, her appointment was not just symbolic. It was strategic. HBCU graduates have long been overrepresented in producing the nation’s Black professionals—doctors, lawyers, judges, engineers. But in macroeconomic governance, their footprint has been virtually nonexistent. Cook’s ascension offered a foothold in one of the world’s most powerful institutions, where decisions reverberate across global markets, shape credit availability, and indirectly determine whether African American households can access affordable mortgages, student loans, and capital for small businesses.
The ferocity of the attacks against Cook cannot be divorced from her identity. The allegations hinge on supposed mortgage irregularities, amplified by Pulte and weaponized by Trump. Yet, even before these accusations, Cook faced resistance. Her Senate confirmation was one of the narrowest in Fed history, with Republicans uniformly opposed and some explicitly questioning her “fitness” for monetary policy on the grounds that her academic research leaned too heavily into racial economics. This rhetorical sleight-of-hand—dismissing racialized economic analysis as political—is a familiar tactic. It seeks to delegitimize the very work that challenges the dominant narrative. Cook’s critics often sidestep her publications in American Economic Review or her leadership within the American Economic Association, preferring instead to cast her as a “diversity appointment.” The current calls for her resignation escalate this narrative. To remove Cook under a cloud of controversy would not just eliminate a Fed governor. It would roll back the fragile gains of HBCU institutional representation in elite economic policymaking. It would signal, once again, that African American advancement is conditional, fragile, and always subject to reversal.
It is important to situate these attacks in a wider political economy. Trump’s demand is not only about Cook. It is about control of the Federal Reserve itself. The central bank has become increasingly politicized in recent years, with Republicans casting inflation and interest rate policy as partisan issues. To force out Cook would not only weaken President Biden’s appointees but also demoralize constituencies who view her as a critical voice for equity in macroeconomic policy. The Fed has traditionally projected itself as a technocratic, apolitical institution. Yet this veneer has cracked. Appointments are now battlefield contests. Cook’s vulnerability demonstrates that while America’s institutions have formally opened their doors to HBCU graduates, they have not yet fortified protections against political weaponization. This dynamic mirrors a historical pattern. African Americans who rise into positions of structural authority—whether judges, regulators, or corporate executives—often find themselves targets of disproportionate scrutiny. The goal is not merely to unseat them but to delegitimize the institutions that empowered them.
HBCUs stand uniquely implicated in this episode. Spelman College, Cook’s alma mater, is one of the leading producers of Black women in economics and STEM. Yet, despite their track record, HBCUs remain underfunded relative to predominantly White institutions. Cook’s ascent to the Fed was a triumph for the HBCU ecosystem, proof that institutional excellence could translate into influence at the very highest levels. That triumph is now under attack. If Cook were to resign or be forced out under pressure, it would reverberate across HBCUs. It would reinforce perceptions that HBCU alumni, even at their most accomplished, remain vulnerable to political takedowns. For African American students pursuing economics at Howard, Morehouse, or North Carolina A&T, the message would be chilling: success does not guarantee security. From an institutional development standpoint, the HBCU community must interpret this not as an isolated incident but as a case study in institutional fragility. Without strong networks of advocacy, media response, and financial backing, HBCU alumni who enter elite spaces will continue to stand exposed.
Cook’s potential ouster matters beyond symbolism. At a time when the Federal Reserve is grappling with questions of inflation persistence, labor market dynamics, and the disruptive potential of artificial intelligence, her perspective is invaluable. She has consistently foregrounded the idea that innovation is not distributed equally and that policy must account for structural barriers to participation. In her July 2025 speech at the National Bureau of Economic Research, Cook warned that generative AI could entrench inequality if its benefits accrued only to a narrow segment of firms and workers. This perspective matters because it forces the Fed to grapple with the distributional consequences of macroeconomic shifts, not just aggregate averages. Her departure would narrow the intellectual diversity of the Fed at precisely the moment it most needs heterodox insights.
What then must be the response of African American institutions—HBCUs, banks, think tanks, chambers of commerce? Silence cannot be an option. Cook’s defense should not be left to partisan politicians alone. Instead, a coordinated institutional defense is required, one that frames this attack not just as an assault on an individual but as an assault on African American institutional legitimacy. African American-owned banks could highlight the importance of a Fed governor who understands the structural barriers to credit access in Black communities. HBCU presidents could jointly issue statements defending the integrity of their alumna and reminding the public of their role in producing top-tier economists. Think tanks could produce rapid-response analyses showing the economic costs of underrepresentation in monetary policy. The lesson is clear: individual success must be buttressed by institutional power. Without that scaffolding, every Lisa Cook who rises will remain vulnerable to political storms.
Ultimately, the attack on Lisa Cook exemplifies America’s struggle with inclusion at the highest levels of institutional power. It is not enough to allow “firsts” to break through. True inclusion requires protecting them from disproportionate scrutiny, ensuring that they can govern with the same presumption of competence afforded to their peers. For African America, Cook’s ordeal is a reminder that victories in representation must be consolidated by institutional strategy. HBCUs cannot rest on symbolic triumphs; they must translate them into sustained influence, advocacy, and resilience. Otherwise, every gain risks being undone at the first sign of political backlash.
Lisa D. Cook stands at a crossroads. Her presence at the Federal Reserve is not simply about her credentials, which are unimpeachable. It is about what she represents: the intellectual capacity of HBCUs, the resilience of African American scholarship, and the potential for inclusive economic governance. The calls for her resignation are not neutral. They are part of a larger contest over who gets to shape America’s financial architecture. If African American institutions fail to rally, Cook may become another cautionary tale of progress reversed. But if they respond with clarity and force, this moment could mark the beginning of a new era—one in which HBCU alumni are not just present in elite institutions but are protected by a scaffolding of institutional power equal to the challenges they face. Her fate, in many ways, is a referendum on whether African America can defend its foothold in the commanding heights of global economic governance.
Every month, the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases employment data that shapes market sentiment, economic forecasts, and policymaking. From interest rate decisions at the Federal Reserve to unemployment insurance triggers at the state level, the influence of BLS data is far-reaching. And yet, with each release, one often overlooked note quietly accompanies the data: subject to revision.
To the uninformed, this might suggest inaccuracy or even manipulation. But the reality is rooted in how data is collected, processed, and interpreted. The act of revising economic data is not a flaw but a fundamental feature of any statistical system that prioritizes accuracy over speed. This article explores why the BLS revises its data, the mechanics of seasonally adjusted vs. not seasonally adjusted numbers, and how a real-world dataset employment among African American women in 2025 illustrates the complexity of labor market measurement.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics, founded in 1884, is the principal fact-finding agency for the U.S. federal government in the field of labor economics. Its core function is to measure labor market activity, working conditions, and price changes in the economy.
Among its most closely followed outputs is the monthly Employment Situation Report, which contains data on job growth or loss, unemployment rates, participation rates, and hours worked. These figures often headline national news and affect everything from political discourse to stock market performance. But the collection and interpretation of labor data is a dynamic process. No matter how carefully designed the surveys are, initial data releases are based on incomplete information and statistical models that must later be refined.
The BLS relies on two primary surveys to produce monthly employment estimates:
Current Population Survey (CPS): Also known as the household survey, this samples about 60,000 households and is the source for data on unemployment, labor force participation, and demographic breakdowns.
Current Employment Statistics (CES): Also known as the establishment survey, this collects payroll data from roughly 122,000 businesses and government agencies, covering over 666,000 worksites.
Because of tight deadlines for monthly releases—typically the first Friday of the following month—some employer reports are late, households may be unreachable, and administrative records may not yet be available. As more responses arrive over time, the BLS incorporates the additional data, which leads to two monthly revisions: a first revision one month later and a second revision two months after the initial release.
There is also an annual benchmark revision, where the BLS aligns employment data to comprehensive counts derived from state unemployment insurance tax records, which cover nearly all employers.
These revisions are not signs of incompetence or hidden agendas. Rather, they reflect the reality that high-frequency data collection must balance timeliness with completeness. Initial estimates are snapshots; revisions bring the picture into higher resolution.
Understanding Seasonally Adjusted vs. Not Seasonally Adjusted Data
Another common source of confusion is the distinction between seasonally adjusted (SA) and not seasonally adjusted (NSA) figures.
Not Seasonally Adjusted (NSA): These are raw numbers taken directly from survey results. They reflect real, unaltered employment counts.
Seasonally Adjusted (SA): These figures are modified using statistical models that remove predictable seasonal fluctuations—such as increased hiring in December or reduced construction jobs in winter.
Seasonal adjustment allows for clearer comparisons of month-to-month changes without the noise of recurring seasonal events. For example, employment traditionally rises in retail in November and December and drops in January. Without adjustment, these fluctuations could lead to misinterpretation of actual trends.
However, seasonal models rely on historical patterns. If a new shock occurs—such as a pandemic, atypical weather events, or irregular policy shifts—these models may not capture reality perfectly, requiring future refinements and adjustments to the seasonal factors themselves.
A Practical Example: African American Women’s Employment, 2025
To illustrate how data revisions and seasonal adjustments interact, consider the seasonally adjusted number of employed African American women over five consecutive months in 2025:
March 2025: 10.300 million
April 2025: 10.260 million
May 2025: 10.332 million
June 2025: 10.248 million
July 2025: 10.247 million
At first glance, this dataset may seem inconsistent. Why the decline in April, a surge in May, and subsequent declines in June and July?
Several points are worth unpacking:
Magnitude of Monthly Change These monthly movements, ranging from about 50,000 to 80,000, may appear marginal, but in labor market terms, they represent significant shifts. These could be due to school-year employment cycles, changes in public-sector hiring, or temporary retail and service jobs.
Temporary Effects The uptick in May could represent a short-term employment increase due to localized or sector-specific conditions—perhaps related to summer hiring, public campaigns, or fiscal year-end budgeting by employers. However, this doesn’t necessarily indicate a sustained improvement, as shown by June and July numbers.
Plateau, Not Decline While there are ups and downs, the broader range—from 10.248 to 10.332 million—suggests a labor market that is relatively flat during this period. The volatility may be more reflective of sector churn than structural change.
If a future revision updates, for instance, July’s figure from 10.247 to 10.280 million, that revision would adjust interpretations about labor market strength. It may indicate more robust hiring than originally estimated. Conversely, a downward revision could reinforce a stagnation narrative. Revisions are standard practice across all major economic indicators. GDP figures are revised multiple times. Inflation statistics may be reweighted to reflect changing consumption patterns. The Census Bureau revises retail sales and trade data regularly.
In labor market statistics, revisions are particularly common because of the sheer scale and complexity of the data. Millions of businesses and households are involved, each contributing a piece of the larger puzzle. Moreover, revisions are conducted transparently. The BLS publishes revision histories, explains methodological changes, and allows the public to compare original and revised estimates. This openness is central to the integrity of the data, even if the revisions themselves can be politically or emotionally misunderstood.
A revision of 50,000 jobs may not seem impactful in an economy with over 150 million employed people. But such changes are statistically meaningful. For example, Federal Reserve interest rate decisions are often influenced by whether job growth appears to be accelerating or decelerating. A 0.1% change in employment may be the tipping point for a policy decision affecting credit costs for millions.
Revisions also matter for planning and budgeting by states, corporations, and local governments. Employment trends influence tax revenues, hiring plans, and social program allocations. A misinterpretation of the underlying data even if unintentional can have ripple effects through the economy.
While the BLS aims for statistical precision, the public conversation around the data is often shaped by headline figures and political narratives. This can result in overemphasis on preliminary numbers, even though they are explicitly marked as subject to change. It is important for observers, journalists, policymakers, and analysts to understand that early data is an estimate. Just as weather forecasts become more accurate as the date approaches, labor statistics become more reliable as more data is incorporated and models are refined.
Understanding the architecture behind the data helps prevent premature or inaccurate conclusions about the state of the economy. The BLS operates under dual pressure: provide timely data and ensure its long-term accuracy. These goals are inherently in tension, but both are critical. Without timely data, markets and policymakers would be flying blind. Without accuracy, trust in the data would erode, leading to poor decisions and broader skepticism of institutions.
Revisions are not a sign of error. They are the result of a methodical, transparent process aimed at refining the initial picture of the economy into a more complete and accurate one. For analysts and observers, the lesson is simple: understand the process, treat early numbers with caution, and always look at the data—both in the moment and over time—as a moving picture, not a still fram
Analysis: European Americans’ unemployment rate increased 10 basis points. Asian Americans increased 40 basis points and Latino Americans increased 20 basis points from June, respectively. African America’s unemployment rate increased by 40 basis points from June.
AFRICAN AMERICAN EMPLOYMENT REVIEW
AFRICAN AMERICAN MEN:
Unemployment Rate – 7.0%
Participation Rate – 67.9%
Employed – 9,623,000
Unemployed – 723,000
African American Men (AAM) saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 10 basis points in July. The group had a precipitous drop in their participation rate in July by 90 basis points. African American Men lost 129,000 jobs in July and saw their number of unemployed increase by 2,000.
AFRICAN AMERICAN WOMEN:
Unemployment Rate – 6.3%
Participation Rate – 61.1%
Employed – 10,247,000
Unemployed – 694,000
African American Women saw a increase in their unemployment rate by 50 basis points in July. The group increased their participation rate in July by 20 basis points. African American Women lost 1,000 jobs in July and saw their number of unemployed increase by 60,000.
AFRICAN AMERICAN TEENAGERS:
Unemployment Rate – 21.7%
Participation Rate – 29.2%
Employed – 614,000
Unemployed – 170,000
African American Teenagers unemployment rate increased by 250 basis points. The group saw their participation rate decreased by 80 basis points in July. African American Teenagers added 37,000 jobs in July and saw their number of unemployed also increase 15,000.
African American Men-Women Job Gap: African American Women currently have 624,000 more jobs than African American Men in July. This is an increase from 496,000 in June.
CONCLUSION: The overall economy added 73,000 jobs in July while African America lost 166,000 jobs. From CNBC, “This is a gamechanger jobs report,” said Heather Long, chief economist at Navy Federal Credit Union. “The labor market is deteriorating quickly.” The weak report, including the dramatic revisions, could provide incentive for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates when it next meets in September. Following the report, futures traders raised the odds of a cut at the meeting to 75.5%, up from 40% on Thursday, according to CME Group data.”
“When power makes truth expendable, only the brave will keep records.” — HBCU Money Editorial Board
On August 1, 2025, the United States crossed a threshold most democracies fear but few anticipate with precision the moment a nation’s statistical agency becomes a political target not for corruption, but for accuracy.
Following a weaker-than-expected jobs report with just 73,000 jobs added in July and significant downward revisions to prior months, President Donald Trump abruptly ordered the firing of Dr. Erika McEntarfer, Commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). The justification? The data embarrassed him. The evidence? None. The implications? Profound.
For over a century, the BLS has served as the impartial scorekeeper of the American labor market. Its reports help inform everything from Federal Reserve monetary policy to wage negotiations, business expansion decisions, and university research. Most critically, the BLS is the foundation for public trust in employment data, a cornerstone of economic legitimacy.
Trump’s dismissal of Dr. McEntarfer, who was confirmed with bipartisan support and is regarded as a rigorous labor economist, did not challenge methodology, nor did it cite misconduct. Instead, it was an overt signal: when facts contradict the leader’s narrative, the facts must go.
This act is not merely executive overreach. It is an institutional decapitation. And it represents the clearest break yet from the post-WWII consensus that government data should be nonpartisan, methodologically sound, and politically untouchable. In a global economy, this is the equivalent of a currency devaluation not of the dollar, but of America’s data credibility.
When leadership no longer trusts or permits accurate data, policy becomes reactive, erratic, and performative. Investors, entrepreneurs, and institutions rely on the BLS to signal economic direction. Without it, credit markets misfire, fiscal policy lacks direction, and monetary policy becomes unmoored. For African American-owned banks, real estate firms, and HBCU endowment managers, this degrades their ability to assess employment trends in Black communities, apply for federal workforce grants, or time bond offerings based on unemployment benchmarks. Even philanthropic giving strategies may suffer if the poverty, wage, and employment data they are based on becomes manipulated or suppressed.
America’s strength lies in its institutions, not its individuals. By removing the head of a critical statistical agency on political grounds, the White House has signaled that no institution is beyond coercion. This undermines the rule of law and places civil servants especially those in technocratic roles on notice: loyalty matters more than evidence. African American civil servants, many of whom have worked tirelessly to diversify and reform these institutions from within, may see decades of credibility erased. It’s a chilling reminder that representation within agencies means little if those agencies are subject to autocratic whim.
International investors, trade partners, and credit agencies track U.S. labor data as a proxy for global economic health. If they begin to suspect that U.S. statistics are manipulated, they may hedge their investments, slow trade, or reevaluate the reliability of U.S. fiscal metrics. In the long-term, this can impact foreign direct investment in African American economic zones, HBCU research partnerships with global firms, and even diaspora remittance flows, if currency stability is affected by market anxiety.
Perhaps most dangerously, Trump’s decision follows a long trajectory of undermining truth-based systems elections, public health, the judiciary, and now economic data. This creates a vacuum in which conspiracy becomes conventional wisdom. In such an environment, fake facts become state currency. This has severe implications for African American institutions. Much of African American advocacy whether for reparations, investment, or educational equity rests on data. If national data sources are neutered or politicized, then the burden of proof shifts unfairly onto communities already under-resourced in research infrastructure.
HBCUs, Black think tanks, and African American foundations must view this firing not as a political blip, but a doctrine in action. When truth becomes negotiable, institutions that depend on it must move from passive reliance to active defense. HBCUs with strong economics, political science, or data science departments such as Howard, Spelman, and FAMU should develop Black-centered labor and socioeconomic data initiatives. These should complement, verify, or challenge federal data when necessary.
Institutions should also create safeguards digital, legal, and procedural to document how and when data manipulation may be occurring. This includes archiving historic BLS data, creating public dashboards, and writing explanatory briefs for the community. In addition, the next generation of data scientists, economists, and statisticians trained at HBCUs must be equipped not only with technical skill but a political consciousness of how truth is weaponized. Their work should be rooted not just in method, but in mission.
There is also an urgent need for civic engagement. African American policy organizations must pressure Congress to enact legal protections that insulate agencies like BLS, Census, and the Congressional Budget Office from political interference. Civil society must create watchdog coalitions that expose attempts to politicize data or intimidate public servants. Parallel to this, an emergency data defense fund backed by foundations and Black philanthropic leaders could help institutions respond rapidly to threats against data integrity.
Dr. McEntarfer’s firing is not merely about jobs data. It is about whether America will continue to govern itself by fact or by fiat. For African Americans, who have fought centuries of data invisibility, distortion, and misuse from redlining to police profiling the stakes are especially high.
The Bureau of Labor Statistics was once seen as above politics. That era is over.
African American institutions must now assume a new role not just consumers of data, but defenders of its integrity. If truth is to survive, it will not be because it was protected by tradition, but because it was guarded by those with the most to lose from its disappearance.
HBCU Money 