The leadership of the Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, an independent group focused on ensuring the accuracy of government data, issued a statement Wednesday defending the integrity of the government agency’s November consumer price index (CPI) estimates, attributing a controversial discrepancy in housing data to a “wording error” rather than political manipulation.
Following a federal funding lapse that disrupted data collection for October, the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — a unit of the U.S. Department of Labor — employed estimation techniques for November’s rent and owners’ equivalent rent (OER) figures that drew skepticism from financial analysts.
Critics questioned whether the resulting lower growth rates were the result of external pressure, but Friends of BLS co-chairs noted the bureau had already issued an erratum, an official statement of corrections to existing material, to correct the misstated methodology in its explanatory documentation.
The controversy stems from the logistical fallout of the 2025 government shutdown, which prevented the BLS from collecting price information, including rent data, for the October CPI report. When the bureau released its November estimates on Dec. 18, it included information on how the shutdown impacted the data, but subsequent clarifications sparked confusion in the financial community.
On Dec. 30, the BLS published an FAQ page detailing how it calculated rent and OER in the absence of October data. According to the Friends of BLS, the answer to question 8 regarding the OER calculation contained an error that has since been corrected in the FAQ.
This error, the group argues, led some observers to believe the bureau had artificially lowered housing component growth, fueling speculation of political interference.
The BLS posted an errata notice on Dec. 31 and corrected the FAQ page to accurately convey the BLS’s methodology.
In the Friends of the BLS’s opinion, the situation was a function of this “correctible error,” rather than naked political interference, as some feared. These critics worried the bureau had artificially influenced the data to make the numbers more politically convenient. The fears come at a time of pronounced changes and questions around the government’s official collection and dissemination of data.
In their joint statement, Friends of BLS co-chairs Erica Groshen, William Beach and Paul Schroeder stated they had “dug deeply” into the adjustments and found no evidence of political motivation.
They characterized the situation as a correctible error rather than manipulation, while acknowledging that the estimation techniques used during the government shutdown, which disrupted data collection, remain subject to valid technical debate.
The co-chairs expressed full confidence in the BLS staff, praising their performance during a period of “duress, short staffing and inadequate resources.” They concluded by promising to remain vigilant of potential manipulation and alerting the public if such concerns materialize.
The Friends of the Bureau of Labor Statistics is an independent consortium of industry associations that focuses on the BLS’s “overall well-being,” according to its website. Its members include the American Statistical Association, the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness, the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, the National Association for Business Economics and the Population Association of America.
