Lead
New annual revisions from the Bureau of Labor Statistics released Feb. 11, 2026 show U.S. payrolls were significantly smaller than monthly reports indicated. For 2025 the B.L.S. cut its estimate of job growth to 181,000 — 69% below the prior 584,000 figure — and reduced its 2024 estimate by nearly 28 percent. Together the adjustments mean the U.S. economy has more than a million fewer jobs than previously reported. The revisions follow a routine reconciliation process but are unusually large and have prompted renewed scrutiny of survey-based employment measures.
Key Takeaways
- The B.L.S. revised 2025 job growth to 181,000, down from an initial 584,000 estimate (a 69% downward move).
- Estimates for 2024 were lowered by nearly 28 percent in the same annual reconciliation.
- The combined downward revisions exceed one million jobs relative to earlier tallies.
- Federal Reserve staff estimated the B.L.S. may have been overstating gains by about 60,000 jobs per month, according to public remarks by Chair Jerome H. Powell.
- These benchmark revisions are the largest in percentage terms since 2009 and the biggest sequential adjustments in recent memory.
- Officials and experts point to falling survey response rates, shifting employment patterns, and agency resource strains as contributing factors.
- The revisions have become politically charged after the firing of the B.L.S. chief last year; independent analysts say the pattern does not follow a partisan bias.
Background
The Bureau of Labor Statistics produces monthly payroll estimates from a survey of employers, then each year reconciles those monthly estimates with state unemployment insurance records — a process called benchmark revision. That reconciliation uses administrative records that arrive more slowly but are generally regarded as more complete and less volatile than monthly survey snapshots. Historically the annual adjustments have been modest, but they can occasionally produce sizable corrections when survey coverage or response behavior changes.
Over the past decade, survey response rates for many federal economic measures have trended downward, complicating routine estimation. At the same time, changing labor-market arrangements — including shifts among gig work, remote employment and part-time schedules — make classification and coverage more difficult. Budget cuts and staff turnover at statistical agencies have been flagged by outside analysts as compounding these measurement challenges.
Main Event
On Feb. 11, 2026 the B.L.S. released its annual benchmark revision, showing a much smaller payroll increase in 2025 than had been reported month to month. The revised count for 2025 was 181,000 jobs for the year, sharply lower than the 584,000 previously reported. The agency also trimmed its estimate for total job growth in 2024 by nearly 28 percent.
The agency’s revision process reconciles the monthly Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey with state unemployment insurance payroll records. Because the CES is a rapid monthly sample, it is vulnerable to sampling and nonresponse errors that the annual benchmarking corrects. This year, the correction moved in a single direction and at a scale that surprised many observers.
The magnitude of the change has raised questions about how policymakers and markets should interpret month-to-month jobs reports. Fed officials, economists and market participants rely on the headline payroll numbers for short-term assessments of labor-market strength and inflationary pressures. When those numbers are later revised down by large margins, it can alter historical narratives about growth and policy timing.
Analysis & Implications
First, the revisions materially change the near-term story of the U.S. labor market. A downward correction of more than a million jobs shifts the characterization of recent years from steady hiring to a much more muted expansion. That affects assessments of slack in the labor market, wage pressures and consumers’ incomes.
Second, the revisions complicate monetary policy signaling. Fed staff estimates cited by Chair Jerome H. Powell — that monthly gains may have been overstated by roughly 60,000 jobs — imply that policymakers may have been responding to a labor market that was weaker than headline reports suggested. While the Fed uses a range of indicators, large ex post revisions can undermine confidence in near-real-time decision inputs.
Third, the episode highlights structural measurement risks. Declining survey response rates and evolving employment forms raise the likelihood of systematic bias in sample-based estimates. If administrative records diverge consistently from survey snapshots, agencies will need new methods, funding, or partnerships to preserve accuracy and timeliness.
Finally, the revisions have political and institutional consequences. They have become a focal point in debates over the resources and independence of statistical agencies. While political actors have used the numbers to criticize agency leadership, independent analysts caution against interpreting large revisions as evidence of partisan manipulation; instead, they point to methodological constraints and resource shortfalls as primary drivers.
Comparison & Data
| Year | Initial Estimate (published) | Revised Estimate | Net Change |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 584,000 | 181,000 | -403,000 (-69%) |
| 2024 | Published estimate (various monthly totals) | Reduced by ~28% | Nearly one-quarter reduction |
The table above shows known, confirmed adjustments. The 2025 revision moves the headline annual payroll increase from 584,000 down to 181,000, a 69 percent reduction. For 2024 the B.L.S. reported a near-28 percent downward revision; public releases did not frame that year as a single headline number in the previewed material but describe a sizable aggregate downward change. Analysts note the combined effect for the two years exceeds one million jobs.
Reactions & Quotes
“Economists at the Federal Reserve estimate the B.L.S. has been overstating employment gains by about 60,000 jobs per month.”
Jerome H. Powell, Federal Reserve (public remarks)
Powell’s comment, made publicly in December, was cited by market participants as evidence that the statistical corrections could meaningfully change policymakers’ readings of labor-market tightness.
“She was incompetent and biased against me.”
Donald J. Trump (public statement on agency leadership)
The President cited earlier revisions when firing the head of the B.L.S.; outside experts across the political spectrum pushed back, saying the pattern of revisions does not align with partisan distortion and instead reflects technical and resource issues.
“There is no consistent political pattern in the revisions; the issue is methodology, coverage and declining response rates.”
Independent economists (public analysis)
Analysts emphasize that long-term trends in response rates and evolving forms of work help explain why annual benchmark adjustments have grown larger recently.
Unconfirmed
- Whether falling survey response rates alone account for the magnitude of the revisions remains under study; multiple technical factors could contribute.
- The precise impact of budget cuts and staff departures on the timing and scale of the corrections is not fully quantified in public documents.
- Estimates attributing a specific monthly overstatement (for example, 60,000 jobs) are internal staff calculations cited publicly but may be revised as more analysis is completed.
Bottom Line
The B.L.S. benchmark revisions for 2024 and 2025 substantially reduce reported job growth and change the narrative of recent labor-market strength. For analysts and policymakers, the revisions underscore the limits of relying on single monthly snapshots without treating annual reconciliations as essential corrections.
Going forward, the policy-relevant questions are practical: whether statistical agencies will receive additional resources or methodological tools to improve timeliness and coverage, and how markets and policymakers should weight preliminary monthly releases against the risk of large later revisions. In the near term, expect debate about both the technical fixes and the institutional capacity of the B.L.S.
Sources
- The New York Times — news report and analysis of the B.L.S. benchmark revision (news).
- Bureau of Labor Statistics — official agency responsible for monthly payroll statistics and annual benchmark reconciliations (official).