This New York Times article by Peter Baker examines President Trump's systematic approach to suppressing unfavourable information and promoting his preferred narrative, particularly regarding employment statistics and government data.
The article begins with an old Washington principle: while officials are entitled to their opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts. However, Baker argues that Trump has consistently violated this norm throughout his presidency, citing his tendency to attack intelligence reports that contradict his views, dispute cost estimates for his policies, and even delete mentions of inconvenient truths from government websites.
The central incident discussed occurred when Trump fired a Labour Department official responsible for compiling employment statistics, apparently because recent jobs reports showed economic performance that contradicted his claims of success. Trump dismissed these numbers as "phony" and declared the data was "his opinion," despite employment statistics being based on established methodological standards rather than subjective interpretation.
Baker contextualises this incident within a broader pattern of Trump's "war on facts," describing how the president has historically responded to unfavourable data with "impatience and disproportionate intensity." The article suggests this behaviour reflects an authoritarian approach to governance, where inconvenient truths are suppressed rather than acknowledged.
The firing has created concern among government officials who work with data, as they now fear potential retaliation for simply doing their jobs professionally. Career scientists, intelligence analysts, and statisticians who serve presidents regardless of party affiliation are reportedly feeling pressure to conform to political expectations rather than maintain scientific objectivity.
![]() |
Trump's war on facts echo an authoritarian playbook; by Peter Baker, in: Deccan Herald, 4 August 2025. |
The article concludes by noting that this approach to manipulating information represents a significant departure from traditional democratic governance, where factual accuracy and independent analysis are considered essential to effective policymaking. Baker presents this as part of a troubling pattern that undermines the institutional foundations of evidence-based government.
Comments
Post a Comment