One of our subscribers submitted a fact check request regarding an article published by The Guardian titled “US economy shows steady job growth in January amid Biden-Trump transition”. The article claims that even though job growth slowed in January 2025, the labor market remained stable as Trump began his second term. But does the data fully support this conclusion? Let’s break it down.
MISLEADING ASSOCIATION OF TRUMP WITH JANUARY JOB GROWTH
The article presents job growth for January as part of the “transition” between the Biden and Trump administrations. However, Trump’s second term began on January 20, leaving only 11 days under his leadership within the reporting period. The vast majority of hiring decisions and economic conditions that influenced January’s job numbers were set before Trump’s return to office. The claim that Trump is “starting his second term when the labor market has cooled” subtly implies that this slowdown is tied to the transition, yet does not acknowledge this critical timeline factor.
THE JOB GROWTH REVISION ISSUE
The article correctly states that job growth from 2023 and early 2024 was revised downward by 589,000 positions, but it leaves out context on how such revisions work. These adjustments are based on more complete payroll data that takes months to process. While the revision does show slower job gains than previously thought, economists expected the downward shift because preliminary monthly estimates are often adjusted later. The article portrays this revision as “significant,” but does not explain that it is in line with historical revision trends.
INFLATION AND INTEREST RATE CLAIMS LACK NUANCE
The article states that the Federal Reserve “started bringing down inflation rates in the fall,” implying Fed policy was the primary reason inflation decreased. However, inflation has been declining since mid-2023 due to easing supply chain constraints and slower consumer demand. The Federal Reserve reacts to inflation trends rather than unilaterally causing them. The claim that the Fed “chose to keep rates steady at its last board meeting in January” also ignores the fact that officials have signaled caution about lowering rates too soon due to uncertainty around the economy.
TRUMP’S JOB PROMISES VERSUS REALITY
Trump’s statements about creating jobs and having “a lot of companies moving in” are political rhetoric rather than policy-backed economic analysis. The article mentions that Trump has introduced aggressive tariffs on imports from China, Canada, and Mexico, which economists warn could hurt U.S. businesses reliant on global supply chains. While Trump acknowledges the costs, his administration has not detailed how he will offset potential job losses from supply chain disruptions. Readers should be cautious in accepting broad political claims about employment without specific policy details.
FACT CHECK CONCLUSION
The article contains valid data but lacks proper context in several areas. Job growth in January was mostly influenced by Biden-era conditions rather than Trump’s return. The revisions to 2023 job data were expected but are framed as a dramatic discovery. The Federal Reserve’s actions on inflation and interest rates are presented without mentioning broader contributing economic factors. Lastly, Trump’s job growth promises are not linked to specific policy measures, making them speculative rather than factual claims.
Misinformation isn’t always about outright falsehoods—it often comes from misleading implications and missing context. If you want to fact-check more articles like this, download the DBUNK app and submit your own fact-check requests for free!
