That’s a quote from a New York Times article profiling E.J. Antoni, Trump’s pick to head the Bureau of Labor Statistics after he fired the former chief, Erika McEntarfer, a highly respected economist with decades of experience dealing with national economic data. McEntarfer’s “offense,” if that’s the right word, was apparently to ok the release of a monthly jobs report that shows that hiring is slowing.

Hard to believe that a hiring pause should come as a shock–and I can identify only one person who seems to have been shocked–given uncertainty about tariffs (the consensus is that they will clip about half a percentage point off economic growth, basically flatlining the economy) and efforts by ICE to shrink the labor force either through deportation or arrest or intimidation of potential workers.

What really strikes me is both the number of prominent economists who are speaking out against this move and the force they’re doing this. No mincing words, no subtle academic euphemisms …just flat out he doesn’t have the skills and there’s a good chance he’d doctor the figures, if asked. In almost a half-century of involvement in US financial markets, I can’t recall anything remotely like the bluntness of this disapproval.

In simple terms (the ones I like best), I think the worry being expressed is that shoot the messenger is a substantial step beyond the bounds of what’s acceptable. They put on the table the hitherto unthinkable possibility that one day a good chunk of the country’s economic books are being cooked (sort of like Greece in the early days of the euro), and the bond market, realizing this, will demand higher interest rates for taking this extra risk. That, of course, would make the economy’s fiscal problems a lot worse. Not great for the currency, either.

This isn’t necessarily a today issue, but the idea that this is now thinkable is, I think, why professional economists are speaking out forcefully against the administration’s apparent plans for the BLS.