Democrats bash Trump, GOP over disappointing jobs report: ‘Awful'
Released by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), the analysis revealed that U.S. employers added 73,000 jobs in July — well below economists' estimates of 100,000 — while the figures for May and June were revised dramatically downward to indicate that the economy created 258,000 fewer jobs over those months than initially reported.
The Democrats say the disappointing numbers are no accident, but reflect a Republican policy agenda — including Trump's efforts to gut the federal government through the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) — that has prioritized the financial well-being of the wealthy at the expense of everyone else.
'This is really bad,' Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.), a member of the Financial Services Committee, wrote on X. 'The job slow down obviously, but the size of the revisions is maybe more ominous in light of all the DOGE cuts to BLS and other economic reporting agencies.
'If this volatility is the new normal we are stapling a huge risk premium on the US economy.'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) piled on, pinning the hiring stall directly on Trump's policies, including on-again, off-again tariffs that have destabilized global trade and created uncertainty for domestic businesses.
'Unsurprising bad jobs report. Just 73,000 added in July, and most of those were health care,' Murphy posted on X. 'Even worse, May and June jobs numbers revised down by 258,000. Awful. Companies don't want to create jobs in Trump's chaos economy with weakening rule of law and rampant corruption.'
Trump, a billionaire real-estate mogul, has centered his political career on promises to apply his business successes to Washington. On the campaign trail, he vowed to end pandemic-era inflation on 'day one' and adopt economic policies that would launch a manufacturing 'renaissance' across America.
'We will take other countries' jobs,' Trump said during a campaign speech in Savannah, Georgia, last September. 'We're going to take their factories.'
Trump's Republican allies have portrayed the president as an economic visionary, hailing his policy agenda as a liberating force that's cutting taxes for consumers and red tape for businesses. They did not change their tune after Friday's jobs numbers were released.
'This week, we saw how the Trump economy is firing on all cylinders: strong economic growth, better trade deals, wages outpacing price increases, tamed inflation, and now, a job market that keeps going,' Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.), the chairman of the powerful Ways and Means Committee, said Friday morning in a statement.
Smith praised Trump for fueling job creation in the private sector, rather than in the government.
'Unlike during the Biden Administration, when taxpayers were forced to pay for millions of new bureaucrats while watching their grocery and gas bills skyrocket, President Trump's economy is freeing the private sector to create new jobs with more financial security for American families,' Smith said.
Yet Friday's new labor report also suggests that the economic uncertainty surrounding Trump's erratic global trade policies is undermining the confidence of private employers to make new hires. It also suggests that the Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill,' which Trump signed into law on July 4, has not alleviated those jitters.
The analysis revealed that job growth in May, June and July was at its lowest level since COVID-19 led to a firing spree in 2020 — a statistic that was not overlooked by Trump's Democratic critics, who are bashing the president for what they view as broken promises to voters.
'A July jobs report way below expectations. May and June revised down as well. Unemployment rate ticked back up to 4.2%. We haven't seen conditions like these since 2020,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom (D) posted on X.
'Don't let Donald Trump gaslight you. He is failing Americans and crashing our economy.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
AMD posts mixed Q2 results but offers better than expected Q3 outlook on AI sales
AMD (AMD) reported its second quarter results after the bell on Tuesday, missing on adjusted earnings per share (EPS), but beating analysts expectations on revenue. The company also provided better than anticipated Q3 guidance of between $8.4 billion and $9 billion. Wall Street was expecting $8.3 billion. The announcement comes ahead of rival and market leader Nvidia's (NVDA) own earnings report later this month. AMD stock was flat following the news. The company's shares are up 44% year to date and 29% over the last 12 months, while Nvidia shares are up 32% and 77%, respectively. For the quarter, AMD saw adj. EPS of $0.48 on revenue of $7.6 billion. Wall Street was expecting EPS of $0.49 on revenue of $7.4 billion, according to Bloomberg consensus estimates. AMD says it saw an $800 million impact from the Trump administration's ban on the sale of the company's MI308 AI chips to China. Nvidia took a $4.5 billion write-down from the ban in Q1 and said it expects a larger $8 billion hit in its second fiscal quarter. Trump reversed course on the ban last month, which should help make up for some of those losses in the coming quarters. AMD should also benefit from the launch of its MI350 line of AI chips, designed to go toe-to-toe with Nvidia's Blackwell-powered chips. According to AMD, the MI350 line, which includes the MI350X and MI355X, offers four times the AI compute performance and a 35x increase in inferencing capabilities versus its predecessors. AMD's Data Center segment revenue topped out at $3.2 billion, meeting Wall street expectations. The company saw $2.8 billion in the segment last year. Beyond the Data Center segment, AMD's Client business, which includes sales of CPUs for desktops and laptops, generated $3.6 billion in revenue versus an anticipated $2.5 billion. Email Daniel Howley at dhowley@ Follow him on X/Twitter at @DanielHowley. Sign in to access your portfolio
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pfizer CEO shares 3 pillars of company's cost-cutting efforts
Pfizer (PFE) topped second quarter expectations, but looming Trump-era pharmaceutical tariffs remain a concern. Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla joins Market Domination to discuss the company's earnings results and cost-cutting efforts. He also notes that a manufacturing shift would require a grace period due to long timelines. To watch more expert insights and analysis on the latest market action, check out more Market Domination. Pfizer reporting a beat on revenue and earnings for its second quarter. But the pharmaceutical manufacturer is facing new hurdles with tariff threats and calls from President Trump to lower prices. Our own, Julie Hyman, and senior health reporter, Anjalee Khemlani, spoke with the CEO about cost-cutting efforts and the future of the firm. I would call it more its productivity enhancement and margin expansion. We do that by implementing three things. One, it is focus. So we stop doing things that they are not that important, and we double down on things that they are. The second is technology. Technology right now offers tremendous opportunities for improvement of productivity, particularly AI and simplification of our business process. There is a lot of waste that is happening when you have complicated structures that require usually more people than if you have streamlined your areas. And this is where we are. We have announced a program that we are on track to exceed actually this year. And then announced an additional 1.7 billions of cost reductions, 1.2 billions of that until '27 will happen in SGNA in administrative and marketing and selling expenses. And that will fall to the bottom line. 500 millions will happen in R&D, and that will be reinvested all back in R&D. So it's not just the cost-cutting though, obviously, investors also want to see growth on the top line, growth in revenues. You guys did have growth in revenues this quarter by 10%. And the revenue growth has been more volatile. So how do you keep that momentum going and also find stability? Yes. If you see the elements of our revenues, the volatile piece is mainly our COVID. Because COVID could happen in different quarters every year. Usually there are two waves every year and in sometimes like 23, one way, the summer or the winter are stronger. And the same as in 24. So it's a different year by year. So I think that's the variability. The rest of the business, it's a very strong, continuous growth momentum, I think, and new products and recently acquired products contributed 4.7 billion dollars in this first half of the year. And they are growing at 15%. So it's very solid. I do want to talk about the backdrop from Washington. Because that's something that involves, that affects not just you, but the whole industry. You're also currently the head of the Pharmaceutical Industry Association. You did say on the call that you have a special relationship with members of this administration. Of course, we've heard the president be critical of the industry. What do you feel you have been able to educate President Trump about to sort of better help him understand the industry's perspective? I said we have a special relation with the president because that relation was cemented during the COVID crisis. He was very concerned. He want to make sure that we speed up the development of vaccines. So we speak every second week. So he was very active and he would ask about studies and where we are, and what can we do to accelerate. So it was very, it was a bonding, let's say, exercise. No, I, I think he's educated. Of course, it doesn't go into the details, is not his job, but he understands the dynamics. I had multiple times the opportunity to discuss with him the impact that the middleman has in the prices in the US. And he understands this very well and he speaks very vocally about it. Other things that they are subsidizing, that they are taking out of the prices of pharma, so that the patient pays a lot, but then we don't collect all of that because it goes to other areas like 340B. So he, what he wants to achieve, it is to have a better deal. He's very competitive. He doesn't like that others paying less. And he wants to fix it and we are very productively discuss, productively discussing right now what we can do on that. And the president did say in an interview today that tariffs could eventually reach 250%. He's talking about a phase in of that. Are you confident that you'll avoid that outcome for the industry, that 250% on imports of pharmaceuticals? I don't want to speak for the president, but what he said today, which was very important also was that it will be a very small tariff in the first couple of years. And then he opened actually the window for a grace period. Because I had this discussion with him and I had this discussion with multiple other members of the administration, but a manufacturing site to be completed, it takes more than five years for our industry. We in North Carolina, we just completed, not just, but we completed recently a few years back, the build of one manufacturing site. But was one product only, and it took us four and a half years and that was our record. So you can't just say you need to do it immediately and pay tariffs until you transfer. We can't afford to pay tariffs and the investments to transfer. Right. Makes sense. I want to bring in our Anjalee Khemlani, who, of course, you also know, our senior health reporter to talk more about some of these issues. So Anj, I know you're also, of course, watching the pricing debate very closely. Yeah, that most favored nations clause. Albert, I love the letter. Got your special, you know, name crossed out on there from Trump. But going to the contents of it, I know you've already talked about the DTC push and getting that direct to consumer push. You've already unfolded a strategy there, so you're really ahead of the curve there. But I want to actually talk about the pricing part of it because we've had notes from analysts talking about how it's really unfeasible to do most favored nations pricing the way that it's laid out in that letter. Can you talk to us about how you're planning for that? We are planning for all different scenarios of different ways of implementing something like that. And we are discussing and making mitigation plans. But we don't know how that will end up. We are still discussing it with with the president, how and what will be the devil could be on the details in this case. And talking about the tariffs as well. I know that with the manufacturing push, the industry had been trying to really pull the president away from these tariffs and conversations around it with the more than $200 billion in investments. Explain to us how that works considering that 90% of prescription drugs are generics and those are the ones that are cheaper to make, come from overseas, have smaller margins. Therefore, not really appealing to companies like you to produce. Meanwhile, the branded drugs are mostly produced here with the API is coming from overseas. So can you just put it together for us on how it would really impact you with tariffs coming in? What components? Depends on the product and depends how the custom authorities define a country of origin. First of all, you are right that generics are more than nine prescriptions per 10 in the US. And those are the cheapest medicines anywhere in the world. The generic prices in the US are the cheapest of any medicine. I think again, patients are paying way more than the real price of the generics, because of ways that the insurance system and the benefits work. But even with that, they are the cheapest generics in the world. Then the 10% or less that they are, they're branded. Many of them are manufactured here, as you know, probably. We have 13 sites in the US of manufacturing. 11 are manufacturing plants and then two are gigantic warehouses, almost like a plant. So we do a lot of them here, but we over the years, we produce some stuff outside. And Ireland is a typical example, Switzerland is a typical example, other places are typical examples. And those we need to understand if they will be the API will dictate the country of origin or where the final product is made.
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
More people disapprove of Trump than less in latest polls for California, US
Recent efforts by the Trump administration are shaping the future of California, from the effects of the 'Big, Beautiful Bill' on residents to how federal immigration enforcement policies could impact the state's economy. In July, California saw federal officials visit Alcatraz as part of President Donald Trump's interest in reopening the prison. More recently, efforts to redistrict Texas in favor of Republicans — championed by the president, as USA TODAY reported — have Gov. Gavin Newsom looking to countermaneuver it through California's maps. At the state level, Attorney General Rob Bonta said he's filed 37 lawsuits against the Trump administration, some of which pertain to education, public health, and FEMA-related funding. At the local level, numerous Californians attended one of dozens of local demonstrations held in mid-July to protest the Trump administration. Of course, not all Californians and state officials perceive Trump and his administration negatively. But based on two recent polls, the president's favorability can certainly improve in the blue states. In California, the president holds a net approval rating of -31.6 percentage points, according to The Economist. A Civiqs poll found that in California, 29% approve of Trump, 68% disapprove, and 3% neither approve nor disapprove as of Monday, Aug. 4. Back in late May, a Public Policy Institute of California survey found that 70% of Californians disapproved of Trump's handling of his job, just a single percentage point increase from a February survey. Here are several other recent polls to get a wider view of how people view the president's job performance. Trump approval rating: Gallup, New York Times and more The Economist/YouGov poll: 40% approve of Trump, 55% disapprove of Trump and 4% are not sure, according to figures retrieved on Tuesday, Aug. 5. Emerson College poll: A poll of U.S. voters conducted from July 21-22 found Trump's approval rating was at 46% while 47% disapproved. The credibility interval, similar to a margin of error, was plus or minus 2.5 percentage points. Fox News poll: A poll conducted from July 18-21 under the direction of Beacon Research and Shaw & Company research found that 46% approval of Trump's job performance while 54% disapprove. Gallup poll: Trump has a 37% approval rating in a poll from July 7-21, down several percentage points from his second term average of 42% so far. It's his lowest job approval rating to date in his second term. New York Times poll: New York Times tracks the 'daily average of polls conducted by dozens of different organizations,' showing that as of Tuesday, Aug. 5, the president's approval rating is at 44% while his disapproval rating is at 53%. Quinnipiac University poll: A poll from July 10-14 of self-identified registered voters nationwide found that 40% approved of Trump's handling of his job while 54% disapproved. The margin of effort was plus or minus 2.7 percentage points. Reuters/Ipsos poll: A poll from July 25-27 that surveyed 1,023 U.S. adults nationwide found 40% approved of Trump's performance while 56% disapproved. The poll had a margin of error of 3 percentage points. Paris Barraza is a trending reporter covering California news at The Desert Sun. Reach her at pbarraza@ This article originally appeared on Palm Springs Desert Sun: Trump approval rating: What polls show for California, the U.S.
