The Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest update on the job market. President Donald Trump had a figure he could highlight, at least initially. The economy added 64,000 net new jobs in November, a bounce back from October’s loss of 105,000 jobs.
However, on Tuesday, the Wall Street Journal’s conservative editorial board reviewed the update and sent a clear message regarding Trump’s focus on tariffs. The editors noted that the big number “sounds worse than it is because the net jobs decline was all in government jobs.” This kind of detail can be overlooked in quick political commentary, giving Trump a chance to claim the economy is heading in the right direction.
The editorial board then pointed out what the report failed to provide for Trump, which is significant for a president who promises a specific type of recovery.
The editorial mentioned that the economy continued to lose manufacturing jobs, including 19,000 in the last three months. This matters because Trump has promoted tariffs as a tool to boost factory hiring, a revival he has described at rallies and in speeches as evidence that his methods differ from traditional approaches.
The Journal’s editors avoided soft language. “Some renaissance,” the editorial stated, showing the kind of dry sarcasm that reveals deeper frustration than just one month of data.
They went further as the editorial continued: “If Mr. Trump wants a manufacturing revival, he’ll drop his border taxes and let his other tax policies help hiring and investment.” WSJ is seemingly urging a Republican president to abandon the policy he has made central to his political identity.
Manufacturing jobs, a centerpiece of Trump’s misguided tariff goals, have disappeared for SEVEN straight months, surpassing the COVID shutdowns to become the longest losing streak since the Great Recession era. pic.twitter.com/qMvXVy0hx8
— Joel Griffith (@joelgriffith) December 16, 2025
This is striking, not because the Journal has turned against Trump entirely, but because this is the area where Trump expects his ideological allies to support him. Tariffs are not merely a policy choice for him; they represent his brand, proving he is ready to confront foreign competitors, penalize imports, and compel companies to return by making it more costly not to.
The editorial argued instead that tariffs act like a tax at the border, and that the expected factory boom is not materializing in the locations Trump continually points to. This is a familiar criticism from free-trade conservatives, but it carries more weight when backed by concrete monthly data.
The piece also questioned another claim Trump often makes about revenue. Trump has described tariffs as a financial boon, suggesting they have generated “trillions” in revenue. However, reports indicate the actual tariff revenue since he took office is over $20 billion—a big number, but far short of Trump’s claims.
Within the administration, there have even been discussions about turning tariff revenue into checks for Americans. This idea seems perfect for campaign season—simple and easy to rally around. Whether it is feasible is another question.
A positive jobs headline is helpful, while a conservative editorial board mocking the promised “renaissance” is not. The November report gave him a talking point, but the highlighted details could leave a lasting impression.
