The Missing Inflation Number And The Convenient Absence of Accountability The October CPI report on November 10 will omit annual headline and core inflation figures. BLS says the 2025 government shutdown prevented collection of the October prices needed for comparison. That explanation is legitimate. But the timing and absence of even a clearly labeled estimate raise questions about transparency. The Inflation Picture September CPI inflation reached 3.7% annually. Independent estimates suggest October could approach 4%, while hourly wages are growing around 3.1%. If those estimates hold, purchasing power is deteriorating amid an energy shock. Economists expect monthly headline CPI of 0.3% and core CPI of 0.2%. Following September’s larger increase, those numbers could be presented as inflation cooling. But a slower monthly increase does not erase annual price pressures. Omitting the annual figures removes a comparison Americans readily understand. The Methodological Contradiction BLS says missing October 2025 observations prevent an official annual reading. Yet BLS used interpolated figures for seasonal adjustments, while BEA estimated the missing month for other calculations. Estimates cannot recreate prices never collected. An observed figure and a modeled estimate are different. But if estimates are used elsewhere, why not publish an experimental annual range with transparent assumptions and uncertainty? Instead, the annual comparison disappears. Why December Matters The Fed meets December 8 and 9. The next CPI report is scheduled for December 10, making October the last scheduled CPI release before its decision. An estimated annual rate near 4% would sharpen an uncomfortable dilemma. If the Fed raises rates, it risks further weakening investment, refinancing conditions and employment. If it holds, it must explain why persistent inflation does not justify additional tightening. Much of the headline pressure comes from energy. Higher rates cannot repair refineries, increase diesel supplies or resolve shipping disruptions. They can increase financing costs for businesses already facing weaker demand and heavy debt. The Fed must still prevent energy inflation from spreading into broader prices. It targets PCE rather than CPI and has other inflation information available, so a CPI estimate would not dictate its decision. But it would make the tradeoff harder to gloss over publicly. A monthly increase of 0.3% is easier to frame as progress than an annual rate near 4% alongside wage growth of 3.1%. The Bigger Concern BLS announced the limitation in September. There is no evidence officials deliberately suppressed an unfavorable figure. Nevertheless, a genuine data problem creates an opportunity to emphasize a softer monthly number while avoiding a less reassuring annual comparison. The concern is not a hidden exact figure. It is that Americans may hear inflation is cooling while purchasing power continues to erode. If modeled values are already used elsewhere, publishing a clearly labeled estimate with caveats is reasonable. A missing inflation number does not mean inflation has improved. Nor should its absence justify portraying the economy more favorably than the evidence supports.