Some readers might be inclined to click away the moment they see the phrases “government forecast,” “trade deficit” and “farm goods,” but I’d encourage you to stick around for another minute, because this is going somewhere.

Let’s start with a new report in Politico, which sparked quite a conversation almost immediately after it was published — despite the seemingly dull aforementioned phrases.

Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation’s trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter. The numbers run counter to President Donald Trump’s messaging that his economic policies, including tariffs, will reduce U.S. trade imbalances. The politically inconvenient data prompted administration officials to block publication of the written analysis normally attached to the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit.

The allegations raised in the Politico report, which have not been independently verified by MSNBC or NBC News, might seem narrowly focused at first blush. The U.S Department of Agriculture (USDA) was supposed to release data about the trade deficit in farm goods; the facts were at odds with the White House’s preferred political narratives; and according to Politico’s unnamed sources, the truth was temporarily hidden from the public for political reasons.

The same report added, “Policymakers, farm groups and commodities traders rely on the closely watched report,” so the delay was noticed.

But stepping back, the significance of a story like this one, if true, is about far more than just trade deficits, farm goods and the Agriculture Department.

The benign explanation for the delayed report is that there was an unfortunate bureaucratic mix-up. A USDA spokesperson acknowledged that that report in question did not come out when it was originally scheduled to be released, but the spokesperson insisted, “The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline. Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the Department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps.”

But for those less inclined to give the administration the benefit of the doubt, these developments raise serious concerns about what Politico’s report described as “potential political meddling with government reports that have traditionally been trusted for decades.”

The federal government — not just the USDA, but every federal department, agency and office — generates countless reports, practically on a daily basis. Some of the reports, including those related to the unemployment rate, economic growth, and inflation, receive considerable national and international attention, but other reports are of interest to vastly smaller audiences.

But whether the documents and data are of interest to hundreds of people or hundreds of millions, the bottom line remains the same: The public needs to be able to trust the integrity of the information. Everyone needs to have the utmost confidence that when the United States of America says, “This is accurate data, which has not been manipulated for political reasons,” the world can safely assume the claim is true.

If, however, the public has reason to wonder whether reports have been tweaked, delayed, edited, manipulated, massaged, fudged or changed to suit a political agenda, the resulting lack of trust could be disastrous.

Indeed, one need not even assume untoward motivations. The Wall Street Journal reported this week that some economists “are beginning to question the accuracy of recent U.S. inflation data,” not because of a political plot, but because federal staffing shortages appear to have “hampered its ability to conduct a massive monthly survey.”

A week before Trump’s second inaugural, Paul Krugman, shortly after parting ways with The New York Times, highlighted the “real threat of fake numbers” and the possibility that the public will have to start approaching federal government data with increased skepticism.

Five months later, these questions are getting louder.