3 articles · Updated · The Washington Post · Sep 9
Summary
A Federal Register proposal would bar undocumented immigrants, many nonpermanent residents, refugees and asylum seekers from the 2030 census count, a shift that could redraw House seats and redirect federal funding.
The Census Bureau also proposed restoring a citizenship question and dropping questions on race, ethnicity and sexual orientation, arguing the survey should count only people with sufficient ties and be "colorblind."
The plan revives a first-term Trump push that the Supreme Court blocked from the 2020 census after finding the administration's stated rationale for a citizenship question was "contrived."
The 14th Amendment requires apportionment by the "whole number of persons" in each state, setting up likely court fights; New York Attorney General Letitia James said the state is weighing legal action.
Could relying on incomplete administrative records to verify legal status inadvertently exclude millions of lawful residents from the count?
How will a sudden shift to a colorblind census impact centuries of historical data and future economic forecasting?
If usual residence is tied to tax records, how will communities secure funding for temporary populations like students?
The 2030 Census at Risk: Political Battles, Data Integrity, and the Fight Over Who Counts in America
Overview
The 2030 census faces unprecedented political and methodological upheaval, with the Trump administration drastically reducing field tests and pushing to exclude noncitizens from the count. This would shift congressional seats and federal funding away from states with large immigrant populations, while adding a citizenship question could enable partisan redistricting. Proposals to eliminate questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation threaten civil rights enforcement and scientific research. These sweeping changes have triggered legal challenges from advocacy groups, who argue they violate constitutional and statutory protections. The outcome of the 2028 election could ultimately decide whether these controversial reforms are reversed or implemented.