Skip to content Skip to footer

Trump’s Attacks on Census Go Well Beyond Citizenship Question

The Census Bureau has been forced to cut in half the number of regional offices needed to get an accurate count.

Protesters gather outside the U.S. Supreme Court as the court hears oral arguments in the Commerce vs. New York case, April 23, 2019, in Washington, D.C.

This week, the Supreme Court heard arguments as to whether or not the Trump administration can add a citizenship question to the decennial census. The malicious intent of this question ought to be glaringly apparent. When a nativist administration — which has from the get-go hammered at the rights of immigrants, especially those who are poor and of color, and which has unleashed federal agencies to do their worst against vast numbers of people — asks such a question, it does so in the hope that it will scare immigrants away from participating in the census. Why is that important? Because both political representation and the flow of federal resources are largely dependent on population estimates. If an immigrant-heavy state such as California ends up with fewer residents participating, its official population suddenly dips, it is awarded fewer congressional seats, and fewer tax dollars flow toward its infrastructure investments and an array of other public expenditures. Scare enough immigrants into invisibility, and you can thus dramatically shift the political dynamics of the country.

But while the citizenship question is now in the spotlight, it is actually only one of several ways in which the Trump team, with active help from the GOP in Congress, has deliberately sought to undermine the functioning of the Census and the reliability of its findings.

Census watchers know, from experience, a lot about the rhythms of the 10-year project. They know, for example, that the closer one gets to a Census year, the more money has to be allocated to the Census Bureau. They know that whenever new information-gathering technologies are rolled out, it’s vital that the Bureau be able to send out field representatives to do large-scale test runs so that there aren’t glitches during the actual census. They know that when more of an emphasis is placed on online responses and less on mail-in paperwork or the physical collection of questionnaires, rural areas and poor residents without access to reliable at-home internet are less likely to fill in the forms. And they know that it is much harder to get high response rates from Black, Asian, Latinx and immigrant communities, as well as from poor residents, than it is from many whites, especially from affluent, home-owning whites.

Even when everything’s humming along smoothly, and even when a government is in power that doesn’t consider it a national pastime to hurt immigrants, these truths hold. Even in less reactionary times, statisticians estimate a 2.1 percent undercount of Black people and a 1.5 percent undercount of Latinx people, with an even worse under-count among the poorest members of these groups; and a corresponding 0.6 percent over-count of home-owners and 0.8 percent overcount of whites. After the fact, based on careful sampling, the statisticians then have to try to moderate the final numbers to get at something that approximates an accurate final count.

But in 2019, with the census only a year away, almost nothing’s humming along smoothly. Behind the scenes, from the moment the Trump gang took power, they have worked to incapacitate the Census Bureau. Data is, after all, power; and if you can manipulate the data to favor your constituencies, you magnify your power accordingly.

The Trump administration has, in keeping with GOP spending priorities over a number of years, consistently asked for Census Bureau budgets that don’t even begin to keep pace with the financial needs of the Bureau as Census 2020 approaches.

In 2012, the GOP-run Congress ordered the Census Bureau not to spend more on the 2020 census than it spent on the 2010 census, despite a decades-long trend toward increased expenditures as the U.S. population grew both in size and in complexity. Since Trump assumed office, the financial constraints imposed on the Census Bureau have only grown.

For fiscal year 2018, Trump requested only $1.684 billion for the Bureau; even Congress balked at that, eventually signing off on $2.814 billion. But this amount only partially fills a shortfall that, year upon year, has grown and shows every sign of continuing to grow.

For Fiscal Year 2019, Trump requested $3.8 billion for the Bureau, of which just over $3 billion would actually go toward the 2020 census. By contrast, in 2009, a year before the last census, the Bureau received $4.2 billion. Next year, experts such as those working with The Census Project believe the Bureau will need a budget of well over $8 billion to run a successful Census. But, to the chagrin of numerous members of Congress who have written letters urging higher appropriations, Trump has requested only $5.885 billion in new spending. Even Trump’s own parsimonious Commerce Department has estimated that the Bureau needs roughly $7 billion in 2020.

This make-do-with-less approach permeates all aspects of the Census. Under Trump’s watch, the Census Bureau has had to slash by half the number of regional and area offices it runs. These are offices strategically situated around the country that are vital to reach under-served communities that, traditionally, the Census has found it hard to build rapports with. Reduce the presence of such on-the-ground offices and you all-but-guarantee lower participation by members of these communities.

The Bureau has argued that it can save some dollars by aggressively moving to a more online-based system. But, strapped for funds, it has done so without fully planning for how that impacts response rates. It hasn’t worked out effective back-up plans for areas and population groups with low internet connectivity. Making matters worse, in 2017, the Bureau was so cash-strapped that it also had to cancel entire test-runs of new information-gathering technologies. And the Bureau, faced with a chronic funding shortfall, hasn’t been able, or willing, to hire nearly enough partnership specialists who can be sent out to work with local communities to ensure high participation levels so that many cities and states have had to simply go ahead and set up their own teams of specialist workers to help fill the gap.

Taken as a whole, these assaults on the integrity of the Census can’t merely be seen as incompetence or over-zealous fiscal caution. The Census is being constricted in a very particular set of ways, all seemingly intended to massively curtail the participation of immigrants, of non-white Americans, and of poor Americans.

Statisticians can go in after the fact and do limited best-guess fixes to ensure accuracy. But if the drop-off rates in participation are too extreme, as advocates fear they will be given the ongoing efforts to squeeze the Census Bureau, at the end of the day it’s entirely probable that some groups will be invisibilized while other groups end up significantly over-represented. That will, if it is allowed to stand, have massive effects on the way our democracy functions, artificially shrinking the political representation of some counties and states while inflating the representation of others. Similarly, it will end up reducing the federal dollars invested in under-counted communities while boosting the dollar amounts that flow into over-counted ones.

As in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, in Trump-land all are created equal, it’s just that some of the pigs are more equal than others.

We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.

As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.

Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.

As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.

At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.

Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.

You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.