Decennial Census Resources

In recent years the Census Bureau has undergone dramatic changes. This chronological resource guide provides context about those changes to help data users understand the potential impact on data quality.

Recent Concerns Expressed by APDU Members

Diminished Capacity

Between FY2024 and FY2026, the American Statistical Association reports that staffing at the U.S. Census Bureau declined by at least 13% (by one of their estimates, the loss may be as high as 19.3%). Many senior leaders have left the Census Bureau, and the top position has been filled by an interim appointee for more than one year.

Reduced Transparency

In June 2025, the Department of Commerce terminated fourteen (volunteer, expert) advisory committees, including three at the U.S. Census Bureau: 2030 Census Advisory Committee, Bureau of the Census Scientific Advisory Committee, and Census Bureau National Advisory Committee on Racial, Ethnic, and Other Populations.

In September 2025, data user forums (like the American Community Survey Data Users Group) were terminated.

In June 2026, the Department of Commerce issued a Departmental Administrative Order (Disclosure Avoidance for Statistical Products, DAO 216-26) that prohibits the use of modern privacy methods. This order is already impacting data availability and usability.

Restricted Privacy Protection Pathways

(Read APDU’s Joint Statement on Commerce’s Disclosure Avoidance for Statistical Products.)

Weakened Guardrails

Major revisions to the Department of Commerce’s Scientific Integrity policy (DAO 216-23) weaken oversight and accountability and no longer prohibit political interference. In addition, there have been internal structural changes that also weaken safeguards. These changes occurred at the same time as the release of a highly unusual unsigned report that perpetuates inaccurate information about elections.

Proposed Changes to Decennial Census (September 2026)

Proposed rules for the decennial census published in “Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions” raise concerns about an inaccurate count and related downstream effects for all other surveys that rely upon decennial census data as a benchmark. These concerns are not simply speculation. The Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis that accompanied the proposal includes the following text (emphasis added):

“The accuracy of ACS total‑population estimates may decline because the ACS will not have an updated full count of the U.S. population. Between censuses, the Census Bureau creates intercensal population estimates and revises them when new decennial census data become available. The ACS relies on those intercensal estimates to generate its sampling weights. Without new decennial census data to recalibrate those estimates, the ACS sampling weights, and therefore its population estimates, will become less reliable.”

The PRIA also includes this passage (emphasis added):

“The ACS, and other surveys that use intercensal estimates as population controls, would have the same limitations relative to the decennial census noted above. In addition, the quality of the estimates for the ACS and other federal surveys may deteriorate after the release of the 2030 decennial census data. Numerous key dependencies have been structured around the reliable annual release of intercensal estimates for race and ethnicity, such as population controls for major federal surveys; denominators for crucial social and economic indicators (e.g., fertility/mortality rates, cancer rates, poverty rates, unemployment rates, labor force participation, etc.); required information for state and federal grants and other funding formulas; foundational data to support planning at the local level (infrastructure, real estate, and other investments); and essential inputs for countless research projects across academia, government, and the private sector. To produce and release these data, the decennial census counts of the population by race and ethnicity are relied upon, as there are no other comparably accurate, comprehensive, and reliable sources of this information. Omitting race and ethnicity from the 2030 Census questionnaire would require the development of estimates from a base population derived from outdated and/or less accurate data and would deteriorate the accuracy of the estimation method itself.”

Resources on Proposed Changes to the Decennial Census

For details on residence criteria, refer to What Are “Residence Criteria” and How Would They Be Used to Change Who “Counts?” and for specifics on issues related to military personnel, refer to Proposed Residence Criteria Suggest Military Personnel May Be Counted in the Wrong Place.

For information on the impact of using tax records, refer to Using Tax Records To Verify Residence Could Put 2030 Census Accuracy At Risk.

For information on the impact of banning demographic questions, refer to Would eliminating race and ethnicity questions impair the decennial census?

You can find additional resources at handsoffourcens.us. 

Frequently Asked Questions

We received more than 100 questions about proposed changes to the decennial census published in “Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions.” Here are the most frequently asked questions and their answers. (This list will be updated periodically.)

What is in the proposed rule?

What does the rule cover?

The Decennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions (FDMS Docket number USBC-2026-0628, RIN 0607-AA75) proposes adding two new parts to the Code of Federal Regulations. 

• One section (part 60) would set residence criteria “to determine whether and where to count” people for the decennial census. The proposal removes specifics that were previously used to ensure an accurate count (such as for children in foster care and people in emergency shelters) and would limit the count to citizens and lawful permanent residents. 
• The other section (part 70) would prohibit the inclusion of “certain demographic questions on the decennial census short-form questionnaire and any other questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population.” The proposal would ban questions on race, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. 

Each of these proposals is described in greater detail throughout this FAQ.

What is the Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) and what does it include?

The Preliminary Regulatory Impact Analysis (PRIA) is a document explaining the potential impacts of the proposed legislation. While the PRIA covers several topics, the following text (emphasis added) on data quality impacts is noteworthy:

To read the full PRIA, refer to: https://www.regulations.gov/search?searchTerm=USBC-2026-0628

Responding to the Proposed Rule

How can the public submit comments?

Submitted comments do not need to be exhaustive; they can be short and focus on specific pieces, or they can be lengthy with footnotes. Refer to our Comment Guide for additional information.

Where can we find form letter templates, talking points, or draft proposals for reaching out to elected officials or submitting comments?

Refer to our Comment Guide and to our Guides & Talking Points page for sample comments and additional resources.

Why is the public comment period only 33 days, and what is the likelihood or timeline for extending it to a 90-day comment period?

We do not know why the comment period is so short. This is unusual for a “significant regulatory action.” The 2020 process began with an open call for input in 2015, followed by a 60-day comment period on the proposed criteria in 2016. On October 2, 2026, the Census Bureau filed an extension of the comment period. The new deadline of November 2, 2026 yields a 54 day comment period.

Will comments submitted by the end of the day on 10/13/2026 11/2/2026 be counted?

The original deadline for comments has been extended. Comments received on October 13, 2026 November 2, 2026 should be counted, but we encourage everyone to submit their comments as soon as possible.

Impact on Public Data

How will the proposed changes impact the American Community Survey (ACS) and other federal data collections?

The proposed changes would have an impact on the ACS and other federal data collections. The decennial census serves as the benchmark for the ACS and most other population- and household-based surveys in the United States (both in the public and private sectors). Because the ACS relies on the decennial census for weighting, any changes would affect both the reliability and the usability of the ACS (and other surveys, both public and private). While the changes may not impact the Bureau’s ability to ask questions, the impact assessment shared along with the proposal makes it clear that the changes would have a detrimental effect on data collected.

Will income data, Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) data, or unemployment rates be affected?

• While income is not directly asked in the decennial census, income data quality would see ripple effects because the accuracy of the ACS depends on an accurate census. (Refer to the question above “How will proposed changes impact the American Community Survey (ACS) and other federal data collections?” for more details.)
• BLS surveys, including the Current Population Survey, use the decennial census as a benchmark, a trusted reference point the survey results are measured against. Because these surveys reach only a sample of households, BLS uses census population counts to make sure the results accurately represent the whole country. If census quality slips, every survey benchmarked to it slips too. BLS also relies on census data to produce statistics by race and ethnicity, like unemployment rates for Black and Hispanic workers. Without race and ethnicity in the census, those numbers lose their benchmark.
• Changes to the census could negatively affect the accuracy of unemployment data because the decennial census is the benchmark for the Current Population Survey.

Will these changes affect census tract designations and redistricting files?

• Any inaccuracy in the count or lack of clarity regarding residence criteria may affect census tract designations.
• Census Bureau leadership has cautioned in earlier public meetings that redistricting data (PL 94-171) may be restructured for the 2030 Census.

Residence Criteria

How will the residency criteria affect counts for seasonal workers, “snowbirds,” and rural or tribal areas?

• The proposed rule creates a “census enumeration period” that runs from January 3 to April 1 of the census year. A person’s usual residence would be wherever they spent the most days during that window, and being somewhere for as little as one hour counts as a day there. In 2020, usual residence was the place a person lives and sleeps most of the time. By introducing an unprecedented “enumeration period,” the proposed rule opens the possibility that people may not be counted at their usual residence as of Census Day (April 1). For example:
  • Seasonal workers, like winter resort staff and farmworkers, may be counted at their winter location rather than their usual residence as of Census Day.
  • People who have “winter” residences in warmer locations or at winter work locations (such traveling nurses or ice road truckers) may be counted at their winter location rather than their usual residence on Census Day.
• The rule also says a person’s usual residence should be “consistent with, and evidenced by” their tax records, such as tax returns and W-2s. The Census Bureau plans to rely more heavily on administrative records for the census and says it may use tax filings submitted after April 1 to help decide where someone was between January 3 and April 1. Tax records use mailing addresses rather than residential addresses, and a tax return only shows the address someone listed on the day they filed. Nothing on it records how many days they slept there. Relying on tax records will cause difficulty in counting anyone who::
  • Does not have standard street addressing (such as many people living in rural and tribal areas),
  • Uses a relative’s address for tax filing (such as college students), or
  • Uses a business address for tax filing (such as small business owners or people who file using their tax preparer’s address).

Citizenship & Immigration

Who will be excluded from the count regarding citizenship and immigration status?

• The proposed rule states that only citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) will be counted for apportionment.
• This means any non-citizen who is not a lawful permanent resident—including refugees (Temporary Protected Status persons), student visa holders, and work visa holders—would not be counted.
• In addition, the rule could exclude Compact of Free Association (COFA) migrants from the census. COFA allows citizens of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau (foreign nations) to legally reside in the U.S. without a visa (refer to Status of Citizens of the Freely Associated States of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands Fact Sheet, and Status of Citizens of the Republic of Palau Fact Sheet). While COFA migrants have documentation indicating their legal status (I-94), it is not a Green Card (lawful permanent resident status) even though they may be in the U.S. permanently.

Are U.S. citizens living abroad counted?

The rule would not count most U.S. citizens living abroad, but there are exceptions for some people such as federal employees and military personnel stationed overseas.

Territories and Other Areas

How does the proposed rule affect the Island Areas Census for U.S. Territories?

• For the Decennial Census, the Census Bureau enumerates residents of American Samoa, the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam through a separate operation called the “Island Areas Censuses” (IAC). Residents of these four territories are not part of the apportionment population, which is based on the 50 states and the count of U.S. military personnel and federal civilian employees living abroad. 
• Because the American Community Survey (ACS) is not conducted in the Island Areas, the IAC itself uses a “long-form” questionnaire, once a decade, to collect detailed social, economic, and housing data.
• The proposed rule does not address the IAC directly. In 2020, however, the Census Bureau applied the Supreme Court’s ruling on the citizenship question to the IAC long-form questionnaire, and the proposed rule’s race and ethnicity provision covers “any questionnaire used for the enumeration of the population.” The proposed rule would therefore likely apply to the IAC. Because the Island Areas have no ACS, losing these questions could leave them with no race and ethnicity data at all. The apportionment exclusion should not affect the Island Areas, since they are outside the apportionment base, but the rule does not provide clarity on these other issues.

Will people in or from the U.S. territories be included in the census? What about Compacts of Free Association?

• The proposed rule states that only citizens and Lawful Permanent Residents (Green Card holders) will be counted for apportionment. This means any non-citizen who is not a lawful permanent resident—including refugees (Temporary Protected Status persons), student visa holders, and work visa holders—would not be counted.
• The language lacks clarity around how U.S. nationals from American Samoa will be counted. While they are lawful residents, some may have a status other than “citizen” or “lawful permanent resident” (i.e. Green Card).
• In addition, the rule could exclude Compacts of Free Association (COFA) migrants from the census. COFA allows citizens of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau (foreign nations) to legally reside in the U.S. without a visa (refer to Status of Citizens of the Freely Associated States of the Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands Fact Sheet, and Status of Citizens of the Republic of Palau Fact Sheet). While COFA migrants have documentation indicating their legal status (I-94), it is not a Green Card (lawful permanent resident status) even though they may be in the U.S. permanently.

Race, Ethnicity & Demographics

What justification has been given for removing race and ethnicity data?

In the text of the proposal, four arguments are presented for banning questions on race and ethnicity from the decennial census. These include: focusing on “basic constitutional purpose,” protecting privacy by reducing the “likelihood that the data of certain people who do respond will be identifiable in the resulting published data,” reducing “response burden” to increase self response, and changes in law and legal precedent leading to “reduced need for or usefulness” of the data. We do not believe that these statements have been demonstrated by historical precedent, legal precedent, nor scientific evidence. More importantly, eliminating these data would have serious consequences for everything from business analysis to public health and would affect the quality of nearly every other population-based survey in the U.S. Refer to “What are the implications of removing race and ethnicity questions?” above.

What are the implications of removing race and ethnicity questions?

• Eliminating race and ethnicity questions from the decennial census questionnaire would eliminate data that underpin everything from public health to civil rights. These data are so important that they have been collected in every U.S. census since the first in 1790.
• Removing the questions also weakens the information we have from nearly every other survey in the U.S. Without decennial race and ethnicity data, other surveys (like the American Community Survey, Current Population Survey, and numerous state and local surveys) will lose their benchmark and will be less reliable.

Will tribal affiliation no longer be collected, and can we ask about citizenship while keeping a count of both?

The impact on American Indian and Alaska Native populations is unclear. A footnote in the document notes “Questions about tribal membership are not necessarily questions about race and/or ethnicity.” The text continues with a quote that “Current equal-protection doctrine recognizes a difference between preferences based on Indian ethnicity and those based on affiliation (often membership or citizenship) in a federally recognized tribe.” However, while the text hints that tribal enrollment may be included in the census, it does not explicitly state that it will be. Furthermore, many American Indian and Alaska Native people are not enrolled in a tribe, so eliminating the race and ethnicity questions would eliminate information about those populations.

How will prohibiting race and ethnicity data collection affect Statistical Policy Directive No. 15 (SPD 15), the Voting Rights Act (VRA), and other research?

• The rule does not repeal SPD 15, which sets the race and ethnicity categories every federal agency must use when collecting race and ethnicity data, so results from different surveys and agencies can be compared. SPD 15 applies only when race and ethnicity data is collected, and it does not require any particular survey to collect that data.  The rule removes the collection of race and ethnicity data from the decennial census, effectively removing the national baseline other surveys can compare against.
• This may signal a broader failure to collect these data across agencies, as there is already a slowdown in SPD 15 implementation and proposals to remove race and ethnicity data from surveys like the EEO-1.
• The VRA remains law on the books, and these demographic data are still needed for redistricting cases.
• While other surveys ask about race and ethnicity, the decennial census provides the population data benchmark for those surveys. The census is the only complete count of the population, which makes it the source of the denominators behind public health rates and the demographic data used to weight nearly every federal, state, local, and private survey.

Census Operations

Has the Census Bureau engaged in rulemaking on the decennial census like this in the past?

Yes and no. Residence criteria were circulated for public comment in the past (you can find the 2020 criteria here) but the current process is distinctly different in four ways:

1. This rulemaking would change federal law, rather than simply set Census Bureau policy for the next decennial census. It would write the residence criteria into the Code of Federal Regulations, making them binding on future censuses. Past criteria were Census Bureau policy, reviewed and reissued before each census.
2. No rulemaking has ever before been proposed to prohibit questions from the decennial census.
3. The chain of command is new. The proposal was signed by the Secretary of Commerce, not the head of the Census Bureau. The 2020 criteria were signed by the official then performing the duties of the Census Bureau director, a role that is also filled on an acting basis today. Questions about this proposal go to Commerce’s Office of General Counsel; in 2020, they went to Census Bureau staff.
4. It allows just 30 days for public comment. The 2020 process began with an open call for input in 2015, followed by a 60-day comment period on the proposed criteria in 2016.

Will the census be provided in languages other than English?

Although not addressed in this proposed rule, a separate new Department of Commerce administrative order (DAO 201-46) sets “policy to conduct all domestic, non-public safety operations and activities in English—and only English—to the maximum extent permitted, consistent with applicable law.” However, Title 13 of U.S. Code requires “use of Spanish language questionnaires, bilingual enumerators, and other such methods as deemed appropriate by the Secretary.” The Census Bureau has not yet addressed this and may wait until later in the process to share their plan.