Since the first census was conducted in 1790, the United States has possessed an invaluable mechanism to track population growth and collect demographic data, such as age, sex and race. Now, more than 230 years later, the Trump administration is pushing to fundamentally change how the census operates, potentially reshaping how Americans are counted and represented.
On Sept. 10, the U.S. Department of Commerce published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) that would permanently alter how the 2030 census records individuals and who the census considers to be American.
The proposition outlined two potential changes: the first redefines “usual residence” to omit undocumented immigrants and non-citizens from the population count used for apportionment; the second would eliminate all questions regarding race, ethnicity and sexual orientation from the questionnaire.
Under the Trump administration, race has become a hot-button issue. Policies — such as the proposed census changes outlined above — highlight the president’s desire to implement a supposed colorblind approach to foster meritocracy and eliminate DEI.
Trump says it best himself: “Whether we are Black or brown or white, we all bleed the same red blood of patriots.”
While this rhetoric is rooted in an alleged desire to foster a more equitable society, in reality, minority voices are being silenced through mechanisms meant to represent them. The changes to the census highlight this very problem.
For one, the elimination of race-based questions carries the risk of inadequate redistricting, failing to properly represent racial demographics. Historically, redistricting has often been weaponized to disenfranchise racial groups and dilute the voting power of minority voices — a pattern currently reflected in Louisiana’s ongoing redistricting battles over the creation of majority-Black congressional districts.
If the Trump administration is truly pursuing a colorblind society in which “we all bleed the same red,” disenfranchising racial communities seems to be crucial. Rhetoric that homogenizes Americans under a single national identity obscures the distinct needs of individual communities, eroding the mechanisms designed to protect their rights and ensure their equal representation.
This raises another question. If Trump wants to forgo race in favor of a single American identity, what makes an American an American?
The NPRM answers this question with a disturbing assertion that non-citizens cannot show sufficient allegiance to the United States. The proposition thus relies on a new interpretation of the constitutional term “persons” found in the 14th amendment. The NPRM construes a new meaning — “persons” must refer to permanent inhabitants, excluding undocumented immigrants and temporary visa holders.
Questioning who is constitutionally defined as a “person” is problematic. It is eerily reminiscent of a similar arrangement: the three-fifths compromise.
Ultimately, changes to the 2030 census reflect a broader two pronged strategy historically used by the Trump administration. Trump has promoted unifying nationalism — fostering the idea that racial distinctiveness hinders Americanism — through techniques such as visa screenings for indications of anti-Americanism, the removal of specific museum exhibits that don’t align with “traditional” American ideals and signing an executive order that declared English as the official language of the U.S. These efforts exhibit Trump’s use of government power to execute a more rigid definition of Americanism, acting to isolate minority groups and as a barrier to assimilation.
At the same time, Trump has also pushed for policies that make it actively more difficult for minorities to become American citizens — or in the case of the census, policies that make it more difficult to be considered and counted as an American. Recent examples include the pursuit of a ban on birthright citizenship, more difficult naturalization tests, and violent ICE attacks on people of color.
Put simply, Trump has narrowed the definition of being a “true” American, pushing policy meant to pigeonhole minorities, while simultaneously making the process of reaching that label increasingly difficult.
This strategy is not new. The United States has a history of using completely legal techniques to both erase minorities and force assimilation. Examples of erasure include the Chinese Exclusion Act, the internment of Japanese Americans, and racialized gerrymandering. The U.S. has often forced assimilation, examples including the forced relocation of Indian Americans and the Dawes Act.
In the modern day, it’s vital to question legalized forms of discrimination and rebuke them. Avoiding fancy language and political rhetoric is vital to understanding true motives. Maybe Trump’s proposed laws have real, measurable benefits. Or maybe he’s just gotten better at hiding his racist agenda, and we’ve struggled to see it.
What can we, as a community, do about it? It’s important to think critically of the world around you and question the commonly accepted. Thankfully, many of our community members are already politically engaged.
But the responsibility to rebuke legalized forms of racism should not fall solely on the minority or their allies. Using democratic institutions to silence American people betrays fundamental rights to fair representation. Those who support this wrongful use of power and Trump’s racist agenda must be held accountable.
Americans cannot continue to excuse racial discrimination just because it aligns with their broader political affiliations, disguising bigotry as patriotism. Support for these policies deserves scrutiny, criticism, and rejection.
Backing these proposals and similar policies weakens democratic institutions while legitimizing nativist and nationalist ideologies. These measures threaten the very principles they claim to defend. Rather than protecting American values, they undermine the rights and democratic ideals established in the founding of our nation.
This article was edited by Ava DiGiacomo, Harry Walton and Gabrielle McNamee. Copy editing by Avery Grossman, Mattie Lupo, Nicole Kariuki. Fact-checking done by Luca Palma Poth and Josie Burnette.
