{"id":7110,"date":"2026-10-27T09:45:09","date_gmt":"2026-10-27T13:45:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/?p=7110"},"modified":"2026-10-27T09:45:09","modified_gmt":"2026-10-27T13:45:09","slug":"dear-civil-servants-and-the-ventriloquists-behind-the-proposed-residence-rules","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/archives\/2026\/10\/27\/dear-civil-servants-and-the-ventriloquists-behind-the-proposed-residence-rules.html","title":{"rendered":"Dear Civil Servants and the Ventriloquists behind the proposed residence rules"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/a><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

The \u201cCensus Bureau\u201d is currently seeking comments to a proposed new set of residence rules for the 2030 census.<\/a> Comments are due on November 2, 2026. In reality, the actual proposal is a tirade written by the current administration pretending to be in compliance with the rules governing agencies like the Census Bureau. Over 100,000 people have submitted comments so far because the changes are monstrous. If implemented, the Census Bureau would not collect data about race\/ethnicity (thereby undermining current laws), would not collect data about certain categories of non-citizens (thereby undermining the Constitution), and would be forced to do a whole host of other weird untested things that would utterly destroy the quality of the data. Needless to say, this is not a proposal from the experts at the Census Bureau who are devoted to ensuring that everyone counts once, and only once, and in the right location. To learn more about the insanity of the proposal, check out the information at Hands Off Our Census<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I decided to write a comment myself (and I encourage you to do so as well<\/a>). Because comments are being stripped of their identifying information, I wanted to share my comment publicly. In writing this letter, I decided to focus on the absurdity of this whole endeavor. Enjoy!<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

Department of Commerce, Census Bureau<\/strong>
Re: 15 CFR Parts 60 and 70, [Docket No. 260903-0005], RIN 0607-AA75<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Dear Civil Servants and the Ventriloquists behind this proposal \u2013<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First, let me speak directly to the civil servants who are reading this: thank you! You produce the data that our country depends on. The American project is \u2013 and was always \u2013 a radical one. Historically, censuses were used by kings for conscription, taxation, and eradication. Our founding fathers decided to invert this history and anchor our country\u2019s democratic republic in a census. In Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution, Congress is tasked with conducting a census and allocating representation using the result. You have been given the awe-inspiring responsibility of conducting this work. This is hard work that is critical to our democracy. Thank you for your service to our country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I have had the privilege and honor of getting to learn from many of you over the last ten years. I have watched y\u2019all do the impossible, despite natural disasters, despite a global pandemic, and despite never-ending political pressure. I have watched you do this important work, even while being treated abysmally by politicians and other stakeholders. I have also learned how few members of the public get to witness your dedication to your mission. And I have watched political forces undermine your ability to communicate with the public by sharing your expertise and knowledge. I know how often you are told not to speak, including now. And I know that your silence does not mean that you don\u2019t care. To the contrary, you care so deeply that you follow the orders you are given.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part of what has always inspired me about your work is how committed you are to both process and the transparency of process. You are constantly working to improve the census in pursuit of the unattainable perfect count. You measure everything. Years ago, when George H.W. Bush\u2019s appointee to run census communication learned about how you worked, he remarked, \u201cNever before have I been part of an organization that produces the whips with which it gets flogged. It\u2019s masochism.\u201d Every time you change your processes, you document and document and document. You have always published research to justify each change \u2013 and gone to great lengths to show how each change is to be done. Too few of us in the public have ever appreciated your thoughtfulness. As always, you don\u2019t know what you\u2019ve got until it\u2019s gone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed residence rules, entitled \u201cDecennial Census of the Population of Americans; Proposed Residence Criteria and Proposed Regulations for Demographic Questions,\u201d are unlike anything that I\u2019ve ever seen come from the Census Bureau. The justification is explicitly partisan. The proposal is filled with recommendations that are likely unconstitutional and appear designed to undermine existing laws. Many of the details are nonsensical, contradictory, and filled with operational holes. Moreover, the proposal lacks even a modicum of research intended to justify the changes. I\u2019ve watched civil servants be forced to speak the messages of previous administrations, but this is ghastly. I can\u2019t imagine how painful it is for you to have been forced to issue a series of changes that are untested, unresearched, and unjustified. And I suspect you\u2019re reading this comment \u2013 along with the other 100,000+ comments \u2013 with frustration, knowing that your professional expertise and the legitimacy of your work is being undermined by political forces outside of your control.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I know that you take your duties seriously. Through my time spent with other civil servants, I learned about the history of official statistics \u2013 and the role that the United States has played in advocating and implementing the fundamental principles of official statistics<\/a>. These include: 1) Relevance, Impartiality, and Equal Access; 2) Professional Standards, Scientific Principles, and Professional Ethics; 3) Accountability and Transparency; 4) Prevention of Misuse; and 5) Confidentiality. These commitments ensure that the data that you produce on behalf of the American people are both legitimate and of high quality.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The proposed residence rules repeatedly violate these commitments, making it clear that these were not written by civil servants, but by political appointees hiding behind civil servants. In responding to this request for comment, I want to make four points:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Civil servants at the Census Bureau have a professional duty to produce the census using the best knowledge of the day.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. The executive branch should not be allowed to use the residence rules to undermine Congress\u2019 authority, existing laws, or the Constitution.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Rules that are vague and unclear violate the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. Silencing civil servants, refusing to provide documentation, and upending precedent without cause undermines the legitimacy of democracy\u2019s data.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n\n\n\n

    Civil servants at the Census Bureau have a professional duty to produce the census using the best knowledge of the day.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The data produced for the 2020 census were not perfect. No data ever are. But they were the best that civil servants could produce given the pandemic, natural disasters, funding limitations, and repeated political dramas. And those data were still better than all censuses in the 19th<\/sup> and 20th<\/sup> centuries. How was that possible?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    One of the ways that the census is resilient is that civil servants learn from the past and are constantly evolving. Every decade, new methodologies for data collection and processing are developed and tested. Redundancy is valued at the bureau, despite pressure for efficiency.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Constitutional architects gave Congress the responsibility to conduct a census in Article 1, Section 2 of the US Constitution. Congress institutionalized the census in 1902 by making the Census Bureau a permanent agency to ensure that our country could benefit from stability and ongoing expertise. For the last century, the Census Bureau repeatedly evolved its work, documenting each change after extensive research. This allows the scientific community to evaluate the work, and it ensures that the public can trust the process.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The changes being proposed are driven by partisan politics, not scientific expertise or statistical knowledge. The bureau\u2019s advances in disclosure avoidance methods are being summarily dismissed, despite the ongoing work by the bureau to ensure that these methods are rigorous and sound. The bureau\u2019s strategic use of administrative data is being twisted to achieve partisan goals without consideration for who might be missed or how this approach might upend existing processes. Civil servants know that the tax records are incomplete and will result in an undercount, but these rules disregard that local knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Congress expects the Census Bureau to leverage its professional expertise to produce data that our country can rely on. These rules undermine that.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The executive branch should not be allowed to use the residence rules to undermine Congress\u2019 authority, existing laws, or the Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    By placing the Census Bureau inside the Department of Commerce, Congress delegated substantial authority to the Executive Branch. This does not, however, mean that the Executive Branch can use the census to undermine Congress.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The Constitution requires a census that counts every<\/em> resident of the United States. The first Trump Administration intended to subtract undocumented peoples from the apportionment count, despite previous rulings that rejected this approach (e.g., Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) v. Klutznick (1980)). What makes these residence rules especially galling is that the census is being forced to intentionally ignore people who are clearly taxed residents of the United States, undermining even the most extreme interpretation of Article 1, Section 2. This is an approach that is common in authoritarian countries, where the state chooses not to see certain people that are politically undesirable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Congress has also passed numerous laws over the last century that rely on census data. Many of these laws require data about race and ethnicity, including the Voting Rights Act and other civil rights laws, as well as many federal funding formulae and funding thresholds. These residence rules undermine Congressional statutes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The census is fundamentally the responsibility of Congress under Article 1 of our Constitution. But what we are seeing with these residence rules is an act of \u201cpolicymaking by other means\u201d \u2013 policy through which the Administration not only violates the history of census taking since 1790, but also the simple language of the Constitution. In other words, rather than working through our legislative bodies, the White House is contorting the data collection processes to make it impossible to uphold laws or ensure Constitutional compliance. Not only does this usurp Congress\u2019 power, but it undermines the legitimacy of the Census Bureau.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Rules that are vague and unclear violate the spirit of the Administrative Procedures Act.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Civil servants have a duty to the American people, not to any specific political party. They must follow direct orders, but they must also comply with the law. The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) makes it clear that the public has the right to review the policies of federal agencies. This federal register notice exists because of the APA. However, it is not meaningfully compliant with the APA. By submitting these rules to public scrutiny in the Federal Register, the Census Bureau and the Department of Commerce are obligated to provide justification and explanation for the proposed rules.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Many rules have no explanation. Why is the \u201ccensus enumeration period\u201d set between January 3-April 1? Others are incomplete and inconsistent. How do you determine which date during the census enumeration period matters most? What happens when people\u2019s \u201cusual place of residence\u201d does not match their tax records? Other information is missing entirely. What happens when the bureau cannot collect the information necessary to link a person to a tax record? The entire section on tax records is not operationalizable as currently written. This raises questions about how these residence rules will be interpreted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Other components of the residence rules are purely spiteful spectacle. The treatise against disclosure avoidance in this rulemaking is not rooted in empirical analysis, but partisan claims after courts repeatedly rejected efforts to dismantle the novel approach to disclosure avoidance that was implemented in 2020. There is no effort to explain how civil servants can produce the data that states want and uphold Title 13 of the US Code. This rulemaking does not relieve civil servants of their lifetime legal oath. No civil servant that I knew was willing to risk up to 5 years in jail and $250,000 in fines for every piece of data that published because a political appointee wanted that data unmasked.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    I can only presume that civil servants have been ordered to not speak to external stakeholders \u2013 or even attend events \u2013 because they know that the changes issued in these residence rules are indefensible, vague, and impossible to implement as written.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The residence rules introduce more questions than answers. Federal Register Notices are only meaningful when they include details in a manner that provide clarity. That is not what is happening here. The issued residence rules are too incomplete and unjustified to allow for meaningful debate about the substance of the changes. This is in violation of the spirit of transparency and the requirements under the APA.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Silencing civil servants, refusing to provide documentation, and upending precedent without cause undermines the legitimacy of democracy\u2019s data.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This administration has repeatedly shown its disdain towards civil servants and the administrative state. Civil servants face ongoing harassment on the job and are accused of being the \u201cdeep state\u201d for doing their jobs. Neither Republicans nor Democrats have respected the expertise of civil servants in recent decades, but civil servants have kept their chins high and continued to work on behalf of the American people. Despite persistent criticism, civil servants at the Census Bureau have always been willing to explain their processes and procedures. Their technical answers can infuriate external stakeholders, but they have never stopped trying to explain scientific and statistical matters. Until now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Silencing civil servants does not strengthen our government; it weakens it. The public needs to be able to hear from \u2013 and speak to \u2013 those who work on our behalf. The public needs to be given the opportunity to understand the scientific and statistical choices that govern democracy\u2019s data. This is what makes the work of the Census Bureau legitimate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Many of those who work for the federal government are naturalized US citizens. When I spoke with them about why they chose to work for the federal government, I repeatedly learned that they came to the US from countries where corruption, abuse, and falsified data were common. They were grateful to their adopted homeland \u2013 and they wanted to give back. They wanted to help strengthen our democracy by serving the American people.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    As Congress and the public reckons with these proposed residence rules, it\u2019s imperative that they recognize that the civil servants are being pushed into a corner, unable to leverage their expertise and experience. Many have left in response. Others are staying, not because they agree with what they are being told to do but because they believe that they have a duty to the American public. Everyone who reads this letter needs to recognize that we need civil servants to do their job, but we also need to make sure that their job is doable. Civil servants come to the Census Bureau because they have skills and knowledge that makes democracy\u2019s data robust. We, the people, need to ensure that they are able to leverage those skills and that knowledge.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    We do not live in an authoritarian country, and we should not emulate one. Silencing civil servants is a notoriously common authoritarian move. This cannot be acceptable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    In Conclusion\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    This federal register notice is a political move pretending to be a procedural one. Political appointees are using civil servants as puppets while undermining their expertise and experience. These rules are a breach of precedent and norms, undermining decades of procedures while creating more confusion than clarity. This is not a standard notice reflecting partisan disagreement. This is the documentation of an administration working to use the Census Bureau to undermine the Constitution, Congress\u2019 authority, and existing law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    The issues raised in this federal register notice do not belong in such a document. If the Administration wants to make these changes, it should seek regulatory change in Congress. Congress, after all, is Constitutionally responsible for the census.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    And for all the civil servants who are reading this, once again thank you. I dream of a day when your voices can be heard and your expertise is valued. Until then, I am grateful for your commitment to doing the impossible.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

    Sincerely,
    danah boyd
    Geri Gay Professor of Communication, Cornell University
    Author of     Data Are Made, Not Found: A Story of Politics, Power, and the Civil Servants Who Saved the US Census<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    The \u201cCensus Bureau\u201d is currently seeking comments to a proposed new set of residence rules for the 2030 census. Comments are due on November 2, 2026. In reality, the actual proposal is a tirade written by the current administration pretending to be in compliance with the rules governing agencies like the Census Bureau. Over 100,000 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":6,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_s2mail":"yes","footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-7110","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7110","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/6"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7110"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7110\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":7112,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7110\/revisions\/7112"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7110"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7110"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.zephoria.org\/thoughts\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7110"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}