
Will Trump's immigration crackdown come for the census?
TOP LINE
Donald Trump is quietly reigniting a fight over the Census that could have major implications for power and policy — including the reapportionment of House seats and billions in federal funding.
Trump pushed hard to add a citizenship question to the 2020 census — which critics argued would discourage people from participating, even if they are in the country legally — with the ultimate goal of excluding immigrants in the country illegally from the count for apportionment. Historically, that's not how it's been done; the 14th Amendment requires House seats be apportioned by 'counting the whole number of persons in each State,' and non-citizens have never been excluded from apportionment totals.
Adding the question was litigated heavily, with the Supreme Court ultimately ruling that the Trump administration could not do so, largely on procedural grounds.
Had Trump won this fight it would have been hugely consequential. The census is a massive, constitutionally-mandated undertaking that has a dramatic effect on American politics — resetting the number of House seats (and therefore the number of Electoral College votes) each state gets and directing billions of federal dollars.
The Trump administration pivoted to issuing an executive order demanding that government agencies produce 'administrative records' to determine the number of non-citizens, and a memorandum 'on excluding illegal aliens' from apportionment, which drew yet another lawsuit. (The Supreme Court punted on this one.)
This was all mostly moot, because the pandemic significantly delayed the release of census data until well into Joe Biden's term, and he revoked both of those decisions on his first day in office, issuing his own executive order saying apportionment numbers should be produced 'without regard to immigration status,' in line with historical practice.
But now Trump is back — and on his first day this term, Trump revoked Biden's apportionment order. The White House, the Census Bureau and the Commerce Department (which oversees the Bureau) did not respond to questions about Trump's plan on the census and citizenship. But advocates who fought Trump's first push on citizenship and apportionment fear he'll try again.'I expect that this second Trump administration will pursue that again, to the detriment, I believe, of having a decennial census that's able to be as complete and accurate as possible,' said Arturo Vargas, the chief executive officer for the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials and the chair of the 2030 Census Advisory Committee.
The outcome of this fight can have major implications. A Pew Research report from before the release of the 2020 census data estimated that excluding unauthorized immigrants would cost Texas, Florida and California a House seat that each state otherwise would have if every person is counted. And outside of apportionment, some scientific organizations opposed pushes to add a citizenship question to the census because it could 'undermine participation' and 'ultimately diminish the quality and utility of decennial census data.'
Trump's administration could still have long-term sway over how it is conducted in 2030 and beyond, even though he won't be in office. Preparations for the census is a decade-long project. And federal law requires proposed census questions to be submitted to Congress two years before it is conducted, within Trump's term.
Other Republicans have also been pushing to exclude noncitizens. The GOP-controlled House passed a bill that would have done so last Congress. And in the waning days of the Biden administration, a quartet of Republican states attorneys general sued to exclude some non-citizens in apportionment. The states sought an order from the courts that any apportionment calculation that 'does not use the best available methods to exclude illegal aliens and nonimmigrant aliens' is unconstitutional, and asked the Department of Commerce and the Census Bureau to include questions about citizenship on the 2030 census.
An early sign on how the Trump administration plans to proceed with the 2030 count will be their response to this lawsuit. Danedri Herbert, a spokesperson for Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach, who is one of the leaders of the suit, said they are gearing up for a fight ahead of the 2030 count.
'The case may take two years if it goes to the Supreme Court, and the relief will need to be in place before the 2030 Census begins,' Herbert said.
Happy Monday. Thank you to Zach for today's Topline. Call me, beep me at amutnick@politico.com and @allymutnick.
Days until the 2025 election: 282
Want to receive this newsletter every weekday? Subscribe to POLITICO Pro. You'll also receive daily policy news and other intelligence you need to act on the day's biggest stories.
CAMPAIGN INTEL
STAYING PUT — Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) decided not to run for governor in New Mexico, saving Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer 'the trouble of a future Senate vacancy.' It was Trump's first week in office that tipped the scales, per Semafor's Burgess Everett.
Heinrich said of the governor's race: 'There was a while where I was leaning heavily that way. And this week in particular has made me feel really good about the importance of, at the very least, the next four years here.'
RETURNING HOME — Former Atlanta Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms, a Democrat, is eyeing a return to Georgia politics, per WSB-TV. When asked what she might be interested in seeking: 'Well, there will be a governor's race on the ballot.'
MONEY MOVES — Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-La.) 'raised $1 million across his reelection, leadership and joint fundraising committees,' in the fourth quarter of 2024, per Punchbowl News' Max Cohen. He's facing a tough primary challenge after voting to convict Trump in his second impeachment.
TAKING A STAND — A coalition of Democratic and progressive groups, led by Arena, a training organization, released a 'Democratic Power Building Pledge' and called on DNC chair candidates to sign it. The pledge urges leaders to commit to building a permanent organizing infrastructure, invest in training and retaining campaign staff, and increase diversity in the party.
POLL POSITION
GARDEN STATE — Emerson College Polling/PIX11/The Hill released a poll of the 2025 New Jersey governor race that found 56 percent of Democratic primary voters undecided. Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.) had the most with 10 percent, followed by New Jersey Education Association President Sean Spiller and Newark Mayor Ras Baraka with 8 percent each. The poll of 437 likely voters was conducted Jan. 18-21 and has a margin of error of +/- 4.6 percentage points.
IN THE LEAD — Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) 'would be the 'clear frontrunner' in the 2026 GOP primary for governor if she decided to run, Donald Trump's longtime pollster tells' Axios' Marc Caputo. 'The fact that Tony Fabrizio is polling for Blackburn indicates that she's seriously thinking about leaving the U.S. Senate next year.'
QUOTE OF THE DAY
'If post-2016 was like a sort of street fight — a little bit sloppy, a lot of wild swinging — then I think 2025 has to be more like the close -quarters combat that I learned in the Army, which is like a mix of jiu-jitsu and judo and a few other things where you're using your enemies' mistakes against them,' Rep. Pat Ryan (D-N.Y.) told Playbook.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Business Insider
8 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Photos show the aftermath of airstrikes in Israel and Iran after 12 days of war
Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire on Tuesday after 12 days of airstrikes and missile attacks. Israel targeted Iran's nuclear program, and the US dropped bombs on Iranian nuclear facilities. Photos show damaged sites in both Israel and Iran in the aftermath of the war. After 12 days of airstrikes, drones, and missile attacks, including US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites ordered by President Donald Trump, Israel and Iran agreed to a ceasefire brokered by Trump on Tuesday. The " 12 Day War" began on June 13 when Israel launched a surprise attack it said was a preemptive strike against Iran's nuclear program to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. Iran retaliated with a barrage of missiles and drones directed at Israel. In Israel, 28 people died and over 3,000 were injured, according to Israel's Health Ministry. Iranian state media reported that 627 people died and at least 4,870 were wounded in Iran. Whether the US and Israel succeeded in halting Iran's nuclear program remains unclear. The White House maintains that Iran's nuclear facilities were "obliterated," while a classified US intelligence assessment reported that the attacks may have only delayed Iran's developments by a few months. Photos show the aftermath of the war in Israel and Iran.


Fox News
8 minutes ago
- Fox News
Supreme Court rules against Planned Parenthood in Medicaid funding dispute
The Supreme Court has ruled South Carolina has the power to block Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics, in a technical interpretation over healthcare choices that has emerged as a larger political fight over abortion access. The case, Medina v. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic, centers on whether Medicaid beneficiaries, particularly low-income patients, are granted the right to choose their healthcare provider under the Medicaid Act's "any qualified provider" provision and can sue to enforce that right. South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster had been pushing to block public health dollars from going to Planned Parenthood, but a resident and patient at Planned Parenthood South Atlantic argued that doing so violated her rights under the Medicaid Act. Federal law already prohibits Medicaid money from going to pay for abortions, with very limited exceptions, and South Carolina now bans almost all abortions around six weeks after conception. In South Carolina, Medicaid patients often seek out Planned Parenthood because it accepts publicly funded insurance. There are just two Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina, but every year they take hundreds of low-income patients for reproductive healthcare, including contraception, cancer screenings and pregnancy testing, according to the Associated Press. Planned Parenthood South Atlantic has argued that the case is not about abortion, but about access to general healthcare. The case stretches back to 2018, before the Supreme Court overturned Roe v Wade, when McMaster signed an executive order directing the South Carolina Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) to remove abortion clinics, including Planned Parenthood South Atlantic (PPSAT), from the state's Medicaid provider list. He did so to fulfill a campaign promise to defund Planned Parenthood and prevent tax dollars from paying for abortions. The action essentially barred low-income patients from receiving other services from PPSAT in Columbia and Charleston, including birth control, cancer screenings, and testing and treatment for sexually transmitted infections (STIs). The conservative group Alliance Defending Freedom has argued that a win for South Carolina would still mean Medicaid patients could go to one of 200 other publicly funded healthcare clinics in the state. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Planned Parenthood, ruling that Medicaid patients can sue over their legal right to choose their own qualified provider. This is a breaking story. Check back here for updates.


CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
Supreme Court says Planned Parenthood can't challenge South Carolina's funding cuts
The Supreme Court on Thursday blocked Planned Parenthood from suing South Carolina over the state's decision to pull the organization's Medicaid funding because it provides abortions. The decision could prompt other red states to target the organization and make it harder for Americans enrolled in the program to choose their doctor. The decision was yet another loss for Planned Parenthood and its allies at the conservative court, which three years ago wiped away the constitutional right to abortion by overturning Roe v. Wade. Though the legal issue at the center of the case was technically not about abortion, the court's decision threatens funding for an organization that is a leading provider of reproductive healthcare. This story is breaking and will be updated.