President Trump recently mentioned that he had instructed the Commerce Department to carry out an unusual medium-term census for the US population. Similar to his orders for the 2020 Census, which were turned down by a federal court, this new directive aims to exclude undocumented immigrants from the count.
This order appears to be part of a strategy to regain influence in the House as the midterm elections approach, amid ongoing upheaval in legislative districting.
Some academic experts have provided three main conclusions regarding this directive. First, Trump’s push for a census that omits undocumented individuals is not only morally questionable—perhaps even regressive—but, arguably, unconstitutional.
According to Article I of the Constitution and the US Code Title 13, a census should occur every ten years, not based on political convenience. The last census was conducted in 2020, and preparations for the next one in 2030 are already underway.
Moreover, the 14th Amendment clearly states that the representation in the House of Representatives is based on “the total number of persons in each state.”
Instating limitations on this fundamental democratic principle can resemble previous restrictive voting eras when groups like enslaved people and Native Americans were not fully counted for representation purposes.
Second, implementing such an unscheduled census would likely compromise data quality. The US population count is one of the largest and most intricate statistical undertakings globally.
To conduct a census, extensive employment of hundreds of thousands of temporary workers is necessary, and they cannot receive adequate training in a short timeframe. Accurate statistical response requires more than just the census forms—they should directly reach those being counted.
What’s particularly concerning is that it’s hardest to reach certain households, especially in rural areas that often lean Republican. Rushing the census could result in inadequate representation for these populations.
Third, the changes stemming from this new census might not yield the outcomes Republicans hope for. Allocation from the 2010 to 2020 census illustrated that states like Texas and Florida gained additional seats, while others such as New York and California lost some.
If undocumented residents are excluded, the process of redistributing new congressional seats becomes even murkier. There’s a notable gap in reliable data on the exact number of undocumented individuals in the US. Even in extreme scenarios where all non-citizens are excluded, the extent of partisan influence appears limited.
Simulated allocation scenarios demonstrate that states such as California, Texas, and New York would lose congressional seats, while states like Missouri and Ohio would gain. Some of these winning states already have maps that exhibit a slight bias against Republicans, making it challenging to push for further court changes.
Other states like Idaho and Michigan might gain seats, but their respective district lines are maintained by nonpartisan committees, complicating any attempts at partisan gerrymandering.
Additionally, the new census could diminish political representation in Republican-affiliated regions. For instance, urban counties like Harris County in Texas host a significant number of both documented and undocumented immigrants, while conservative rural areas have a high non-citizen presence.
Research from the Immigration Policy Research Institute indicates that Hidalgo and Cameron Counties, which voted for Biden in 2020, contain large undocumented populations, despite Trump’s win in 2024.
Undocumented workers play a vital role in local economies, particularly evident in Hidalgo County, where recent investigations estimated that a substantial majority of farm workers are undocumented.
Beyond sheer numbers, changes in population counts can impact relative political leverage significantly. For example, certain subcounties in Texas could lose political clout due to their larger undocumented populations, while suburban areas—home to many undocumented individuals—may gain influence.
This shift toward counting only citizens could affect how funds are allocated, depriving certain areas—especially rural and some conservative districts—of their due resources.
