Trump Administration's Proposal to Remove Race/Ethnicity Data from Census Would Harm Public Health
Source: Richard L. Revesz, Sarah Wheaton. "Trump is aiming again at a familiar first-term target.." September 17, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The authors argue that Trump's plan to stop asking about race and ethnicity on the census will hurt public health because this data is crucial for tracking and addressing health disparities among different racial groups. They say the administration's reasons for the change don't hold up, and removing this data—a practice dating back over 200 years—will lead to poorly targeted healthcare resources and preventable deaths.
Conclusion
The Trump administration's proposed regulation to stop collecting race and ethnicity data in the decennial census should be rejected because it will impair public health efforts and cost American lives, and its stated justifications do not withstand scrutiny.
Premises
- Race and ethnicity data are essential for understanding and addressing population health outcomes, as documented racial health disparities (e.g., in asthma, cervical cancer, tuberculosis, hepatitis B) stem from differential exposure and vulnerability that can only be tracked using this data.
- Government agencies like the CDC combine census race/ethnicity data with survey data to model disease prevalence at fine-grained geographic levels, which is used to allocate healthcare resources and target outreach to high-need communities.
- Collecting race and ethnicity data in the census is a longstanding practice dating back to 1790 and formalized in government-wide standards since 1977, used consistently by every administration for decades.
- The Trump administration's stated rationale—that fewer questions would increase response rates—is weak, citing only two studies (one 30 years old, one unrelated to census) and is undermined by the fact that the race question would simply be replaced by a citizenship question.
- The rule's suggestion that collecting racial data may be unconstitutional under SFFA and Callais misreads those decisions, which concern racial preferences (in admissions and redistricting) rather than data collection itself.
- The claim that the American Community Survey (ACS) can substitute for census race/ethnicity data is flawed because the ACS has a much smaller sample size (3.5 million vs. universal census reach) and actually depends on census data to correct for demographic over/under-representation.
Assumptions
- Federal and private health systems will continue to need granular, geographically detailed demographic data to effectively allocate healthcare resources.
- The loss of census-derived race/ethnicity data cannot be adequately replaced by other data sources or methods.
- Historical precedent and established practice constitute a meaningful reason to continue a policy.
- The administration's stated justifications reflect its true motivations, rather than serving as pretext for other goals (e.g., the citizenship question).
- Health disparities tracked via race/ethnicity proxies translate into actionable, effective public health interventions when data is available.