- The Census Bureau announced that it will end all counting efforts on Sept. 30, a move numerous experts and census workers have said will drastically skew the census data and make it basically unusable.
- Around 4 out of 10 households have not responded to the census, and now the bureau has just under two months to count tens of millions of people.
- Experts have said the decision will specifically hurt communities of color, immigrants, and lower-income households.
- The move comes after President Trump passed an order directing the census bureau to calculate the congressional seats each state gets without including undocumented immigrants in the population count.
- Many argue both actions were done intentionally by the Trump administration to benefit Republicans because excluding historically undercounted groups, and specifically undocumented immigrants, will give them more seats.
Census Bureau Announcement
The Census Bureau released a statement late Monday announcing that it will end all counting efforts on Sept. 30, a full month early.
The move sparked widespread concern from many experts and politicians who argue the decision will undermine the national population count, which is the sole determinant for how congressional seats are allocated and trillions of dollars in federal aid is given to states for infrastructure, schools, health care, and more for the next decade.
Not only is the 2020 census the largest and most complicated count in American history, it also comes during a pandemic. The way the census works is that the bureau first asks people to respond themselves through mail, phone, or online— a process called “self-response.”
After that, the agency goes door-to-door to households that did not respond. Now, the bureau is cutting the in-person counting process short at a time when it has already been delayed by the pandemic.
Because of those delays, earlier this year, the bureau extended door-to-door efforts to the end of October instead of the original date which was set in July. As a result, the in-person interviews started last month in certain parts of the U.S. and are set to be expanded to the rest of the country next week.
But while the counting deadline was pushed, the deadline for turning in the data that says how congressional seats will be reallocated was not. Federal law says that the Census Bureau has to send population totals to the president by Dec. 31 of every census year.
However, because the in-person counting itself was delayed, experts and current top Census Bureau officials have been saying for months now that the December deadline is impossible.
Tim Olson, the census official leading field operations for the count, outlined those concerns as early as May.
“We have passed the point where we could even meet the current legislative requirement of Dec. 31. We can’t do that anymore,” he said during a webcast.
The Census Bureau, for its part, did try to have that date pushed. Around the same time the agency delayed the counting deadline, they also asked Congress to push the December data deadline to April 2021.
The House approved that ask in their $3 trillion coronavirus stimulus bill passed in May, but the Senate’s proposal, which has not passed yet, does not include the extension.
When the idea was first floated, Trump himself publicly said he supported extending the deadline to April 2021. Now, it seems like that has changed because census workers have said the White House and the Commerce Department have been pushing the bureau to speed up the process.
In its Monday Statement, the Census Bureau specifically said that it was cutting the count short and making these changes to meet the Dec. 31 deadline outlined by the administration.
Now, the bureau will have just under two months to count all those unresponsive households to meet a deadline many say is already unrealistic. That is incredibly significant because the already delayed and now shortened door-to-door outreach is starting at a time with the lowest self-response rate in history.
According to reports, around 4 out of every 10 households in the U.S. have still not been counted. Many experts are worried that tons of people will be undercounted, and that absolutely essential data will be skewed.
“The chances of having a census accurate enough to use is unclear — very, very much unclear,” Kenneth Prewitt, the bureau director from 1998 to 2001 told Congress members during a hearing last week.
Prewitt spoke along with three other former census directors, who warned Congress that the lack of adequate time to follow up in person with households that have not responded and to go to communities that are traditionally hard to contact will result in many people not being counted. As a result, the federal aid for those communities will be lowered and the political representation will be lessened.
That is a serious problem period, but especially because of the pandemic.
“Rushing census operations, as the administration is attempting to do, ensures the bureau won’t count millions of people — especially those hit hardest by the pandemic,” Vanita Gupta, president and chief executive officer of the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights wrote in an op-ed in The Washington Post. “It will leave the country with inaccurate numbers that deprive communities of resources, political power and the federal assistance necessary to recover from the pandemic for the next 10 years.”
These facts are also even more concerning because the communities that are more likely to be counted during the in-person interviews are also those that have been hardest by the pandemic.
Historically, people of color, immigrants, low-income households, people experiencing homelessness, college students, and elderly people in assisted living facilities are less likely to fill out a census form on their own.
Trump’s Immigration Orders
But that’s not even the only issue that the Census Bureau’s announcement poses for some of those communities. In the statement, the agency also said it “continues its work on meeting the requirements” of two orders from President Donald Trump.
The first is an executive order from last July that told administrative agencies to collect data on undocumented immigrants to give counts that states could then use to draw congressional districts did not include those groups. Trump signed the rule after the Supreme Court ruled that the Commerce Department could not put a question on the census asking people if they were U.S. citizens.
The second order is a presidential memorandum from two weeks ago telling the bureau to calculate the number of congressional seats each state gets without including undocumented immigrants in the population count. The memo is already the subject of numerous lawsuits and is widely viewed by legal scholars as unconstitutional.
Some experts have said that even if the order is not upheld, it could still impact undocumented representation because those communities will be worried that their answers will be used against them and will not respond.
“They clearly have an agenda for not counting undocumented immigrants in the apportionment count,” Gupta said. “I think the administration knows their order isn’t going to be constitutional. Maybe through fear of it, they’re trying to get to the same place.”
If that order goes through, it could drastically shift the outcome of the census. Studies have shown that not counting undocumented immigrants could help Republicans.
According to the University of Virginia Center for Politics, excluding undocumented immigrants from the census would mean California would lose two House seats, New Jersey would lose one seat, Texas would gain two seats instead of three.
Meanwhile, Alabama and Ohio would both gain a seat despite the fact that they are currently not expected to gain seats under a conventional count.
Trump Accused of Skewing Data Intentionally
Many have said that Trump’s order to exclude undocumented immigrants explains why the administration wants to speed up the census.
According to legal experts, if the order is to have any chance of succeeding, the census totals for redistricting need to be delivered to Trump while he is still in office.
“An end-of-year delivery of population figures could provide a different avenue for Mr. Trump to remove undocumented immigrants — by not counting them in the first place,” The New York Times explains. “And delaying the totals until next year, as had been planned, would open the possibility that the totals would go to a new president and Congress.”
Due to both the recent order and the decision to cut the count a month short, numerous people have accused Trump of intentionally taking actions to directly benefit Republicans.
“The 2020 Census will also guide the distribution of political power. With an inaccurate count, under Trump’s scheme, congressional districts, apportioned by Congress every 10 years, will become whiter and more Republican, despite population trends that run the exact opposite direction,” Rep. Karen Bass (D-Ca.) and former Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrahms wrote in an op-ed published The Post.
“The electoral college will be further weighted against the will of the people. District maps from the state house to the school board will be inaccurate, silencing entire communities from being seen and heard.”
Census Bureau Director Steven Dillingham, however, defended the move in Monday’s statement, and claimed that the bureau is “committed to a complete and accurate 2020 Census.”
“Building on our successful and innovative internet response option, the dedicated women and men of the Census Bureau, including our temporary workforce deploying in communities across the country in upcoming weeks, will work diligently to achieve an accurate count,” he added.
If your household has not filled out the census, you can visit My2020Census.gov to be counted today.
See what others are saying: (NPR) (Politico) (The Washington Post)
House Panel Approves Commission To Study Reparations
- In a 25 to 17 vote along party lines, the House Judiciary Committee approved legislation Wednesday that would establish a commission to study slavery reparations for Black Americans.
- Republicans objected to the plan, arguing that it will cost too much money and that it is unfair to make all American taxpayers responsible for the consequences of slavery.
- Democrats pushed back, claiming the modern oppression of Black people still holds roots in slavery, and noting that the bill just creates a commission to study reparations, not implement them.
- While the proposal faces steep odds in the Senate, Wednesday’s historic vote will move the measure to the House floor for a full vote for the first time since it was introduced over three decades ago.
Reparation Commission Achieves First Approval
The House Judiciary Committee voted for the first time on Wednesday to advance a bill that will create a commission to consider paying slavery reparations for Black Americans.
The legislation was first proposed over 30 years ago, and if signed into law, it would create a 13-member commission that would study the effects of slavery and racial discrimination in the U.S. and then give Congress a recommendation for “appropriate remedies” to best compensate Black Americans.
The measure passed the committee 25 to 17 along party lines, as expected, with objections from Republicans, who claimed reparations will cost too much and that they are unfair to Americans who have no history of enslavers in their families.
Democrats pushed back against those assertions, arguing that the federal government does have enough money to take some kind of action. They also noted that the commission will not actually implement any reparations, but rather just look into the options and then make a non-binding recommendation.
There are a lot of different ideas for what reparations could look like. While some support direct cash payments of various sizes, others have argued there are different proposals that might be more realistic to put into law, like no-interest loans for Black homeowners or free college tuition.
“I ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, do not cancel us tonight. Do not ignore the pain, the history and the reasonableness of this commission,” Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tx.), the lead sponsor of the bill, said Wednesday.
Others also condemned the argument that some Americans, particularly those whose ancestors did not directly benefit from owning slaves, should not bear responsibility. They said that this line of thinking ignores both generational wealth, which vastly benefits white Americans over all others, as well as how Black Americans are hurt by modern-day discrimination and oppression that has roots in slavery.
“Slavery was indeed ended 150 years ago but racism never took a day off and is alive and well in America,” Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.) said in committee Wednesday.
“You can ask the family members of Daunte Wright, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery or George Floyd. Black folks in this country cannot keep living and dying like this. But we’ll be forced to do so if White folks in America continue to refuse to look back at history.”
While many have described the legislation as a flexible first step, any further congressional action will almost certainly be an uphill battle. The committee vote is just the very first step: the proposal still has to go to a vote by the full House, where it is unclear if it will even garner enough support among the House Democrats’ slim majority.
If it were to pass the lower chamber, the bill faces almost insurmountable odds in the 50-50 split Senate, where ten Republicans would have to join all Democrats to break the legislative filibuster.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) has said that he will start considering when to schedule the vote, though it is unlikely to be considered soon. Hoyer also urged President Joe Biden to use his executive power to create the commission if the legislation fails.
The White House has said that Biden supports the commission, but administration officials have not confirmed whether he would act unilaterally on the subject.
See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (USA Today) (Vox)
Biden To Pull All U.S. Troops From Afghanistan by Sept. 11
- President Biden declared Wednesday that he will pull all U.S. troops out of Afghanistan by Sept. 11, which also marks the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.
- The Afghanistan war is the longest war the U.S. has ever been in. It has resulted in the deaths of 2,400 American troops, injured and killed almost 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.
- Some praised the decision as a key step to address seemingly endless wars and promote diplomacy.
- Many experts and defense officials, however, have warned the withdrawal could undermine American goals in the region and embolden the Taliban, which is currently the strongest it has been since the U.S. invasion removed the group from power in 2001.
Biden Announces Troop Removal Amid Growing Violence
President Joe Biden announced Wednesday that he will withdraw all American troops from Afghanistan by Sept. 11, the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 terror attacks that drew the U.S. into its longest war in history.
“We went to Afghanistan because of a horrific attack that happened 20 years ago. That cannot explain why we should remain there in 2021,” Biden said in an afternoon speech. “It’s time to end America’s longest war. It’s time for America’s troops to come home.’’
The decision comes as Biden nears the May 1 deadline set under a February 2020 peace deal by the administration of former President Donald Trump to bring the troops home from the war, which has killed nearly 2,400 troops, injured and killed nearly 100,000 civilians, and cost about $2 trillion.
Biden had previously said that it would be hard to meet the date after taking office, but even with the extended timeline, many experts and defense officials have warned against the move.
The U.S. first entered the war to oust the Taliban government, which was harboring al-Qaeda militants involved in planning the 9/11 attacks. The Taliban was removed within months, but the group still had support in parts of the country and steadily regained territory and strength.
Now, almost two decades later, the group is the strongest it has been since the 2001 invasion, and according to reports, controls or has influence over half the country. The situation has also escalated in the months after Trump, during his last week in office, reduced the official number of troops in Afghanistan to 2,500, which is the lowest level since 2001.
As the U.S. has scaled down its operations, the Taliban has taken control of major highways and tried to cut off cities and towns in surges that have exhausted Afghan security forces. Violence has also ramped up in recent months.
According to a U.N. report released Wednesday, nearly 1,800 civilians were killed or wounded in the first three months of the year, a nearly 30% increase from the same period last year.
Notably, U.S. intelligence agencies have said that they do not believe Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations present an immediate threat to strike the U.S. from Afghanistan, an assessment that reportedly played a big role in Biden’s decision to withdraw U.S. forces.
However, many experts are more concerned about how the move will impact Afghanistan and its citizens.
Concerns Over Withdrawal
The Pentagon has warned against removing American troops from the region until Afghan security forces can effectively fight back against the Taliban.
As a result, critics of the plan have argued that withdrawal will leave the forces — which have limited capacities and until now have been funded and trained by the U.S. — entirely in the dust
Beyond that, many also worry that the move could undermine the entire goal of the 2001 invasion by empowering al-Qaeda operates that remains in the country and who could become emboldened once the U.S. troops left.
Some experts and Afghan politicians have said that withdrawing from the country without a solid peace deal in place could end in concentrating more power in the hands of the Taliban. After a long delay following the U.S. agreement in February of last year, peace talks between the Afghan government and the Taliban finally started up in September.
But those talks have since stalled, partly due to Biden’s win and the anticipation of a possible change in policy under the new administration.
While other countries have recently made moves to restart the talks, and there are a number of possible options on the table, nothing is set in stone. American commanders, who have long said a peace deal with the Taliban is the best security measure for the U.S., have argued that the U.S. will need to use the promise of withdrawing their forces as a condition for a good deal.
Now, the U.S. has taken a major bargaining chip off the table, causing concerns that if a deal is struck, the already weakened Afghan government will make key concessions to the Taliban. Many Afghan citizens who oppose the Taliban worry that if the group secures a role in a power-sharing agreement, it could eventually take over the government and re-impose the harsh rule it imposed before the U.S. removed it in 2001. The leadership was particularly tough on women, who were largely barred from public life.
Biden’s decision has sparked a divided front from both political parities, though Republicans have largely remained united against the move.
“It is insane to withdraw at this time given the conditions that exist on the ground in Afghanistan,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Tuesday. “A full withdrawal from Afghanistan is dumber than dirt and devilishly dangerous. President Biden will have, in essence, canceled an insurance policy against another 9/11.”
Many Democrats, however, have argued that U.S. presence in the region is not helping the U.S. achieve its foreign policy goals, and that if withdrawal is based on conditional approaches, the troops will never be able to leave.
Others have also applauded the plan as a careful solution and will still emphasize diplomatic efforts in the region while simultaneously removing the U.S. from a highly unpopular and expensive war.
“The President doesn’t want endless wars. I don’t want endless wars. And neither do the American people. ” Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday. “It’s refreshing to have a thought-out plan with a set timetable instead of the President waking up one morning getting out of bed, saying what just pops into his head and then having the generals having walked it back.”
In a series of tweets Wednesday, Afghanistan’s president, Ashraf Ghani, said had spoken to Biden, and emphasized that the two nations would continue to work together.
“’Afghanistan’s proud security and defense forces are fully capable of defending its people and country, which they have been doing all along,” he wrote.
The Taliban, for its part, has focused more on the fact that the initial timeline had been delayed.
“We are not agreeing with delay after May 1,” a spokesperson said on television Tuesday. “Any delay after May 1 is not acceptable for us.”
It is currently unclear how that stance might affect the situation, especially when it comes to peace deal negotiations.
See what others are saying: (The New York Times) (The Washington Post) (TIME)
Matt Gaetz Reportedly Venmo’d Accused Sex Trafficker, Who Then Sent Money To Teen
- A report published by The Daily Beast Thursday alleges that Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) sent $900 through Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the funds to pay three young women, including one teenager.
- Gaetz is currently under federal investigation as part of a broader inquiry into Greenberg, a former politician who has been charged with 33 counts, including sex trafficking an underage girl.
- Investigators are reportedly looking into the involvement of politicians with women who were recruited online for sex and paid in cash, as well as whether Gaetz had sex with a 17-year-old girl and violated sex trafficking laws by paying for her to travel with him.
- Greenberg’s lawyer did not comment on the new allegations but said Thursday his client would soon enter a plea deal and implied that Greenberg would testify as a witness against Gaetz. Meanwhile, Gaetz has accused The Daily Beast of spreading “rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements.”
Gaetz’s Alleged Venmo Payments
Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fl.) allegedly sent money via Venmo to accused sex trafficker Joel Greenberg, who then used the money to pay three young women, including at least one teenage girl, according to a new report from The Daily Beast.
Greenberg, a former local Flordia politician and an associate of Gaetz, was indicted last summer on 33 counts, including sex trafficking a 17-year-old girl. He initially pleaded not guilty to the charges, but his lawyers said in court Thursday that he would plead guilty as part of a plea deal.
Legal experts say the move almost certainly indicates that Greenberg plans to cooperate as a witness against Gaetz, who is currently under investigation by the Justice Department as part of a broader probe into Greenberg.
According to The New York Times, among other things, the DOJ inquiry is looking into their involvement with multiple women who were recruited online for sex and paid cash, as well as whether Gaetz had a sexual relationship with a 17-year-old girl and paid for her to travel with him in violation of sex trafficking laws.
Investigators reportedly believe that Greenberg met the women through a website for people willing to go on dates in exchange for gifts and money, and then arranged for them to meet with himself and associates including Gaetz, The Times reported.
The new report from The Daily Beast, published Thursday, appears to support this narrative. According to the outlet, which viewed the transactions before they were made private this week, Gaetz sent Greenberg two late-night Venmo payments totaling $900 in May 2018.
In the text field of the first payment, Gaetz wrote “Test.” In the second, he asked Greenberg to “hit up” a teenager who he allegedly referred to by her nickname. The Daily Beast did not publish the name of the girl “because the teenager had only turned 18 less than six months before.”
The next morning, Greenberg transferred a total of $900 to three different young women using the same app.
One of the transfers was titled “Tuition,” and the other two were both listed as “School.” The Daily Beast also said it was able to obtain “partial records” of Greenbergs Venmo, which is not publicly available.
Those records, the outlet reported, show that the two men are connected through Venmo to at least one other woman who Greenberg paid with a government-funded credit card, and at least two other women who received payments from Greenberg.
Gaetz, for his part, has not directly addressed the latest allegations. A representative from the Logan Circle Group, an outside PR firm, provided The Daily Beast with a statement from the congressman.
“The rumors, gossip and self-serving misstatements of others will be addressed in due course by my legal team,” the statement said, with the firm also informing the outlet that their lawyers would be “closely monitoring your coverage.”
Greenberg’s defense attorney, Fritz Scheller, also declined requests to comment, but during a press conference Thursday, he implied that the plea deal his client is expected to accept spelled trouble for Gaetz.
“I’m sure Matt Gaetz is not feeling very comfortable today,” Scheller said.
The Daily Beast story also comes amid reports that that the FBI has widened its probe of Gaetz. According to The Times, sources familiar with the inquiry have said investigators are also looking into a trip he took to the Bahamas with other Florida Republicans and several women.
Sources said the trip took place shortly after Gaetz was elected to Congress in 2016, and that the FBI has already questioned witnesses about whether the women had sex with the men in exchange for money and free travel.
It is illegal to trade sex for something of value if prosecutors can provide the exchange involved force, fraud, or coercion.
The Times also reported that investigators are now additionally looking into Gaetz’s alleged involvement in discussions to run a third-party candidate in a State Senate race to make it easier for an associate of his who was running for the seat to win.
The act of recruiting so-called “ghost candidates” who run for office purely to divert votes from one candidate is not usually illegal. However, paying a ghost candidate is normally considered a violation of campaign finance laws.