WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump abandoned his controversial bid to inject a citizenship question into next year’s census Thursday, instead directing federal agencies to try to compile the information using existing databases.

He insisted he was “not backing down,” declaring in a Rose Garden announcement that the goal was simple and reasonable: “a clear breakdown of the number of citizens and non-citizens that make up the United States population.”

But the decision was clearly a reversal, after the Supreme Court blocked his effort by disputing his administration’s rationale for demanding that census respondents declare whether or not they were citizens. Trump had said last week that he was “very seriously” considering an executive order to try to force the question. But the government has already begun the lengthy and expensive process of printing the census questionnaire without it, and such a move would surely have drawn an immediate legal challenge.

Instead, Trump said Thursday that he would be signing an executive order directing every federal department and agency to provide the Commerce Department with all records pertaining to the number of citizens and noncitizens in the country.

Trump’s efforts to add the question on the decennial census had drawn fury and backlash from critics who complained that it was political, meant to discourage participation, not only by people living in the country illegally but also by citizens who fear that participating would expose noncitizen family members to repercussions.

Dale Ho, director of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Voting Rights Project and the lawyer who argued the Supreme Court case, celebrated Thursday’s announcement by the president, saying: “Trump’s attempt to weaponize the census ends not with a bang, but a whimper.”

Trump said his order would apply to every agency, including the Department of Homeland Security and the Social Security Administration. The Census Bureau already has access to Social Security, food stamp and federal prison records, all of which contain citizenship information.

Trump, citing Census Bureau projections, predicted that using previously available records, the administration could determine the citizenship of 90 percent of the population “or more.”

“Ultimately this will allow us to have a more complete count of citizens than through asking the single question alone,” he contended.

But it is still unclear what Trump intends to do with the citizenship information. Federal law prohibits the use of census information to identify individuals, though that restriction has been breached in the past.

At one point, Trump suggested it could help states that “may want to draw state and local legislative districts based upon the voter-eligible population.” That would mark a change from how districts are currently drawn, based on the entire population, and could increase Republican political power.

Civil rights groups said the president’s efforts had already sown fear and discord in vulnerable communities, making the task of an accurate count even harder.

“The damage has already been done,” said Lizette Escobedo, of the National Association of Latino Elected and Appointed Officials Educational Fund.

The Census Bureau had stressed repeatedly that it could produce better citizenship data without adding the question.

In fact, the bureau had recommended combining information from the annual American Community Survey with records held by other federal agencies that already include citizenship records.

“This would result in higher quality data produced at lower cost,” deputy Census Bureau Director Ron Jarmin had written in a December 2017 email to a Justice Department official.

But Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, who oversees the Census Bureau, ultimately rejected that approach and ordered the citizenship question be added to the census.

The American Community Survey, which polls 3.5 million U.S. households every year, already includes questions about respondents’ citizenship.

“It’s a retreat back to what he should have done from the beginning,” said Kenneth Prewitt, a former Census Bureau director.

Trump’s administration had faced numerous roadblocks to adding the question, beginning with the ruling by the Supreme Court temporarily barring its inclusion on the grounds that the government’s justification was insufficient. Two federal judges also rejected the Justice Department’s plan to replace the legal team fighting for inclusion.

But Trump insisted his administration was pushing forward anyway, publicly contradicting government lawyers and his commerce secretary, who had previously conceded the case was closed, as well as the Census Bureau, which had started the process of printing the 2020 questionnaire without the controversial query after the Supreme Court decision.

As he has many times before, Trump exploded the situation with a tweet, calling reports that the fight was over “FAKE!”

A week of speculation about the administration’s plans and renewed court battles ensued as Trump threw out ideas, including suggesting last week that officials might be able to add an addendum to the questionnaire with the question after it was printed. And he toyed with the idea of halting the constitutionally mandated survey entirely while the court battle played out.

Attorney General William Barr, however, said that the government had no interest in delaying the count and that, while he was confident the census question would have eventually survived legal review, the process would have taken too long to work its way through the courts.

Trump had offered multiple explanations for why he believed the question was necessary to include in the once-a-decade population count that determines the allocation of seats in the House of Representatives for the next 10 years and the distribution of some $675 billion in federal spending.

“You need it for Congress, for districting. You need it for appropriations. Where are the funds going? How many people are there? Are they citizens? Are they not citizens? You need it for many reasons,” he told reporters last week, despite the fact that congressional districts are based on total population, regardless of residents’ national origin or immigration status.

If immigrants are undercounted, Democrats fear that would pull money and political power away from Democratic-led cities where immigrants tend to cluster, and shift it to whiter, rural areas where Republicans do well.

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer on Thursday accused Trump of pushing the question “to intimidate minorities, particularly Latinos, from answering the census so that it undercounts those communities and Republicans can redraw congressional districts to their advantage.”

He later called Trump’s move a “retreat” that “was long overdue and is a significant victory for democracy and fair representation.”

Copyright 2019 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

(26) comments

hayduke2

How about that? This is the way to gather the citizenship information by using the resources already available to you. Trump backtracks once again but at least his supporters of the citizenship question will take this as a "win." Too bad that has to be the frame of reference for decisions impacting the country.

public-redux

Thank you President Donald JOHN Trump for making it safe to use the word “citizen” again. It was tiresome always having to check my surroundings for scary looking “citizen” vigilantes.

MRS M

Must have been the time of day of yesterday's dog and pony show at the WH, because when William Barr started his subservient licking and panting like the good lap dog he is, we started laughing out loud at the absurdity of The Trump Reality TV Show. (Or was it that we were still enjoying our happy hour cocktail?) Trump playing the fool is no surprise, but what continues to be is AG William Barr, a man who built a formidable career and reputation in the law.....and has now sold his soul and destroyed that reputation, to serve a misanthropic and delusional old liar?

jsklinelga

Reading these comments reminded me of a comment made yesterday: "Living in Maryland, relying on the WaPo, CNN and MSNBC to give birth to and support their biases, these poor souls have no concept of what the actual mood of the country at large is, or of the electoral fate that awaits them in 2020. I almost feel sorry for them. Almost."

DickD

We feel sorry for people like you, Jim. People who profess to have a religion but fail to practice their religion. Better an atheist than a hypocrit.

rbtdt5

DickD - Good job proving Jsk's point.

public-redux

Dick, What do religion, theism, or faith have to do with any of this?

hayduke2

jsk - yesterday you posted " For example the latest pictures of immigrants in cages. Whoops that was President Obama. Post another. Whoops again." I questioned you on your source. I also referenced the Inspector Generals document. Still haven't heard your response. Based on your 6:18 comment, maybe you support your own biases by only relying on one source. Would you consider that hypocrisy?

hayduke2

Hey JSK - what's your response to this one? https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/politics/trump-applauds-far-right-social-media-provocateurs

public-redux

Wow, Trump really made fools of his his supporters. He admitted on national TV that he could get better information about illegal immigrants without putting the question on the census than he could by putting it on the census. Pretty embarrassing for everyone who defended him.

DickD

And EC votes are determined.

DickD

Everyone needs to be counted. Legal or not. That is how districts are determined a

phydeaux994

Has Trump followed through on even one of his hard-line Proclamations, foreign or domestic?

shiftless88

I am glad he is not competent; he would be more dangerous if he were.

Samanthapowers

once again, the 'master negotiator's' skills fail him. his nonsensical rhetoric and idle threats mean nothing.

richardlyons

[beam]

Quisling

E.A. Trump is a smooth operator.

Obadiah Plainsmen

The weak scotus ruling opened the door for this. The article stares that the EO by itself is not enough to add the question to the census. However it does start the ball rolling on making another case. Just what the courts ruling said he should do. And to the comment below, he should not sign an EO getting rid of liberal Justices, he should sign one that abolishes the scotus.

public-redux

No,no, no. You have to move to authoritarian rule gradually. First you get rid of the liberal justices. Then, after everyone has adjusted, that's when you do a separate EO to get rid of SCOTUS. I read all about this in The Dictator's Handbook.

https://www.amazon.com/Dictators-Handbook-Behavior-Almost-Politics/dp/1610391845

Obadiah Plainsmen

You have had authoritarian rule for years now and seriously you needed to read a book to know that leaders will do whatever it takes to remain in power. The is the primary goal of each party.. get in power..stay in power ...and crush the opposition and their subjects with whatever means necessary. The words of 43 come to mind when building a coalition to Bin-laden, "Your either with us or against us" that is the motto for both parties for the 2020 campaign.

public-redux

“...you needed to read a book to know that leaders will do whatever it takes to remain in power. ”

You know, that doesn’t logically follow from what I wrote. But thanks for playing.

Obadiah Plainsmen

Anytime, It's politics the greatest game there is, next to Football! Vince Lombardi's quote "There is a second place bowl game, but it is a game for losers played by losers. It is and always has been an American zeal to be first in anything we do, and to win, and to win, and to win."

public-redux

A wonderful book is The Authoritarians by Bob Altemeyer. The most important factor for authoritarian leaders is the huge number of authoritarian followers.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1971601.The_Authoritarians

hayduke2

Obadiah - you are supporting an authoritarian takeover of the government. Why?

public-redux

Here’s a good example of authoritarian followers: 67% of Republicans support stripping citizenship from people who burn an American flag.

https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/11/flag-burning-citizenship-trump-poll

public-redux

I have a good idea. Trump should use an executive order to abolish Obamacare and another one to kick the liberals off SCOTUS. Just kidding. I know there will be a minor uprising by my fellow conservatives who complained incessantly about Barack HUSSEIN Obama’s EOs. Hah, still just kidding.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Engage ideas. This forum is for the exchange of ideas, insights and experiences, not personal attacks. Ad hominen criticisms are not allowed. Focus on ideas instead.
TURN OFF CAPS LOCK.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
No trolls. Off-topic comments and comments that bait others are not allowed.
No spamming. This is not the place to sell miracle cures.
Say it once. No repeat or repetitive posts, please.
Help us. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.