Sky York Journal
As the Census Bureau wades deeper into politics, governance changes at an agency committee that handles data privacy, scientific analysis and stewardship issues have opened the door for Trump administration interference, current and former agency staffers told TPM. Some of the most significant changes have put President Donald Trump’s political appointees in leadership roles on the historically nonpolitical committee, just as the Bureau has emerged as a hot-spot for right-wing-driven policymaking.
Former Census Bureau employees say the changes remove accountability mechanisms from Census Bureau decisionmaking and could make it easier for important data privacy policies to forgo the robust, independent scientific analysis the statistical agency is known for.
The Census Bureau did not respond to TPM requests for comment.
The Data Stewardship Executive Policy Committee, known as DSEP, is a leadership body tasked with aiding director-level Bureau staff with internal policy and decisions. It focuses especially on Title 13, the law requiring the Census Bureau to protect respondent confidentiality. And since the committee was created in 2001, political appointees have not traditionally held permanent positions.
A late July update to the charter for DSEP makes the Bureau’s deputy director for data, policy, and science — a newly created, politically appointed position — a co-chair for the agency. That role is held by Michael Lachanski, a two-time fellow at the Claremont Institute, a conservative think-tank that has funneled personnel to key positions throughout President Donald Trump’s federal government. Lachanski was also a senior advisor at the Department of Commerce’s Office of the Under Secretary for Economic Affairs when that department rolled out a controversial ban on a Census privacy-protection method, called differential privacy, that scientists found to be safe and effective. Right-wing influencers and Republican politicians aggressively attacked differential privacy, claiming falsely that it helped Democrats accrue political power. The ban on differential privacy was especially alarming to experts who spoke with TPM because it did not appear to have undergone the normal review process, which would have included an analysis from career staff at DSEP.
Other charter changes include the removal of the requirement that the Bureauo reject political influence and the elimination of the Bureau’s commitment to “equitable” uses of federal data. The charter also adds additional politically appointed staffers to the DSEP committee.
While some of the changes, like the deletion of the word “equitable” from the charter, can be explained by President Donald Trump’s January 2025 executive order to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and language from the federal government, others are more specifically directed toward including political appointees on the previously non-political committee.
“The change to the DSEP charter is consistent with the administration’s view that the activities of the executive branch should be aligned with the goals and policies of the administration,” Simson Garfinkel, a former Census Bureau scientist, told TPM. “The policy changes also go against the Census Bureau’s previous statistical standards.”
But rather than actively politicizing the committee actions and decisionmaking, a former longtime Census staffer who has worked under several administrations and who spoke with TPM on the condition of anonymity observed that the changes may actually have the opposite effect. The changes have cut DSEP out of crucial initiatives that it would’ve otherwise analyzed and advised on.
“It will stifle the conversation, because [DSEP] will either not allow something to be presented if it does not suit their needs or the presenters and the career folks will self regulate what they are willing to discuss and present,” the former Census staffer said.
The charter changes were enacted just under one month after the Commerce Department banned disclosure avoidance, a suite of highly-scientific and rigorously studied privacy techniques that include differential privacy. That policy didn’t go through DESP, which was highly unprecedented for such a significant policy shiftThe idea that such a radical policy change did not go through DSEP was unprecedented, according to experts who spoke to TPM. DSEP charter changes also came just before the Census Bureau published an extremely unusual report that made use of unreliable private data, with help from the right-wing America First Policy Institute; the report purported to show (very limited) evidence of non-U.S. citizens voting in federal elections. That report also doesn’t appear to have been presented before DSEP, though it should’ve been, two former Census staffers said. Wired reported that Lachanski was a co-author on the report, which was published without attribution.
A current Census Bureau employee told TPM that Lachanski specifically requested an employee be assigned to review data used in that report.
“It’s unusual for a deputy director to be involved at that level,” the current employee said.
Lachanski did not respond to TPM requests for comment submitted through a request to the Census Bureau. Calls to two numbers associated with Lachanski, and a voicemail, were unanswered.
Political appointees can add fresh perspective to the Bureau and help communicate the administration’s priorities and interests, a former Census Bureau staffer who spoke on the condition of anonymity said. And many have historically come with robust professional and scientific backgrounds.
“The other side of the political question, though,” the person said, “is, Does it somehow dampen debate or discussion at a statistical agency that prides itself on being nonpolitical and scientific and really data-driven at its core?”
The politicization of a board responsible for handling privacy issues and data policy shrouds decisionmaking at the Census Bureau in secrecy and makes policy coming out of the agency hard to defend, another former longtime staffer said.
“And then it becomes, who is deciding those types of things?” they said. “Is this totally in the hands of a deputy director or a division chief? Where is the process?”
