Citizen Portal

Census staffing and field-testing questioned as department disbands advisory committees

3683772 · June 6, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Members asked Secretary Lutnick about recent departures at the Census Bureau, termination of advisory committees and the schedule for 2026 field tests; Lutnick said the bureau remains capable and that questionnaire changes and advisory-committee structure had not been decided.

The subcommittee questioned Secretary Lutnick about staffing losses at the Census Bureau, the termination of three advisory committees and the schedule and scope of 2026 field tests.

Representative Meng cited reports that the bureau had lost more than 1,000 employees and that five division chiefs departed, and she asked about public trust and data security concerns. Lutnick replied that the bureau "is 1 of the great statistical places in our government," that it is well staffed by statisticians and that the department is investing in technology and automation to maintain statistical capacity. He acknowledged advisory committees had been "set up long ago" and "run their course," and said the department had "not considered" changes to the race and ethnicity questionnaire as of the hearing.

Members asked for clarity on the number and timing of planned field tests in 2026; the department said only two major field tests were scheduled, and Lutnick said he would provide additional details. Members requested documentation on staff departures and the status of the bureau's field tests and were told the department would provide further information.

Why it matters: The accuracy and reliability of the decennial census and related federal statistics depend on adequate staffing, well-designed field tests and public trust. Committee members asked for written follow-ups on staffing levels, field-test schedules and the rationale for terminating advisory committees.

There were no committee actions recorded; members said they would submit follow-up questions and seek written documentation from the department.