The Brief

With preparations for the 2030 census already underway, President Donald Trump said Thursday he has instructed his administration to start work on a "new" census.

According to a social media post by Trump, that census would exclude millions of people living in the country without legal status — an unprecedented change to how the country has conducted population tallies since the first U.S. census in 1790.

The 14th Amendment requires the "whole number of persons in each state" to be included in a key set of census numbers used to determine how presidents and members of Congress are elected.

It's unclear if Trump — who, according to the Constitution, does not have final authority over the census — is referring to the regularly scheduled national head count in 2030 or an earlier tally.

Trump said he's instructed the Commerce Department, which oversees the Census Bureau, to "immediately begin work" on a census using "the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024." It's unclear why the election results would matter to the census.

The press offices for the White House, Commerce Department and Census Bureau did not immediately respond to NPR's requests for comment.

Article 1 of the Constitution empowers Congress — not the president — to carry out the "actual enumeration" of the country's population in "such manner as they shall by law direct." In Title 13 of the U.S. Code, Congress directed the secretary of commerce to follow a once-a-decade census schedule.

Under that same law, the commerce secretary can conduct a mid-decade census, in 2025, but the results can't be used for redistributing each state's share of seats in the U.S. House of Representatives and votes in the Electoral College. The law also sets a long-passed deadline for reporting to Congress the question topics for a 2025 census.

Still, while the Constitution has required a census every 10 years for the once-a-decade redistribution of congressional seats, it's not clear whether the results of a mid-decade population tally using a different census date can be used for reapportioning each state's share of House seats and Electoral College votes.

A House bill that Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican from Georgia, introduced last month appears to align with Trump's new census call. That bill calls for not only excluding noncitizens from the apportionment numbers, but also a new census and round of congressional redistricting before the 2026 midterm election.

Asked about the bill, Trump said, "It's going to get in. It's going to pass, and we're going to be very happy."

This year, other Republicans in Congress have reintroduced bills that call for excluding either people without legal status or all people without U.S. citizenship, including green card holders, from the regularly scheduled 2030 apportionment counts.

Trump's census comments on Thursday also come after his vocal push for the Republican Party to attempt to pick up more seats in the U.S. House after next year's midterm election through redistricting. The GOP's gambit to redraw the congressional map in Texas has set off a national political battle, with Democrats in other states preparing potential responses, including their own partisan gerrymandering.

The Census Bureau is in the middle of a years-long process to gear up for the 2030 census. Last month, it released the first version of its operational plan for that count, and it has been scheduled to start recruiting this fall for temporary workers to carry out the "2026 Census Test," a major field test for its 2030 plans that's set to take place in six areas in the South and West.

Trump's 2020 census bid to exclude people without legal status was stopped

Trump's latest push renews similar efforts from his first administration that sparked legal battles. The U.S. Supreme Court ultimately stopped a question about a person's U.S. citizenship status from being added to 2020 census forms but declined to rule on whether people without legal status can be, for the first time in U.S. history, excluded by the president from apportionment counts.

Former President Joe Biden affirmed the longstanding practice of including the total number of persons residing in the states in those tallies with a 2021 executive order, which Trump revoked on the first day of his second term.

Using the census to ask about a person's immigration status has yet to be tested by the Census Bureau.

But research by the bureau shows that using the once-a-decade tally by the federal government to ask the question "Is this person a citizen of the United States?" is likely to produce faulty self-reported data and discourage many households with Latino or Asian American residents from getting tallied in official population totals, which are also used for dividing up trillions in federal funding for public services in communities across the country.

The bureau's researchers have also warned that attempting to produce neighborhood-block level citizenship data with a new census question would be "very costly," harm the quality of other demographic statistics the census produces and yield "substantially less accurate" data than information available from existing government records about people's citizenship status.

The Supreme Court found the first Trump administration's stated justification for a census citizenship question — to better enforce the voting rights of racial minority groups — appeared "contrived." As a result, Trump issued a 2019 executive order that spelled out other reasons for producing citizenship data that would be more detailed than the estimates the bureau already releases.

They included informing immigration policy and eligibility rules for public benefits, and coming up with a count of people in the U.S. without legal status. Another reason the order outlined was allowing state and local governments to draw voting districts that do not account for children and non-U.S. citizens. That radical departure from current standard redistricting practices would be "advantageous to Republicans and Non-Hispanic Whites," a 2015 report by a Republican redistricting strategist concluded. Its legality is an open question before the Supreme Court.

A 2020 presidential memorandum ultimately confirmed another goal for Trump's first push for a citizenship question — data that would allow for the unprecedented exclusion of immigrants in the U.S. without legal status from what are known as the congressional apportionment counts.

Trump's latest census push could spark more lawsuits

The action also follows sweeping executive orders by Trump aiming to curb illegal immigration and expand requirements for proof of U.S. citizenship when registering to vote.

The Trump administration's latest push to change the census is expected to be challenged with lawsuits.

Additionally, if Trump is referring to the 2030 census, legal experts say that Trump's successor or Congress may — in 2029 — have an opportunity to get rid of any added question about a person's immigration status before it's printed on paper forms for the 2030 census.

The Trump administration's renewed focus on excluding U.S. residents without legal status from the census, however, could fuel public reluctance to participate in the national count, particularly among immigrant communities and Latinos.

While officials in the first Trump administration often emphasized that some past national head counts have asked about people's U.S. citizenship status in some way, census records going back to 1820 show that Trump's proposal bucks centuries of precedent. The federal government has never before used the census to directly ask for the citizenship status of every person living in every household in the United States.

Edited by Benjamin Swasey
Copyright 2025 NPR

This story first appeared on The LA Local.

Since 1977, Richard Santillan has been to every Opening Day game at Dodger Stadium. 

“The tradition goes from my father, to me, to my children and grandchildren. Some of my best memories are with my father and children here at Dodger Stadium,” Santillan told The LA Local, smiling under the shade of palm trees near the entrance to the ballpark Wednesday morning. He was there to protest the team less than 24 hours before Opening Day.

Santillan, like countless other loyal Dodgers fans, is grappling with his fan identity over the team’s decision to accept an invitation to the White House and owner Mark Walter’s ties to ICE detention facilities.

More than 30 people joined Santillan on Wednesday morning for a press conference held near 1000 Vin Scully Drive to convey a message directly to the team. 

“We are demanding the Dodgers stop participating in funding of inhumane treatment of families and do not go to the White House to celebrate with the criminal in chief,” Evelyn Escatiola told the crowd. “Together, we have the power to make a change.”

Escatiola, a former dean of East Los Angeles College and longtime community organizer, urged fans to flex their economic power by “letting the Dodgers know that we do not support repression.”

Jorge “Coqui” Rodriguez, a lifelong Dodgers fan, spoke to the crowd and called on Dodgers ownership to divest from immigration detention centers owned and operated by GEO Group and CoreCivic.

Jorge Coqui H Rodriguez speaks at a press conference outside Dodger Stadium on March 25, 2026, to demand the Dodgers not to visit the White House following their 2025 World Series win.

(

J.W. Hendricks

/

The LA Local

)

In a phone interview a day before the protest, Rodriguez told The LA Local he did not want the Dodgers using his “cheve” or beer money to fund detention centers. 

“They can’t take our parking money, our cacahuate money, our cheve money, our Dodger Dog money and invest those funds into corporations that are imprisoning people. It’s wrong,” Rodriguez said. 

Rodriguez considers the Dodgers one of the most racially diverse teams and said the players need to support fans at a time when heightened immigration enforcement has become more common across L.A.

The team’s 2025’s visit to the White House drew ire from the largely Latino fan base, citing the Trump administration’s ongoing attacks on immigrants. 

In June, the team came under further scrutiny when rumors swirled online that federal immigration agents were using the stadium’s parking, which immigration authorities later denied in statements posted on social media accounts.

The team again came under fire after not releasing a statement on the impacts of ICE raids on its mostly Latino fan base at the height of immigration enforcement last summer. The team later agreed to invest $1 million to support families affected by immigration enforcement.

When he learned the Dodgers were pledging only $1 million to families in need, Rodriguez called the amount a  “slap in the face.” 

“These guys just bought the Lakers for billions of dollars and they give a million dollars to fight for legal services? That’s a joke,” Rodriguez said. “They need to have a moral backbone and not be investing in those companies.”

According to reporting from the Los Angeles Times, former Dodgers pitcher Clayton Kershawsaid last week that he is looking forward to the trip.

“I went when President [Joe] Biden was in office. I’m going to go when President [Donald] Trump is in office,” Kershaw said. “To me, it’s just about getting to go to the White House. You don’t get that opportunity every day, so I’m excited to go.”

The Dodgers have yet to announce when their planned visit will take place. 

Santillan sometimes laments his decision to give up his season tickets in protest of the team. His connection to the stadium and the memories he has made there with family and friends will last a lifetime, he said. On Thursday, he will uphold his tradition and be there for the first pitch of the season, but with a heavy heart.

“It’s a family tradition, but the Dodgers have a lot of work to do,” he said.

A local favorite mom-and-pop bookshop in Eagle Rock is facing displacement due to a steep rent hike. The owners say theirs is just one of several small businesses along Eagle Rock Boulevard struggling to keep up with lease increases.

Over the past 19 years, many in the neighborhood have come to love READ Books for its eclectic collection of used titles and shop dog Florence.

Co-owner Jeremy Kaplan said it’s been a delight to grow with the community over the years.

“Like seeing kids come back in, who were in grade school and now they’re in college,” Kaplan said.

But the building where Kaplan and wife Debbie rent was recently sold, and the rent increased by more than 130% to $2,805 a month, Kaplan said. He told LAist it was an increase his small business simply could not absorb.

Kaplan said he originally was given 30 days notice of the rent increase. After some research, assistance from Councilmember Ysabel Jurado’s office and some pro-bono legal help, Kaplan said he pushed back and got the 90-day notice he’s afforded by state law.

California Senate Bill 1103 requires landlords to give businesses with five or less employees 90 days’ notice for rent increases exceeding 10%, among other protections.

Systems Real Estate, the property management company, did not immediately respond to LAist’s request for comment.

What can small businesses do? 

Nadia Segura, directing attorney of the Small Business Program at pro bono legal aid non-profit Bet Tzedek said California law does not currently allow for rent control for commercial tenancies.

Outside of the protections under SB 1103, Segura said small businesses like READ Books don’t have much other recourse. And even then, commercial landlords are not required to inform their tenants of their protections under the law.

“There’s still a lot of people that don’t know about SB 1103. And then it’s very sad that they tell them they have these rent increases and within a month they have to leave,” Segura said.

She said her group is seeing steep rent hikes like this for commercial tenants across the city.

“We are seeing this even more with the World Cup coming up, the Olympics coming up. And I will say it was very sad to see that also after the wildfires,” Segura said.

Part of Bet Tzedek’s ongoing work is to advocate for small businesses, working with landlords who are increasing rents to see if they are willing to give business owners longer leases that lock in rents.

What’s next 

After READ Books posted about their situation on social media, commenters chimed in to express their outrage and love for the little shop.

While he looks for a new spot, Kaplan says he’s forming a coalition of local businesses and activist groups to see what can be done to help other small businesses facing similar displacement. He wants to address the displacement issue for businesses like his, which have made Eagle Rock the distinctive neighborhood that it is today.

Owl Talk, a longtime Eagle Rock staple selling clothing and accessories in a unit in the same building as READ Books, is facing a “more than double” rent increase, according to a post on their Instagram account.

Kaplan said he’s been in touch with the office of state Assemblywoman Jessica Caloza and wants to explore the possibility of introducing legislation to set up protections for small businesses like his, including rent-control measures or a vacancy tax for landlords. Kaplan said he also reached out to the office of state Sen. Maria Durazo.

By his count, Kaplan said there are about a dozen businesses within surrounding blocks that are at risk of closing their doors or have shuttered due to rent increases or other struggles.

When READ Books was founded during the Great Recession, Kaplan said he knew it was a longshot to open a bookstore at the same time so many were struggling to stay in business.

“It was kind of interesting to be doing something that neighborhoods needed. That was important to me growing up, that was important to my children, that was important to my wife growing up,” Kaplan said.

“And then somebody comes in and says, ‘We’re gonna over double your rent.”

Topline:

Frozen budget: Most of the city’s Bureau of Street Lighting budget comes from an assessment that people who own property illuminated by lights pay on their county property tax bill. The amount people pay depends on the kind of property they own and how much they benefit from lighting. A typical single-family home currently pays $53 annually, and in total, the assessments bring in about $45 million annually for the city to repair and maintain streetlights. Changing the amount the Bureau of Street Lighting gets from the assessment requires a vote among property owners who benefit from the lights.

Ballots: L.A. City Council’s vote gives city staff the green light to prepare and send out those ballots. Miguel Sangalang, who oversees the bureau, said at a committee meeting earlier this month that he expects to send out ballots by April 17. Notices about the ballots will be sent out prior to the ballots themselves.

Near unanimous vote: L.A. City Councilmember Monica Rodriguez was the only “No” vote Tuesday, saying she wanted to see a more current strategic plan for the bureau. Sangalang said the bureau developed a plan in 2022 that lays out how money will be spent. Councilmember Imelda Padilla was absent for the vote.

Vote count: Votes will be weighted according to the assessment amount. Basically, the more you’re asked to pay yearly to maintain streetlights, the more your vote will count. Ballots received before June 2 will be tabulated by the L.A. City Clerk.

How much more money: According to a report, the amount needed in assessments from property owners to meet the repair and maintenance needs of the city’s streetlighting in the next fiscal year is nearly $112 million.

Use of the money: Sangalang said at a March 11 committee meeting that the extra funds would be used to double the number of staff to handle repairs and procure solar streetlights, which don’t face the threat of copper wire theft. That would all potentially reduce the time it takes to repair simple fixes down to a week. Currently, city residents wait for months to see broken streetlights repaired. The assessment would come with a three-year auditing mechanism.