Politics
U.S. Census will have new identity options in 2030
On the next U.S. census and future federal government forms, the list of checkboxes for a person’s race and ethnicity is officially getting longer.
The Biden administration has approved proposals for a new response option for “Middle Eastern or North African” and a “Hispanic or Latino” box that appears under a reformatted question that asks: “What is your race and/or ethnicity?”
Going forward, participants in federal surveys will be presented with at least seven “race and/or ethnicity” categories, along with instructions that say: “Select all that apply.”
After years of research and discussion by federal officials for a complicated review process that goes back to 2014, the decision was announced Thursday in a Federal Register notice, which was made available for public inspection before its official publication.
Officials at the White House’s Office of Management and Budget revived these Obama-era proposals after they were shelved by the Trump administration. Supporters of these changes say they could help the racial and ethnic data used to redraw maps of voting districts, enforce civil rights protections and guide policymaking and research better reflect people’s identities today.
Most people living in the U.S. are not expected to see the changes on the census until forms for the next once-a-decade head count of the country’s residents are distributed in 2030.
But a sea change is coming as federal agencies — plus many state and local governments and private institutions participating in federal programs — figure out how to update their forms and databases in order to meet the U.S. government’s new statistical standards.
Federal agencies that release data about race and ethnicity are required to each turn in a public action plan to OMB by late September 2025 and get all of their surveys and statistics in line with the new requirements by late March 2029.
The “White” definition has changed, and “Latino” is now a “race and/or ethnicity”
OMB’s decision to change its statistical standards on race and ethnicity for the first time in more than a quarter-century also marks a major shift in the U.S. government’s definition of “White,” which no longer includes people who identify with Middle Eastern or North African groups such as Egyptian, Iranian, Iraqi, Israeli, Jordanian, Kurdish, Lebanese, Moroccan, Palestinian, Syrian and Yemeni.
That move sets up “Middle Eastern or North African” as the first completely new racial or ethnic category to be required on federal government forms since officials first issued in 1977 standards on racial and ethnic data that the Census Bureau and other federal agencies must follow.
For more than three decades, advocates for Arab Americans and other MENA groups have campaigned for their own checkbox on the U.S. census and other government forms, and recent research suggests that many people of MENA descent do not see themselves as white, a category that the federal government previously considered to include people with “origins in any of the original peoples of Europe, the Middle East, or North Africa.”
Studies by the bureau show that the government’s previous standards have also been out of step with many Latinos. Those standards required asking about a person’s Hispanic or Latino identity — which the federal government considers to be an ethnicity that can be any race — before asking about their racial identity.
Combining a question about Hispanic origins with a question about race into one question, while allowing people to check as many boxes as they want, is likely to lower the share of Latinos who mark the “Some other race” category on census forms,the bureau’s research from 2015 suggests.
Recent research, however, suggests it’s not clear how someone who identifies as Afro Latino is likely to respond to a combined race-ethnicity question. According to the Federal Register notice, about half of participants in a recent study for OMB selected only the “Hispanic or Latino” box when presented with a combined question after previously selecting both the Latino and Black categories.
This new question format, along with the addition of a “Middle Eastern or North African” box, could also decrease the number of people who mark the “White” box.
Other changes coming to federal forms
Among the other proposals OMB has greenlit is a general requirement for federal agencies to ask for detailed responses about people’s identities beyond the seven minimum racial and ethnic categories. This change, advocates say, will produce more insightful statistics about differences in health care outcomes and socioeconomic disparities within the minimum categories.
OMB has also approved removing from its standards outdated language about allowing “Negro” as a termto describe the “Black” category and “Far East” to describe a geographic region of origin for people of Asian descent, which, according to the U.S. government’s revised definition, now includes individuals “with origins in any of the original peoples of Central or East Asia, Southeast Asia, or South Asia.”
The federal government’s new definitions of the seven minimum racial and ethnic categories list the six largest groups, based on 2020 census results, that the government considers to be part of that category. For example, its definition of “Black or African American” now reads: “Individuals with origins in any of the Black racial groups of Africa, including, for example, African American, Jamaican, Haitian, Nigerian, Ethiopian, and Somali.”
For the standards’ official description for “American Indian or Alaska Native,” OMB is removing a phrase about maintaining “tribal affiliation or community attachment.” The revised definition says: “Individuals with origins in any of the original peoples of North, Central, and South America, including, for example, Navajo Nation, Blackfeet Tribe of the Blackfeet Indian Reservation of Montana, Native Village of Barrow Inupiat Traditional Government, Nome Eskimo Community, Aztec, and Maya.”
OMB decided not to move forward with calls to require agencies to gather data to better understand the descendants of enslaved people originally from Africa, which included suggestions to use “American Descendants of Slavery” or “American Freedman” to describe the group. OMB said in the Federal Register notice that “further research is needed,” adding that there was opposition to this proposal from civil rights groups and others because of concerns over “the difficulty of verifying that identification is accurate, the usefulness or necessity of the data, the exclusion of other groups of historically enslaved people, and the creation of confusion that could make the Black or African American community harder to count.”
A changing conversation about race and ethnicity
OMB says it plans to create a standing committee to formally review these standards at least once a decade going forward. Among the key questions OMB says the committee may review is how to encourage people to select multiple categories when appropriate so that there are complete and accurate estimates about groups such as Afro Latinos.
While the revised standards go into many minute details about how surveys and data tables should be presented, there are many unanswered questions.
It’s not clear, for example, how the federal government will consider people who identify as MENA when monitoring and enforcing civil rights. OMB’s previous guidance, which was rescinded Thursday, used the earlier “White” definition, which included people with roots in the Middle East or North Africa and was not categorized as a “minority race” that would face “disparate impact or discriminatory patterns.” The new standards offer no new guidance about which specific groups the government considers to be a “minority race.”
Still, changes to how the government asks about people’s identities could also reset the national conversation about race and ethnicity.
Some critics of using one question to ask about both a person’s race and ethnicity, including researchers behind a campaign called “Latino Is Not A Race,” have raised concerns about blurring the distinctions between the two concepts.
The introduction of a “Middle Eastern or North African” category may reopen unresolved questions and tensions over the fact that the Middle East and North Africa are regions with no universally agreed-upon borders and with transnational groups.
OMB received public feedback in support of including Armenian, Somali and Sudanese among MENA groups, but it said in its Federal Register notice that the Census Bureau’s research has found that most people who identify with those groups did not select a MENA checkbox when presented with one. “Additional research is needed on these groups to monitor their preferred identification,” OMB added in the notice. Many advocates of a MENA category, including the Arab American Institute, have criticized the bureau’s previous researchfor not specifically testing “Middle Eastern or North African” as an ethnic category whose members can be of any race.
OMB announced the last major changes to its standards in 1997, when it approved allowing survey participants to report more than one race and splitting the “Asian or Pacific Islander” category into “Asian” and “Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander,” which OMB has now shortened by removing the word “Other.”
Edited by Benjamin Swasey Copyright 2024 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.
In the spring of 1947, Navy sailor Lincoln Grahlfs went to an Oakland, Calif., hospital suffering from a 103-degree fever, a strange facial abscess and an abnormal white blood cell count.
A doctor there responded with an unorthodox treatment: X-rays to the sailor’s face with only a shield to cover his eyes.
Soon after, the abscess and other symptoms cleared.
“He said, ‘We call that the hair of the dog that bit ya,'” Grahlfs told NPR.
The dog that bit Grahlfs, in this case, was his exposure to the U.S. nuclear testing program.
In his 20s, the petty officer first class participated in Operation Crossroads in the Pacific Ocean, the first atomic bomb tests since the 1945 nuclear weapon attacks in Japan.
Over the next seven decades, more mysterious illnesses surfaced for Grahlfs — and in the generations of his family that followed.
Military servicemembers like Grahfls are known as “atomic veterans,” and they’re on the verge of losing federal benefits meant to compensate for the long-term health effects of their work.
They’re part of a group fighting for a critical lifeline known as the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA. The 34-year-old law is set to expire next month.
“I am affected by this thing as far as I’m concerned — lifetime — because it’s in my blood,” Grahfls said from his senior living facility in Madison, Wis.
At 101 years old, he is the country’s oldest known atomic veteran.
He’s one of least 200,000 U.S. troops who participated in the tests and cleanup operations during World War II and later in the Pacific Ocean, the Nevada desert, New Mexico and the Atlantic Ocean.
They took the human brunt of deadly ionizing radiation that contaminated nearby lands, water and communities. Many are said to have died of related illnesses.
Now, a group of lawmakers are pushing to renew legislation to recognize that a new generation of workers and residents may still be affected by the tests, including uranium mine workers and so-called “downwinders” caught in toxic exposures.
‘A godsend’
Keith Kiefer, national commander of the National Association of Atomic Veterans, or NAAV, participated in cleanup operations in the 1970s.
The Air Force veteran’s work was based at the Enewetak Atoll in the Marshall Islands, and he’s suffered his own share of illnesses. He isn’t eligible for the existing version of RECA , but a new Senate bill would expand the program to include him.
Kiefer took over as head of the organization in 2018 and says he has seen the toll of radiation exposure on the group’s members and their families.
“In some cases, you can’t hold a job at all. … But on top of the suffering … you have the financial burden,” Kiefer said. “Often RECA is a difference for these veterans between potentially becoming bankrupt or becoming homeless. So it’s you know, it’s a godsend.”
Since its enactment in 1990, RECA has provided lump sum payments of up to $75,000 to atomic veterans and others sickened by the nuclear testing program. In all, the Justice Department program has disbursed$2.7 billion in payments to more 40,000 recipients.
It’s now set to sunset June 7.
The Oscar-winning film of the year, Oppenheimer,spotlighted the Manhattan project and the atomic bomb’s earliest days. But a key group of lawmakers say the film’s attention may not be enough.
‘Your government poisoned you’
On Capitol Hill, Missouri Republican Sen. Josh Hawley has spotlighted the issue in his state, where generations of Missourians have been exposed to radioactive waste tied to the Manhattan project.
And now he has a dire warning for Congress.
“We have one month until the RECA program expires, goes dark,” he said on his way to Senate votes on a recent morning.
In the past year, the Democratic-led Senate has approved multiple bipartisan bills to reauthorize and expand the RECA program, with a more recent amendment garnering a large bipartisan vote. And Hawley has threatened to hold up additional legislation to pass the plan in the Senate again.
However, the Republican-led House has refused to take up RECA for months. Hawley is betting House Speaker Mike Johnson will change that.
“It’s going to be really hard to … say, ‘No, we think that you should get nothing despite the fact your government poisoned you,'” Hawley said. “I think at the end of the day, the speaker is not going to want to deliver that message right before an election.”
Some House Republicans have raised alarm about the plan’s price tag.
However, sponsors say they’ve addressed those concerns. They say a 2023 estimate projecting the program’s costs of $143 billion has since been shaved down to $50 billion to $60 billion instead.
“Thousands of Americans will lose the lifesaving, literally lifesaving help that they have come to depend on,” Hawley said. “And people in my state, victims in my state, in New Mexico, other states will get nothing.”
‘An American issue’
New Mexico Democratic Sen. Ben Ray Luján knows about the need for that lifesaving help all too well.
He’s seen the scores of New Mexicans and tribal members sickened since Trinity, the code name for the first nuclear test in 1945.
His father also worked at the Los Alamos Nuclear Laboratory, where the weapon was developed. His father died in his 70s after he was diagnosed with stage IV lung cancer.
“He was not a smoker, but he got sick. And we believe he got sick because of the work that he did,” he said. “I saw him leave sooner than he should have. And what that did to my mom and him and to our family.”
This past week, Luján and Hawley were among a group of 30 bipartisan lawmakers who signed a bipartisan letterto Speaker Johnson demanding the House take up the legislation before time runs out.
Every year since 2008, Luján has filed legislation to expand the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act. This annual 17-year tradition is now consumed by supreme frustration.
“We need to pass this. This injustice is far too long. It’s decades and decades old,” Luján said. “This is not a blue state or red state issue. This is an American issue.”
Grahlfs says regardless of the program’s fate, the struggles remain.
A retired sociology professor who wrote about the atomic vets, Grahfls has outlived both his children who also suffered from curious illnesses. A granddaughter was born with a deformity.
He argues it’s all tied to his exposure to radiation.
“People who have been affected by radiation are still affected,” he said, “whether they sunset the act or not.”
Next week, the atomic veterans will join forces with other survivors on Capitol Hill to personally pressure Congress to approve the plan that acknowledges their sacrifices.
The day before a Friday evening deadline, the Missouri Senate began debate on Thursday over the state budget for the upcoming fiscal year.Senators began work on the budget around 10 a.m. Thursday morning, with discussions already held on some of the bills that make up the budget.The legislature must complete the budget by 6 p.m. Friday leaving lawmakers with less than 30 hours to complete the task.Due to time constraints, the process of passing this year’s budget is different.Normally, once the Senate makes its changes, the budget is then sent back to the House. Then, a set of conference committees consisting of representatives and senators meet and decide the final budget product.However, with the bills still in the Senate, there’s no time for potential conference committees.Instead, the Senate and House have collaborated on the budget behind closed doors to try to reach a product that the House would take up and pass without objections.“Decisions were being made last night at two in the morning still, the House and myself and some of our colleagues, were still in the building and trying to hash out, you know, a responsible path forward,” Appropriations Chair Sen. Lincoln Hough, R-Springfield, said Thursday.Hough also said part of the reason why the process has been in a time crunch is because the House was late in passing the budget and sending it to the Senate.However, Sen. Bill Eigel, R-Weldon Spring, blamed the delay on the Senate’s effort to pass the Federal Reimbursement Allowance, a tax on health care facilities that funds Medicaid, last week instead of working on the budget.“Because you were so interested in passing the FRA last week, willing to push a record setting filibuster on the floor, the whole week was burned up. And as a result of that, we didn’t have enough time to do conference committees this week,” Eigel said.Eigel, along with other members of the Missouri Freedom Caucus, filibustered for more than 40 hours last week against the FRA and instead demanded the Senate take up and pass a resolution that would make it harder to amend the state constitution.The FRA was given initial approval in the Senate but has not yet passed the chamber. Senators also have not yet passed a resolution making it harder to amend the constitution.Senate President Pro Tem Caleb Rowden, R-Columbia, defended the decision to attempt to pass the FRA before the budget.“In a best-case scenario, if everybody’s operating in good faith and not leveraging every single possible thing they ever could, it makes more sense to do the FRA before you do the budget,” Rowden said.The House sent over its version of the budget on April 4. Their $50.7 billion total budget was roughly $2 billion less than what was initially proposed by Gov. Mike Parson.The Senate appropriations committee passed its version of the budget on April 24. That budget totaled $53 billion, about $3 billion more than the House budget.However, the final product is likely to be closer to the House’s total than the Senate’s. So far, the budget bills introduced on the Senate floor have totaled less than their Senate committee predecessors.Failure to pass the budget would likely lead to a special session, since the budget would have to be in place before the upcoming fiscal year begins in July.Gov. Mike Parson said before the Senate convened Thursday that his office hadn’t seen the budget yet.“My assumption is without any input from the office, it’s problematic,” Parson said.Parson also spoke against the $8 million in the budget for state troops at the Texas/Mexico border.“If that does go through the budget, part of that will be vetoed, because we’ve never asked for that and we don’t need that money,” Parson said. “I think that was more of a political statement people were trying to make to say we support that.”Parson asked the legislature for $2.2 million this year to fund his plan sending troops to the border. Parson signed that budget bill into law on Wednesday.However, regarding the proposed continuation of funds within next year’s budget, Parson said he doesn’t expect troop presence to be a long-term commitment.
Missouri Gov. Mike Parson signed legislation Thursday that would bar the state’s Medicaid program from steering any funds to providers like Planned Parenthood.While supporters of the measure praised it as a way to prevent money from going to an organization most known for abortion services, critics contend it will close off access to health care like cancer screenings and wellness exams.For years, Missouri Republicans had sought to stop any funds from going to abortion providers or their affiliates. While abortion is illegal in Missouri, Planned Parenthood clinics provide reproductive health care services like cancer screenings and contraceptive access.Parson said House Budget Chairman Cody Smith’s legislation would preserve Missouri’s status as a “pro-life state.”“It’s a tremendous victory for life in the state of Missouri,” said Smith, R-Carthage.State Sen. Mary Elizabeth Coleman, an Arnold Republican who handled the legislation in her chamber, praised Parson for not only signing the bill but also a previous one that ended up banning most abortions in Missouri.“Under his leadership, he’s done everything he can to make sure that taxpayer dollars do not go to organizations that support and fund abortions,” she said.A statement from Planned Parenthood Great Plains and Planned Parenthood of the St. Louis Region and Southwest Missouri condemned Parson’s signing of the legislation.“By denying Medicaid patients’ right to receive health care from Planned Parenthood, politicians are directly obstructing access to much-needed health services, including birth control, cancer screenings, annual wellness exams, and STI testing and treatment,” the statement said.It continued: “Planned Parenthood health centers play a critical role in Missouri’s health care safety net. ‘Defunding’ Planned Parenthood risks the sustainability of the state’s entire health care system and the health of all Missourians who rely on it.”Prior efforts to bar Medicaid funds from going to Planned Parenthood through the budgetary process were struck down in court. That prompted lawmakers like Smith and Coleman to try to pass the measure as a standalone bill. Planned Parenthood’s statement contended the bill could violate federal Medicaid law, since it “guarantees every patients’ right to choose any willing and qualified provider.”House Minority Leader Crystal Quade, D-Springfield, said last month she expects the bill to be challenged in court.“This is kind of a new tactic. Obviously this will be handled a little bit differently, but I expect the outcome to be the same,” Quade said.The bill goes into effect Aug. 28.Planned Parenthood said its health centers in Missouri “remain open and are committed to expanding care to provide for those who relied on Medicaid for family planning services.”
Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley pushes Congress to help atomic vets
2024-2025 Board Bill 32 — Honorary Street Name “On Leong Way”
Thieving Ironton Man Does $100K in Damages to St. Louis Power Station
St.Louis Man Sounds Just Like Whitley Hewsten, Plans on Performing At The Shayfitz Arena.
We Live Here Auténtico! | The Hispanic Chamber | Community and Connection Central
2022-2023 Board Bill 189 — Public Works and Improvement Program at the Airport
-
Entertainment1 year agoSt.Louis Man Sounds Just Like Whitley Hewsten, Plans on Performing At The Shayfitz Arena.
-
Business1 year agoWe Live Here Auténtico! | The Hispanic Chamber | Community and Connection Central
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 189 — Public Works and Improvement Program at the Airport
-
Local News1 year agoVIDEO: St. Louis Visitor Has Meltdown on TikTok Over Gunshots
-
News1 year agoTed Lasso-inspired pop-up bar now open in St. Louis
-
Board Bills1 year ago2022-2023 Board Bill 165 — Jefferson Arms Community Improvement District
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 183 — Amending Ordinance Number 62885 known as the Capital Improvements Sales Tax
-
Board Bills1 year ago
2022-2023 Board Bill 180 — Right to Counsel for Tenants Facing Eviction