SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
department of government efficiency
Trump's Data Deletions Will Make It Harder to See How His Policies Harm Children
Without this data, the impacts of manifest Trump administration policies on vulnerable children are hidden from view.
Nov 19, 2025
On Thursday, the federal government is expected to release jobs data that was not available during the 44 days of the shutdown. As an advocate and expert on the economic security of women and families, I’m happy this data will be updated. But I’ve been thinking about other important federal data that the Trump administration eliminated, related to children’s health and well-being, which doesn’t seem likely to be reinstated.
For example, the US Department of Agriculture announced in September that it will be discontinuing the Current Population Survey Food Security Supplement (CPS-FSS) and the accompanying Household Food Security report. The annual Household Food Security report shows how many children and families across the country are struggling to obtain enough healthy food. We know that Black and brown children are at disproportionate risk of poverty and food hardship, and actions by the Trump administration—including cuts to food aid intended for food banks earlier in the spring, the refusal to pay full Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program benefits during the shutdown, and the historic cuts to SNAP made by the budget reconciliation bill in July ($287 billion over the next 10 years)—can only be expected to make it worse. But we will no longer have the data to confirm those expected increases in food insecurity.
Here’s another example: The Division of Reproductive Health at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) monitors pregnancy risk, and maintains a dataset that shows disparities in maternal and infant health. Unfortunately, earlier this year, the Department of Government Efficiency cuts slashed the staff in the office responsible for that data. (What’s more, there is now a banner on the web page that states in part, “This page does not reflect reality and therefore the [Trump] Administration and [the US Department of Health and Human Services] reject it,” which kind of undermines confidence.) Instead of addressing the crisis of Black women’s maternal health, we are erasing evidence of it. This is likewise problematic since the budget bill also made trillion-dollar cuts to healthcare.
And critical data besides the Department of Labor’s Employment Situation Summary, such as the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, was suspended during the shutdown—making it harder for us to know how Black and brown children are doing. (The Census Bureau’s website, incidentally, says this data will be released “as soon as possible.”)
By getting rid of federal data about Black and brown children, women, and families, this administration is making it impossible to see the harm they are wreaking—harm to a generation, harm that will have lifelong effects.
The lack of this data makes it harder and harder for us to see how some kids, especially kids of color, are doing—whether they are hungry, whether they are healthy, much less if they are in trouble. Without this data, moreover, the impacts of these and manifest other Trump administration policies on vulnerable children are hidden from view.
To be sure, this data is only part of the Trump administration’s efforts to make Black and brown children—and their parents—invisible. The federal government has used President Donald Trump’s “anti-DEI” executive order to eviscerate programs like Head Start and rewrite history. The pictures of workers on the Department of Labor’s website are now all white men. Immigrant children and families are literally disappearing from their homes, from their jobs, and from their schools into detention centers. Why should we pay attention when the data showing ongoing racial disparities in hunger or health outcomes disappears—or fight to reinstate it?
By getting rid of federal data about Black and brown children, women, and families, this administration is making it impossible to see the harm they are wreaking—harm to a generation, harm that will have lifelong effects. All of us, parents, families, and communities, need that data back because we can’t help heal that harm, until we know where our kids hurt.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'No CEO Is Worth a Trillion-Dollar Pay Package': Unions Target Outrageous Elon Musk Tesla Deal
The world's richest man "has wiped billions off of Tesla's share value, trashed the company's reputation, and driven millions of its customers away," one campaigner said, urging shareholders to reject his pay plan.
Oct 22, 2025
A coalition of labor unions and progressive advocacy organizations on Tuesday launched the "Take Back Tesla" campaign, urging shareholders of the electric vehicle giant to reject a pay package that could make CEO Elon Musk the world's first trillionaire.
Musk is already the richest person on the planet, with an estimated net worth of $458-485.9 billion as of Wednesday. His previous 10-year proposal, worth $56 billion, was invalidated by a judge. He's now on an interim plan that has not been approved by shareholders, who are set to vote on the $1 trillion package at the company's annual meeting next month.
Tesla's board unveiled the proposed $1 trillion plan—which would be the biggest corporate compensation package in history—last month. Musk would get the full amount if he boosted share value "eightfold over the next decade" and stayed at Tesla for at least that long. He would own 29% of the company, one of several in which he holds a leadership position.
Top unions, such as the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and Communications Workers of America (CWA), joined groups including Americans for Financial Reform, Ekō, People's Action Institute, Public Citizen, and Stop the Money Pipeline for the new campaign against "Musk's money grab." As part of it, they launched the website TakeBackTesla.com.
"How shareholders vote on Musk's trillion-dollar pay package and other important Tesla ballot items will likely set the stage for similar attempts by other oligarchs to consolidate their own power."
Several coalition leaders pointed to Musk's recent efforts to get President Donald Trump elected and then help the Republican gut the federal government—which has been shut down for 22 days due to a congressional funding fight—via their so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire's DOGE activities provoked nationwide protests targeting Tesla.
"In the last 12 months, Elon Musk's attempts to destroy the American government have caused huge damage to the Tesla brand and contributed to a significant decline in the company's sales in multiple key markets," Stop the Money Pipeline's Alex Connon noted, urging shareholders to "reject this insane proposal."
AFT president Randi Weingarten said that "the Tesla board, instead of upholding basic governance standards, wants to green-light an outrageous $1 trillion pay package for a CEO who has spent most of the year engaged in childish political brawls, rather than working to create shareholder value."
"To reward this destructive behavior with an obscene salary is a slap in the face—not only to the federal workers he's fired, but to the retirees whose pensions are invested in Tesla stock," she declared.
Dubbing the proposal "Musk's corporate heist," CWA president Claude Cummings Jr. similarly stressed that "Elon Musk is enriching himself by stealing from the American worker—from our infrastructure dollars for rural broadband to workers' private data from the Department of Labor—and now he wants to steal $1 trillion from our pensions and retirement accounts."
Natalia Renta, Americans for Financial Reform's associate director of corporate governance and power, emphasized that the vote is bigger than Musk. She said that "how shareholders vote on Musk's trillion-dollar pay package and other important Tesla ballot items will likely set the stage for similar attempts by other oligarchs to consolidate their own power."
"This new website allows people to get their voices heard by sending letters to their state financial officer and mutual fund manager (if they have one)," Renta added. State treasurers of Connecticut, Nevada, and New Mexico have already joined mounting calls for shareholders to vote down Musk's compensation package.
Ekō executive director Emma Ruby-Sachs argued that "no CEO is worth a trillion-dollar pay package, but especially not Elon Musk, who has wiped billions off of Tesla's share value, trashed the company's reputation, and driven millions of its customers away. Tesla's shareholders need to show the judgment Musk so clearly lacks, and reject this pay deal."
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Government Shutdown Is Not Normal
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
Oct 03, 2025
I’ve been directly involved in government shutdowns, one when I was secretary of labor. It’s hard for me to describe the fear, frustration, and chaos that ensued. I recall spending the first day consoling employees—many in tears as they headed out the door.
In some ways, this shutdown is similar to others. Agencies and departments designed to protect consumers, workers, and investors are now officially closed, as are national parks and museums.
Most federal workers are not being paid—as many as 750,000 could be furloughed—including those who are required to remain on the job, like air-traffic controllers or members of the US military.
So-called “mandatory” spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, are continuing, although checks could be delayed. (President Donald Trump has made sure that construction of his new White House ballroom won’t be affected.)
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
There have been eight shutdowns since 1990. Trump has now presided over four.
But this shutdown—the one that began Wednesday morning—is radically different.
For one thing, it’s the consequence of a decision made in July by Trump and Senate Republicans to pass Trump’s gigantic “big beautiful bill” (I prefer to call it “big ugly bill”) without any Democratic votes.
They could do that because of an arcane Senate procedure called “reconciliation,” which allowed the big ugly to get through the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the normal 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
The final tally was a squeaker. All Senate Democrats opposed the legislation. When three Senate Republicans joined them, Vice President JD Vance was called in to break a tie. Some Republicans bragged that they didn’t need a single Democrat.
The big ugly fundamentally altered the priorities of the United States government. It cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—with the result that health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans will soar starting in January.
The big ugly also cut nutrition assistance and environmental protection, while bulking up immigration enforcement and cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans and big corporations.
Trump and Senate Republicans didn’t need a single Democrat then. But this time, Republicans couldn’t use the arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill to keep the governing going.
Now they needed Senate Democratic votes.
Yet keeping the government going meant keeping all the priorities included in the big ugly bill that all Senate Democrats opposed.
Which is why Senate Democrats refused to sign on unless most of the big ugly’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act were restored, so health insurance premiums won’t soar next year.
Even if Senate Democrats had gotten that concession, the Republican bill to keep the government going would retain all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations contained in the big ugly, along with all the cuts in nutrition assistance, and all the increased funding for immigration enforcement.
There’s a deeper irony here.
As a practical matter, the US government has been “shut down” for over eight months, since Trump took office a second time.
Trump and the sycophants surrounding him—such as Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, before him, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficnecy—have had no compunctions about shutting down parts of the government they don’t like—such as US Agency for International Development.
They’ve also fired, laid off, furloughed, or extended buyouts to hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they don’t value, such as at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (The federal government is already expected to employ 300,000 fewer workers by December than it did last January.)
They’ve impounded appropriations from Congress for activities they oppose, ranging across the entire federal government.
Wednesday, on the first day of the shutdown, Vought announced that the administration was freezing some $26 billion in funds Congress had appropriated—including $18 billion for New York City infrastructure (home to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) and $8 billion for environmental projects in 16 states, mostly led by Democrats.
All of this is illegal—it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—but it seems unlikely that courts will act soon enough to prevent the regime from harming vast numbers of Americans.
Vought is also initiating another round of mass layoffs targeting, in his words, “a lot” of government workers.
This is being described by Republicans as “payback” for the Democrats not voting to keep the government going, but evidently nothing stopped Vought from doing mass layoffs and freezing Congress’ appropriations before the shutdown.
In fact, the eagerness of Trump and his lapdogs over the last eight months to disregard the will of Congress and close whatever they want of the government offers another reason why Democrats shouldn’t cave in.
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
If tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance starting in January because they can no longer afford to pay sky-high premiums, Trump and his Republicans will be blamed. Months before the midterms.
It would be Trump’s and his Republicans’ fault anyway—it’s part of their big ugly bill—but this way, in the fight over whether to reopen the government, Americans will have a chance to see Democrats standing up for them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular