[Added resources and updated deadline first; see link to previous news item below]

Read the proposed rule and submit comments via the Federal Register. Comments are now due November 2. [Notice of the extension is here (PDF)]

Using Tax Records To Verify Residence Could Put 2030 Census Accuracy At Risk

Barry Johnson, Tax Policy Center, Urban Institute/Brookings Institution (Oct 5)

“A proposed rule would require the Census Bureau to use tax records to verify where people report living for the 2030 Census. Tax data are valuable administrative records, but using them as a residence test could result in people being missed or counted in the wrong place: Tax data do not cover everyone; the addresses can be stale or nonresidential; and tax processing schedules do not align neatly with the 2030 Census calendar.”

Decennial Census Data Quality

Resources from the Georgetown University Massive Data Institute

“The goal of every census is to ‘count everyone once, only once, and in the right place.’ The requirement to count every person is so crucial to American life that it appears in the mandates of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution regarding apportionment and is reinforced in Title 13 of U.S. Code. Census counts are used for everything from apportionment to scientific research. Because the census is so important, research and policies that support an accurate count are essential. … If the proposed rule advances, it would become federal law (Code of Federal Regulations) rather than, as is traditional, simply being Census Bureau policy. Our research team assessed the potential consequences of several of the proposed changes.”

Children Are Already Undercounted in the Census. Proposed Changes Could Make It Worse.

Population Reference Bureau (Sep 30)

“More than 1.5 million children were missed in the last U.S. census. In 2020, the census undercounted children under age 18 by an estimated 2.1%, according to the Census Bureau’s Demographic Analysis, an independent method for evaluating census coverage. The undercount was even higher for children under age 5, at 5.4%—the highest rate of any age group.

“Now the Census Bureau is proposing major changes to 2030 Census rules that could make some children even harder to count.

“The proposal, released Sept. 10, would count only U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents for congressional apportionment, excluding other foreign citizens who live here— including people on temporary student or work visas, asylum seekers, DACA or TPS recipients who are not lawful permanent residents, and undocumented immigrants. It would also change how the Bureau determines where people live, including using tax records as evidence of usual residence, and remove race and ethnicity questions from the census form. The Bureau is also considering adding a question about legal status.”

Prepare Now to Comment on Proposed Residence Rule for 2030 Census: It Would Make Count of Children Significantly Worse

Count All Kids (Sep 18)

“On September 10, the Commerce Department released a proposed residence rule for the 2030 Census that would violate the constitution and the statute implementing it, and exclude millions of children and others from the 2030 Census. ... Several organizations including Count All Kids are preparing templates you can use to comment on the rule, and there are steps you can take now to prepare to comment.”

Previous DCSS news item, “Updated: Proposed changes to 2030 Census collection; comment by Oct 13” (Sep 18)

Posted by the Bureau of the Census on Oct 5, 2026. Comment Period Ends:
Nov 4, 2026 at 11:59 PM EST

30 Day Federal Register Notice for Qualitative Research To Improve 2030 Census Communications

"The U.S. Census Bureau plans to conduct additional research under the generic clearance for 2030 Census small-scale testing and updates (OMB number 0607-0725). Staff from the Center for Behavioral Science Methods, in collaboration with decennial census content, language, and communications researchers, seek approval to conduct in-depth, qualitative interviews as part of 2030 Census research. The goal is to gain insights that will help us improve census communications and ultimately to improve the census count. ...

"We are soliciting public comments to permit the Department/Bureau to: (a) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper functions of the Department, including whether the information will have practical utility; (b) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the time and cost burden for this proposed collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used; (c) Evaluate ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) Minimize the reporting burden on those who are to respond, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology." 

[Most recent items first; resources for commenting below]

Draft CDC Redesign Would Drop Hearing Aid, Fatigue, and Wheelchair Questions From Nation's Largest Health Survey in 2028

Medical Daily (Oct 3)

"Federal health officials are moving to shrink the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS), and several questions about how Americans live with disabilities would not make the cut. Under a draft redesign set to start in 2028, more detailed questions on hearing aids, fatigue, cognition, and mobility aids such as wheelchairs and scooters would be removed, STAT reported on Oct. 1."

As CDC redesigns annual health survey, it removes questions about disabilities

STAT (Oct 1)

"A proposed redesign of the federal government’s annual health survey would result in significant undercounting of Americans with intellectual and developmental disabilities, according to advocates for the vulnerable population.

"The National Health Interview Survey has historically undercounted people with disabilities, but the changes are a “head-scratcher,” said Katy Neas, CEO of The Arc, an advocacy group. “If we don’t have the government as a trusted source of data, asking questions about real people and what their real experiences are, we’re never going to get better [health outcomes],” she said."

[Original post from Sep 18]

Federal Register Notice to Extend and Redesign the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS)

Resources curated by IPUMS NHIS for responding to Federal Register Docket No. CDC-2026-1387

“On August 20 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) published a Federal Register notice inviting public comment on a proposal to extend NHIS data collection in 2027 and a proposed systemic redesign of the NHIS to be implemented in 2028.

“The changes described in the Federal Register notice are proposed to reduce operational costs and respondent burden. Broadly speaking, they represent a substantial reduction in the number of core content items and considerable overlap in items across the adult and child questionnaires. There are 161 questions on the proposed sample adult questionnaire and 89 questions on the sample child questionnaire, with 63 identical questions across the questionnaires and 6 very similar questions, leaving 92 unique questions for adults and 20 unique questions for children.”

Agency Pulse: Grantmaking at NSF

Grant Witness

“Our agency funding curves track the progress of federal agencies’ grantmaking activity over the fiscal year, monitoring both their compliance with Congressional appropriations laws and their actual support of their scientific missions and the research community.”

National Science Foundation Diverted $1.4 Billion in Science Funds Mandated by Congress

The New York Times (Oct 2, subscription)

Notice of Intent To Reinstate Information Collection

Federal Register (Aug 28)

“The 2027 National Training, Education, and Workforce Survey (NTEWS) is designed to comply with these mandates by improving the measurement of the science and engineering (S&E) workforce in the United States. The NTEWS will integrate three previous NCSES workforce surveys—the NTEWS, the National Survey of College Graduates (NSCG), and the Survey of Doctorate Recipients (SDR)—to provide national estimates on the employment, education, and training of non-institutionalized U.S. adults (18-75 years old) with a special focus on S&E occupations and degrees, the skilled technical workforce, and the U.S.-trained doctoral S&E workforce.”

Read the complete posting and comment by October 27

Gold Standard Science at NSF

Consortium of Social Science Associations (Sep 22)

“The National Science Foundation (NSF) is continuing to make changes to its longstanding programs and update its policies, largely at the direction of the White House. Despite being without a Senate confirmed director for more than a year, the transformation of NSF just since 2025 has been significant.”

See also a previous DCSS news item, “Renewed call for action on NSF Social Sciences” (Aug 30)

From the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), 9/30/2026

Why Social Science?

Because Social Scientists Help the Federal Government Address Problems Facing the Nation

By Alycia Chin (US Securities and Exchange Commission) and Baruch Fischhoff (Carnegie Mellon University)

"Federal agencies address issues that affect American life in critical ways.  Fulfilling those missions requires tools only social science can provide. Congress passes laws to respond to what Americans need and want. Those laws promise Americans programs, protections, and services. Federal agencies then translate those laws into practices: what information to request from companies, what forms families complete to receive benefits, and what evidence shows that a drug's benefits outweigh its risks. Implementing these practices well requires ensuring that people can access, understand, and act on the information that they need. Behavioral and social scientists have unique expertise for ensuring those conditions are met and evaluating whether they are. 

"The articles collected in a recent special feature of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences describe some of that work in five federal government agencies. That work reflects skills and knowledge that only specialized social science training can provide: nuanced sensitivity to the details of research design and interpretation and exposure to the cumulative wisdom of studies whose results are often surprising.  The research described in these articles are drawn from years of experience helping federal agencies pursue their missions of improving Americans’ lives by addressing challenges in health, finance, commerce, and security. Scientists working with agencies do not set the goals; policymakers do. Social and behavioral scientists can help reach those goals and provide evidence about whether they are being reached.  Below are brief summaries of three articles that illustrate the work and its impact."

Read the complete blog post online

From the Consortium of Social Science Associations (COSSA), 9/22/2026

NIH and DOD Sign Agreement Allowing Fund Transfers

"The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Department of Defense (DOD) have signed an agreement to “support the advanced development of medical countermeasures against pandemic influenza, chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear (CBRN) threats, and emerging infectious diseases.” Under the agreement, NIH will provide funding, scientific expertise, and access to relevant research and products, while DOD will use its contracting and acquisition infrastructure to fund and manage research and development efforts. The agencies will jointly set research priorities and meet at least quarterly. The agreement itself does not commit funding and is set to remain in effect through September 30, 2036, unless extended or terminated earlier.

"Critics of the agreement, including Democrats in Congress, worry that it could provide DOD with easier access to NIH funding—especially from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—that is used to fund research on emerging infectious diseases and biodefense."

[9/11 update with a petition link; original item posted 9/6 follows]

Revealed: inside the US military's plan to tap huge sums from the NIH

Nature (Sep 4, requires subscription for full text)

"The US National Institutes of Health (NIH) is seeking to redirect research projects worth hundreds of millions of dollars from its infectious-diseases institute to military biodefence programmes at the US Department of Defense (DOD), according to two NIH employees.

"They confirmed to Nature that the NIH and the DOD, also called the Department of War, have signed an agreement for the arrangement. The NIH is now identifying projects it would transfer to the DOD and aims to complete the agreement by the end of September, when the fiscal year ends and some funds expire, according to a third NIH employee who is a senior official at the agency. (The employees spoke on the condition of anonymity because they are not authorized to speak to the press.) 

"... The agreement would establish a pathway to move funding out of the NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), the country’s premier infectious-disease research institute, to support defence initiatives and will last 10 years, according to the three sources. The full agreement has not yet been finalized, the sources say.

"Biosecurity researchers warn that shifting biomedical research to the military threatens the transparency and clinical translation that define NIH-funded work. “The Department of Defense is just not set up to deliver the scientific innovations we have come to expect and rely on from NIH,” says Gigi Gronvall, a biosecurity specialist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland."

Defense Officials Attempt to Raid NIH Funds to Cover Department of Defense Activities

US House Appropriations Committee Democrats (Sep 3)

"House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT-03) has learned that officials at the Department of Defense (DoD) are working to divert billions of dollars from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to supplement the Department’s budget.

"Without notifying Congress or the American people, DoD has signed an interagency agreement that could give the Department access to billions of dollars that Congress provided to NIH for critical biomedical research. These funds were provided to support research to develop treatments or cures for infectious diseases such as influenza, malaria, tuberculosis, HIV, Ebola, and other dangerous pathogens."

Stand Up For Science Petition to Congress

"...We, the undersigned, agree and demand you, the US Congress, as the elected representatives of the people of the United States of America, must immediately submit and pass emergency legislation terminating this extralegal transfer of NIH funding to Hegseth’s Department of War."

RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences

"This issue seeks to advance our understanding of the patterns, causes, consequences, and broader societal and political implications of unemployment, underemployment, and economic insecurity among college graduates in America since the Great Recession, with particular attention to the post-COVID era. We welcome original empirical contributions from across all social science disciplines that address the growing labor market challenges facing this population and their individual and collective ramifications."

"Prospective contributors should submit a CV and an abstract (up to two pages in length, single or double spaced) of their study along with up to three pages of supporting material (e.g., tables, figures, pictures, etc.) no later than 5 PM ET on November 10, 2026."

Read the complete call on the journal's website

[Newest first]

“Key senators reject White House proposal on NIH grants”

PBS (Sep 21)

"Sens. Susan Collins and Patty Murray are rejecting efforts by the Trump administration to give the White House control of National Institutes of Health grant funding."

Senator Murray on Trump’s Latest Plan to Politicize Lifesaving NIH Research

Minority News Releases, United States Senate Committee on Appropriations (Sep 21)

“Whether lifesaving medical research gets funded or not should be determined by experts at the NIH—not a panel of lackeys chosen by Donald Trump and Russ Vought. Under this scheme, a single political appointee could kill a cancer study or an Alzheimer’s trial with no scientific reason at all."

“White House Moves to Take Control of N.I.H. Grants”

New York Times (Sep 20, subscription)

"Federal officials are drafting an executive order that would place grants under review by an outside panel, the latest effort to redirect billions of dollars in research spending."

“Trump seeks to bring health-research funding under his control, Politico reports”

Reuters (Sep 19)

"U.S. President Donald Trump is seeking to bring ​a major part of national funding for health ‌research under the control of his political appointees, Politico reported on Saturday. Trump has directed his budget director, Russ Vought, to draft ​an executive order to create a board that ​would decide which grants would be funded by the National Institutes ⁠of Health (NIH), the news outlet said, citing two ​administration officials familiar with the meeting."

Researchers Challenge NIH Screening of Grants for Disfavored Viewpoints

ACLU of Northern California (Sep 16)

"Today, researchers filed a class action lawsuit challenging the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) policy of blocking grants in order to censor views it disagrees with, on everything from DEI to gender identity to climate change. The lawsuit alleges that NIH, the world’s largest public funder of biomedical research, is unconstitutionally censoring research and allowing political ideology to override scientific expertise in determining which projects receive federal funding, contrary to congressional mandates. ...

"NIH is using a troubling list of 235 keywords as proxies to identify grants or researchers likely to express or support perspectives this administration does not like. The forbidden terms include “equity,” “advancing diversity,” “racist,” “gender,” “Latinx,” “climate change,” and “pregnant individual,” among others. This list is being used to review grant applications as well. Some grants and applications are summarily terminated or denied, while NIH has sought to renegotiate others, requiring researchers to scrub their grant materials of flagged words. If the researcher refuses, NIH terminates the grant or stops the application from advancing."

See also a previous DCSS news item, "Revealed: inside the US military's plan to tap huge sums from the NIH" (Sep 11)

Update: The Alliance for Higher Education (Sep 15)

"The U.S. Department of Education (USED) published a proposed rule that would make several significant changes to the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), the rules governing USED’s management of federal competitive and formula education grants.
 
"Over the past 19 months, the Administration has taken unprecedented actions to freeze, cancel, and terminate federal grants. With this proposed rule, USED seeks to codify into EDGAR the Administration’s preferred approach—infusing political and policy preferences into grantmaking and providing the Executive Branch with broad power over appropriated funds. These proposed revisions threaten the stability of federal funding and risk disrupting ongoing program activities and scientific research.

"Public comments are due by Wednesday, September 23, 2026, at 11:59 PM ET. It is critical that USED receives comments on the harmful impacts of these proposed changes. Before finalizing new regulations, federal agencies must respond to all significant comments and explain their decision-making process.
 
"How to Take Action: Use this EDGAR Public Comment Toolkit for templates, guidance, and an overview of key provisions, drafted with support from EducationCounsel.

[Original post from Aug 26]

Originally distributed by the Postsecondary Education & Economics Research Center at American U. and George Washington U.

"The U.S. Department of Education released a proposed rule amending the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR), which govern Department grantmaking, to align with a proposed rule published by the Office of Management and Budget earlier this year. The proposed changes include making it easier for the Secretary to cancel or decline to continue grants “for convenience.” 

Comments are due on September 23; for information on writing effective comments, please reach out to peercenter@american.edu.

Regulations.gov: 2026-17239 EDGAR NPRM, Posted by the Department of Education on Aug 24, 2026

Education Department proposal would make it easier to end grants

K-12 Dive (Aug 21)

"The U.S. Department of Education is seeking to give itself more leeway in how and why it cancels federal grant funding, according to a proposed rule scheduled to be published in the Federal Register Monday. 

"The rule would codify controversial approaches to canceling funding that have landed the agency in hot water in the last year, during which a slew of grant funds were abruptly ended because the Education Department said they don’t align with the Trump administration’s priorities. 

"The changes would include allowing the department to cancel discretionary funds “for convenience” — a term that grantmaking and education experts say is broad, vague and atypical for discretionary grants to be subject to. 

“The proposed changes would ensure that the Department retain ongoing programmatic discretion after an award is made, consistent with law, to terminate a discretionary award for convenience,” the proposed changes state."

See previous DCSS news items on the OMB proposed rule here.

"America’s Compact for Higher Education is our united response to the Trump administration’s effort to bend the will of America’s higher ed leadership to his authoritarian control. ...

"Our higher education system is one of the core pillars for democracy in America and one of the most well-traveled pathways to achieving the American Dream. ... The value of an American education stems from its ability to provide not only educational opportunities, but also access to independent centers of thought necessary to promote the free exchange of ideas in a protected space devoted to the pursuit of knowledge, truth, and wisdom. The combination of education, opportunity, and access has elevated hundreds of millions of people, creating lasting impacts on community and culture. ...

"Please read and share America’s Compact for Higher Education with your institution’s leadership..., insisting that they join us in this Compact of historical resistance."

America’s Compact for Higher Education is an initiative of Stand Up For Science, and is endorsed by the American Association of Colleges & Universities, The American Association of University Professors, The Alliance for Higher Education, the American Federation of Teachers, Democracy Forward, and Public Citizen.