The US Census Bureau has proposed two rules that would fundamentally alter the 2030 Census and all future censuses. One rule would redefine where people are counted, expand the use of administrative records in determining residence, and establish a smaller population base for congressional apportionment. The other rule would prohibit the collection of race and ethnicity information on the census questionnaire and restrict other demographic questions.
Taken together, the proposals could make it harder for some North Carolinians to be counted accurately, increase the risk of people being counted in the wrong place, and deprive state and local governments of vital information about communities. The proposed rules also could affect congressional representation, the distribution of public resources, and the population estimates that guide policy decisions.
This guide explains what is known about the proposed rules as of Nov. 2, 2026. It draws on the concerns shared with the federal government by Governor Josh Stein, the Office of State Budget and Management, NC Department of Administration, NC Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, and NC Department of Health and Human Services. Additional comments were submitted separately by the NC Department of Justice.
What Would Change if the Rules Were Adopted?
The first proposal would replace the longstanding definition of a person's "usual residence" with a new standard based on where an individual has lawfully spent the greatest number of days during the three months preceding Census Day (Jan. 3 to April 1). It also calls for validating a person’s usual residence with administrative records, such as tax returns and W-2 forms.
The first proposal would further redefine the population used to allocate seats in the US House of Representatives among the 50 states. Under the rule, the apportionment count would include US citizens and lawful permanent residents but exclude other noncitizens, including many individuals who legally live, work, and study in North Carolina.
The second proposal would eliminate questions about race and ethnicity from the decennial census, preclude the addition of certain demographic questions, and make most demographic questions optional.
If adopted, these rules would become part of the federal Code of Regulations, which would make them binding on all future censuses. In the past, the standards for each census have been adopted in a more flexible, less binding way that allows for changes to improve the accuracy of the count.
Why Do Residency Criteria Matter?
Since 1790, the census has counted people at their usual residence, generally defined as the place where they live and sleep most of the time. While that determination is straightforward for many households, it can be more complicated for military personnel, college students, seasonal workers, people experiencing homelessness, and individuals with multiple homes. The Census Bureau has traditionally developed guidelines to ensure such populations are counted once, only once, and in the right place.
The proposed rule would shift the focus from usual residence to physical presence during the three months before April 1. For people with complex living situations, determining where they spend the greatest number of days may be difficult, which could reduce participation and increase the risk of miscounts. And, undercounts matter because political representation and funding are tied to where people live.
Why Is the Use of Administrative Record Matching a Concern?
The first proposed rule suggests that residence should be supported by administrative records, mainly tax records, even though tax records are ill-suited for the purpose of establishing usual residence. Many people use post office boxes or the addresses of accountants when filing returns. Similarly, residents of some rural and tribal communities lack direct mail delivery. Other people, such as those experiencing homelessness or workers with highly mobile occupations, may have limited or inconsistent administrative records.
The proposal also provides few details about how discrepancies between census responses and administrative records would be resolved. It remains unclear whether individuals would be notified of potential mismatches, given opportunities to correct errors, or simply excluded from the count. The resulting uncertainties could undermine public confidence in the results.
What Could This Mean for Military Communities?
North Carolina is home to one of the country's largest military populations. In Sept. 2025, approximately 96,000 active-duty service members were stationed in the state, along with an estimated 55,000 spouses and 79,000 children and other dependents.
Military households often present unique residence challenges. Service members may be temporarily deployed while family members remain in North Carolina, and some households use a State of Legal Residence for tax purposes that differs from the state where they currently live.
During the 2010 Census, at least 10,000 North Carolina service members were omitted from the state’s official population count due to residency rules in place at that time. The Census Bureau revised its approach for the 2020 Census, ensuring that military personnel who lived and slept most of the time in North Carolina were counted here. But, these proposed rules could represent a step back, likely reducing the accuracy of population counts in military communities. Because the census is the benchmark for the Census Bureau’s and the State Demographer’s annual population estimates, any undercount could affect federal and state funding allocations for years to come.
How Could Disaster Recovery Communities Be Affected?
The proposed residence criteria could create additional challenges in Western North Carolina, where many households continue to recover from Hurricane Helene. Following the storm, 26 counties and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians were declared eligible for all forms of federal public assistance.
As of Aug. 2026, approximately 7,100 households were participating in formal temporary-housing programs. Others were living in nontraditional arrangements that may not be reflected accurately in administrative records.
Many displaced residents are expected to return to their original homes, yet determining where they should be counted under the proposed rules may be difficult. Counting these individuals incorrectly or excluding them from the count could distort political representation and the allocation of state and federal resources to recovering communities.
The concern extends beyond Hurricane Helene. Thousands of North Carolinians were displaced by major storms before the 2020 Census, and future disasters could create similar challenges before 2030.
Who Would Be Included in the Apportionment Count?
The US Constitution, through Article I and updated by the 14th Amendment, directs the census to count “the whole number of persons of each state.” The proposed rule would establish a separate apportionment population that excludes many noncitizens, including foreign students, agricultural workers, and workers in technology industries – many holding valid visas. This change arguably conflicts with the Constitution and differs from the approach used in previous censuses.
The state is home to an estimated 100,000 nonimmigrant resident visa holders and hundreds of thousands of immigrants without permanent legal status. These residents contribute to local economies and rely on public infrastructure and services regardless of whether they would be included in the proposed apportionment count.
The proposal also raises practical questions. If the federal government produces both a total population count and a smaller apportionment count, it remains unclear which figure would be used for funding formulas and other programs.
North Carolina has been among the nation's fastest-growing states, adding an estimated 757,000 residents between 2020 and 2025. Current projections suggest the state's population could reach 11.7 million by 2030 and position it to gain a 15th congressional seat. Undercounts, miscounts, or exclusions resulting from the proposed rules could affect that outcome.
Why Does Race and Ethnicity Data Matter?
The second proposed rule would prohibit the collection of race and ethnicity information on the census questionnaire. The consequences would extend far beyond the census itself.
Race and ethnicity data are used to enforce civil rights laws, draw political districts, understand health disparities, deliver public services equitably, and guide countless planning and funding decisions. This information is also used as a benchmark for developing annual population estimates that serve as a foundation for demographic and economic statistical products.
The demographic data collected through the census also supports calculations of fertility rates, mortality rates, population projections, and measures used to identify health and social disparities. Businesses, nonprofit organizations, and local governments similarly rely on detailed demographic information when making investment and service decisions.
North Carolina also relies on census data to produce annual population estimates and projections. Those estimates help guide the distribution of more than $250 per person in annual state funding and inform planning for schools, transportation systems, housing, healthcare, and other public services.
Implementing the proposed rules could weaken the benchmark data needed to produce these analyses and forecasts, making it more difficult to allocate resources fairly and respond effectively to community needs.
In addition, without comprehensive demographic information collected through the census, it would not be possible to fully assess the accuracy of the 2030 count or determine the extent to which different groups were overcounted or undercounted.
Looking Ahead
The two proposed rules address different aspects of the census, but their combined effect could be substantial. The potential negative impacts include depriving the state of a complete count, misallocating political representation and financial resources, limiting understanding of the needs of local communities, and hindering the effective administration of billions of public dollars that funnel through state and federal programs. A lack of vital demographic data will prevent North Carolina from generating accurate population estimates and projections and from addressing the needs of different communities.