Scores of government statisticians are gone, leaving data at risk, report says

U.S. federal statistical agencies are facing an unprecedented crisis following severe staffing cuts during the first months of President Donald Trump’s second administration, according to a comprehensive report released Wednesday by the American Statistical Association.

The report reveals alarming workforce reductions across key data-gathering institutions, with some agencies losing up to 95% of their staff through layoffs and buyouts. These cuts threaten the collection and reliability of crucial data that informs national policy decisions on economic, demographic, and social issues.

“Things are getting a lot worse,” said Nancy Potok, who served as U.S. chief statistician during Trump’s first administration and contributed to the report. “It’s kind of dropping off the cliff there and in a really dire situation.”

The National Center for Education Statistics, which tracks educational trends to improve outcomes, suffered the most severe impact, losing 95% of its workforce. This dramatic reduction halted most of its data collection earlier this year. While some external contracts have since been restored, they operate with significantly reduced scope.

Similarly devastating cuts affected other critical agencies. The Office of Research, Evaluation, and Statistics at the Social Security Administration lost nearly half its staff, eliminating essential retirement and disability research programs. The Energy Information Administration, Economic Research Service, and National Agricultural Statistics Service each saw workforce reductions between 25% and 40%.

These cuts have had immediate practical consequences. Several specialized reports on energy markets have been delayed or discontinued. Agricultural surveys, including a key report on farmworkers and state-specific agricultural data, have been canceled. Even the Census Bureau, the nation’s largest statistical agency, has not been spared, losing at least 15% of its personnel.

The workforce reductions occurred amid broader federal government downsizing efforts led by the White House and its Department of Government Efficiency. The administration offered “deferred resignation” proposals with financial incentives, such as months of paid leave, to federal employees willing to leave their positions. Additionally, probationary employees—typically those with less than a year on the job and without civil service protections—faced layoffs.

Beyond staffing cuts, the report highlights concerning trends regarding the political independence of statistical agencies. It notes the Trump administration has made unsubstantiated claims about data bias, removed agency leaders, failed to fill key leadership vacancies, and appointed political officials to positions traditionally held by career civil servants.

“The statistical system is still functioning, but the threats are very serious,” said Beth Jarosz, vice president of the Association of Public Data Users, who was not involved in the report. “There are staffing reductions, contracted services that have been reduced. We’re seeing that showing up in the cancellation of data products, the reduction in data collection on things like consumer prices.”

The researchers behind the report noted unusual difficulties in obtaining detailed information about the impacts of these cuts, as agencies appeared reluctant or unable to communicate with outside entities.

When questioned last month about concerns regarding the politicization of statistical agencies, Mark Calabria, appointed as U.S. chief statistician in July, stated: “Everything in government is embedded in politics and is embedded in accountability. So these kinds of debates about independence and accountability, they’re oranges and apples to some extent. What you have is wanting to make sure that the data gives you the right answer.”

The report concludes that these combined actions “undermine public trust in federal statistics” at a time when reliable data is essential for addressing complex national challenges. The ongoing erosion of statistical capacity raises serious questions about the future quality and availability of the information necessary for evidence-based policymaking in areas ranging from economic development to public health and education.