Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Here's why the Census Bureau has a 'Trust and Safety Team'

Information war
CurvaBezier/Getty Images

Rumors spread last fall about Census impersonators carrying fraudulent IDs who were knocking on doors and robbing people in their homes.

Fear circulated on Twitter. Neighborhood watch groups posted warnings on Facebook. Local TV stations aired stories on how to protect yourself when a stranger shows up to your house.

The only problem? It was baloney. But the government is combating such scams with an aggressiveness underscoring how seriously it takes the nation's only moment of mandatory civic responsibility.


The so-called Home Affairs Hoax is one of the more sinister efforts so far at disrupting the 2020 Census, prompting the bureau to put an entire page on its website devoted to dispelling the rumors.

But preventing such coordinated disinformation campaigns — which threaten a head count that will shape the balance of power in Congress and billions in federal spending for a decade — has prompted the Census Bureau to do more. Before the enumeration began in earnest this month, the agency created something seemingly unique in the federal government: a team dedicated exclusively to combating the spread of malevolent disinformation and misguided misinformation.

Known as the "Trust and Safety Team," roughly two dozen federal employees and contractors are monitoring traditional and social media 24 hours a day, seven days a week for signs of inaccurate information that could steer people away from completing a questionnaire as the law requires. They respond as necessary to correct the narrative.

The false stories about home invasions spread at a particularly bad time for the Census, while workers were in communities across the country for pre-count field canvassing that required knocking on doors to verify addresses, said Zack Schwartz, the Trust and Safety operations director.

"It was very scary for us," he said. "We were starting to see some of the comments online saying, 'Oh, when the fake robbers come to my home, my dogs will be ready.' Or 'I'm glad the Second Amendment exists.'"

He added: "Those things really put our staff at risk, and it's a huge priority, as you can imagine, to make sure our field staff is safe and secure."

As the hoax gained attention, the team countered. First it alerted the social media platforms there had been no police reports anywhere connecting a Census Bureau employee to a robbery — or of robberies by someone pretending to be census worker.

The team then used third-party fact-checkers and the bureau's website to respond with authoritative content that addressed the rumor, Schwartz said.

After being notified of the hoax, the social media platforms combed through their networks and either removed the false posts entirely or added a disclaimer to warn people the post had been discredited. And soon enough, Schwartz said, "We started seeing the rumors slow significantly."

The successful response was tied to the bureau's partnerships with social media giants including Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, which updated their terms of service policies to bar census-related misinformation on their platforms, Schwartz said.

On Thursday, Facebook cited its terms of service policy when it removed hundreds of ads for President Trump's re-electionthat directed users to a campaign survey labeled "2020 census."

"There are policies in place to prevent confusion around the official U.S. census, and this is an example of those being enforced," a company spokesman said.

Partnerships with the tech companies have been essential in the bureau's misinformation fight, Schwartz said, adding the team reviews more than a dozen rumors a day, analyzing their spread and the appropriate response. The most common myths are posted on the bureau's dedicated rumors page.

As the nationwide census begins this month, the Census Bureau is soliciting help in tracking and reporting falsehoods, which can be shared with the agency through its social media channels or by emailing rumors@census.gov.

"Everyone should be an observer," Schwartz said. "We've had great success with information coming into the bureau, the platforms and other places to let us know about the mis- and dis-information out there."


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less