Trump administration’s data deletions set off ‘a mad scramble, by Mike Stobbe & Mike Schneider

Friends: 

The U.S. statistical system—renowned globally for its excellence—is facing a critical threat that could erode public trust and compromise the integrity of essential data. Researchers are expressing grave concerns over recent removals of data, which they rightfully fear may set a dangerous precedent.

Beth Jarosz, a senior program director at the Population Reference Bureau, warns, 

"This sets a really dangerous precedent that any administration can come in and delete whatever they don't like. Regardless of your politics, this should alarm you since this is taxpayer-funded data and it belongs to the public."

We must act now to protect the transparency and reliability of data that serves as the foundation of informed decision-making and public policy. The integrity of this data is a public right, funded by taxpayers and critical to the nation's wellbeing. Let your voice be heard. Reach out to whoever represents you and demand accountability and the safeguarding of our data.

-Angela Valenzuela

Trump administration’s data deletions set off ‘a mad scramble

By MIKE STOBBE and MIKE SCHNEIDER

February 3, 2025

NEW YORK (AP) — Researchers are in what one described as “a mad scramble” to sort out what public data the Trump administration has deleted from government websites and electronic publications.

Late last week, federal agencies took down scores of government webpages as staffers hurried to comply with President Donald Trump’s order rolling back protections for transgender people, which required the removal of “gender ideology” language from websites, contracts and emails.

Some of the sites were back online Monday, but data analysts say it’s not clear exactly what was removed or changed.

“You go looking for something and it’s just not there,” said Amy O’Hara, a Georgetown University researcher who is president of the Association of Public Data Users.

Social science researchers and other federal data users on Monday described feeling like a five-alarm fire was triggered when they discovered late last week that vital federal datasets were inaccessible.

It sparked “a mad scramble right now” to grab copies of whatever federal data was posted before, O’Hara said.

While the administration’s stated goal was to delete gender and transgender terminology, O’Hara said some researchers worry that other politically charged topics — such as climate change or vaccines — might be removed or altered.

A expert panel affiliated with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demanded a meeting on the deletions.

The committee, chartered by Congress to advise the CDC director, asked the agency’s acting director, Susan Monarez, for an explanation about why it had cut off access to datasets “that allow people across the country to understand the health of their communities.”

The panel had yet to receive a response, said committee member Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a former federal health official who is now a health policy expert at Johns Hopkins University.

Experts say datasets and summaries were affected, but so too were codebooks that explain different variables. They say they also saw changes to published research that used affected datasets, and even redactions to lists of publications about certain topics.

“The scale of this is quite stunning,” O’Hara said.

Researchers are still stumbling on what was taken down or changed, she added.

“We are finding out about omissions when somebody goes searching for it,” O’Hara said.

On Monday, for instance, when a query was made to access certain data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s most comprehensive survey of American life, users got a response that said the area was “unavailable due to maintenance.”

The CDC’s official public portal for health data, data.cdc.gov, was taken down entirely on Friday but went back up over the weekend, albeit with a yellow ribbon at the top saying: “CDC’s website is being modified to comply with President Trump’s Executive Orders.” The agency’s Youth Risk Behavior Survey data was restored too, but with at least one of the gender columns missing and its data documentation removed.

CDC officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Some researchers took steps to make sure federal information stays available. On Monday, the American Sexually Transmitted Diseases Association posted federal STD data and treatment guidelines that were hastily downloaded from the CDC website Thursday night.

“Taxpayers paid to collect those data, to analyze those data, and to make them public for people to use,” explained Abigail Norris Turner, an Ohio State University medical researcher who is the association’s president.

“Executive orders don’t change who has STIs or who needs evidence-based care for them,” she added. “We wanted to make sure that rigorous information continued to be available to people to provide the best possible care.”

The U.S. statistical system is considered the best in the world and researchers fear that the removals will undermine trust and put the integrity of the data at risk.

“This sets a really dangerous precedent that any administration can come in and delete whatever they don’t like,” said Beth Jarosz, a senior program director at the Population Reference Bureau. “Regardless of your politics, this should alarm you since this is taxpayer-funded data and it belongs to the public.”

In a joint statement, the presidents of the Population Association of America and the Association of Population Centers called the takedowns “unacceptable” and called on Congress and the Trump administration to restore the datasets.

Paul Schroeder, executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, said people looking for data may have to resort to suing for access or submitting Freedom of Information Act requests for the datasets.

“The removal of several public datasets from agency websites goes against everything the statistical agencies stand for and were intended for,” Schroeder said Monday. “Public data users are being left in the dark about what is going on.”

Schneider reported from Orlando, Florida. AP data journalist Kasturi Pananjady contributed to this story.
___


The Associated Press Health and Science Department receives support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute’s Science and Educational Media Group and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

CDC Reduces Consecutive Minutes Of COVID-19 Exposure Needed To Be A 'Close Contact'

Here's the new definition: "The CDC now defines a close contact as someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period." However, this is described as simply a report, meaning that it's preliminary.

-Angela Valenzuela

CDC Reduces Consecutive Minutes Of COVID-19 Exposure Needed To Be A 'Close Contact'

October 21, 20207:46 PM ET

by Rob Stein | NPR

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has broadened the definition of what it means to be a "close contact" of a person with COVID-19.

Previous language defined a close contact as someone who spent at least 15 minutes within 6 feet of a person with a confirmed case.

The CDC now defines a close contact as someone who was within 6 feet of an infected person for a total of 15 minutes or more over a 24-hour period.

People who are considered close contacts are supposed to quarantine and get tested for the coronavirus.

In a study published Wednesday, the CDC and Vermont health officials found that multiple short exposures to people confirmed to have COVID-19 led to transmission of the virus.

During a contact tracing investigation detailed in the study, it was discovered that the coronavirus was transmitted to a correctional facility employee who interacted with individuals later found to be positive for the coronavirus. The employee had 22 interactions totaling 17 minutes during an eight-hour shift.

Some of the employee's contacts with those later found to have COVID-19 occurred when the individuals who were positive for the coronavirus were not wearing face masks. The CDC says the finding "highlights again the importance of wearing face masks to prevent transmission."

Article continues after sponsor message

Epidemiologist Marc Lipsitch of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health told NPR in an email that the new definition "captures most of the instances where there would be transmission but doesn't vastly expand the number."

The change will "mostly impact workplaces, schools and other places where people spend all day together off and on," according to Caitlin Rivers, a senior scholar at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. She says it does have "the potential to significantly increase the number of people who are asked to quarantine."

Crystal Watson, another Johns Hopkins researcher, agrees.

"This will mean a big change for public health when it comes to contact tracing and for the public generally in trying to avoid exposure," she wrote in an email to NPR.

"The earlier standard for a significant exposure was somewhat artificial, but the purpose was to provide a target for contact tracers so that they would identify the contacts who were most at risk of infection," Watson said. "Now, contact tracing will become even more difficult because it will probably mean a much higher number of contacts per case on average."

Watson added that she was "a bit surprised that the CDC would change its definition based on one case study, especially because the case study doesn't seem to definitively show that the corrections officer was infected through these brief encounters."

"I would love to hear more from CDC about their reasoning for the change in definition, and how they would advise that public health change their operations going forward," Watson wrote.

Jeffrey Engel, senior adviser for the COVID-19 response for the Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists, said he doubted most health departments would have the resources to do the kind of detailed case investigations needed to identify people who have accumulated 15 minutes of exposure through multiple encounters.

"Detailed case investigations occur rarely and close contact determinations are estimated by busy staff," Engel told NPR by email.

The Vermont case does provide new insight as to how the virus can spread, which will be helpful "going into the fall and winter," according to William Hanage of the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.

But because the new definition is based on just one case report, it shouldn't cause undue alarm, according to Marcus Plescia, chief medical officer for the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials.

"It is just a report, so I don't want to read into it too much or alarm people," Plescia wrote in an email. "Ultimately, if infection after short interactions were widespread we would see much higher infection rates."

NPR's Rob Stein contributed to this report.