What reasons did the DOJ give for removing the report on missing Native Americans?

1. What the DOJ said — compliance with an anti‑DEI executive order

DOJ spokespeople told multiple outlets the report was removed to “ensure compliance with OPM guidance regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women,” framing the action as following new federal rules limiting diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) material on government websites ^{[1] [2] [4]}. News organizations quoting DOJ framed the removal as tied specifically to the administration’s effort to implement that executive order and OPM guidance ^{[4] [1]}.

2. How reporters and advocates described the administration’s rationale

Local and national reporting distilled DOJ’s explanation into a narrower claim: the report was flagged as DEI content and therefore taken down from DOJ’s public pages. Oklahoma Watch, Mississippi Today, Newsweek and others repeated that line, saying the administration classed the Not Invisible Act Commission report as DEI content and removed it for that reason ^{[4] [1] [3]}. Several outlets noted DOJ pointed to OPM guidance as the operational basis for the removal ^[2].

3. Administration’s follow‑up claim: report still accessible elsewhere

The DOJ told reporters the commission’s report remained available on numerous external websites and that related DOJ/Interior responses continued to be posted on a Tribal Justice and Safety page; reporters who checked found copies hosted by advocacy groups and archived pages, though the DOJ’s specific report page had been scrubbed ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Multiple articles quote DOJ saying the material is not destroyed but relocated or externally mirrored ^[2].

4. Political and tribal leaders’ reaction — outraged and skeptical

Senators and tribal leaders who had championed the law called the removal a betrayal and an erosion of progress. Members of Congress and commissioners described the action as harmful to Native communities and urged the DOJ to restore the report, arguing the content documents an “epidemic” of missing and murdered Indigenous people and should not be treated as DEI messaging ^{[6] [5]}. Coverage emphasizes deep anger from tribal advocates and lawmakers ^{[4] [5]}.

5. Disagreement over classification: racial, political, or administrative?

Reporting highlights a central disagreement: critics say the report addresses concrete public‑safety and jurisdictional issues concerning sovereign tribal nations and should not be classified as DEI; the administration’s position (per DOJ/OPM guidance) effectively treated it as DEI content subject to removal ^{[4] [1]}. The White House reportedly declined to explain whether it views MMIP issues as DEI matters and directed questions back to DOJ, underscoring unresolved interpretive conflict ^[4].

6. Broader context: other federal removals and flagged language

The Guardian and other outlets put this takedown in a pattern of federal pages being edited or removed after the administration issued guidance — noting even historical pages (e.g., on Native code talkers) were affected and agencies flagged language such as “tribal” or “indigenous” for review ^[5]. This broader context helps explain why DOJ invoked OPM guidance rather than a content critique of the report itself ^[5].

7. What reporting does not (yet) show

Available sources do not mention any internal DOJ legal memos explaining why this specific congressionally mandated report meets OPM’s DEI prohibition or whether a narrower fix (rather than removal) was considered; they also do not provide an official, public legal analysis from DOJ justifying the classification beyond the statement citing OPM guidance ^{[1] [2]}. Sources likewise do not show that the report’s factual findings were disputed on technical merits; objections are cast as procedural and categorical ^[6].

8. Why this matters for readers and policymakers

Advocates warn removing an accessible federal report impedes law enforcement, researchers, students and families working on Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples (MMIP) and damages trust between tribal communities and the federal government ^{[7] [6]}. The administration’s reliance on OPM guidance to strip a congressionally mandated public document raises questions about how executive orders and agency guidance will be applied to other statutory obligations going forward ^{[1] [5]}.

Sources cited: reporting from Oklahoma Watch, Mississippi Today, Newsweek, local outlets and nonprofit press coverage summarized above ^{[4] [1] [3] [2] [5] [7] [6]}.