Which Department of Justice report on missing and murdered Native Americans was withdrawn from public access?
Executive summary
The report withdrawn from public access is the Not Invisible Act Commission’s final report, often described as the congressionally mandated report on missing and murdered Indigenous people; news outlets say it was removed from the Department of Justice website in mid‑November 2025 and that DOJ told reporters the removal was to comply with Office of Personnel Management guidance tied to President Trump’s executive order on “Defending Women” and restrictions on DEI content [1] [2]. Multiple local and national outlets report the takedown has generated criticism from senators, tribal leaders and advocates who say the report is a vital resource for addressing the MMIP crisis [3] [4].
1. What was removed: the Not Invisible Act Commission report
Reporting identifies the removed document as the Not Invisible Act Commission’s final report on missing and murdered Indigenous people — a resource produced under the Not Invisible Act and related congressional mandates that detailed testimony, findings and recommendations to address the MMIP crisis [1] [3]. The DOJ’s Tribal Justice and Safety site previously linked to the Commission material and noted the Commission’s report was released November 1, 2023 [5].
2. Why DOJ says it was taken down
News outlets relay a DOJ statement saying the report “was removed to ensure compliance with OPM guidance regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women,” described in coverage as part of an administration effort to limit what it classifies as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) content [2] [6]. Several pieces repeat DOJ’s explanation and note the White House directed questions to DOJ when asked whether MMIP issues qualify as DEI [2] [7].
3. Who objects and why — senators and tribal advocates push back
Senators who sponsored the underlying 2020 law and tribal leaders have voiced outrage, arguing that classifying the MMIP report as DEI content mischaracterizes tribal nations (a political and sovereign class) and undermines a congressionally ordered public resource meant to combat an “epidemic of violence” against Native people [2] [7]. Advocates say removing the report breaks trust with Native communities and hampers law enforcement and support work that relied on the Commission’s recommendations [4] [3].
4. What remains available and where reporting diverges
DOJ told some outlets the joint DOJ/DOI response and other Commission materials continue to be posted on the DOJ Tribal Justice and Safety site and that the Commission’s report is available on external websites, though reporting also notes the Commission’s final report page was scrubbed from federal websites and certain related pages have been flagged for language limits [6] [1]. The Guardian reports federal agencies flagged hundreds of words to limit or avoid and that some historic Indigenous content has been removed from other agency sites — a broader context not detailed in every local report [1].
5. Legal and political context: mandates, executive orders and classification disputes
The Not Invisible Act and related statutes (including Savanna’s Act and executive action cited on DOJ pages) created obligations to study and respond to MMIP; reporters emphasize that the Commission’s work was congressionally mandated and tied to prior administrations’ directives on tribal public safety [5]. Critics argue the administration’s application of an executive order limiting DEI material conflicts with the statutory intent of those laws; available reporting shows this is the central political dispute but does not provide a judicial or definitive legal ruling on the classification [2] [7].
6. Limitations and unanswered questions in current reporting
Available sources do not mention whether a formal legal review concluded the report met the executive‑order criteria for removal, nor do they provide a full DOJ memorandum documenting the decision on the record; outlets instead cite DOJ statements and external archive availability claims [2] [6]. Coverage varies on whether all Commission materials are gone or only the specific report page; some sources say the report is still hosted on non‑federal sites [6] [1].
7. Why this matters: practical consequences for MMIP work
Journalists and advocates quoted in coverage say removing a central, consolidated federal report risks undermining coordination, law enforcement guidance and tribal access to recommendations on next steps — concerns grounded in the report’s stated purpose to improve data, protocols and responses for missing and murdered Indigenous people [3] [5]. Opposing viewpoints in the reporting frame the action as enforcement of an administration policy to limit DEI content across federal websites [2] [7].
If you want, I can compile direct links to each article cited here or draft sample questions for senators and DOJ officials based on the gaps reporters flagged [2] [1].