Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Why did the president remove a report from the DOJ about missing natives
Executive summary
The Department of Justice removed the Not Invisible Act Commission’s congressionally mandated report on missing and murdered Native Americans from its website, and DOJ says the removal was done “to ensure compliance with OPM guidance regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women” — an anti‑DEI executive order — while copies remain on external sites [1] [2]. The move has prompted outrage from senators, tribal leaders and advocacy groups who say the report addresses a public‑safety crisis and that tribal nations are political entities, not DEI categories [3] [4].
1. What was removed and why officials say it happened
The document taken down is the Not Invisible Act Commission report — a joint DOJ/Interior commission product completed in 2023 that documented disproportionate violence and missing persons among Indigenous communities and offered recommendations [5] [6]. A DOJ spokesperson told multiple outlets the report was removed from the DOJ website “to ensure compliance with OPM guidance regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women,” which the DOJ and others describe as part of a broader crackdown on what the administration calls DEI content [1] [2].
2. How lawmakers and tribal leaders have reacted
Senators who helped pass the 2020 law that created the commission, tribal leaders and advocates have expressed strong outrage, calling the removal a setback for addressing Missing and Murdered Indigenous Peoples (MMIP) and criticizing the classification of tribal issues as DEI rather than tribal/sovereign concerns [3] [4]. Members of Congress have formally called on the DOJ to restore the report and warned that removing the document undermines tools Congress and tribes rely on to track and respond to MMIP cases [7].
3. The administration’s apparent rationale and competing interpretations
The administration’s rationale, as framed by DOJ statements, links the takedown to implementation of President Trump’s Executive Order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism And Restoring Biological Truth To The Federal Government,” and to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance about DEI materials on federal websites [2] [1]. Critics argue that tribal nations are political sovereigns and that a congressionally mandated public‑safety report does not fit the DEI definition; advocates say the action conflates race and tribal political status in ways that could strip protections and practical resources [3] [4].
4. What remained available and how advocates responded
DOJ said the commission’s response materials continued to be posted on some DOJ tribal pages and asserted the report remained accessible on “numerous external websites,” which outlets and archives have confirmed in part — nonprofits and the Wayback Machine still host copies [1] [4] [6]. Still, tribal advocates and service organizations called the removal “historic” and a symbolic erasure of a resource they view as essential for coordination, outreach and accountability [6] [5].
5. Broader pattern and context in federal reporting removals
Reporting outlets place this removal in a wider pattern of federal content being taken down or relabeled under the same administration; other DOJ studies and federal pages have been removed or archived amid policy shifts on what content is publicly presented, creating concerns among oversight advocates about transparency [8] [9]. Observers note a tension: the administration frames these actions as regulatory or ideological compliance, while critics see them as politically driven removals of material addressing minority‑community harms [8] [9].
6. Limitations in the public reporting and open questions
Available sources report the DOJ’s stated reason and the political blowback, but they do not provide internal DOJ or OPM documents showing a step‑by‑step legal or policy analysis that led to the removal; available reporting does not quote a DOJ legal memo or a public OPM ruling explicitly ordering the report down [1] [2]. The White House did not directly answer whether it views MMIP issues as DEI and deferred to DOJ in interviews, leaving ambiguity about who made the final call [4] [10].
7. What to watch next
Watch for congressional letters or hearings demanding restoration or internal documents from OPM/DOJ clarifying the policy basis; representatives and senators have already pushed for restoration and more transparency [7]. Also watch tribal and nonprofit websites for continued hosting of the report and any DOJ statements about whether the content will be permanently removed or relisted with redactions or new contextual framing [1] [6].
Sources: Reporting from Oklahoma Watch, Newsweek, The Journal Record, OU Daily, Mississippi Today, The Guardian, KTOO/KNBA and ImprintNews as cited above [1] [2] [3] [4] [10] [6] [5] [7].