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.
What reasons did the White House or DOJ give for removing the report on missing Native Americans?
Executive summary
The White House and Department of Justice officials have told lawmakers and reporters the congressionally mandated report on missing and murdered Native Americans was removed from federal websites to comply with a White House executive order restricting "DEI" (diversity, equity and inclusion) content; Senator Catherine Cortez Masto’s office said the White House directed inquiries to the DOJ and cited that executive order as the reason [1] [2]. Advocates and some reporters say agencies also flagged broad language about tribes and Indigenous communities for removal and that pages tied to Indigenous history were scrubbed across agencies [3] [4].
1. What officials explicitly said: “Compliance with a DEI executive order”
Multiple outlets report that the administration told congressional offices the report was taken down to comply with an executive order targeting DEI-related materials; Senator Cortez Masto’s office relayed that explanation and the White House directed further questions to the Department of Justice [1] [2]. Newsweek and Oklahoma Watch likewise report the administration described the removal as adherence to a White House order limiting DEI content [5] [1].
2. Which executive order was cited (and ambiguity about its scope)
Reporting identifies the cited directive as the administration’s January executive order often framed by critics as curbing DEI initiatives — some outlets named it specifically as the “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” order — and said the White House characterized the Not Invisible/DOJ report as falling under the kinds of material restricted by that order [2] [5]. The White House, however, did not publicly elaborate in the cited reporting on why material documenting violence against Native communities qualifies as DEI content and referred questions to DOJ [2].
3. DOJ’s public posture and what’s not fully explained
Available reporting says the White House directed inquiries to the Department of Justice but does not include a detailed DOJ statement in these sources explaining the legal or policy rationale for removing a congressionally mandated report from a federal site [1] [2]. In short: sources show the administration cited the executive order and punted follow-up to DOJ, but the public record in these stories lacks a full DOJ justification [1] [2].
4. Broader pattern reported by journalists and advocates
Investigations and advocacy groups report a wider purge or redaction of language across federal sites — including flagged terms like “indigenous community,” “tribal” and “Native American” — and note related pages (such as information on Indigenous code talkers) were removed from some Defense Department sites, which advocates say suggests the report’s removal was part of a broader content review tied to the administration’s policy changes [3]. Imprint and The Guardian document concerns from advocates that the removals may disrupt follow-up on recommendations and community protections outlined in the report [4] [3].
5. Lawmakers’ response and contested classifications
Senators who helped create the Not Invisible Act and championed the report — including Cortez Masto and Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski — have demanded answers and characterized the removal as a misclassification of tribal nations and Indigenous issues [1]. Reporting highlights bipartisan alarm: authors of the law argue the material pertains to law enforcement and tribal sovereignty, not DEI, and say treating tribal nations as a racial category to justify removal is wrong [1].
6. Limitations in current reporting and open questions
The sources provided do not include the Department of Justice’s full rationale, a White House legal memo, nor specific internal DOJ emails or directives explaining precisely how the report was determined to violate the executive order; thus the factual record in these pieces is limited to the administration’s stated “compliance” explanation and reactions from lawmakers and advocates [1] [2]. Available sources do not mention DOJ’s detailed legal analysis or whether Congress was formally notified in writing beyond lawmakers’ inquiries [1] [2].
7. Why this matters — competing perspectives
Advocates and some legislators frame the removal as a substantive public-safety and accountability setback that undermines a congressionally mandated effort to address violence in Native communities [4] [3]. The administration frames the action as enforcement of a policy limiting DEI-related content across the federal government; reporters note that the White House directed detailed questions to DOJ, leaving the technical and legal defense to the department [1] [2]. Readers should weigh the statutory origin of the report, the stated executive-order rationale, and the absence of a fully documented DOJ explanation in current reporting [1] [2] [4].