How would excluding noncitizens from the census affect federal funding allocations to states and localities?
Executive summary
Excluding noncitizens from the decennial census would shrink the population counts states and localities use to guide the allocation of hundreds of federal programs, likely reducing funding for jurisdictions with large noncitizen populations and producing substate funding shifts that can be both large and hard to predict [1] [2]. The change would also risk legal challenges and partisan consequences around apportionment and the Census Bureau’s operations, while advocates warn it would undercut planning for roads, schools, and hospitals that serve everyone regardless of immigration status [3] [4].
1. How census counts translate into dollars: the mechanics of allocation
The decennial census and related census-derived datasets feed hundreds of federal formulas that distribute money for education, health, housing, transportation and more — studies identify more than $2.1–$2.8 trillion guided by census data in recent fiscal years — meaning population totals are a primary input for geographic allocations from states down to school districts and counties [2] [1] [5]. Many large programs (for example Title I, SNAP allocations, Community Development Block Grants, and school lunch programs) rely on census-originated numbers or substate tabulations to decide how much funding a locality receives, so altering the base count would directly change those disbursements [6] [1].
2. Who would gain and who would lose: geographic and demographic implications
Removing noncitizens would disproportionately shrink counts in states and localities with higher shares of noncitizen residents — states such as Nevada, Texas, and Florida have been singled out as having larger unauthorized-immigrant shares and therefore stand to see the biggest funding declines under many formulas — while some other states could relatively gain under apportionment or formulaic reallocations [1] [7]. At the substate level, regional undercounts can be decisive: even if a statewide change is modest, particular counties, cities, or school districts with concentrated noncitizen populations could lose disproportionate shares of targeted funding [8] [2].
3. Program-by-program variability: not a single uniform hit
The effect would not be uniform across federal programs because different funding formulas use different census-derived inputs (total population, age cohorts, poverty counts, household characteristics) and some eligibility or benefit levels depend on legal status in ways that complicate outcomes [1] [6]. Analysts and practitioners emphasize that while many infrastructure and service programs serve “everyone who uses them” — roads, transit, hospitals — and thus would be under-resourced if population needs are undercounted, other programs are legally targeted and would respond differently to a citizenship-based roll-up [4] [1].
4. Political and legal friction: apportionment, the 14th Amendment, and operational risks
Proposals to exclude noncitizens from apportionment counts have triggered constitutional critiques, with civil-rights groups arguing such exclusions would contravene the 14th Amendment’s “whole number of persons” language and create major legal exposure; Congress has also wrestled with riders and funding language that could affect bureau operations and response rates [3] [9] [10]. Beyond law, introducing citizenship filters or messaging that chills participation would likely reduce response rates and accuracy, producing knock-on distribution errors even for programs that still use total-population formulas [10] [11].
5. Uncertainty, second-order effects, and who benefits from the debate
Predicting exact dollar swings is complex: research shows apportionment shifts could change a handful of House seats and that states like Texas faced multi-billion-dollar estimated losses from prior undercounts, highlighting the scale, but substate variances and specific program rules mean local impacts would need tailored modeling [7] [11]. Political actors promoting exclusionary counts may benefit electorally or fiscally in some states, while local governments, service providers, and funders warn that withholding counts will penalize residents — citizens and noncitizens alike — by reducing funds for services they all use [12] [13] [4].