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.
When did the president request or order removal of the DOJ report on missing Native Americans, and through what channel?
Executive summary
Reporting shows the Department of Justice removed a congressionally mandated “Not Invisible” report on missing and murdered Native Americans from the DOJ website earlier in 2025, and DOJ told reporters the removal was to comply with Office of Personnel Management (OPM) guidance implementing President Trump’s Executive Order “Defending Women” (also cited as “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government”) [1] [2] [3]. The White House redirected questions to DOJ and did not publicly claim it personally ordered the takedown, while members of Congress and commission officials say they only learned the report was gone after it vanished from public view [1] [4].
1. What the reporting actually documents — DOJ removed the report to comply with an EO-related guidance
Multiple local and national outlets report that the DOJ took down the Not Invisible Act commission’s report from its website “to ensure compliance with OPM guidance regarding President Trump’s Executive Order Defending Women,” according to a DOJ spokesperson quoted by Mississippi Today, Oklahoma Watch and The Journal Record [1] [2] [3]. Those stories repeat the same DOJ statement as the proximate reason for removal; they do not quote a White House order issuing the takedown directly [1] [2] [3].
2. Who reporters asked and how officials responded
Reporters say they asked the White House whether the administration considers missing/murdered Native American issues to be “DEI” content; the White House did not answer that question and instead directed inquiries to the DOJ [1] [2] [3]. Thus, available reporting documents the channel as DOJ citing OPM guidance tied to the President’s executive order — not a contemporaneous White House press release explicitly ordering removal [1] [2] [3].
3. Congressional and commission reactions — they noticed only after disappearance
Senators and House members who helped create or oversee the Not Invisible Act say they learned the report was no longer publicly available after it had already been removed and demanded restoration; congressional offices and commissioners publicly challenged the rationale that the report was DEI-related [1] [4]. Imprint News records Representatives asking DOJ to restore the report and pushing back on the administration’s stated reason tied to the president’s executive order [4].
4. The timeline the stories imply — “earlier this year”/“nearly 300 days” language
Coverage describes the report’s removal as having occurred earlier in 2025, with several pieces framing the lapse as “nearly 300 days” before November reporting; that phrasing implies the takedown happened in the first half of 2025, but exact calendar dates for the removal are not given in the cited stories [1] [2] [3]. Therefore, available sources do not provide a definitive calendar date for when DOJ first took the report offline [1] [2] [3].
5. Broader administrative context cited in reporting
The reporting situates the action in a broader administration push to rescind or reinterpret prior DEI- and gender-related guidance; outlets link the DOJ explanation to OPM guidance implementing the President’s Executive Order on “Defending Women,” and note other federal materials labeled as DEI-related have been rescinded or archived as of early 2025 [1] [3] [5]. The DOJ’s tribal and MMIP pages also document prior federal efforts and reports related to missing and murdered Indigenous people, showing an ongoing federal policy track that predates the removal [6] [7].
6. Competing explanations and limits of the public record
DOJ’s public explanation ties the takedown to compliance with OPM guidance [1] [2] [3]. Congressional offices and commissioners characterize the move as a suppression or misclassification of tribal issues as DEI, and call for restoration [4]. The White House did not state it personally ordered removal and instead referred questions to DOJ [1] [2] [3]. Available sources do not include a White House memo, an internal DOJ directive text, or a dated OPM guidance document that explicitly orders that particular report removed; they also do not publish the administrative record showing who signed any takedown directive or the precise date of that action [1] [2] [3] [4].
7. What remains unanswered and what to watch for
Key gaps: the exact date of removal, the internal OPM/DOJ paperwork showing the legal rationale or chain of command, and any formal White House instruction beyond the public redirect of questions. Reporters and congressional offices asked for restoration and further explanation; future responses from DOJ, OPM, or a released internal memo would be the documents to resolve remaining uncertainties [1] [4].