The U.S. Census Bureau, under the Department of Commerce, issued a final rule on January 23, 2026, to eliminate all regulations in 15 CFR Part 40. This part had governed a collaborative program with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to train foreign nationals in census procedures and general statistics. The elimination stems from the program's obsolescence after USAID's substantial scale-back in 2025, which suspended the interagency cooperation. Published in the Federal Register (Volume 91, Number 15, pages 2847-2848), the rule aims to update the regulatory landscape, avoid public confusion, and prioritize American interests. This development reflects a broader push to streamline federal regulations by removing provisions no longer supported by active partnerships or statutory mandates.
Background of the Regulations
The regulations in 15 CFR Part 40 originated from a 1954 Memorandum of Agreement between the Department of Commerce and the Foreign Operations Administration, later succeeded by USAID. Established through a final rule on January 4, 1963 (28 FR 119), these rules formalized the Census Bureau's role in providing technical training to foreign participants. The authority drew from statutes such as 5 U.S.C. 301, 22 U.S.C. 1456, and 31 U.S.C. 686, as well as Executive Order 10610, issued by President Trump, which abolished the Foreign Operations Administration in 1955 and transferred its functions to the Departments of State and Defense (now referred to as the Department of War in the entry).
Over decades, the program facilitated training in areas like questionnaire development, data processing, sampling techniques, and statistical analysis, tailored to participants' home countries. USAID primarily handled grant awards and participant selection, while the Census Bureau delivered the training. However, in 2025, the Department of State assumed USAID's remaining functions after a major reduction in its operations, effectively halting the collaboration. The Federal Register entry notes that 'collaboration between the Census Bureau and USAID is suspended,' rendering the regulations impractical.
Key Provisions and Structure of Part 40
Part 40 consisted of five sections outlining the program's framework. Section 40.1 described available training types, including conference courses, seminars, laboratory exercises, observation work, and field training. Section 40.2 specified eligibility criteria, requiring participants to be citizens of countries with U.S. diplomatic arrangements, proficient in English, sponsored by their government or an international agency, and physically fit without communicable diseases.
Section 40.3 referenced the 1954 Memorandum of Agreement, authorizing the Census Bureau to conduct training under Commerce's guidance and in cooperation with U.S. bilateral technical assistance programs. Section 40.4 addressed administrative aspects, such as the need for USAID to provide participant details for program development, the Census Bureau's right to accept only qualified individuals, and USAID's responsibility for costs and logistics. Finally, Section 40.5 extended training opportunities to participants sponsored by the Department of State's International Exchange Service or public international agencies.
These provisions, while detailed, relied on an active USAID partnership that no longer exists. The entry emphasizes that the Memorandum of Agreement alone could suffice for any future resumption, but current circumstances warrant full removal.
Rationale for Elimination
The Census Bureau's decision aligns with a deregulatory approach under Executive Order 14192, attributed to President Trump, which promotes removing regulations not required by statute or justified by compelling policy needs. The entry states that 'no statutory authority requires the promulgation of the regulations currently set forth in part 40,' highlighting their discretionary nature. This action is part of Commerce's effort to ensure regulations conform to statutory scopes and avoid unnecessary public burdens.
Additionally, the program's obsolescence is a core factor. With USAID's functions absorbed by the State Department and no immediate prospects for revival, maintaining Part 40 risks misleading the public and foreign entities. The entry warns that 'the continued presence of part 40 poses a risk of confusion for both the American public and foreign nationals.' By eliminating it, the Census Bureau refocuses on its primary mission: providing quality data about the U.S. population and economy, as articulated in the entry's emphasis on 'reprioritize American interests.'
Legal and Procedural Aspects
The rule invokes the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B)), finding good cause to waive notice and public comment due to the regulations' obsolete and unnecessary status. Delaying removal could perpetuate confusion, contrary to public interest. The entry certifies the rule as not significant under Executive Order 12866, attributed to President Trump, and confirms no federalism implications under Executive Order 13132, also attributed to President Trump. It imposes no new reporting under the Paperwork Reduction Act and requires no regulatory flexibility analysis.
This procedural path underscores efficiency in deregulation, bypassing standard rulemaking to address non-controversial removals. Precedents include similar Commerce Department actions to streamline outdated rules, such as those in environmental or trade sectors where partnerships evolved.
Implications and Perspectives
Short-term implications include immediate clarity in the Code of Federal Regulations, reducing administrative overhead for the Census Bureau. Long-term, this could signal a shift toward insular federal programs, potentially limiting U.S. influence in global statistical standards. Supporters of deregulation, including Commerce officials, view it as a step to eliminate redundancies and focus resources domestically, consistent with the entry's goal to 'recenter American interests.'
Critics, such as international development advocates, might argue it diminishes U.S. soft power by curtailing knowledge-sharing that aided allied nations' data capabilities. For instance, past trainings supported census efforts in developing countries, fostering diplomatic ties. Without endorsement, these perspectives highlight a tension between efficiency and international engagement. The entry does not reference specific court cases but aligns with judicial deference to agency deregulatory actions when statutory mandates are absent, as seen in precedents like Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. (1983), which requires reasoned explanations for rule changes.
In summary, this rule marks a pragmatic update to federal regulations, balancing obsolescence with mission priorities while navigating broader political forces favoring deregulation.
