For decades, population counts in deep blue states have quietly handed Democrats more congressional seats and electoral votes than they would otherwise earn—thanks to a longstanding policy of including noncitizens, including illegal immigrants, in the U.S. Census.

That may soon change.

The Trump administration is reportedly developing a plan to exclude illegal immigrants from the census count used to determine congressional apportionment and the distribution of electoral college votes. According to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, this effort is aimed at correcting what many Republicans see as a distorted and unfair system that advantages Democrat-run states at the expense of red states.

“We’re working on a plan right now to exclude illegals from the census count that determines congressional representation,” Miller said during a recent interview. “That would dramatically shift political power back to the states that actually follow the law.”

🚨 BREAKING: The White House is currently working on ways to EXCLUDE illegal aliens from the US census, per Stephen Miller

This would take away SEVERAL House seats from places like California, as seats are determined by population

GET IT DONE! No illegals in the census! 🇺🇸 pic.twitter.com/3xlv9zwRbG

— Nick Sortor (@nicksortor) June 30, 2025

Under current federal law and Census Bureau practice, everyone residing in the U.S.—citizen or not—is counted in the decennial census. But critics argue that this artificially inflates the populations of states like California, New York, and Illinois, all of which have large noncitizen populations and overwhelmingly vote Democrat.

Because House seats and electoral votes are apportioned based on total population, not eligible voters or citizens, blue states with higher numbers of illegal immigrants gain more representation in Congress and more influence in presidential elections. Meanwhile, red states that attract fewer noncitizens receive fewer seats—even if their citizen populations are growing.

This has long frustrated Republicans, who point out that these policies essentially reward states for lax immigration enforcement and generous sanctuary policies.

States like California have used aggressive incentives—such as taxpayer-funded healthcare for illegal immigrants and expansive sanctuary laws—to attract and retain larger noncitizen populations. In doing so, they increase their population totals and secure more political representation in Washington.

California currently holds 53 House seats and 55 electoral votes. Some estimates suggest the state has more than 5 million noncitizens. If those individuals were excluded from the census count used to apportion seats, California could potentially lose up to 8 House seats, according to some analyses.

Nationwide, the impact could be even more dramatic. Republican analysts have estimated that as many as 30 to 35 House seats are effectively being held by Democrats in states that would not have them if the census counted only citizens.

Those seats wouldn’t vanish—they would likely be reallocated to red-leaning states such as Texas, Florida, and Tennessee. In a narrowly divided House, the shift could be transformative.

The same logic applies to the electoral college. In the 2024 presidential election, President Trump defeated Vice President Kamala Harris with 312 electoral votes. But if noncitizens had been excluded from the count, that number could have been closer to 380 electoral votes, according to some Republican projections.

Beyond representation, there’s also a financial angle: Census population figures are used to allocate hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding. States with inflated population counts—regardless of citizenship status—receive a larger share of that money. This, in turn, allows them to expand social programs that continue to attract more noncitizens, reinforcing the cycle.

Republicans argue that this dynamic creates a feedback loop that benefits states with lenient immigration policies while disadvantaging those that prioritize border enforcement.

Democrats have defended the current system as fair and inclusive, noting that the Constitution requires a count of “persons” in each state. But legal scholars remain divided over whether the federal government has the authority to exclude certain groups—such as illegal immigrants—from apportionment counts. The issue could eventually wind up before the Supreme Court.

What’s clear is that the Trump administration is once again challenging long-held assumptions about how political power is distributed in America—and forcing a conversation about whether those rules are serving all Americans equally.

The debate over who counts in the census isn’t just academic. It could determine who holds power in Washington for decades to come.