Attention: You are using an outdated browser, device or you do not have the latest version of JavaScript downloaded and so this website may not work as expected. Please download the latest software or switch device to avoid further issues.
| 16 Oct 2025 | |
| Written by J.B. Wogan | |
| Blogs |
View the Past Event Page for resources from the webinar.
During the first nine months of the second Trump administration, the federal government and its data ecosystem has undergone rapid and extensive changes, with dramatic reductions in the workforce and shifts in policy priorities. In early October, the Data Foundation hosted a webinar to explore the state of the nation’s federal data and evidence infrastructure, current forces affecting federal open data, and some reasons for optimism in spite of recent resource reductions and disruptions.
Sara Stefanik, the director of the Data Foundation’s Center for Evidence Capacity and a former program analyst in the Office of the Chief Data Officer for the U.S. Department of Education, moderated the panel discussion with three guest speakers:
A video recording of the discussion is available here.
In the early months of President Trump’s second term, reports about the new administration’s approach to data and transparency often cited reductions in the number of datasets listed on the homepage of Data.gov in the context of known examples of datasets or data elements being removed from public view. Those concerns about data removals were part of why the Data Foundation launched its monthly Evidence Capacity Pulse Reports and the SAFE-Track portal, a secure, encrypted channel for documenting changes to federal evidence and data activities.
The topline number at Data.gov might seem like a simple, convenient way to estimate the widespread changes to the availability of federal data, but the panelists explained that the number can be misleading.
Because the Federal Data Catalog at Data.gov is continuously and automatically harvesting information about datasets that are maintained by agencies, “that number is normally going to change all the time,” said Kim.
The number can and does go down for innocuous reasons, she explained. For example, if an agency decides to turn 10 datasets from the same series into a single collection, 10 datasets would become one, but the actual amount of data available would remain unchanged. Kim noted that a reduction in the total number of datasets in late January that received attention was actually the result of a cleanup of duplicate entries that were created in the harvest process.
Another problem with extrapolating too much from the topline number at Data.gov: The site isn’t a perfect reflection of whether a dataset actually exists at the agency level. The Federal Data Catalog may indicate that a dataset is available, but the link provided to the agency’s website could show an error message either for a technical problem or because an agency has removed it from their site. At the same time, some agency datasets are available, but don’t show up on Data.gov because they lack the proper metadata documentation.
Marcum explained that information available on Data.gov, including the number and availability of datasets, is only as reliable and complete as the metadata federal agencies maintain in their comprehensive data inventories. Those inventories are what Data.gov aggregates and formats to enhance discoverability of federal data by the public. “This is information about the data, not the data themselves,” he said. As such, Data.gov represents the federal data catalog required in the Open Government Data Act of 2018 and does not itself host actual data.
Since April 2025, the Data Foundation has collected and validated information, often through anonymous reporting, about fluctuations in the total number of datasets listed at Data.gov, changes to leadership positions in key statistical positions, and developments in the implementation of federal data and evaluation policies.
The number of datasets listed as available on Data.gov has increased January 20, 2025, with about 56,000 datasets added through September, according to the Data Foundation’s monthly Evidence Capacity Pulse Reports.
The most recent of the monthly Evidence Capacity reports also examined how many agencies had either acting officials or no one in the key leadership roles of chief data officer, evaluation officer, and statistical official—out of the 24 agencies that are required by the Evidence Act to have those roles. As of September, the report found:
Beyond transitions among statistical leadership positions, overall reductions in agency staffing have implications for supporting open data efforts. For example, at the start of 2025, the Data.gov team that Kim led at the GSA had five government employees along with contractor support. By October, the two remaining government employees in the office had less contractor support and increased workload due to the departure of their colleagues.
Those kinds of personnel changes have implications for agencies’ ability to follow through on their statutory obligations per the OMB Open Government Data Act implementation guidance issued earlier this year (M-25-05). The guidance required agencies to prepare data assets in an open format; develop and maintain comprehensive data inventories using an updated metadata schema; and develop and maintain open data plans.
“There's a literal brain drain at the federal government right now, which will directly impact agencies' ability to implement these requirements,” Cash said. “Functionally, some agencies will be able to implement some or all of the requirements, and some may not be able to do much of anything at all.”
The Data Foundation’s monthly Evidence Capacity reports have also looked at the status of agencies’ open data plans. Although the January OMB memo required all agencies to release open data plans, as of September, only 12 agencies have made open data plans publicly available.
“There's a lot of variability in where agencies are in their open data plans,” Marcum said, adding that the differences across agencies reflects a federated system in the executive branch where agencies have different cultures and levels of resources that affect their readiness to implement an open data plan. Because of the range of capacity and culture across agencies, Marcum said the new requirement that agencies must prepare their data to be open by default is “a tall order.”
“You have some agencies that are really forward-thinking and forward-leaning into this effort. You have NASA and Department of Energy, who really value open data. They value their scientific and administrative data resources, and they're prioritizing it in terms of their budget,” Marcum said. “There are other agencies that just do not have either the technological capability or the resourcing or the culture of sharing data, and so there's a lot of training that needs to be resourced.”
Since the September edition of the Evidence Capacity reports, the federal government shutdown has resulted in further reductions in force and the cessation of some data collection activities. The Data Foundation continues to gather information through SAFE-Track and will be providing updated analysis about the nation’s data and evidence infrastructure.
Several panelists noted that the Trump administration’s prioritization of artificial intelligence (AI) creates an opportunity to maintain momentum related to the timeliness, credibility, objectivity, and confidentiality of federal data. OMB has also indicated that it plans to move forward with implementing the January memo on open data access and management, even though the memo was published in the final days of the Biden administration.
“The journey towards more open data by default is still a priority for this administration. That is a beacon of light that we can keep shining,” Cash said.
Although reductions in force have diminished the federal government’s open data and evidence capacity, many remaining staff are still committed to those priorities. Reflecting on her former federal colleagues working on open data, Kim said, “the drive, effort, dedication is there, or even exceeds what I saw in the past.”
Marcum also saw a silver lining in the increased scrutiny about the quality, reliability, and availability of government data: It has sparked an interest in private sector solutions to fill gaps that could ultimately lead to a better overall open data ecosystem.
“There's a lot of inspiration in the private sector jumping in to try to fill in some of the gaps, to identify where data assets need to be improved, where collections need to be improved,” Marcum said. “I hope that this provides an opportunity to come back and think about how, if we were to build the ideal open government data infrastructure, we would do that from the ground up.”
