Slotkin, Peters, Bergman Lead Michigan Delegation in Securing DoD Drone Testing Site in Michigan

Michigan to Play Critical Role in the Advancement of U.S. Military Drone Capabilities

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Senator Gary Peters (D-MI) and U.S. Representative Jack Bergman (R-MI-01) announced today that a bipartisan, delegation-wide effort was successful in securing Michigan’s National All-Domain Warfighting Center (NADWC) as a Department of Defense-designated national range for an uncrewed aerial systems testing.

This designation means that the Army and National Guard Bureau have selected NADWC as its designated national range for deep uncrewed aerial systems training, further establishing Michigan as America’s defense innovation hub. NADWC has a unique combination of capabilities, permissive drone testing policies, and proximity to tech innovation industry leaders in Michigan that will supercharge drone testing for our military and maximize drone training opportunities for our warfighters. It is the country’s largest joint training range east of the Mississippi River and hosts the annual Northern Strike Exercise. NADWC’s all-domain capability, large size, expansive special use airspace, and all-weather training environment offers warfighters the ability to test drones at scale under a wide range of battlefield conditions year-round, including for live fire, combined arms, swarm testing.

Slotkin continues to champion Michigan as a center of defense manufacturing and innovation, as laid out by her Future of Defense Manufacturing Act. NADWC’s proximity to large-scale manufacturing centers, private sector drone innovators, venture financing, and national transportation hubs make it a centrally located, all-in-one destination to anchor DoD’s drone ecosystem.

“When it comes to the next chapter of American defense innovation, I’m betting on Michigan,” said Senator Slotkin. “From the assembly line to advanced manufacturing, our state has always stepped up. Today, as drones reshape our national security, Michigan’s selection as a national drone testing site further solidifies our state as the center of this transformation. Michigan is the proof that cutting-edge defense technology can be designed, tested, and built with American supply chains, right here at home.”

“Drones play an integral role in modern-day warfare, and the National All-Domain Warfighting Center in Northern Michigan is an ideal training ground to test these technologies and help ensure we maintain our air superiority around the world,” said Senator Peters, a member of the Armed Services Committee. “I was proud to work alongside our Michigan delegation to push key Department of Defense officials and secure this new designation, which will only further cement Michigan as a key asset of our national defense strategy into the future.”

“Unmanned aerial systems are now a critical component of modern warfighting,” said Representative Bergman. “I’m proud that Northern Michigan’s defense assets will play a key role in ensuring our Service Members can test and refine the most advanced unmanned aerial technologies. The unique geography and unparalleled capabilities of the National All Domain Warfighting Center are truly world-class, and it is encouraging to see the Department of War fully recognize the potential of NADWC and the surrounding region. I look forward to continuing our partnership to ensure our warfighters have access to the best systems and training anywhere in the world.”

In addition to Slotkin, Peters and Bergman, Reps. Tom Barrett (R-MI-07), Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), John James (R-MI-10), Kristen McDonald Rivet (D-MI-08), John Moolenaar (R-MI-04), Hillary Scholten (D-MI-03), Haley Stevens (D-MI-11), and Shri Thanedar (D-MI-13) signed a bipartisan, bicameral delegation letter sent to the Department of Defense in July 2025.Members of the bipartisan Michigan Congressional Delegation supported this effort in a joint letter to the Secretary of Defense in July of 2025. Read that letter here.

###


Thune: Working Families Tax Cuts Puts More Money in Americans’ Pockets

Clickhereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today delivered the following remarks on the Senate floor:

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, with tax filing season underway, the American people are beginning to feel the impact of the Working Families Tax Cuts.

“They’re seeing smaller tax bills.

“Bigger refunds.

“And more money in their pockets.

“And perhaps one of the biggest boosts from this law is for the hardworking Americans who will now be able to deduct tips and overtime pay from their taxes.

“That’s right.

“Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts, millions of Americans who earn tips and work overtime will see tax relief on that income and save hundreds of dollars on their taxes.

“Mr. President, six million Americans claimed tips on their taxes last year.

“And it’s fair to say that for many of these hardworking people, no tax on tips is a game-changer.

“Tyler – who’s a waiter in Nevada – said, and I quote, ‘It will be nice to be able, instead of saving for taxes, to be saving for our future.’

“And he’s not alone.

“Cora – who works at a restaurant in Iowa – echoed that.

“She said, and I quote, ‘In the service industry too, you’re always constantly worried about [what] that end of the year number is going to be … now with this we … have some relief with that too.’

“Mr. President, we’re not talking about an inconsequential sum of money.

“A waitress in California said she owed $900 in taxes [one] year.

“And Americans who earn tips already have plans for where to put their tax savings.

“Some are planning to put it into their education and savings.

“Toward groceries and rent.

“Or as one mother in Michigan said, toward raising her four kids.

“Because of the Working Families Tax Cuts, when someone puts their tips in their pocket at the end of their shift, their money stays in their pocket.

“Mr. President, Republicans’ landmark tax relief bill also created a new deduction for overtime pay.

“Overtime is a significant part of a lot of Americans’ incomes.

“Police officers.

“Firefighters.

“Paramedics.

“Nurses.

“Manufacturing workers and tradespeople.

“But up until now, the impact of those extra hours and extra wages was muted by taxes.

“No longer.

“Now these hardworking Americans will be able to keep more of the money they earn when they spend extra hours away from their loved ones – often doing very challenging jobs.

“This is especially true for nurses and other health care workers for whom overtime is a routine part of their week.

“One nurse in California said nurses are now asking for overtime thanks to the no tax on overtime provision.

“Mr. President, whether it’s more money for a vacation, for education, or for just paying for day-to-day expenses, the Working Families Tax Cuts is a game-changer for a lot of Americans.

“And no tax on tips and overtime is on top of permanently lower tax rates.

“A higher standard deduction.

“A [$2,200 child] tax credit.

“And so much more.

“And it all adds up to hardworking Americans keeping more of their hard-earned money to spend, invest, and save how they see fit.

“Mr. President, despite all that the Working Families Tax Cuts does for middle-income Americans, Democrats are once again peddling the lie that this bill is about tax breaks for billionaires.

“That obviously is very far from the truth.

“I’ve talked about some of the people who are benefiting from this bill today.

“Not a single one of them is a billionaire.

“They’re not millionaires either.

“In fact, a lot of the people who are benefiting from the Working Families Tax Cuts live paycheck to paycheck.

“They work every day to have enough money to pay the bills, support their families, and maybe put something away for the future.

“That’s, Mr. President, who Republicans had in mind when we wrote this bill.

“And that’s who’s benefiting.

“Democrats can say what they want.

“But the American people are seeing the benefits from this bill with their own eyes.”


Thune Discusses Republicans’ Commitment to Regular Order Appropriations

Clickhereto watch the video.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today spoke at a press conference with Senate Republican leadership:

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Good afternoon, everyone.

“We appreciate the fact that the House has now acted and passed the legislation that was sent to them by the Senate last week that funds the five appropriation bills that were included in that package.

“And now we have fully 96 percent of the federal government funded.

“So that’s a good win, a good day for the appropriations process, a process which enabled a lot of our members – who in past years had not been able to participate, because many of these things were negotiated behind closed doors in the leader’s office – an opportunity to be heard, and a regular order when it comes to actually funding the government.

“So, very appreciative of what the House did today.

“That bill will be headed to the president, and we will have fully 96 percent of the federal government funded.

“What that means is there’s still another 4 percent that’s not funded and is operating on a two-week continuing resolution, which I had argued at the time was way too short to allow anything consequential to happen when it comes to resolving the issues around DHS.

“But that being said, the Democrats insisted on it, so those discussions will get underway.

“Katie Britt will lead that on our side, and but ultimately, that’s going to be a conversation between the president of the United States and the Democrats here in the Senate.

“What I hope it doesn’t devolve into is something that, you know, makes it harder, not easier, to deport and detain dangerous illegal aliens in this country.

“And I also hope that it focuses on protecting and ensuring that the law enforcement officers in this country are safe in their jobs, and that a lot of the tumult that we’ve experienced in some of our cities around the country starts to dissipate as they are able to effectively function and do what the American people expect them to do.

“So that’s what’s going to be happening, at least with respect to DHS.

“This week, as you know, we’re going to be dealing with confirming judges, and then we’ll be off to the next challenge.

“But a good accomplishment, I think, today, in terms of ensuring that 96 percent of the federal government will be funded, and I think that’s something for which the American people can be grateful.

“No federal employee should be taken hostage by a government shutdown, something I’ve said before, and something that the House reiterated with their action today.”


Delegation Encourages Administration to Quickly Approve South Dakota Disaster Declaration

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) today wrote to President Trump to express their strong support for South Dakota Governor Larry Rhoden’s request for a major disaster declaration that would cover the counties of Custer, Fall River, and Pennington. If approved, the federal disaster assistance would help communities recover from the severe windstorm on December 17-18, 2025, that destroyed trees, electrical infrastructure, and homes, and resulted in fires and widespread power outages across western South Dakota.

“The state, county, and local governments stepped up to address this disaster with all available resources and authorities,” the delegation wrote. “First responders worked overnight to keep fires from spreading and cleared roadways of downed power lines and trees. However, though the governor activated the state emergency operations plan, the severity and magnitude of the storm is beyond the capabilities of the state. Therefore, granting a major disaster declaration would allow the state to continue removing debris, repairing roadways, and rebuilding critical electrical infrastructure, as well as continue disaster mitigation activities.”

Full letter below:

The Honorable Donald J. Trump

President of the United States

The White House

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear President Trump,

We write in strong support of the state of South Dakota’s major disaster declaration request submitted by Governor Larry Rhoden on January 27, 2026. This disaster declaration request would assist in recovery efforts from a severe storm that occurred December 17 through December 18, 2025.

During the third week of December, a historic windstorm swept across western South Dakota destroying trees, electrical infrastructure, and homes and left a significant amount of debris on roadways and public rights-of-way. Wind gusts in excess of 90 miles per hour were recorded, downing electrical lines and triggering fires. South Dakota’s preliminary damage assessment, conducted in collaboration with FEMA, identified $4.6 million in total damage across Custer, Fall River, and Pennington counties.

As a result of the storm, approximately 53,174 households experienced power outages, and Black Hills Electric Cooperative, the sole power provider of the region, lost 96 percent of its power, the largest outage in its history. The restoration of power was difficult, particularly in the rural and off-road areas, and, in some cases, took seven days to restore.

The state, county, and local governments stepped up to address this disaster with all available resources and authorities. First responders worked overnight to keep fires from spreading and cleared roadways of downed power lines and trees. However, though the governor activated the state emergency operations plan, the severity and magnitude of the storm is beyond the capabilities of the state. Therefore, granting a major disaster declaration would allow the state to continue removing debris, repairing roadways, and rebuilding critical electrical infrastructure, as well as continue disaster mitigation activities.

We support the state’s disaster declaration request and urge you to approve a major disaster declaration as soon as possible so the necessary federal resources are available to assist the relevant areas of South Dakota. Thank you for your prompt attention to this request, and please do not hesitate to contact us if we can provide any additional information.


Tillis Demands Accountability from DHS on Immigration Enforcement Operations

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) recently sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem seeking answers about interior enforcement operations conducted by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including Operation Charlotte’s Web and recent activity in Minneapolis ahead of Secretary Noem’s hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3.

“The Trump Administration has made measurable progress in restoring order at the southern border. Under the leadership of Border Czar Tom Homan, conditions no longer resemble the instability of the previous administration. That same level of successful and seamless execution has not always been achieved in the Department of Homeland Security’s recent interior immigration enforcement operations. Interior enforcement carried out by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement must be effective, disciplined, and fully compliant with constitutional and statutory limits. While these agencies have historically met that standard, recent operations raise serious questions that require direct oversight,” Tillis wrote.

“On November 15, 2025, DHS conducted Operation Charlotte’s Web in my home state of North Carolina. The operation resulted in the apprehension of several criminal illegal aliens with extensive criminal records, an outcome I applaud. At the same time, multiple public reports allege that U.S. citizens were detained, subject to force, and experienced damage to personal property. I seek clarification as to whether these reports are merely disingenuous accounts from partisans who do not share our commitment to a secure border, or if they reflect substantiated incidents,” Tillis continued.

“Similar concerns have since emerged in Minneapolis, Minnesota, where DHS enforcement actions reportedly involved U.S. citizens, use of force, reliance on administrative warrants, and unclear predication for initial engagements. Taken together, these events point to a broader transparency and accountability gap in DHS interior enforcement operations that this Committee has a responsibility to address,” Tillis concluded.

The full text of the letter and the list of questions submitted to Secretary Noem are available HERE.

###


Tuberville, Colleagues Follow-Up on Call to End Biden-Era Flood Insurance Premiums

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined seven of his GOP colleagues in sending a letter to the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Acting Administrator Karen Evans to terminate the Biden-era Risk Rating 2.0 policy, which has caused skyrocketing premiums and forced tens of thousands of homeowners to drop coverage.

This letter is a follow-up to the letter the senators sent in June 2025 to FEMA demanding an end to this policy.

“This loss of participation is a structural problem for the NFIP. Flood insurance depends on a broad risk pool to function effectively. As policyholders exit the program, risk becomes more concentrated, premiums face additional upward pressure, and volatility increases. At the same time, uninsured homeowners are more likely to rely on post-disaster federal assistance, shifting costs away from a pre-disaster insurance model and onto taxpayers. Rather than reducing federal exposure, Risk Rating 2.0 risks increasing long-term disaster costs while weakening the insurance base Congress intended the program to rely upon,” wrote the senators.

Sen. Tuberville was joined by U.S. Sens Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), John Cornyn (R-TX), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-MS),Jim Justice (R-WV), John Kennedy (R-LA), and Roger Wicker (R-MS) in sending the letter.

Read the full letter below or here.

“Dear Acting Administrator Evans,

We write to follow up on our June 9, 2025 letter to then-Acting Administrator David Richardson regarding FEMA’s implementation of Risk Rating 2.0 under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). At that time, we raised concerns that steep and sustained premium increases would reduce participation in the program and undermine its long-term viability. Subsequent data now confirms those concerns.

Since Risk Rating 2.0 took effect, flood insurance premiums have increased in every state, and FEMA estimates that approximately 77 percent of policyholders now pay more than they would have under the prior system. In Louisiana and other flood-prone states, premium increases of well over 100 percent have forced tens of thousands of homeowners to drop coverage altogether. These trends are not isolated—they reflect a nationwide contraction in NFIP participation driven by affordability pressures.

FEMA’s November 2025 response to our letter emphasized that Risk Rating 2.0 is necessary to maintain actuarial soundness and reflect true risk. It further emphasized that FEMA shares in our goal of increasing participation in the program. While the NFIP must be financially responsible, recent peer-reviewed research demonstrates that Risk Rating 2.0 is producing outcomes that threaten the program’s stability. A December 2025 study published in the Journal of Catastrophe Risk and Resilience finds that Risk Rating 2.0 has resulted in an 11–39 percent decline in new NFIP policies and a 5–13 percent decline in existing policies, depending on the size of premium increases. These declines are largest in communities least able to absorb repeated annual rate hikes.

This loss of participation is a structural problem for the NFIP. Flood insurance depends on a broad risk pool to function effectively. As policyholders exit the program, risk becomes more concentrated, premiums face additional upward pressure, and volatility increases. At the same time, uninsured homeowners are more likely to rely on post-disaster federal assistance, shifting costs away from a pre-disaster insurance model and onto taxpayers. Rather than reducing federal exposure, Risk Rating 2.0 risks increasing long-term disaster costs while weakening the insurance base Congress intended the program to rely upon.

We are also concerned by FEMA’s continued lack of transparency surrounding Risk Rating 2.0. FEMA has not released the underlying data, assumptions, or modeling used to generate premium increases, nor provided a mechanism for meaningful external review. Without transparency, homeowners cannot understand rate changes, communities cannot plan mitigation investments with confidence, and Congress cannot assess whether the pricing system is operating as intended.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge FEMA to take the following actions:

Terminate the Risk Rating 2.0 pricing methodology, halt premium increases exceeding the statutory minimum, and work with Congress to restore a rating structure that supports broad participation and program stability.

Provide full transparency into NFIP rate-setting, including publication of all data inputs, modeling assumptions, and actuarial analyses used to justify premium increases.

Time is of the essence. Each year Risk Rating 2.0 remains in place, participation continues to erode, the insurance pool weakens, and taxpayer exposure grows. Immediate action must be taken to stop the actuarial death spiral. We urge FEMA to act promptly to correct course and ensure the NFIP fulfills its core mission of protecting homeowners, communities, and federal taxpayers alike.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to continued engagement on this issue.

Sincerely,”

Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

###


Tuberville Joins Sharia-Free America Caucus to Warn of Rise of Radical Islam in U.S.

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Representative Keith Self (R-TX-03), U.S. Representative Chip Roy (R-TX-21), and other members of the Sharia-Free America Caucus in urging Congress to pass his bill to ban Sharia Law in the United States.

Excerpts from Sen. Tuberville’s remarks can be found below, or viewed on YouTube or Rumble.

“Thank you. Thanks to my colleagues in the House. I wish I had more of my colleagues from the Senate here. This is a very very important caucus—and it will grow. It’s going to have to do that. It is just unfortunate, folks. Wake up, America. We gotta wake up. The enemy is inside the gates. It is very very important that we start to understand every day how important this is—important to us, our grandkids, and the future of this great nation. Two hundred and fifty years that we’ve made it, but we’re being attacked every day—and it’s growing—but our side needs to grow also and fight back. There’s a silent revolution that’s going on in our country. We have to remember that radical Islam is not a religion—it is a political organization run by terrorists. No easy way to put it.

Islamic extremism is infiltrating the U.S. and refusing to assimilate.But what’s even darker than that—many of them are openly admitting that they are here with the intent to destroy our country and to kill Americans. They couldn’t put it any more clearer. This is not a secret. The Quran instructs them to kill all infidels. It specifically encourages them to behead all infidels. If you’re not a Muslim, they don’t want you here. It provides clear instructions about how they are to steal from non-Muslims. It’s no wonder that a group of Somalians have been accused of stealing, what, 18 billion [dollars] to this point and growing as President Trump says. Roughly five million Muslims live in this country, in the United States of America, and [it’s] on the rise. We do have people who are Muslims in this country, of Muslim descent who do not practice Sharia law, and they are welcome because they want to assimilate to our culture. […]

Minneapolis became the first major U.S. city to allow amplified Islamic calls to prayer year around. Noise ordinance be damned. This type of practice is not even allowed in most Muslim countries. Why do they do it here? They want to be seen and heard. They want to be on television. They want to rally the troops, which begs the question—if people like Ilhan Omar love their way of life back home, why don’t you just move the hell back? This is our country. Our great-great-grandparents and grandparents built this country. Two hundred and fifty years. This is our birthday, and we do not wanna change to a third-world country. Radical Islam is fundamentally incompatible with the American way of life. We have to start understanding that. It does not work. They do not want it to work.

[Islamists] would like to see every Christian and freedom-loving American to convert to Islam or face death. Not to mention the horrible ways that they regularly abuse women and children. If you’re a man in their cult, you can marry an eight, nine, ten-year-old girl. Do we not understand that this does not fit in our culture? Where [are] the feminists? Where are they at? It’s time to wake up, enough’s enough, or we’re gonna lose our country. The press can call me an ‘Islamophobe’ all they want. I don’t care. It doesn’t make any difference. I love this country. I love what it stands for. I love that it’s a Christian nation and it’s gonna stay that way.

What’s happened to our brethren overseas in Europe? They’ve lost it. They’ve lost their way of life. And to get it back, [do you know] how they’re gonna have to get it back? They’re going to fight on the streets. They’re going to [have to] take it back if they want to take it back. And I don’t know whether their leadership wants that. But by God, we’re not gonna let that happen in our country. We’re not gonna let it get to that point. We’re gonna recognize it, and we’re gonna fight back before that gets to that point.

Thanks to President Trump, he’s made it a priority to stop illegal and even legal third-world [Islamists] from coming into our country. Why do they wanna come here? They don’t wanna come here for a better life. They wanna change our way of life to something else and it does not work that way. We have to make that decision and it’s gonna take a group of people like this to do it. It’s time to stand up. It’s time to be recognized. It’s time to be loud because if we don’t do it in the very near future, we’re gonna look like Europe. We’re gonna look like some of these other countries that have lost their way of life. And we owe it. We owe it to the people that built this country and owe it to our kids and grandkids to save this country from this cult that has taken over. Every second of every day, they’re making progress. And we need to stop that cult as we see it today. Thank you very much.”

MORE:

Tuberville on Radical Islam: “The Enemy is Now Inside the Gates”

Tuberville Introduces Legislation to Ban Sharia Law in the United States

Tuberville on Radical Islam: “The Enemy is Now Inside the Gates”

Tuberville: “Radical Islam is Fundamentally Incompatible with our Western Values”

1819 News: Trump administration places spotlight on Nigerian Christian genocide after Tuberville floor speech

Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

###


Tuberville Speaks with NIH Director About Improving Research Transparency

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) participated in a Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee hearing with the Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. During the hearing, Sen. Tuberville asked Dr. Bhattacharya questions about improving research transparency, gain-of-function research, and ending the use of aborted human fetal tissue in scientific research.

Read Sen. Tuberville’s remarks below or on YouTube or Rumble.

ON FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TRANSPARENCY

TUBERVILLE: “Doctor, thanks for being here today. Thanks for coming to my state of Alabama not too long ago. I hear you had a great visit. And thanks for trying to put the genie back in the bottle on trust in my state. Nobody trusts health care anymore. It’s been a disaster. The four years, five years of COVID has put us in a tailspin. So, thank you for trying to work with that. Hopefully, we can all help you with in that situation because we need to believe in our healthcare system.

NIH is accelerating public access to federally funded research by removing temporary delays known as ‘embargo periods,’ allowing taxpayers to see results sooner, and increasing transparency. Do you think making NIH funding research immediately available would help rebuild trust among Americans who feel science has become politicized or disconnected from the public?”

BHATTACHARYA: “Absolutely, yes. There’s no reason why there should be red tape when American-funded science then is published and then you have to wait to, like, see it. It’s ridiculous. And we’ve ended that, Senator.”

TUBERVILLE: “Thank you.”

ON ENDING USE OF HUMAN FETAL TISSUE IN RESEARCH

TUBERVILLE: “A couple weeks ago, you announced that NIH was ending the use of human fetal tissue from elective abortions and all taxpayer funded research conducted or funded by NIH. I’m grateful that you took action to prevent tax dollars from being used for research that exploits the remains of aborted children. Can you please explain how advances in technology and innovation allow us to conduct lifesaving medical research without having this?”

BHATTACHARYA: “Absolutely, Senator. So, we did an analysis and, actually, even when it was legal during the Biden administration, the use of human fetal tissue had been plummeting because there are better alternatives available that are not ethically conflicted. And, so, we took this action because we wanted to make sure that the fruits of NIH research was morally acceptable to the entire American population.”

TUBERVILLE: “Thank you.”

ON MEDICAL SCHOOL GRANT DISPARITY

TUBERVILLE: “You know, my state has two schools of osteopathic medicine. The funding for osteopathic medicine is .1% of NIH funding, while MD-graining schools are receiving roughly 40%. What’s your thoughts on that disparity between the two?”

BHATTACHARYA: “I think generally that the NIH portfolio of research investments outside are too concentrated in a relatively few institutions. I think it’s like 20% of the top institutions— I’m sorry, .4% of the top institutions get 20% of our funding for extramural research. I’m thinking of ways to broaden the base of that so that it includes a much larger range of ideas, a much larger set of places than is currently where that currently enjoys NIH funding.”

TUBERVILLE: “Thank you.”

ON GAIN-OF-FUNCTION RESEARCH

TUBERVILLE: “And one quick question too. You said earlier that Gain-of-function research was not being funded. Is that just domestically or worldwide?”

BHATTACHARYA: “Well, I don’t have control over all the whole world’s research investments, but I’d love figure out ways—”

TUBERVILLE: “No. But our money, though, our money that we’re investing.”

BHATTACHARYA: “Yeah, we’re not gonna fund any dangerous sort of Gain-of-function. No more futures of research programs in Wuhan, China.”

TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chairman.”

Senator Tommy Tuberville represents Alabama in the United States Senate and is a member of the Senate Armed Services, Agriculture, Veterans’ Affairs, HELP and Aging Committees.

###


Van Hollen Joins Merkley, Senate Budget Democrats in Demanding Hegseth Explain Reasoning for Fully Classifying Spending Plans, Preventing Congressional Oversight

Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, and the Committee’s Democrats in calling on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to explain the Department of Defense’s (DOD) decision to classify its budget reconciliation spending plan — a decision that undermines congressional oversight and accountability. Following passage of the Republican reconciliation bill in July, DOD submitted a fully classified spending plan for $90 billion of the $150 billion appropriated for national security. Congress has yet to receive a spend plan for the remaining $60 billion that was appropriated. Not only is there growing evidence that DOD is not adhering to congressional intent, but absent proper oversight, reconciliation funds could be diverted to unintended purposes.

In the letter, the senators wrote, “The Department has offered no explanation for why the spend plan was classified, even though some items included in H.R. 1, such as barracks improvements or personnel benefit increases, are not sensitive. It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification. In prior years, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spend plans, while other defense budget materials were provided in unclassified form or with classified appendices as appropriate. The current approach deviates sharply from long-standing practice and raises serious questions about DOD’s rationale.”

“This decision also comes amid broader transparency concerns. The Pentagon has adopted new restrictions on communication with Congress and the press, further limiting oversight and undermining public accountability. Combined with the unprecedented classification of the reconciliation spend plan, these steps raise doubts about whether Congress is receiving the information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities,” the senators continued.

In addition to Van Hollen and Merkley, the letter was signed by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.).

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Secretary Hegseth:

We write to express significant concern regarding the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) decision to classify its budget reconciliation spending plan. Classifying the spending plan undermines congressional oversight and accountability. Even at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense appropriation spend plans were not fully classified.

When H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), passed the House and was transmitted to the Senate, it included Section 20014, requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed spending plan within 45 days of enactment and to provide an annual expenditure report beginning one year after enactment. Although the Senate Parliamentarian later determined Section 20014 to be non-budgetary, Democrats were willing to retain the language, but Republicans voluntarily removed it. The fact that Congress previously sought this reporting underscores the importance of transparency in reconciliation budgeting.

Following enactment of H.R. 1, the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees issued informal programmatic guidance tables outlining congressional intent and requested that DOD submit a detailed spending plan by August 22, 2025 which adhered to that intent, even though such a legislative requirement would have been challengeable under budget reconciliation procedures. Senate Chairman Roger Wicker subsequently pressed military nominees and officials to publicly commit to adhering to that intent. Although DOD missed the deadline, media reports indicate DOD provided a classified spending plan to the defense committees covering roughly $90 billion of the $150 billion appropriated for national security.

The Department has offered no explanation for why the spend plan was classified, even though some items included in H.R. 1, such as barracks improvements or personnel benefit increases, are not sensitive. It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification. In prior years, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spend plans, while other defense budget materials were provided in unclassified form or with classified appendices as appropriate. The current approach deviates sharply from long-standing practice and raises serious questions about DOD’s rationale.

This decision also comes amid broader transparency concerns. The Pentagon has adopted new restrictions on communication with Congress and the press, further limiting oversight and undermining public accountability. Combined with the unprecedented classification of the reconciliation spend plan, these steps raise doubts about whether Congress is receiving the information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities.

In addition, there are indications that reconciliation funds may have been used for purposes not contemplated by law, including paying troops during the recent lapse in appropriations and providing a one-time bonus payment. Such uses appear contrary to congressional intent, which envisioned reconciliation funding as a tool for specific programmatic needs rather than a slush fund for the President’s ad hoc priorities. This underscores the risk that, absent robust transparency, reconciliation funds may be diverted to unintended purposes.

In fact, classifying the spending plan for H.R. 1 risks further turning reconciliation funding into a slush fund—undermining public confidence and risking wasteful spending—since Congress cannot adequately exercise its oversight role.

As members of the Senate Budget Committee, which has jurisdiction over the reconciliation process, and to support appropriate oversight and ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars, we request answers to the following questions by February 20, 2026:

1. What is DOD’s justification for classifying the spending plan?

2. Funding for specific classified programs was not included in the reconciliation bill. Are any classified programs receiving funding through reconciliation?

3. Will DOD commit to providing relevant committees of jurisdiction access to the complete spending plan, including all classified and unclassified materials?

4. Will the reconciliation spending plan be incorporated into the FY2027 budget request?

5. Why did DOD transmit a spend plan for $90 billion but not the remaining $60 billion? What factors contributed to the development and transmittal of only a partial spend plan?

6. When does the Department plan to submit a spend plan for the remaining $60 billion? Will any subsequent partial spend plan also be classified, and if so, why?

Should you believe that any portion of your reply must be provided in classified form, please coordinate with the committee to ensure proper handling.

Congress cannot forfeit its constitutional role in overseeing the defense budget. Transparency is not optional; it is the foundation of accountability. We strongly urge the Department to reconsider this approach and provide Congress with comprehensive, appropriately marked spending plans without delay.

Sincerely,


Van Hollen Joins Warren, Colleagues in Pushing for Expedited Probe of ICE’s Violence Upon Confirmed Investigation

Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen joined Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), along with Representatives Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), and a group of colleagues in pressing the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) to expedite its investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents' use of force. The Congressional push follows violent ICE operations in Minneapolis that resulted in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti last month, in addition to reports of ICE agents using increasingly aggressive tactics and entering homes without a warrant.

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have gotten out of control, using needlessly violent force against community members who are exercising their First Amendment rights and pose no threat,” the lawmakers wrote.

The DHS OIG is responsible for conducting independent oversight of the agency to identify instances of misconduct and reporting findings directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress. Since the start of the Trump Administration, ICE’s tactics have become increasingly aggressive, with reports and bystander videos showing immigration agents placing people in chokeholds during arrests, tackling people to the ground, releasing tear gas and flashbang grenades at close range, smashing windows and breaking doors, and brandishing guns.

Last month, these aggressive tactics led to the shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens: a mother named Renée Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti.

“These events underscore the urgent need for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General to conduct an expeditious review of ICE’s and Customs and Border Protection’s brutal tactics and share its findings with Congress and the public as soon as possible,” the lawmakers continued.

OIG audits typically take over a year to complete, even as ICE continues to cause severe harm on the ground. Given the urgency — and the growing risk to public safety and civil rights — the lawmakers urged OIG to expedite its audit, provide interim briefings and preliminary findings to Congress, and use escalation tools — including Management Alerts and 7-day letters — if ICE refuses to comply with OIG’s data access requests.

Recent comments from the Trump administration raise concerns that ICE agents are being told to behave illegally when conducting immigration enforcement. President Trump has consistently downplayed ICE agents’ actions, claiming that it is “inevitable” that agents will be “too rough” and “make mistakes sometimes,” while White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has suggested that ICE agents have blanket “federal immunity” when carrying out their duties. DHS recently circulated an internal memo advising agents that they could enter homes without a judicial warrant in certain circumstances.

“Given the urgency of this situation — with communities facing severe, and sometimes fatal, harm from ICE’s tactics on American streets every day — we request that your office conduct this review expeditiously and share any preliminary findings with Congress and the public on an expedited basis,” the lawmakers wrote.

The lawmakers also requested that, as part of this review, the OIG provide answers to a series of questions on ICE’s and CBP’s practices, including use-of-force claims, use of warrants in arrests, detentions and arrests of American citizens, recruitment, vetting, and training, and their process for handling professional misconduct.

In addition to Van Hollen, Warren, and Markey, the letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Representatives Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Madeline Dean (D-Pa.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Al Green (D-Texas), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Bill Keating (D-Mass.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), and James Walkinshaw (D-Va.).

The full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Inspector General Cuffari:

We write following horrific videos, witness statements, and other reports of masked immigration agents using aggressive force in communities across America. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have gotten out of control, using needlessly violent force against community members who are exercising their First Amendment rights and pose no threat. Reporting and bystander videos indicate that immigration agents have placed people in chokeholds during arrests, tackled people to the ground, released tear gas and flash-bang grenades at close range, smashed windows and broken doors, drawn guns, and most alarmingly, shot and killed two U.S. citizens, a mother named Renée Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti this month alone. These events underscore the urgent need for the Department of

Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) to conduct an expeditious review of ICE’s and Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) brutal tactics and share its findings with Congress and the public as soon as possible.

On June 11, 2025, members of Congress requested that you conduct an investigation into ICE’s aggressive use of force. The OIG initially responded that DHS was “in a better position” to answer our questions. Seven months later, after a slew of reports of brutal ICE raids throughout the country, on January 8, 2026, the OIG announced a new audit to “determine whether ICE investigates allegations of excessive use of force and holds personnel accountable in accordance with applicable Federal laws, DHS policies, and ICE directives.”

The OIG also announced audits into DHS’s processes for determining U.S. citizenship during enforcement operations and into CBP’s interior enforcement.

While we are pleased that the OIG is investigating these matters, we are concerned about the OIG’s timeline for completing this audit. DHS OIG’s standard benchmark is to complete audits within 397 days, and the Government Accountability Office recently found that the OIG is not even meeting that goal on a consistent basis. Given the urgency of this situation — with communities facing severe, and sometimes fatal, harm from ICE’s tactics on American streets every day — we request that your office conduct this review expeditiously and share any preliminary findings with Congress and the public on an expedited basis.

Furthermore, we request that you use all proactive tools available to immediately put Congress, the American public, and DHS itself on notice about any urgent issues you uncover. Such tools could include issuing a Management Alert “to inform senior DHS managers of significant matters that may pose a serious, imminent threat” to the safety and health of communities and sending a 7-day letter to Congress if ICE or CBP refuses to comply with the OIG’s data access requests.

Since our June 11 letter, ICE’s enforcement actions have escalated sharply, sparking public outcry and underscoring the need for rapid and rigorous oversight by the OIG. For instance, reports describe an incident in St. Paul, Minnesota in which federal immigration agents allegedly forced entry into the home of a longtime U.S. citizen without a warrant, detained him at gunpoint, and led him outside in sub-freezing weather wearing only underwear and a blanket, before later confirming his citizenship and releasing him “an hour or two later.” In addition, immigration agents have allegedly used dangerous neck restraints and chokehold-like techniques during arrests, including in encounters involving U.S. citizens and minors. Immigration agents are using chemical sprays on peaceful protestors, breaking car windows, and dragging citizens out of their cars. Most tragically, federal immigration agents fatally shot Renée Nicole Good during a large-scale enforcement operation in Minneapolis and, just days later, shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, in another Minneapolis encounter — appalling and preventable incidents that underscore the urgent need for rapid, independent oversight.

Yet, the Trump Administration has done nothing to rein ICE in. Instead, President Trump has shrugged these atrocities off, saying immigration agents are inevitably going to be “too rough” and “make mistakes sometimes,” while White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has incorrectly suggested to ICE officers that they have blanket “federal immunity” when carrying out their duties. Meanwhile, DHS recently circulated an internal memorandum advising immigration officers that they may assert broad authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant in certain circumstances, raising concerns that enforcement personnel are being instructed to operate outside of their constitutional limits.

Accordingly, we ask that the OIG complete these audits as expeditiously as possible, issue public findings on an emergency basis, and keep our offices apprised of any significant preliminary observations — including through interim updates or briefings — particularly where the OIG identifies urgent deficiencies implicating public safety or compliance with constitutional protections.

Due to the recent string of violent attacks by ICE and CBP in American cities, we ask that the DHS OIG, as part of its ongoing reviews, seek to provide answers to the following questions, along with the questions in our prior letters that have not been answered:

Use of Force

1. Please confirm whether the fatal shootings of Renée Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, and other shooting victims since January 20, 2025 are within the scope of any of the OIG’s existing audits and, if not within scope, explain whether the OIG will conduct a separate targeted review or issue interim recommendations related to those shootings. If not, please explain why.

2. How many use-of-force claims has the OIG elected to investigate since January 20, 2025, and how many has it declined to investigate?

3. What guidance, authorization, or other instructions (regardless of how they are communicated) have ICE and CBP agents been given about permissible uses of force? Do these instructions differ from DHS’s published Policy on the Use of Force in effect prior to January 20, 2025? Please provide a copy of all iterations of use-of-force guidelines that have been in effect for ICE and CBP agents at any time since January 20, 2025, including those currently in effect.

a. What are ICE’s and CBP’s operational standards for using less-than-lethal devices like pepper ball guns, tasers, teargas canisters, etc.? Please provide a copy of those instructions, policies and guidance.

b. Please describe how agents are being instructed on use of force during trainings and preparations for enforcement surges?

4. How many use-of-force complaints have been filed directly through the OIG’s hotline since January 20, 2025?

5. Does the OIG currently have access to ICE and CBP databases used to track use of force and other claims involving ICE and CBP personnel? How many use-of-force claims have been logged in those databases since January 20, 2025?

Warrants

1. Please provide the breakdown of the percentages of ICE arrests since January 20, 2025 that were performed with: a judicial warrant; an administrative warrant; no warrant. Please provide the same breakdown for each of the three years before January 20, 2025.

2. What is DHS’s legal justification for suggesting that an administrative warrant satisfies the Fourth Amendment protection against unauthorized entry into a residence without a signed judicial warrant?

a. How has DHS’s policy regarding searches and seizures at residences changed since January 20, 2025? Please provide a copy of any instructions or guidance currently in effect on this subject.

3. Since January 20, 2025, how many times have DHS personnel entered individuals’ homes based on only an administrative warrant?

a. How many of those incidents resulted in DHS personnel arresting a U.S. citizen?

Detentions and Arrests of Citizens

1. With respect to the OIG’s citizenship determination review:

a. What is DHS’s current process for verifying citizenship during enforcement operations?

b. What safeguards exist to prevent wrongful arrests and detentions of citizens?

c. What metrics will the OIG use to evaluate whether ICE is improving its handling of encounters with U.S. citizens?

2. How many U.S. citizens have been arrested, detained, or ordered deported since January 20, 2025?

a. Of those, how many were detained based on an incorrect assessment of their immigration status, and how many were detained for allegedly impeding law enforcement officers?

b. Of those detained for alleged criminal offenses, how many has DHS referred to DOJ for prosecution? How many of those cases has DOJ declined to prosecute?

3. What is the average length of detention for someone detained for immigration enforcement purposes and later determined to be a U.S. citizen?

4. Please describe and provide ICE’s and CBP’s policies governing collateral arrests and encounters with bystanders. How does DHS track and remediate collateral arrests based on mistaken identities or other factors? How have these policies changed since January 20, 2025?

Recruitment, Vetting, and Training

1. Please describe ICE’s and CBP’s current hiring standards, background check/vetting process, and onboarding process, and any ways in which those standards and processes have changed since January 20, 2025.

a. How many ICE and CBP agents hired since January 20, 2025 underwent an expedited or abbreviated hiring process? How many were hired with no background check or an abbreviated background check? Please provide the same data for the year prior to January 20, 2025.

b. What vetting is conducted to identify whether ICE and CBP applicants have prior criminal convictions, misconduct, extremist affiliations, or involvement in incidents resulting in use-of-force complaints or civil rights violations?

i. How many applicants with a record of such conduct have been accepted as new CBP or ICE hires since January 20, 2025? Please provide a breakdown for each type of record.

ii. Have any vetting requirements been waived or narrowed since January 20, 2025?

c. Have any hiring practices changed to proactively recruit people with particular political affiliations?

d. How (if at all) is artificial intelligence used in the process of screening and vetting applicants for ICE and CBP?

2. Please describe the training, guidance, or other instructions that ICE and CBP agents receive regarding use of force, deescalation, crowd control, and constitutional rights, including related to encounters with bystanders, journalists, legal observers, and individuals recording enforcement activity. Please explain the trainings’ length, format, and topics covered, and provide copies of such materials currently in use.

a. What are ICE’s and CBP’s training materials, guidance, or other instructions (regardless of how they are communicated) regarding responding to activities protected by the First Amendment, including protections for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of association? Please provide a copy of any such materials.

3. Please describe the training, guidance, or other instructions that ICE and CBP agents receive related to body-worn cameras, including requirements for camera activation, deactivation, footage retention, and supervisory review?

a. Have ICE or CBP modified their body-worn camera policies or practices since January 20, 2025? If so, please describe those changes and provide copies of any updated guidance.

4. Please describe the training, guidance, or other instructions that ICE and CBP agents receive related to interactions with motor vehicles, including where agents should position themselves in relation to vehicles and how agents may and may not attempt to remove occupants from vehicles. Please describe how these instructions have changed since January 20, 2025, and provide a copy of any such materials.

5. Please describe how agents are instructed, incentivized or otherwise encouraged to meet enforcement quotas, and how such guidance has changed since January 20, 2025.

6. Please describe the training, guidance, or other instructions that ICE and CBP agents receive related to enforcement actions at sensitive locations (schools, hospitals, courthouses, places of worship)?

Investigative Processes & Responding to Misconduct

1. Please evaluate ICE’s and CBP’s handling of professional misconduct matters involving their agents. As part of this reply, please include an evaluation of the following questions related to CBP’s Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR), which has assessed the killing of Alex Pretti.

a. How many complaints has CBP’s OPR received since January 1, 2025? How many of those complaints are currently open and how many have been resolved?

b. What is the typical length of time CBP OPR takes to resolve complaints, and does OPR have any maximum length of time in which it must resolve a complaint?

c. What is OPR’s process for determining which complaints to investigate and for internally resolving complaints?

d. What is OPR’s current staffing level and how many OPR members, if any, have been detailed to other DHS components?

2. Has the OIG faced difficulty accessing any ICE or CBP databases in the course of its audits and investigations since January 20, 2025? Please describe any database access issues.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter. We look forward to your response.

Sincerely,


Warner, Banking Committee Democrats Demand Chairman Scott Delay Warsh Nomination Hearing Until Sham Investigations Against Fed Board Members are Closed

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and all ten of his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs sent a letter to Chairman Tim Scott calling on him to delay the nomination hearing of President Trump’s Fed Nominee, Kevin Warsh, until all pretextual investigations against current Federal Reserve Board members are closed. In addition to Sen. Warner, signers of the letter to Scott include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tina Smith (D-MN), Raphael Wanock (D-GA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).

“The (Warsh) nomination comes after months of repeated efforts by President Trump and his Administration to influence the Fed by intimidation, including by opening criminal investigations into Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. These ongoing efforts by the President to control the Fed - which must be able to exercise independent judgment - undermine public confidence in any nomination for chair at this time,” wrote the Banking Committee Democrats.

The Banking Committee Democrats continued, “We demand that you delay any nomination proceedings for Mr. Warsh until after the pretextual criminal investigations involving Chair Powell and Governor Cook have been closed.”

The senators wrote, “The Administration’s apparent effort to seize control of the Fed through criminal prosecutions is dangerous and unprecedented. It would be absurd on its face to allow President Trump to handpick the next Chair of the Federal Reserve as his Department of Justice actively pursues criminal investigations of not one, but two sitting members of the Federal Reserve Board. This Committee should not participate in this farcical effort that threatens to undermine our democracy and confidence in our financial markets.”

Read the full letter here.

###


Warnock, Colleagues Ring Alarm on Voting Rights Following FBI’s Fulton County Elections Raid

Amid an endless avalanche of legally dubious actions taken by the Trump Administration, new oversight effort led by Senator Warnock is demanding answers from the Department of Justice (DOJ) regarding the FBI’s raid of Fulton County’s elections center

Senator Reverend Warnock is leading the oversight effort and is joined by Representatives Nikema Williams (D-GA-05) and Lucy McBath (D-GA-06)

In a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Senator Warnock and the congresswomen expressed grave concerns on the FBI’s raid and requested an immediate briefing

Senator Warnock and lawmakers: “As the elected representatives of the voters of Fulton County, we write with grave concerns regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) activity with respect to the 2020 election ballots of Fulton County voters and request an immediate briefing on this matter from the U.S. Department of Justice”

ICYMI from The Guardian: Georgia Democrats call for inquiry into Gabbard’s presence at Fulton county search

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-GA), alongside U.S. Representatives Nikema Williams (D-GA-05) and Lucy McBath (D-GA-06), are demanding answers and an immediate briefing from the Department of Justice (DOJ) following last week’s FBI raid of the Fulton County elections center. The FBI’s raid follows a yearslong vendetta against Georgia officials and voters after President Trump lost the state in the 2020 election. The president has continued to maintain baseless conspiracies surrounding the outcome of the 2020 election.

“We are deeply concerned that President Trump’s consistent spreading of misinformation and dangerous conspiracy theories about the 2020 election fundamentally undermines the electoral process, endangers election workers, and erodes public trust in our democracy. This unprecedented seizure only heightens those concerns.”

The lawmakers continued: “Given these concerns, we request that your office provide an immediate briefing to our offices concerning this activity and its related investigation.”

In the new oversight letter sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi, Senator Warnock and the lawmakers highlighted their expectations of full compliance with federal law and regulations concerning the handling of evidence. If the FBI’s raid conducted at the behest of the president’s grievances was not suspicious enough, additional eyebrows were raised concerning the presence of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on the ground in Fulton County at the time of the operation. Senator Warnock and his colleagues are seeking “an explanation for why Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard was at the scene of the FBI activity on January 28, 2026, and whether the Trump administration is investigating a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus, which would legally require immediate Congressional briefing.”

A copy of the letter can be found HERE and text is below:

Dear Attorney General Bondi,

As the elected representatives of the voters of Fulton County, we write with grave concerns regarding the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) activity with respect to the 2020 election ballots of Fulton County voters and request an immediate briefing on this matter from the U.S. Department of Justice.

On January 28, 2026, the FBI executed a criminal search warrant at the Fulton County Election Hub and Operation Center in Union City, Georgia, seeking records related to the 2020 Presidential election. Unusually, the warrant was filed by the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri and follows the reported firing of the Atlanta FBI Special Agent in Charge Paul Brown after expressing concern about this search.

The 2020 Presidential election in Fulton County and throughout the state of Georgia has been repeatedly recognized as accurate and secure—including by your predecessor during the first Trump administration, Attorney General William Barr. This conclusion, as one of us has already noted, follows multiple counts of the ballots and numerous investigations by election officials and judges. Nevertheless, President Trump continues to falsely allege that the 2020 election was “rigged,” threatening that individuals “will soon be prosecuted for what they did.”

We are deeply concerned that President Trump’s consistent spreading of misinformation and dangerous conspiracy theories about the 2020 election fundamentally undermines the electoral process, endangers election workers, and erodes public trust in our democracy. This unprecedented seizure only heightens those concerns.

We expect your full compliance with federal law and regulations concerning the handling of evidence and full transparency on their application to the records at issue here. This includes an explanation for why Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard was at the scene of the FBI activity on January 28, 2026, and whether the Trump administration is investigating a legitimate foreign intelligence nexus, which would legally require immediate Congressional briefing.

Given these concerns, we request that your office provide a briefing to our offices concerning this activity and its related investigation by February 13, 2026.


Warren Calls For Trump Administration To Act As New START Expires, Warns Of Nuclear Arms Race

The U.S.-Russia arms control treaty is set to expire in two days.

Former New START negotiator confirmed that walking away from arms control negotiations on Russia’s nuclear arsenal would make China less likely to engage in limiting its nuclear arsenal.

Warren: “It is a mistake to let New START expire and to walk away from an agreement that gives us valuable intelligence information. We need to do better.”

Video of Exchange (YouTube)

Washington, D.C. — At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) raised concerns about the imminent expiration of the last bilateral arms control agreement with Russia. New START, which limits the number of deployed nuclear warheads and has provided insight into the Russian arsenal, reducing guesswork for U.S. military planning, is set to expire this week.

After the height of the Cold War, the U.S. worked to prevent a nuclear arms race through arms control agreements, including negotiating New START with Russia. The New START agreement facilitated data exchanges between the U.S. and Russia and allowed American inspectors to be on the ground at Russian nuclear facilities to verify compliance with the treaty’s limitations. On February 5, the U.S.-Russian agreement is set to expire. While Russia proposed an option of mutually observing New START limits for an additional year, the Trump administration has not responded or pushed for a stronger extension that includes vital verification tools to prevent Russia from cheating.

Senator Warren slammed the potential expiration of the agreement, saying, “The Trump administration has been unwilling to use U.S. economic, diplomatic, and military leverage to advance an agreement that would restore verification and help keep Americans safe.”

When questioned if New START strengthens transparency and predictability with Russia, Admiral (ret.) Charles A. Richard, the former Commander of U.S. Strategic Command, confirmed the vital importance of arms control agreements for national security and strategic deterrence.

Before the suspension of verification by Russia during its war of aggression with Ukraine, New START enabled over 25,000 notification exchanges on the status of both countries’ nuclear weapons and over 300 on-site inspections of nuclear facilities. While the State Department’s annual compliance report indicates that Russia says it is complying with New START limits, it also says it cannot confirm compliance without verification tools. Ms. Rose E. Gottemoeller, former chief negotiator for New START, agreed that verification should be included in a new arms control deal, testifying that “on-site inspection is vital.”

Senator Warren also questioned Ms. Gottemoeller on whether the U.S. ending restraints on Russia’s nuclear arsenal would make China more likely to engage in arms control negotiations.

Ms. Gottemoeller said, “[T]he Chinese will only come to the table if the United States is engaging with Russia.”

Senator Warren stressed the importance of negotiating a new and strong arms treaty: “The United States should be using its position now and using all of its economic and diplomatic powers to try to get Russia to the table, ultimately, to try to get China to the table. I think it is a mistake to let New START expire and to walk away from an agreement that gives us valuable intelligence information. We need to do better.”

Transcript: Hearings to examine strategic competition in an unconstrained, post-New START Treaty environment.Senate Armed Services CommitteeFebruary 3, 2026

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is hard to imagine the destruction that nuclear war would bring, and that's why the U.S. has worked to prevent a nuclear arms race through arms control agreements, including negotiating New START with Russia. But this week's expiration of New START pushes the world closer to the edge.

These are agreements that facilitate data exchanges and put American inspectors on the ground at Russian nuclear facilities. That verification has provided years of insight into things like the number of warheads on each Russian missile, reducing guesswork on our military planning. And I think we can all agree, nobody wants to be guessing with nukes.

Russia suspended verification during its war of aggression against Ukraine but recently has expressed interest in extending the tenets of New START. However, the Trump administration has been unwilling to use U.S. economic, diplomatic, and military leverage to advance an agreement that would restore verification and help keep Americans safe.

Admiral Richard, you were the commander of U.S. Strategic Command. Do arms control agreements like New START strengthen transparency and predictability with Russia?

Admiral (ret.) Charles A. Richard: Senator, as I testified back when I was on active duty, arms control agreements that involve all parties, which in this case would include China, Russia and the United States, include all weapons, all types of weapons, and have verification mechanisms like you just described, with consequences for failing to uphold the agreement, do enhance strategic deterrence and national security.

Senator Warren: Thank you. The State Department knows why these verification regimes are important. It said in its annual report that it cannot confirm Russian compliance without on-site inspections, and that this kind of verification permits. Inspectors can conduct short-notice surprise visits, look at things like how many warheads are on a missile.

Without that visit, we might get lucky—we might be able to spot one from a satellite, but we wouldn't know if it could hit one target or multiple targets, and that means we're guessing. We usually have to assume the worst, and our enemies do the same. And before you know it, we are in a more dangerous arms race.

Ms. Gottemoeller, you were the chief negotiator for New START and then responsible for doing the annual compliance reports. If we lose verification due to New START's lapse, can current intelligence capabilities fully plug that hole?

Honorable Rose E. Gottemoeller: Ma'am, the New START monitoring regime, verification regime, has not been implemented since February of 2023. You mentioned that in your remarks. And so we have been dependent on our national technical means of verification. I couple that—I marry that—with a compliance report that is now coming out of the Department of State, where they say that, essentially, they see that the New START limits continue to be maintained by the Russian Federation. Now they have raised a concern about whether the Russians might be going over the operationally deployed warhead limit. But that is a concern. They haven't been able to confirm that. And I'll be frank with you, I do think that it may be associated with the so-called deployed and undeployed launcher limit. We have an undeployed launcher, a possibility where, if they were notifying us, they could tell us that they were removing certain platforms, SSBMs, for example, from deployment. And therefore, that would account for if there is some kind of differential in the number of deployed warheads.

So, I just use this as an example to say that these negotiated verification measures are really important. Its on-site inspection is vital. But with our ability to notify each other of exactly what we're doing, and we did that under New START, there were 25,000 notifications of the movements of our strategic forces exchanged on a regular basis.

Senator Warren: Thank you. I appreciate that. And I want to slip in one more question quickly, if I can, and that is, if the U.S. gives up on restraining Russia's nuclear arsenal through a new deal, does that make China more or less likely to come to the table?

Ms. Gottemoeller: I think the Chinese will only come to the table if the United States is engaging with Russia, in my opinion.

Senator Warren: Okay, that's very helpful. Thank you. You know, the United States should be using its position now and using all of its economic and diplomatic powers to try to get Russia to the table, ultimately, to try to get China to the table. I think it is a mistake to let New START expire and to walk away from an agreement that gives us valuable intelligence information. We need to do better.

###


Warren, Lawmakers Push for Expedited Probe of ICE’s Violence After Watchdog Confirms Investigation

Lawmakers urge independent Inspector General to fast-track investigation following horrific videos, witness statements, reports of masked immigration agents using aggressive force in communities across America

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Ed Markey (D-Mass.), along with Representatives Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), and Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), led colleagues in pressing the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) to expedite its investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents' use of force. The Congressional push follows violent ICE operations in Minneapolis that resulted in the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti last month, in addition to reports of ICE agents using increasingly aggressive tactics and entering homes without a warrant.

Other signers include: Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), along with Representatives Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Katherine Clark (D-Mass.), Madeline Dean (D-Pa.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Al Green (D-Texas), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Bill Keating (D-Mass.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Scott Peters (D-Calif.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), and James Walkinshaw (D-Va.).

“Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents have gotten out of control, using needlessly violent force against community members who are exercising their First Amendment rights and pose no threat,” wrote the lawmakers.

The DHS OIG is responsible for conducting independent oversight of the agency to identify instances of misconduct and reporting findings directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and Congress. Since the start of the Trump Administration, ICE’s tactics have become increasingly aggressive, with reports and bystander videos showing immigration agents placing people in chokeholds during arrests, tackling people to the ground, releasing tear gas and flashbang grenades at close range, smashing windows and breaking doors, and brandishing guns.

Last month, these aggressive tactics led to the shooting deaths of two U.S. citizens: a mother named Renée Good and ICU nurse Alex Pretti.

“These events underscore the urgent need for the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Inspector General to conduct an expeditious review of ICE’s and Customs and Border Protection’s brutal tactics and share its findings with Congress and the public as soon as possible,” wrote the lawmakers.

In June 2025, Senator Warren and lawmakers pressed the DHS OIG to open an investigation into ICE’s aggressive enforcement operations and answer key oversight questions. On January 8, 2026, OIG announced a new audit along the lines of the lawmakers’ request “to determine whether ICE investigates allegations of excessive use of force and holds personnel accountable” consistent with federal law and DHS and ICE policies. Since the lawmakers’ June letter, the OIG also initiated five other audits into DHS’s practices, including DHS processes for determining U.S. citizenship during enforcement operations and CBP interior enforcement.

But OIG audits typically take over a year to complete, even as ICE continues to cause severe harm on the ground. Given the urgency — and the growing risk to public safety and civil rights — the lawmakers urged OIG to expedite its audit, provide interim briefings and preliminary findings to Congress, and use escalation tools — including Management Alerts and 7-day letters — if ICE refuses to comply with OIG’s data access requests.

Recent comments from the Trump administration raise concerns that ICE agents are being told to behave illegally when conducting immigration enforcement. President Trump has consistently downplayed ICE agents’ actions, claiming that it is “inevitable” that agents will be “too rough” and “make mistakes sometimes,” while White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has suggested that ICE agents have blanket “federal immunity” when carrying out their duties. DHS recently circulated an internal memo advising agents that they could enter homes without a judicial warrant in certain circumstances.

“Given the urgency of this situation — with communities facing severe, and sometimes fatal, harm from ICE’s tactics on American streets every day — we request that your office conduct this review expeditiously and share any preliminary findings with Congress and the public on an expedited basis,” wrote the lawmakers.

The lawmakers also requested that, as part of this review, the OIG provide answers to a series of questions on ICE’s and CBP’s practices, including use-of-force claims, use of warrants in arrests, detentions and arrests of American citizens, recruitment, vetting, and training, and their process for handling professional misconduct.

###


Warren, Wyden, Sanders Announce New Investigation into Equifax’s Plan to Profit from Trump’s So-Called Work Requirements in Medicaid, SNAP

Equifax CEO calls new work requirements “a big positive” for the company as it holds a near monopoly on employment verification services

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Development Committee; Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee; and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, announced a new investigation today into Equifax’s reported plan to profit off of so-called work requirements in Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which will rip away health care and food assistance from millions of Americans.

As a result of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, states will need to verify the work, volunteer, and/or school attendance status of tens of millions of low-income adults to determine their eligibility for Medicaid and SNAP. However, experience indicates that these new requirements will not increase employment - but will cost millions of Americans their eligibility for benefits.

“[This move] will ensure more Americans get tangled up in red tape and lose essential health care coverage and food assistance as a result. That these requirements could allow Equifax to profiteer off of this ‘solution’ make them even more egregious,” warned the senators.

Equifax, a dominant player in the employment verification market, “borders on a monopoly,” with about half of states using the company’s database, Work Number, to access employment and income data and automate the eligibility verification process for public assistance programs.

“Equifax’s long history of anti-competitive behavior raises serious concerns about the company’s potential moves to price gouge states and taxpayers,” wrote the senators.

By entering into multi-year exclusive deals with large payroll software providers and employers, Equifax is able to deny competitors access to critical data inputs. Reports show that due to these exclusive contracts, Equifax has effectively disabled competitors from acquiring income information. In January 2025, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau further fined Equifax $15 million for failing to sufficiently investigate consumer-reported errors in its credit reports.

Equifax also has a record of using its dominance in the industry to force price hikes on states where they hold contracts. For example, Equifax increased its per-query rates by 126% in Colorado, 120% in Kansas, 95% in North Carolina, and 69% in Connecticut over four years. In 2024, the St. Louis Housing Authority, which had used Work Number since 2019, sued Equifax over unjustified price increases. In response, Equifax cited a clause in their contract that gave it the “categorical right” to change prices with 30 days’ notice.

“Equifax appears poised to squeeze states even more thanks to President Trump and Republicans’ new red-tape requirements…States will have to depend even more on Equifax to verify employment data, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill for Equifax’s giant price hikes,” the senators concluded.

The senators asked Equifax to commit to removing contractual language allowing the company to price gouge taxpayers, share its plan to prevent and fix errors that cause people to lose their benefits, and disclose lobbying expenditures in support of work requirements. The senators requested a response by February 16, 2026.

###


In Judiciary Hearing, Welch Warns About Costs to Creative Community if Netflix Acquires Warner Bros. Discovery

Welch calls on Netflix CEO to ensure fair competition for creators if proposed merger with Warner Bros. Discovery prevails

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Antitrust, Competition Policy, and Consumer Rights, today questioned executives of Netflix and Warner Bros. Discovery, Inc. (WBD) about how their proposed merger could negatively impact America’s creative community. Senator Welch underscored the importance of protecting fair competition practices to ensure creators, writers, and producers can continue to share unique content with consumers.

“The big concern I have is: what’s the impact on the creative community? If this merger goes through, [Netflix will] be huge, and the folks that are creating content will have to come to you. And it’s hard to see how—with fewer outlets for a person or creators who have something special to present to the American people—if they have fewer options it’s going to suppress creative content,” said Senator Welch to Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos.

Watch Senator Welch’s full remarks below:

Read key excerpts from Senator Welch’s exchanges with Warner Bros. Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer Bruce Campbell and Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos:

Senator Welch: “What I understand is that the Writers Guild of America, after the Warner Bros.-Discovery merger in 2022, the merge firm cancelled and wrote off about $2 billion in content. That’s true, right?”

Warner Bros. Chief Revenue and Strategy Officer Bruce Campbell: “After the merger there was a significant write-off. That merger included a significant amount of debt being put on the combined companies. So, at least initially, we had some meaningful financial considerations. Since that time, we have invested significantly in content, and our content investment has grown every year.”

Senator Welch: “This is really the question that I need to be answered. I think it’s incredibly important that we have more content, not less. I think it’s incredibly important that we have creators and writers and producers having an opportunity to get their story to us to try to get the benefit of stories that are told to America about our own experience. It’s just hard for me to understand how if there are fewer buyers—where there is less opportunity for competition—it’s going to result in more content. You’re telling me I’m wrong?”

…

Senator Welch: “You know, there’s something wonderful in the culture of a good company, right? And Warner Bros. has done extraordinary things. But it’s really—as I understood it—been really committed to movies, and creating incredible movies. Netflix is astonishing in what it’s done out of nothing. It creates streaming, which is very, very popular—all of us use it. But if [Netflix] is going to be in charge of Warner Bros., you’d like to say that nothing will change. But don’t we usually hear that anytime there’s a big merger? That nothing will change, and it’ll all be better? So, prove it.”

Netflix Co-CEO Ted Sarandos: “Senator Welch, I’d like to explain that, because as I said earlier today, most media mergers have fared poorly—I agree…This media merger will be different than any of the others because we actually need these people, we need those movies, we need those series. So, we’re going to keep them all operating, and I want them to compete with one another, just as if we didn’t own them.”

…

Senator Welch has led bipartisan efforts to protect the arts and artists’ creativity in the Senate. In December, Senators Welch and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) introduced the Visual Artists Copyright Reform Act (VACRA), bipartisan legislation to modernize copyright registration for visual artists and make it easier for high-volume visual artists to register and protect their works. Senators Welch and Blackburn also reintroduced their bipartisan Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act, legislation to help musicians, artists, writers, and others access the courts to protect their copyrighted works if, and when, they are used to train generative AI models.

###


Chairman Wicker Leads SASC Hearing on Strategic Competition in a Post-New START Treaty Environment

Watch Video Here

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Roger Wicker, R-Miss., Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today led a hearing to receive testimony and examine the dynamics of strategic competition post-New START.

Admiral (ret.) Charles A. Richard, USN, the former Commander of United States Strategic Command, the honorable Rose E. Gottemoeller, Hoover Institution Research Fellow, Stanford University, and Mr. Timothy A. Morrison, Former Deputy Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs all appeared before the committee.

During his opening remarks, Chairman Wicker emphasized the changes in the current threat environment from China’s unprecedented nuclear buildup and the reality of how Vladimir Putin exploited the New START Treaty to extend Russia’s nuclear advantage.

Read Chairman Wicker’s hearing opening statement as delivered.

The committee meets this morning to explore how the United States can prepare for and effectively compete in a multi-polar world unconstrained by any limitations on nuclear forces.

The New START Treaty was negotiated in a bygone era, 15 years ago. In 2010, the idea of abolishing nuclear weapons seemed an attainable goal to some. For a while, the treaty did provide a degree of transparency and predictability between the United States and Russia on the two countries’ nuclear forces—that is, until Vladimir Putin decided that compliance with Russia’s obligations were no longer in his interest. That should be instructive, I would add, regarding any promises that he might be trying to make during this year.

Now, 15 years after the treaty was signed, we face an assortment of threats far more complicated and dangerous than anyone foresaw in 2010.

Today, the Putin dictatorship commands the world’s largest nuclear arsenal, and he is developing new weapons designed to exploit our most vulnerable points. Despite conventional losses in Ukraine, which are substantial, Russia’s nuclear weapons production capacity is far greater than our own. his capacity to produce nuclear weapons is far greater than that of the United States. It will likely remain so for the foreseeable future.

China is poised to become an even greater threat. Over the past several years, Xi Jinping has nearly quadrupled the size of his nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, he has expanded China’s shipbuilding capacity to more than 230 times that of the U.S., and he has built thousands of long-range missiles, including fractional orbital bombardment weapons.

The full list of China’s military advances is too extensive to cover here. But China’s goal is clear: Xi is committed to displacing the U.S. and is rapidly building the capability to do so.

The emergence of two peer competitors alone represents an unprecedented challenge to the U.S. However, these concerns are compounded by an extensive set of new threats to our national security. These threats include North Korea’s growing nuclear and missile capabilities, the weaponization of space, the accessibility of dangerous narcotics, the increased use of unmanned systems, and the emergence of artificial intelligence.

This complexity has profound implications for future U.S. defense policies and strategies—hence our distinguished panel today.

First, in this complicated environment, deterrence depends on tangible military capability. Some American defense planners express hope for a “decent peace” with our adversaries. But to endure, that peace must be founded first and foremost on a credible deterrent. At its core, this will always be based on our nuclear forces. But improved defenses, such as the Golden Dome initiative, play a vital supporting role.

Second, strategic competition can no longer be divided into discrete domains. Our adversaries view all types of military capabilities as tools to shape geopolitical outcomes. Our nuclear posture, missile defenses, conventional forces, cyber capabilities, and space assets must be fully integrated and responsive to threats against U.S. national security, regardless of where those threats arise.

Third, we cannot field the capabilities we need without a strong industrial base. Decades of so-called streamlining have left our domestic manufacturers with almost no capacity to surge munitions production. Our critical mineral supply chains have become brittle. Poorly designed workforce development plans have left us with critical labor shortages in manufacturing and skilled trades.

Finally, this moment tests American resolve and our commitment to the alliances that have helped preserve our security for decades. Our allies are waiting to see whether we will respond to this new era with seriousness, strength, and leadership – or with hesitation, weakness, and complacency. We must compete with the adversaries I mentioned, and we must do so responsibly.

Competing responsibly does not mean recklessly seeking conflict– nor does not mean retreating into isolationism. Instead, we recognize that peace is preserved through strength, preparedness, and a willingness to act when appropriate to achieve our national interest. We saw this on full display during Operation Midnight Hammer.

I thank our witnesses for their views on how U.S. defense policy and strategy must adapt. I look forward to their ideas on what Congress can do to ensure that American deterrence remains unquestioned in an increasingly dangerous world.


Merkley, Wyden, Colleagues Release Report of How Private Student Loan Lenders Expect to Profit from Trump’s Big Ugly Bill

Washington, D.C. – Oregon’s U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley and Ron Wyden joined a group of Senators in releasing a new report of their investigation into how private student loan lenders will reap the benefits from cuts to federal student loan access enacted in Republicans’ One Big, Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA). The report was led by Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Ranking Member of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and is the first congressional analysis of the impacts of the OBBBA’s student loan restrictions on the private lending market.

“The Republican vision of ‘Families Lose, Billionaires Win’ is leading to less affordable student loan repayment options and a higher risk of folks falling victim to predatory lending, which overwhelmingly harms working families,” said Merkley. “As private lenders prepare to cash in on this disastrous agenda, our report makes clear that urgent oversight is needed to protect borrowers and ensure they can access affordable higher education for generations to come.”

“This report shows in painful detail how Donald Trump and his Republican groupies in Congress deserve a big F for their economic assault on students working hard for a fair shot at an education,” said Wyden. “Predatory private student loans plus worse loan repayment terms produced by this Republican bill add up to financial abuse that demands congressional oversight.”

Republicans’ OBBBA set new caps on federal student loan borrowing for graduate students and others, paving the way for a significant expansion of the private student loan market. The private student loan market currently accounts for approximately 8 percent of student loan debt, but represents more than 40 percent of student loan-related complaints submitted to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. The Senators pressed six major private student loan lenders, Citizens, College Ave, Navient, Nelnet, Sallie Mae, and SoFi—which, combined, lent over $14.7 billion via private student loans in 2024—to provide details on their policies, lending activity, and future plans related to OBBBA. The investigation found that:

There is a history of persistent predatory behavior in the private student loan market, and major lenders have been expanding their student loan activity each year;

Private student loan lenders expect more students to turn to private loans due to OBBBA’s loan limits, and at least one lender is already making plans to expand its loan offerings in response to this policy change;

Most of the private lenders surveyed offer minimal protections for borrowers who are defrauded by their schools or who face a sudden school closure;

Half of the private lenders surveyed either have sold student loans to private equity firms or plan to do so in the future; and

Private lenders do not yet have concrete plans in place to expand customer service capacity if they increased their student loan activity.

“The anticipated expansion of the role of private lending is deeply concerning, since private student loan lenders have a long record of predatory practices that raise costs for borrowers and deprive them of basic consumer protections,” wrote the Senators in their report.

“Private student loan lenders have a record of utilizing abusive practices, including lying to borrowers about the availability of debt cancellation, autopay discounts, and unemployment protections for borrowers,” the Senators warned.

In response to the findings, the Senators called for careful oversight of any new private loan offerings targeting students and families affected by the federal loan caps and for experts to examine potential impacts of private lenders selling student loans to private equity firms.

“One year into the Trump Administration, President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made countless efforts to strip federal support from student loan borrowers as part of their crusade to dismantle the Department of Education…[These findings] underscore an urgent need for oversight of the private lending market as these companies prepare to cash in on the Administration’s agenda,” the Senators concluded.

Warren, Merkley, and Wyden were joined in releasing the report by Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.); U.S. Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee; Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.); Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii); Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.); and Ed Markey (D-Mass.).

###