Gallego Calls for North–South Economic Security Strategy at Munich Security Conference

MUNICH – This weekend, Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) attended the Munich Security Conference, where he met with foreign defense ministers and outlined a comprehensive North–South economic and security strategy to strengthen the Western Hemisphere and counter China’s expanding global leverage.

During the conference, Gallego met with Secretary General of NATO Mark Rutte, German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul, Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, the European Union’s High Representative Kaja Kallas, Japanese Defense Minister Shinjirō Koizumi, Kosovo’s Prime Minister Albin Kurti, and British Defense Secretary John Healey.

Today, Gallego spoke on a panel titled “Western Hemisfever: Security in the Americas,” moderated by NPR’s Mary Louise Kelly, alongside Arnoldo André Tinoco, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship, Republic of Costa Rica, San José; Paulo Rangel, Minister of State and Foreign Affairs, Portuguese Republic; and Daiana Fernández Molero, Member of the Commission on Foreign Relations and Worship, Chamber of Deputies, Parliament of the Argentine Republic.

Watch the full panel discussion HERE and read excerpts below:

By invading Venezuela, Trump gave authoritarian leaders across the world the permission to follow suit.

“Let’s not look at what happened in Venezuela, let’s look what happened just after Venezuela. So right after that happened, what did President Trump say? Colombia. A country that is rich in democracy, one of our closest alliances in the world, [Trump] accused the President of Colombia of being involved with the drug trade, ostensibly setting up the reason for why they went after Maduro.

“When you are allowing this type of escapism of the rules-based order, you create this adventurism for potential leaders like Donald Trump. And sometimes it will be in your favor, and then sometimes it will not. But then what happens when China decides that [..] the president Taiwan suddenly a criminal? Would that be their justification for them to actually send in their special forces to regime change? We wouldn’t like that. So again, glad [Maduro’s] gone, but the violation of rules-based order is something should really concern everyone that actually lives, dies, and prospers by the rules-based order.”

China is commanding massive market leverage across the globe. If we want to compete, we need a North-South security strategy build on economic collaboration.

“Our relationship with Latin America does not have to be one of a defensive posture. We have aligned interests, obviously, in terms of keeping China out in critical infrastructure, and Huawei is a good example. […] But because we don’t have to necessarily have that intense defensive posture and real issue that we had with Europe, we need to actually look at our relationship with the Western Hemisphere from a different prism, and that prism is economic collaboration.

“The best thing that can happen to the United States is that we need to have another entity, another region, that is just as powerful as European Union, to help us really counterbalance the market that China gets to command going into the future. If we don’t have a prosperous Latin America, and a prosperous European Union, and a prosperous United States, we’re not going to be able to meet the demands of China. This is our opportunity to do that.

“It pains me talking to […] our Wall Street guys, our private equity guys. They’re more comfortable building in Chengdu, China than they are in Cali, Colombia. […] In terms of what is in our best national interest as a country, our capital should be flowing where our interests are, and it’s not a country that is trying to rise against us.”

If we want to counter China, we need to invest in Latin America — just like we did in Europe post WWII.

“We may be the first country in the history of the world that actually ends up arming and financing our opponent. Wall Street money is going to end up causing American dominance to wane because of their greed and how much they’ve invested in China. When you have perfect alignment with countries that are aligned with the United States, we have cultural connections that we could be doing in Latin America. So on the trade front, yes, increase trade, increase collaboration, investment.

“We should invest as much as we can in terms of the cultural side of things too. We should have a lot more worker visas coming in from Latin America, legal worker visas, student visas, every type of visa that will actually connect us and binds us, not just at the lowest low of workers, but even to the to the to the policymakers, the journalists, everything else like that. It’s what we did in the post-WWII world, and that’s a winning strategy. For some reason, we just look at Latin America and say “well, it worked in Europe, but I guess we can’t do it here.”


WTAS: Support Grows for Gallego’s Bipartisan SCAM Act

WASHINGTON – Senators Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) and Bernie Moreno (R-OH) announced growing support for the bipartisan Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct (SCAM) Act, which would require online platforms to take reasonable steps to prevent fraudulent and deceptive ads and strengthen accountability when scams slip through.

This week, Representatives Lou Correa (D-CA-46) and Dan Meuser (R-PA-09) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

“Online scam ads are costing hardworking Americans billions of dollars every year, and we can’t let platforms profit while families pay the price,” said Senator Gallego. “I’m proud to see our colleagues in the House stepping up to support efforts to crack down on this growing problem. This bipartisan bill will hold companies accountable and strengthen protections for consumers across the country.”

“It is critical that we protect American consumers from deceptive ads and shameless fraudsters who make millions taking advantage of legal loopholes,” said Senator Bernie Moreno. “We can’t sit by while social media companies have business models that knowingly enable scams that target the American people.”

The SCAM Act is endorsed by the AARP, Bank Policy Institute, National Consumers League, Consumer Bankers Association, American Bankers Association, Consumers Federation, and Alliance for Retired Americans. Since its release last week, the bill has received additional letters of support from several of these organizations:

“AARP thanks you for your leadership in crafting the Safeguarding Consumers from Advertising Misconduct Act, and we urge Congress to pass this important legislation into law,” said AARP Senior Vice President Government Affairs Bill Sweeney in a letter of support.

“We enthusiastically commend this effort to fight fraud and protect consumers. For too long, the social media scam ecosystem has been generating profits for social media platforms. Under the SCAM Act, a greater volume of scams will no longer mean greater revenue,” said ABA President and CEO Rob Nichols in a letter of support. “ABA is proud to endorse S.3774 and strongly encourages all members of the United States Senate to support this critical, commonsense measure to protect the American people. Thank you again for your leadership on this important issue that touches consumers and businesses across the country.”

“Older Americans lost $4.8 billion to internet scams in 2024, with social media the leading gateway for fraud. Older adults are disproportionately targeted by deceptive online ads, and corporations that profit from them must be held accountable,” said Richard Fiesta, Executive Director of the Alliance for Retired Americans. “Requiring digital platforms to proactively combat fraud is a critical step toward protecting Americans online. The Alliance strongly supports the SCAM Act and applauds Senators Gallego and Moreno for introducing this bipartisan effort to crack down on scam advertising.”


Hickenlooper Statement on Colorado River Negotiations

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper released the following statement on negotiations for future Colorado River operations.

“This winter’s alarmingly low snowpack across Colorado adds an exclamation point to the already dire drought in the Basin. If we don’t address this problem together – head-on and fast – our communities, farms, and economies will suffer.

“The best path forward is the one we take together. Litigation won’t solve the problem of this long-term aridification. No one knows for sure how the courts could decide and the math will only get worse.

“We need to avoid wasting time – and water – and come together to chart a path to a more sustainable future.”

Hickenlooper has consistently advocated for a seven-state agreement for the post-2026 negotiations. In the Senate, Hickenlooper convened the bipartisan Colorado River Caucus to help address the Colorado River crisis. He has also introduced legislation to improve ways that we measure snowmelt, support water conservation projects, and hire more water project navigators to help states, Tribes, and rural communities secure resources for projects that improve water efficiency. Hickenlooper also helped secure millions in funding for water conservation projects in the West from both the Inflation Reduction Act and the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

As governor, Hickenlooper helped negotiate the 2019 Colorado River Basin Drought Contingency Plan, which helped protect critical levels at Lake Powell and Lake Mead and ensured continued compliance with the 1922 Colorado River Compact.

###


Graham Statement on Russia Sanctions

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) today made this statement.

“I am extremely grateful that Senate Majority Leader Thune committed to me and Senator Blumenthal that he will take up our Russia sanctions legislation as soon as we have the votes. It is abundantly clear to me that a super majority will vote for this bill. When I informed President Zelensky of this news, he was thrilled. This will make a tremendous impact in Ukraine.

“This legislation will be a game changer. President Trump has embraced it. It is time to vote.

“I have also heard from many of our friends and allies in Europe that they support our legislation. I would now ask our European allies to engage. We will try to get the biggest vote we can, but they need to follow our lead. Europe has passed 20 sanctions packages, but they have had limited impact. Europe needs to up its game. The Trump Administration’s tariffs on India caused India to change its behavior, in terms of purchasing cheap Russian oil.

“I am looking forward to delivering a bipartisan product that will help end this bloodbath. Putin is not fully embracing peace at this point. Passage of this bill would give President Trump more leverage. At the same time, I would also recommend that in order to apply pressure to Putin’s war machine, it’s time to train Ukrainians on the Tomahawk missile system. Ukraine has informed us they can make great utilization of this new capability and they believe it would continue the momentum that has been achieved through four years of hard fighting.

“I do believe Putin can be pushed to the peace table, but he’s not there yet. China is the key. China must feel the pain of supporting Putin’s war machine through purchasing cheap Russian oil. This bill would give tools to the president to inflict that pain.

“I am not looking for confrontation – I am looking for an end to the brutality in Ukraine that leads to a just and honorable peace. That means an independent, sovereign Ukraine that is still standing and resolving land issues in a way that does entice China to invade Taiwan. And equally important, there must be security guarantees that would prevent a third invasion. These things are achievable only when Putin feels the pressure. In my opinion, that comes from making his oil and gas customers feel the pressure.”


Senator McCormick Celebrates New Job Growth at Dura-Bond

Multi-Year Contract Delivers 250 New Union Jobs and Economic Boost to Region

STEELTON, PA– On Friday, February 13, U.S. Senator Dave McCormick (R-PA) visited Dura-Bond Pipe’s Steelton facility to join company leadership, federal and state elected officials, and workers in announcing a new multi-year contract between Dura-Bond with TC Energy that will generate $300 million in new revenue and create more than 250 new jobs in Pennsylvania.

Founded in 1960, Dura-Bond is an American-owned and operated steel pipe manufacturer proudly serving the Marcellus Shale region. The company has a long history of supplying domestically produced, large-diameter line pipe for natural gas and critical infrastructure projects across the country. To meet increased demand under the new contract, Dura-Bond will add an additional shift at its Steelton facility, expanding its workforce and strengthening the region’s manufacturing base.

“From day one, my team and I have been proud to stand with Dura-Bond as they’ve grown stronger and created opportunity for Pennsylvania workers,” said Senator Dave McCormick. “This $300 million contract with TC Energy will create 250 new union jobs and strengthen the Marcellus Shale region’s role in powering American manufacturing. What we are seeing here in Steelton is the intersection of President Trump’s strategy of energy dominance, his commitment to American steel, and the return of advanced manufacturing right here in Pennsylvania.”

“We are deeply grateful for the support of Senator McCormick and the many others who have helped us along the way. As he highlighted this afternoon, this truly was a team effort, made successful through the commitment of elected officials and staff from both sides of the aisle at the federal, state, and local levels,” said Dura-Bond President Jason Norris. “My family and I are personally touched by the interest shown and the support extended on behalf of our employees. We sincerely appreciate everyone who worked together to make this possible.”

John Draeger, Vice President, U.S. Projects, at TC Energy said, “Our more than 40-year partnership with Dura-Bond represents the strength of American manufacturing and the critical role Pennsylvania plays in powering the country. TC Energy’s latest $300 million pipe-supply agreement is not just an investment in infrastructure – it’s an investment in American workers, including more than 250 new United Steelworkers jobs that will help meet the nation’s growing energy needs. Reliable, affordable energy is essential to America’s competitiveness, and we’re grateful for Senator McCormick’s leadership and commitment to the communities that form the heart of America’s energy future.”

Pennsylvania is home to the only American-owned manufacturer of large-diameter line pipe used for oil and natural gas transmission. This announcement underscores Pennsylvania’s unique leadership in advanced manufacturing and energy infrastructure, and reflects the success of President Trump’s strategy of energy dominance and renewed commitment to strengthening domestic steel production. The expansion at Dura-Bond’s Steelton facility marks a significant step forward for South Central Pennsylvania’s economy and reinforces the Commonwealth’s role as a national leader in manufacturing and energy innovation.

###


Wyden, Markey Urge Trump’s CBP to Reverse Course on Proposed Rule to Collect Social Media History from Visitors to the United States

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., said today they are urging Donald Trump to reverse the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol’s (CBP) dangerous proposed rule that would require visitors eligible for visa-free travel to the U.S. to provide five years of social media history before entering the country.

The senators warned that such a policy would constitute a sweeping invasion of privacy and represent an unacceptable expansion of government data collection and monitoring. The proposal comes amid a broader pattern of efforts by Trump to target and intimidate foreign visitors, students, and non U.S. residents for their speech and political views.

“CBP’s new proposed policy is an alarming privacy intrusion. Social media platforms are avenues for people to share all aspects of their lives, often including sensitive information meant only for trusted circles,” the senators wrote to CBP Commissioner Rodney S. Scott. “By requiring travelers to disclose their personal social media information, CBP will force people who simply want to visit family in the United States, conduct business with U.S. companies, or attend events such as the upcoming World Cup to submit to sweeping digital surveillance. No doubt many Americans would be outraged if countries such as Great Britain, France, or Australia imposed a similar policy on American tourists. Ordinary U.S. visitors should not have their online activity scraped and monitored by the Trump administration’s ever expanding surveillance apparatus. Choosing to visit the United States cannot become synonymous with relinquishing individual privacy rights.”

“This invasive social media monitoring will have consequences for Americans as well. Given the globalized nature of social media, Americans regularly interact with foreigners on social media, including by commenting on posts, sending direct messages, and ‘liking’ their content. As a result, the collection of visitors’ social media information will inevitably sweep up sensitive information about American citizens as well, undermining their privacy. And without any assurance that social media monitoring will be confined to visitors’ own accounts, Americans may also self-censor to reduce the risk that CBP will capture their own speech simply because they interacted with a friend or family member from a VWP country. This backdoor surveillance of the American public is unacceptable,” the senators continued.

In June, Wyden and Markey wrote two letters to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem about the government’s use of artificial intelligence (AI) and social media monitoring to determine whether an individual poses a national security risk. Secretary Noem responded to the letter on behalf of DHS. In her response, Secretary Noem:

Failed to commit to reversing DHS’s expansion of social media screening of visa applicants;

Notably ignored the senators’ request for information on the effectiveness of its past use of social media monitoring; and

Provided little information about safeguards DHS had implemented to prevent its new policy on social media screening from chilling dissent, discriminating against particular viewpoints, and punishing individuals for speech the Trump administration finds objectionable.


Crow, Ocasio-Cortez Advance Alternate Foreign Policy Vision for Working People at Munich Security Conference

MUNICH — Today at the Munich Security Conference, Congressman Jason Crow (D-CO-06) and Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14) advanced their alternate vision for U.S. foreign policy, grounded in working-class priorities and true American values. Their remarks followed Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s address before the Conference and contrasted the corruption and elite-driven vision of the Trump Administration against a better way forward that truly responds to working Americans’ needs.

“We need a national security and foreign policy that looks like America and has the experiences of the American people,” Congressman Crow said in his remarks. “It means partnerships that are rooted in fairness and that deliver for working-class folks everywhere.”

“What we know is that isolating ourselves from the world will deliver disastrous consequences at home and abroad,” he continued. “Our foreign policy is being turned into an extortion ring for Big Oil, for the Trump family, for elites. They’re bullying our partners and allies… We want strength and peace, but we don’t want to be extorting and bullying our friends. We want to be a force for good.”

“We are interested in a U.S.-European alliance that’s rooted in substantive and strategic shared priorities that advance the working class of all nations,” Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez said in her remarks.

“We want to make sure that we dive deeply into shared innovation, investment, strategic priorities, and trade policies that ensure the benefits of that trade actually benefit working class people and that we restrain ourselves from the military interventions of our past,” she continued.

Crow, a former Army Ranger and paratrooper, serves on the House Armed Services Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Ocasio-Cortez spoke Friday at the Munich Security Conference to offer a working class perspective on U.S. foreign policy.

Crow previously presented his new affirmative vision for the future of American global leadership in an October speech at the Center for American Progress. Crow’s proposal seeks to reassert congressional authority in foreign policy; ensure America lives up to its values on the global stage; root out corruption at home and abroad; and recruit new talent to bolster foreign policy institutions.

###


LEADER JEFFRIES ON FACE THE NATION: “PERHAPS THE PRESIDENT SHOULD FOCUS ON MAKING LIFE BETTER FOR THE AMERICAN PEOPLE”

Today, House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries appeared on CBS’s Face the Nation, where he emphasized that taxpayer dollars should be used to make life better for the American people by lowering the high cost of living rather than supporting agencies that are brutalizing them.

ED O’KEEFE: We turn now to House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries, who joins us this morning from New York City. Leader Jeffries, thank you for being here.

LEADER JEFFRIES: Good morning. Great to be with you.

ED O’KEEFE: So, as this shutdown continues, I want to remind our viewers what it is exactly Congressional Democrats are seeking to reopen the Department of Homeland Security. You want immigration agents to show IDs, to wear body cameras, take off their masks, stop racial profiling and seek judicial warrants to enter private property. Talks between the White House and Congressional Democrats are continuing. Are you willing to compromise to let any of these go to get the government reopened?

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, our value proposition is simple. Taxpayer dollars should be used to make life more affordable for the American people, not brutalize or kill them, as we horrifically saw in Minneapolis with the cold-blooded killings of Renee Nicole Good and Alex Pretti. We know, and the American People clearly know, that ICE is totally out of control and they need to be reined in, because the American People deserve immigration enforcement that is fair, that is just and that is humane. And so we need dramatic change at ICE, including but not limited to the types of things that you laid out before any DHS funding bill moves forward.

ED O’KEEFE: With the exception of some flexibility on body cameras, because they’re starting to spend some money to get those out there, some Republicans have rejected this list of policy reform proposals. You guys still seem miles apart, so when conceivably will we see this resolved? And again I ask you if there—are any of these points that you’re willing to let go in order to get the government reopened?

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, we’re willing to have a good-faith conversation about everything, but fundamentally, we need change that is dramatic, that is bold, that is meaningful and that is transformational. And these are common-sense things. For instance, judicial warrants should be required before ICE agents can storm private property or rip everyday Americans out of their homes. We need to make sure that there are actual independent investigations so that if state and local laws are violated, in many cases violently violated, that state and local authorities have the ability to criminally investigate and criminally prosecute anyone who has violated the law, because we cannot trust Kristi Noem or Pam Bondi to conduct an independent investigation. We believe that sensitive locations should be off-limits. Sensitive locations like houses of worship, schools, hospitals or polling sites. And that fundamentally, ICE should be targeting violent felons who are here unlawfully, as opposed to violently targeting law-abiding immigrant families, which is completely inconsistent with what Donald Trump promised the American people he would do.

ED O’KEEFE: Right, and we, of course, this past week reported that about 14% of those detained had violent criminal records, about 60% of them were wanted on criminal records overall, but it was that 14% violent criminals. Again, it sounds like this is going to go on a while because Tom Homan wasn’t terribly flexible on anything, especially on the issue of warrants and masks. You’re not ceding any ground, so there’s a few things coming up here. For example, State of the Union is scheduled for a week from Tuesday. Should it be held if the Department of Homeland Security is shut down?

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, we’ll cross that bridge when we get to it. It is certainly my hope we get to a solution in advance of it.

ED O’KEEFE: Sounds like you’re going to get to it, though.

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, here’s the thing. The administration and Republicans have made a clear decision that they would rather shut down FEMA, shut down the Coast Guard and shut down TSA than enact the type of dramatic reform necessary so that ICE and other DHS law enforcement agencies are conducting themselves like every other law enforcement professional in the country. For instance, police officers don’t use masks. County sheriffs don’t use masks. State troopers don’t use masks. Why is it that ICE agents who are untrained are being unleashed on American communities with this type of lawlessness, violence and brutality? Unacceptable, unconscionable and it’s un-American.

ED O’KEEFE: Yeah, and we went over this with Tom Homan a little earlier. Of course, they point out that assaults against ICE officers have gone up over 1300% this past year, from about 275 compared to 19 the year before. So there are some legitimate concerns about those agents being targeted, but your broader point about whether or not law enforcement should behave the same as our law enforcement is heard.

LEADER JEFFRIES: Yes, and we’re going to continue, of course, to encourage the American people to exercise their constitutional rights, their freedom of assembly and their freedom of speech and freedom of expression peacefully, as we saw overwhelmingly done in Minneapolis.

ED O’KEEFE: All right, well, we’ll stay tuned on the shutdown and the negotiations, and let me ask you a few other things while we have you. First of all, you’re a member of the Gang of Eight who gets briefed on national security matters. The Pentagon is reportedly planning for the possibility of sustained weeks-long operations against Iran if diplomacy fails and the President opts to attack. What do you know about those plans, or what would you want to learn as a member of the Gang of Eight?

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, the administration, as has been the case since the very beginning of this presidency, has been slow to provide information both to the Gang of Eight Members of Congress, the legislative leadership and the top Democrats and Republicans on the Intel Committee, and certainly hasn’t provided a significant amount of information to Congress in general. These people within the administration, the extremists, they don’t seem to believe that Congress is a separate and co-equal branch of government. We are. In fact, the power to declare war is exclusively given to Congress in Article One of the United States Constitution. Now, the American people want Donald Trump and Republicans to actually keep their promise and focus on driving down the high cost of living and fixing our broken healthcare system. It was Donald Trump who promised, in fact, that costs would go down on day one. Costs haven’t gone down. We’re in the midst of an affordability crisis that hasn’t been resolved. Perhaps the President should focus on making life better for the American people. Period, full stop.

ED O’KEEFE: I hear you on that. I want to remind our viewers of the current tick-tock tight margins in the House. You’ve got to net at least three seats to take the majority at this point. I want to play for you part of what you had to say about the 2026 elections when you were asked this past Thursday. Take a listen.

RECORDING OF LEADER JEFFRIES: We only need to net three. It’s happening. Democrats are going to take back control of the House. And the only question is, what’s the margin?

ED O’KEEFE: Right now, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee considers 44 of the 435 seats in the House in play, including you just added five new ones this past week. South central Virginia, a district in South Carolina, southern Minnesota, central Colorado and the at-large seat of Montana. Parts of the country where Democrats don’t normally win elections, we should point out. So if the election were held today, at minimum, at minimum, how many seats do you see Democrats winning?

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, if the election were held today, we’re taking back control of the House of Representatives, and I’m not convinced that it would necessarily be close, but these are battles that are gonna be waged district by district by district. We know we’re winning seats now in deep red territory. We saw that in Miami in December, where we won the Mayor’s race for the first time in 30 years by 20 points. And then in January, of course, we flipped a seat in the Texas State Senate that Donald Trump had just won by 17 points. The Democratic candidate won it by 14. That was a 31-point overperformance. And then just last weekend in Louisiana, we flipped the House seat that Trump had won by 14. We won that—or 13—we won that by 24 points. That was 37-point overperformance. My point is we’re winning across the country in blue states and purple states and red states because the American people know we’re the only ones focused on driving down the high cost of living, fixing our broken healthcare system and making sure that immigration enforcement is fair and just.

ED O’KEEFE: You’ve got to get at least three. 20 to 25 seats? All 44 seats? What do you think right now? Give me a number.

LEADER JEFFRIES: Well, I’m not in the prediction business. I’m in the let’s win on behalf of the American people so we can end this national nightmare business.

ED O’KEEFE: All right, Leader Jeffries, to be continued, on the shutdown and on the midterms. We appreciate you spending some time with us this morning. We’ll talk to you soon.

Full interview can be watched here.

###


For Immediate Release Contact: Tionee Scotland

February 15, 2026 202-808-6129

PRESS RELEASE

CONGRESSWOMAN PLASKETT MEETS WITH VIRGIN ISLANDS BOARD OF EDUCATION TO DISCUSS FUTURE OF FEDERAL FUNDING FOR EDUCATION

WASHINGTON, DC — In February of 2026, Congresswoman Stacey E. Plaskett met with the Virgin Islands Board of Education to discuss the impact of recently enacted federal funding cuts on education in our territory.

The meeting focused on P.L. 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which threatens essential programs and services that thousands of Virgin Islands families depend on every single day.

The budget reconciliation law cuts more than $840 billion from Medicaid and $300 billion from SNAP nationwide—programs that directly determine eligibility for free school meals. Fewer children will qualify for Medicaid and SNAP, putting the Virgin Islands' universal free school lunch program at risk. As fewer children qualify for these programs, our schools risk losing Community Eligibility Provision (CEP) eligibility—jeopardizing free meals for all students at a time when nearly 40% of Virgin Islands households face food insecurity.

The Virgin Islands Department of Education currently manages $115.5 million in federal grants, including funding from the U.S. Department of Education for programs like the Consolidated Grant, Special Education (IDEA), and Adult Education. Nearly $29.4 million comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture for nutrition programs including the National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Services Program, and Fresh Fruits and Vegetables Program—which also support local farms and producers.

"This is about understanding what is coming and preparing our community," Congresswoman Plaskett said. “This law affects millions of children nationwide, and the Virgin Islands will feel these cuts deeply. When funding for school meals is cut, children lose their ability to focus in the classroom. When SNAP benefits are reduced, families face impossible choices between feeding their children and paying rent. As these changes take effect, no child in the Virgin Islands should go to school hungry, and no family should face these choices alone. We must work together—parents, educators, leaders, and our community—to navigate this reality and protect our children through the challenges ahead."

"The Virgin Islands already operates under different federal funding formulas than the states," said Dr. Kyza Callwood, Virgin Islands Board of Education Chairman. "We have less flexibility, fewer resources, and higher costs. When Washington cuts education and nutrition funding, Virgin Islands children go hungry. When they change SNAP eligibility, Virgin Islands families lose the ability to feed themselves. We cannot and will not accept that."

The urgency is compounded by the Trump administration's sweeping executive actions targeting schools nationwide—launching hundreds of investigations, freezing billions in federal grants, and dismantling the Department of Education itself. Half the Department’s workforce has been fired or departed, and the Office for Civil Rights now dismisses approximately 90% of discrimination complaints without investigation—up from 49% in 2010-2011. These executive actions, combined with the enacted budget cuts, create unprecedented uncertainty for schools and families across the country.

During the meeting, Congresswoman Plaskett and the Virgin Islands Board of Education emphasized the critical importance of parents, students, educators, and community leaders staying informed, advocating boldly, and standing together to protect children and families as these changes take effect.

"This is a defining moment," Congresswoman Plaskett concluded. "When parents, teachers, students, and leaders move together with purpose and clarity, we can effect change. The children of the Virgin Islands are worth that fight."

###


RFK Jr.’s battle with the public health establishment has turned to trench warfare

The health secretary turned his agencies toward skepticism of processed food and vaccines, but he’s faced pushback at every turn — including from Republicans.

By Carmen Paun, Grace Yarrow, Sophie Gardner, Lauren Gardner and Tim Röhn

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. spent the spring of 2025 repeating the campaign message he’d delivered over and over in 2024, before he dropped out of the presidential race and joined forces with Donald Trump: Kids were sicker than ever and ultraprocessed, sugar-laden foods cooked up in labs or grown with dangerous chemicals were responsible.

Upon being sworn in as Trump’s health secretary, Kennedy launched a Make America Healthy Again Commission to explore the poor state of American children’s health and ways to improve it. As the commission prepared to issue a report assessing threats to children’s health in May, farmers worried it would echo Kennedy’s campaign rhetoric and attack their way of doing business. Food producers turned to what they considered their last line of defense, lobbying Republican lawmakers whose home-state economies hung in the balance.

Mississippi Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, among the Republicans who had put aside Kennedy’s broadsides against their allies in agriculture and voted to confirm him, raised the issue at an Appropriations Committee hearing on May 20. She zeroed in on Kennedy’s long-stated theory that some chemicals farmers use to kill insects and weeds are dangerous to human health.

“It’s going to be a shame if the MAHA Commission issues a report suggesting, without substantial facts and evidence, that our government got things terribly wrong when it reviewed a number of crop-protection tools and deemed them to be safe,” Hyde-Smith told Kennedy.

Kennedy said he was not going to “put a single farmer in this country out of business.” He added that America’s corn production relied on glyphosate, the world’s most commonly used herbicide.

Seven years before, in his prior career as an environmental lawyer, Kennedy had sued the pesticide’s manufacturer, winning a multi-million dollar judgment for his client: a groundskeeper who said glyphosate had given him cancer. In May, he told the senators he was “not going to do anything to jeopardize [farmers’] business model.”

When the White House released the commission’s report two days after the hearing, it held back from repeating Kennedy’s confirmation-hearing bombast that McDonald’s and the maker of Froot Loops “mass poison American children.”

But there was still plenty to anger food producers. The 72-page document asserted that children suffer more from chronic diseases and behavioral disorders than any previous generation, with their diets a likely culprit. It targeted glyphosate, saying it and another herbicide, atrazine, were present in the blood of children and pregnant women at “alarming levels.” Studies on glyphosate “have noted a range of possible health effects, ranging from reproductive and developmental disorders as well as cancers, liver inflammation and metabolic disturbances,” the report declared. (The German conglomerate Bayer, which sells the chemical as Roundup, says it does not cause cancer.)

The White House worked to soothe the industry revolt, meeting with nearly 50 agriculture groups. Top farm-state Republican lawmakers decided to take their concerns directly to Kennedy.

A group of senators, including Hyde-Smith and Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman, saw the secretary in the White House’s Roosevelt Room, according to four people with knowledge of the meeting granted anonymity to share details about an encounter they weren’t authorized to discuss publicly.

After the senators told Kennedy he must back off on pesticides, the meeting turned “heated,” in the words of three of the people. At one point, Kennedy pounded on the table, one said, as the exchange “failed miserably” to calm the skeptical Republicans. The fourth person called the meeting productive. The senators’ offices didn’t respond to requests for comment.

Kennedy got the message. When his commission released a follow-up report in September proposing solutions to the problems it had identified in May, the new document didn’t touch pesticides. Glyphosate wasn’t mentioned.

Trump’s alliance with Kennedy helped him win a second term in the White House and elevated a scion of America’s most famous Democratic family, lawyer for environmentalist causes and anti-vaccine activist to lead health policy for a GOP that hasn’t traditionally liked any of those things.

Over the course of his year in the Cabinet, Kennedy has racked up major wins for his Make America Healthy Again movement by pushing the limits of his executive authority. He has reduced the number of vaccines the government recommends and promoted new guidelines that track his view that people should replace the ultraprocessed foods in their diets with red meat and whole milk, among other previously discouraged sources of nourishment.

“It’s a joy to work for [Trump], because he lets me do stuff that I don’t think anybody else would ever let me do,” Kennedy told Heritage Foundation President Kevin Roberts at an event Feb. 9 marking his first year as secretary.

But he has not been able to rewrite the country’s laws in a way that would make any of those changes durable. Whoever replaces him as health secretary can reverse his wins as quickly as he achieved them. Already his vaccine and food policy moves have prompted lawsuits and petitions that could reverse them even before Kennedy leaves office.

That limitation on his influence has been most visible in the tug-of-war over pesticides regulation with Republican senators and the industry lobbyists who back them. Kennedy told students at a George Washington University town hall in November he didn’t have authority over the chemicals used in agriculture, which is the purview of the Environmental Protection Agency.

Kennedy’s aversion to regulation, his own aides have acknowledged, is about avoiding the long, drawn out procedures required to write them. Kennedy also knows there’s little prospect Congress will help him, given pushback from the public health establishment, food and medical industries to his ideas. Democratic lawmakers are aligned with the former while many Republicans on Capitol Hill still back the latter.

“The fierce resistance to change by the existing bureaucracy has created major challenges. As has been the partisan congressional gaming and obstruction,” said Robert Malone, a Kennedy ally and the vice-chair of a vaccine advisory panel at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

HHS did not make the secretary available for an interview for this story. HHS spokesperson Andrew Nixon said that “under Secretary Kennedy’s leadership, HHS is exercising its full authority to deliver results for the American people.”

On the anniversary of his swearing-in on Friday, Kennedy shook up his leadership team, moving Deputy Secretary Jim O’Neill and General Counsel Mike Stuart out and promoting Chris Klomp, a top official at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Service, to oversee all department operations. A White House official granted anonymity to discuss the shakeup said it was about “muscling up the management team” in advance of the midterm election campaign.

Kennedy’s second year will likely determine whether his MAHA agenda hardens into GOP orthodoxy, or whether the MAHA-MAGA alliance fades as a temporary compact of election-year opportunism. To make it last, Kennedy will have to show he can win over the forces that most foiled his first-year ambitions, convincing Republicans that voters will reward them for backing his fights against food and pharma, and that they can manage any revolt that follows in corporate America.

An appeal to Russ Vought

When Kennedy arrived for his swearing-in on Feb. 13, 2025, the Health and Human Services Department was already in the crosshairs of the Trump administration’s budget-cutting ambitions. Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency had been there for days, at work on a major downsizing, and White House officials had likewise already begun considering a plan to reduce the department’s budget by 25 percent.

Kennedy was caught unaware by much of these plans, he later acknowledged in congressional testimony. Kennedy spent the first months of his administration on damage control.

When he learned of the White House’s plan to end Head Start, the health care and education program for low-income toddlers that his uncle Sargent Shriver helped create in 1965, Kennedy appealed directly to Russ Vought, the powerful director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, to ensure its funding was protected. “We’re going to have a better and brighter Head Start by the end of this administration,” the health secretary told a Senate panel in May.

In congressional testimony, Kennedy mostly defended the administration’s budget and the broader downsizing, arguing the health department was spending money inefficiently and returning poor results.

After Republican lawmakers took issue with cuts that affected their constituents, Kennedy backtracked.

He called some National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health employees back last spring, for example, after an outcry from firefighters’ unions and senators including West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican who represents workers at NIOSH’s Morgantown office. Part of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, NIOSH focuses on the health and safety of coal miners, firefighters, and 9/11 survivors.

“I understand the health concerns and how brave you have to be to undertake that kind of work,” Kennedy told Senate appropriators in June. “We need to protect our miners.” HHS reinstated all NIOSH employees last month.

When the Office of Management and Budget in June froze roughly $15 billion in research money for the National Institutes of Health, NIH Director Jay Bhattacharya called Kennedy, according to a senior HHS official granted anonymity to disclose internal conversations. Kennedy told Bhattacharya to reach out to Republican Alabama Sen. Katie Britt, among others.

Britt took the argument straight to the White House, warning Trump that his own budget director was, in effect, defunding children’s cancer research and other marquee NIH programs, the official said. Britt and 13 other Republican senators, including Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins of Maine, told Vought in a letter that suspending the appropriated funds “could threaten Americans’ ability to access better treatments.”

Vought released the NIH funds, chalking up the freeze to “a programmatic review.” But he did call for a “dramatic overhaul” of the NIH in a CBS interview at the time. Neither the NIH nor Britt’s office responded to a request for comment.

Congress, in January, rejected the 40 percent cut to the NIH budget the White House sought when lawmakers passed a fiscal 2026 appropriations bill, keeping the funding flat at nearly $49 billion.

Kennedy may end up spending some of that money on projects Democratic and Republican lawmakers won’t like. Kennedy and Bhattacharya have already begun rerouting millions to studies on autism, which Kennedy links to vaccines.

Bhattacharya has also vowed to redirect research funds away from elite coastal universities to the heartland. Researchers at the elite institutions say they’ve built up decades of infrastructure, knowledge and staffing that can’t easily be replicated elsewhere. Moving money away, they argue, could threaten medical breakthroughs and the nation’s standing as the global leader in biomedical research and development.

“I have no illusion that this bill alone will stop Secretary Kennedy’s nonstop, misinformed attacks on our health system,” Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, told POLITICO.

“Just an important issue”

The number of Trump nominees rejected by GOP senators can be counted on one hand.

Dave Weldon – a former Florida representative who was Kennedy’s first choice to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention — was among them.

Like Kennedy, Weldon has argued the government has covered up safety problems with vaccines, that vaccines cause autism and that government regulators are corrupted by pharma influence.

While Republicans were willing to confirm Kennedy anyway, they wouldn’t accept Weldon. The White House told Weldon he didn’t have the votes and withdrew his nomination, Weldon said in a statement at the time. Weldon said he’d expected his nomination to die in the Senate health committee because of opposition from the panel’s chair, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, or Susan Collins of Maine. Lisa Murkowski of Alaska had also told the White House she was troubled by the nominee’s vaccine views.

The divide between Kennedy’s plans for the agency and Republican lawmakers’ wishes grew from there.

After Kennedy in August ousted the official who was his second choice to lead the agency, Susan Monarez — she said because she’d refused to rubber stamp changes to the vaccine schedule, he said she’d told him she was untrustworthy — GOP senators rebuked him. “I’ve grown deeply concerned,” Wyoming’s John Barrasso, a doctor and the second-ranking senator in the GOP caucus, told Kennedy at a September Finance Committee hearing.

Barrasso added that he thought upending the government’s process for reviewing vaccines — Kennedy had fired the members of a CDC advisory panel in June and replaced them, in some cases with vaccine safety skeptics — was confusing Americans. “A recent poll said 89 percent of voters, 81 percent of Trump voters, agree vaccine recommendations should come from trained physicians, scientists, public health experts,” Barrasso said.

The poll, on which GOP senators had been briefed before the hearing, came from Fabrizio Ward, which counts Trump pollster Tony Fabrizio among its partners.

In a survey released in December, Fabrizio Ward found Kennedy’s MAHA agenda was popular across party lines, except for his skepticism of vaccines.

At a stop last month in Pennsylvania kicking off his “Take Back Your Health” tour ahead of the midterm election campaigns, Kennedy told POLITICO he didn’t much care about the politics. He stressed that allowing parents to make their own choices about what vaccines their children get is “just an important issue from a public health point of view.”

Kennedy founded an anti-vaccine advocacy group before coming to HHS and has repeatedly linked the rise in the number of shots Americans get with a big rise in autism rates.

HHS said last year the latest data shows 1 in 31 children have the neurological condition, which affects their ability to communicate, up from 1 in 150 two decades ago.

Studies have found no evidence to support Kennedy’s view that vaccines are the cause — autism experts believe the condition is mostly genetic and point to changing diagnostic criteria.

In January, Kennedy removed four vaccines, for rotavirus, the flu, hepatitis A, and meningitis, from the CDC’s routinely recommended list for children. He’d previously dropped shots for hepatitis B and Covid. Kennedy, in a statement, said the change was aimed at “strengthening transparency and informed consent.” It “protects children, respects families, and rebuilds trust in public health,” he said.

Kids can still get the shots after parents consult their children’s pediatricians, but the government will no longer strongly recommend that they do so. The changes don’t directly affect vaccine mandates in school systems across the country because they’re set by states. But they could influence policymakers in red states to relax certain requirements, and some state legislatures are actively considering bills this year to do so.

Kennedy has often cited CDC guidance during the Covid pandemic and the Biden administration’s attempt to require about 100 million private sector, government, military and health care workers to receive the Covid vaccine — as the reason polls have found declining trust in public health, and for dropping vaccine rates. Kennedy has argued giving parents more freedom not to vaccinate will restore trust.

His overhaul of the CDC, Kennedy told senators on the Finance Committee in September, has consisted of “absolutely necessary adjustments to restore the agency to its role as the world’s gold standard public health agency with the central mission of protecting Americans from infectious disease.”

The vaccine policy changes are among Kennedy’s most impactful policy moves, but the CDC has also become his albatross.

Besides the concerns his moves have raised among Republicans, CDC officials who’ve left the agency have lambasted him in congressional testimony and repeatedly in the press. Blue states have moved to set up their own parallel systems for combatting disease, saying they’ve lost faith in the CDC. Outside advocates, from the American Academy of Pediatrics to the American Public Health Association, have brought suit to challenge the vaccine changes.

As White House aides credit Kennedy with some of Trump’s popular-vote margin in the 2024 election, Trump has given him a wide berth on vaccine policy. Trump has said he also thinks kids get too many shots and in December issued a presidential memorandum asking Kennedy to align the U.S. childhood vaccine schedule with that of peer nations that recommend fewer. Soon thereafter, Kennedy moved to adopt Denmark’s, dropping the number of diseases the federal government routinely recommends children get immunized against to 11, six fewer than before Kennedy became health secretary.

Public health experts said that made no sense, given the very different calculi about the cost and benefit of certain shots that went into Denmark’s schedule.

Heading into the midterm cycle, Kennedy’s appearances on television and at recent rallies in Pennsylvania and Tennessee have focused on discouraging the consumption of highly processed foods and bringing down drug prices by pressuring manufacturers to lower them.

A White House official, granted anonymity to discuss Kennedy’s role in 2026, said vaccines will not be the primary focus going forward.

Going fast and slow at the FDA

At the Food and Drug Administration, Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 have spent the first year of Kennedy’s tenure at war with each other.

The FDA in Trump’s first term sought to speed access to drugs in response to legislation the president signed in 2018 to allow terminally ill patients to use experimental therapies, and to the Covid pandemic. The pharmaceutical industry and conservatives on Capitol Hill were big fans.

The FDA under Kennedy has gyrated between that right-to-try ethos and skepticism of drug safety and efficacy that has slowed and, in some cases, blocked novel drug approvals.

The pharma industry was cautiously optimistic about Johns Hopkins surgeon Marty Makary’s nomination to lead the FDA. He’d long said he thought the agency was too conservative in some cases, as with hormone replacement therapy for women in menopause.

Kennedy, too, even before Trump named him health secretary, had promised to force the FDA to loosen up.

But Kennedy and the top FDA aides he selected also shared a view that the government had misled Americans about the safety and efficacy of Covid vaccines and that pharma industry influence was the cause. Over the last year, the agency has asked for more evidence from drugmakers.

The biggest advocate of raising the evidentiary bar has been Vinay Prasad, a former University of California San Francisco epidemiologist whom Makary made the agency’s top vaccine regulator. Soon after Makary hired Prasad, the two announced plans to limit the approval of future Covid vaccines to people over 65 or with underlying health conditions that made them especially vulnerable, a marked change from the broad-based recommendations of prior years. They also said they wanted to see more data before signing off on new annual boosters.

Prasad later pushed pharma company Sarepta Therapeutics to stop selling its drug for Duchenne muscular dystrophy over safety concerns. Duchenne muscular dystrophy is a muscle-wasting disease that disables and then kills a small number of boys and young men each year. Most with the disease cannot expect to live past 30. Prasad’s predecessor, Peter Marks, had overruled FDA career scientists in approving the drug for nearly all patients in 2024. Prasad’s request of the drugmaker came after Sarepta Therapeutics disclosed the deaths of three patients.

In late July, Prasad was fired. Sarepta had protested his pressure campaign and right-wing activist Laura Loomer, who has Trump’s ear, had accused Prasad of being a progressive out of step with the president’s agenda. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), the author of the right-to-try law Trump signed in 2018, had complained to Kennedy and directly to Trump.

In the days following his ouster, Makary and Kennedy went to the White House “much more frequently than normal” to advocate for the vaccine chief’s reinstatement, said one FDA official, who was granted anonymity to speak candidly.

“‘We can’t cannibalize our own’ was the mentality,” the person said.

Prasad was back at the FDA within days, but the management upheaval, and debate over drug approvals, continued.

The agency’s regulatory moves have often seemed contradictory. Even as Prasad was pushing for tighter safety and efficacy reviews, for example, Makary was rolling out a program to expedite them for drugs he deemed critical. (Two top aides, George Tidmarsh and Richard Pazdur, quit their posts leading the agency’s drug review office, they said, because of Makary’s program. Tidmarsh and Pazdur said the program put political imperatives above the analysis of career regulators.)

Now Tracy Beth Høeg, a spine doctor who came to Makary and Prasad’s attention during the pandemic with her Twitter posts criticizing the government response and Covid vaccine mandates, heads the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.

Høeg, a dual Danish-American citizen, has led the effort to downsize the childhood vaccine schedule. She praised Denmark’s vaccine schedule in a meeting of Kennedy’s vaccine advisers at the CDC in December and authored an assessment of the U.S. schedule, comparing it to other rich countries. In January, to vaccinemakers’ dismay, Kennedy moved to more closely align the U.S. schedule with the Danish recommendations.

Combined with the slowdown in novel drug approvals and Trump’s efforts to force drugmakers to lower prices, the industry that once felt reassured by Makary’s nomination now sees that the industry-friendly posture of Trump’s first term has given way to something more populist.

The powerful lobby that represents brand-name drugmakers — which has tread carefully amid Trump’s intense interest in lowering prescription drug prices for Americans — issued a rare public rebuke in response to Kennedy’s downsizing of the vaccine schedule.

The changes “are not in the best interest of American families and add further confusion for parents and health care providers navigating an already complex system,” said Mike Ybarra, PhRMA’s chief medical officer.

Cheyenne Haslett, Kelly Hooper and David Lim contributed to this report.


Following Ousting of DOJ Antitrust Chief Gail Slater, Klobuchar Leads Colleagues in Raising Concerns About Administration’s Commitment to Antitrust Enforcement and Impact on Live Nation-Ticketmaster Trial

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law, and longtime leader of the Subcommittee on Competition Policy, Antitrust, and Consumer Rights, led 6 of her colleagues in raising concerns about the Department of Justice’s commitment to antitrust enforcement amid reports that Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Gail Slater was forced to resign.

Slater received broad bipartisan support in her Senate confirmation last year and was confirmed by the Senate with a 78-19 vote but was ousted from her post earlier this week. Slater’s resignation comes only weeks before the landmark case to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster is scheduled to go to trial, raising concerns her departure may clear the way for the Justice Department to settle that case on terms favorable to the company, rather than fans, artists, and independent venues.

“Slater’s resignation is especially concerning given numerous reports that the experts and attorneys at the Antitrust Division have repeatedly been sidelined by leadership at the Justice Department, including when settling the Hewlett Packard Enterprise-Juniper Networks merger, forgoing a routine investigation into the real estate brokerage merger between Compass and Anywhere, and most recently, discussions about settling the case to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster,” wrote the Senators. “These actions raise serious questions as to the Justice Department’s commitment to enforcing the antitrust laws based on the objective application of the law and the facts of any given case. Instead, it appears that Justice Department leadership is undermining dedicated antitrust enforcers work to protect consumers and small businesses.”

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford warned of exactly this after he was fired, asking if the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case may be “the next casualty” because the company had hired a “bevy of cozy MAGA friends” to lobby the Justice Department.

Along with Klobuchar the letter was signed by Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Peter Welch (D-VT), Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Richard Blumenthal (D-CT).

The full letter is available here and below.

Dear Attorney General Bondi,

We write with regard to the Department of Justice’s antitrust enforcement agenda following the recent ousting of Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Gail Slater. In the last year, the Justice Department has litigated several important cases, including a landmark case against Google for monopolizing online advertising brought during the Biden Administration; strong remedies in the Google Search case filed during the first Trump Administration; the vital case to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster for trial next month; and numerous other cases, including those against Apple to Agri Stats. Her departure raises significant concerns about this Administration’s commitment to enforcing the antitrust laws for the betterment of consumers and small businesses, including seeing through its cases against monopolies.

When announcing the nomination of Ms. Slater, the President said that “Gail will help ensure that our competition laws are enforced, both vigorously and FAIRLY.” At her confirmation hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Grassley noted “Ms. Slater also has an impressive resume and the right qualifications to run the Antitrust Division…I hope for an Antitrust Division under her leadership.” Ms. Slater was subsequently recommended by the Senate Judiciary committee on a 20-2 bipartisan vote. She was confirmed by the Senate with a 78-19 vote. Indeed, at your confirmation hearing, you said Ms. Slater was “amazing and [has] bipartisan support” noting she knows “antitrust much better than I” and that you “plan on working with Gail Slater and all the lawyers” in the Antitrust Division. Yet, less than a year after her bipartisan confirmation, she was forced to resign.

Her resignation is especially concerning given numerous reports that the experts and attorneys at the Antitrust Division have repeatedly been sidelined by leadership at the Justice Department, including when settling the Hewlett Packard Enterprise-Juniper Networks merger, forgoing a routine investigation into the real estate brokerage merger between Compass and Anywhere, and most recently, discussions about settling the case to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster. When members of the Senate Judiciary Committee raised concerns about these issues, the Justice Department failed to respond. Indeed, one prominent lobbyist for Live Nation-Ticketmaster boasted that he directly recommended the firing of Gail Slater and posted “good riddance” on social media in response to her announcement.

These actions raise serious questions as to the Justice Department’s commitment to enforcing the antitrust laws based on the objective application of the law and the facts of any given case. Instead, it appears that Justice Department leadership is undermining dedicated antitrust enforcers work to protect consumers and small businesses. We have significant concern that the facts and law regarding a specific merger or anticompetitive conduct may be less important than a company’s ability to exert influence.

Given the timing of Ms. Slater’s resignation—only weeks prior to the trial in the case to break up Live Nation-Ticketmaster—we are especially concerned about Live Nation-Ticketmaster’s attempts to evade responsibility by convincing Justice Department leadership to settle the case on terms favorable to the company, rather than fans, artists, and independent venues. Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General Roger Alford warned of exactly this after he was fired, asking if the Live Nation-Ticketmaster case may be “the next casualty” because the company had hired a “bevy of cozy MAGA friends” to lobby the Justice Department.

So that the Senate may understand the circumstances regarding Gail Slater’s departure less than a year after her bipartisan confirmation, we request you provide the following:

The dates of each meeting with any representatives of Live Nation-Ticketmaster and the individuals present from the Justice Department, White House, or Live Nation-Ticketmaster for each meeting.

A description of the topics discussed at each meeting.

All communications with Live Nation-Ticketmaster, its representatives, or the White House regarding the potential settlement of the monopolization case currently pending against the company.

All communications discussing the potential dismissal of Ms. Slater, including with the White House and lobbyists for Live Nation-Ticketmaster or any other outside firm.

All communications discussing the potential dismissal of Ms. Slater’s deputies, including Mark Hamer, Roger Alford, and Bill Rinner.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


AFTER TRUMP’S CRUSADE AGAINST LGBTQ+ COMMUNITY, SCHUMER MOVES TO PERMANENTLY PROTECT STONEWALL PRIDE FLAG; PLAN WOULD BYPASS TRUMP ADMIN TO DEFEND LGBTQ+ FLAG FOREVER AT STONEWALL & ACROSS THE COUNTRY

Attempts To Hurt New York & Pride Community Won’t Fly— But Stonewall Flag Sure Will; Legislation With Rep. Dan Goldman And Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand Would Codify Flag In Federal Law, Preventing Admin From Laying A Finger On It

Schumer: Stonewall Is Sacred Ground, Congress Must Act Now To Permanently Protect The Pride Flag And What It Stands For In Law Once And For All

New York, N.Y. – Today, Senator Charles Schumer stood with local leaders following the Trump administration’s outrageous directive to remove the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument. He said the removal of the Pride flag from Stonewall National Monument, the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, is a deeply outrageous action that must be reversed. In the wake of the Trump administration’s attempt to rewrite history, stoke division and discrimination, and erase LGBTQ+ community pride, Schumer moved to permanently protect the Pride flag from the administration’s crusade against the LGBTQ+ community.

The Trump administration continued its assault on the LGBTQ+ community earlier this week with the removal of the historic pride flag from the Stonewall Monument in New York, citing a directive that it is not a congressionally authorized flag. Today, Schumer moved to right that wrong by putting forth legislation that designates the Pride flag as an authorized flag, as well as express a sense of the Senate that the Pride flag should fly at the Stonewall National Monument.

“Stonewall has stood as a beacon of hope for the LGBTQ+ community – a reminder of the resilience and perseverance of those before us who fought for the rights they deserve. Stonewall is sacred ground and Congress must act now to permanently protect the Pride flag and what it stands for,” said Senator Schumer. “Trump’s hateful crusade must end. The very core of American identity is liberty and justice for all – and that is what this legislation would protect: each national park’s ability to make their own decision about what flag can be flown. Attempts to hurt New York and the LGTBQ+ community simply won’t fly, but the Stonewall Pride flag always will.”

“Stonewall is a landmark because it is the birthplace of the modern LGBTQ+ rights movement, and symbols of that legacy belong here by both history and principle. New Yorkers are right to be outraged, but if there’s one thing I know about this latest attempt to rewrite history, stoke division and discrimination, and erase our community pride it’s this: New Yorkers will see to the flag’s return and we will ensure it remains,” Schumer added.

“Last week, Pride flew again at Stonewall because our community refused to be diminished. Now, Senator Schumer and Representative Dan Goldman are taking the next critical step to ensure it won’t be removed ever again,” said Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal. “Authorizing the Pride flag in federal law is about more than symbolism, it’s about permanence. It sends a clear message that LGBTQ+ history is not subject to political whims and that our visibility cannot be stripped away. Civil rights landmarks should not be vulnerable to shifting administrations. This legislation protects our legacy, our dignity, and the generations who will look to Stonewall as proof that progress, once won, must be defended.”

"When the Trump administration took down our flag, the community rose together and put it back,” said Assemblymember Tony Simone. “I am thankful for Senator Schumer and Representative Goldman for providing strong leadership in DC that sends the signal, LGBTQ history must always be remembered and any attempt to roll back progress will be met with all our strength."

The Pride flag represents generations of Americans who fought to be seen, heard, and protected under our nation’s promise of liberty. HRC is working toward a future where our children feel just as safe surrounded by the American flag as they do by Pride flags. With Senator Schumer’s leadership, that work begins anew today. This is not about politics or identities — it’s about ensuring our history fully reflects who we are as a country," said Kelley Robinson, President of the Human Rights Campaign.

“Our history and legacy cannot be erased,” said Matthew Bernardo, President of Housing Works. “We are indebted to the leaders of the LGBTQ liberation movement who along with leaders of the Civil Rights movement paved the way for AIDS activists to speak truth to power and save lives. The flag is a symbol of all we have endured and the real work we continue to do every day in our clinics, through our programs, and in the streets."

“The Gilbert Baker Foundation would like to express our sincere gratitude to Senator Schumer for creating legislation asking for congressional recognition for the rainbow flag,” said Kenn Kid of the Gilbert Baker Foundation. “When Gilbert created the rainbow flag in 1978, he made it for "all sexes, all genders, all races, all ages.” He called it 'the rainbow of humanity.' It is reassuring to know that our elected officials in New York support the idea that hope is for everyone, and that inclusion is a bedrock of our democracy."

Schumer has been a strong voice for the LGBTQ+ community. Just last week, Senator Schumer, along with Senator Gillibrand (D-NY) and Representative Dan Goldman (D-NY), wrote to Secretary Burgum slamming the Trump administration’s decision to remove the Pride flag from the Stonewall National Monument and calling for its immediate restoration. During Pride month last year, Schumer slammed the Trump administration for targeting LGBTQ+ Americans with cruel cuts to programs used to diagnose, treat and prevent HIV/AIDS, and called on RFK Jr. to reverse billions in cuts. Additionally, Schumer fought hard to pass the bipartisan Respect for Marriage Act, which provided federal protections for same-sex marriage. The legislation was signed into Law by President Biden in 2022.

###


Van Hollen Joins Whitehouse, Senate Democrats in Investigation into EPA’s Decision to Disregard Health Impacts in Air Pollution Standards

Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW), and over 25 Senators in launching an investigation into the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) decision to cease counting health benefits when conducting cost-benefit analysis for Clean Air Act rules that limit dangerous pollutants. The decision was announced in a recent rulemaking concerning power plant regulations and reveals EPA’s intention to apply this policy to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, two of the most harmful air pollutants.

“EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are ‘uncertain’, what is certain is that they are not zero. It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health – including in saved lives. It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed. The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors,”wrote the Senators.

The decision is based on EPA’s claim that calculating benefits for PM2.5 and ozone is too “uncertain,” yet the agency has long been able to quantify both the costs and benefits of human health effects in Clean Air Act standards. For decades, EPA and other federal agencies have conducted robust cost-benefit analyses under Executive Order 12866, comparing monetized health benefits with compliance costs as a foundational part of rulemaking. Both pollutants covered by the new rulemaking are well-documented drivers of serious health harms.

By factoring in only the costs to industry—and not the costs to human life—the Trump EPA risks Americans’ health and could cost billions in higher health care spending. Should EPA apply this policy when reconsidering the current nationwide PM2.5 standards, the agency risks costing Americans “between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature deaths in the year 2032,” the Senators wrote. “The total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, [would] be $590 million—between one and two one-hundredths of the estimated health benefit value.” The Senators pointed out that “EPA has frequently overestimated cost to industry when promulgating regulations in the past,” but even if the $590 million estimate is correct, “the expense of forgoing the $22 to $46 billion benefit would burden Americans across the country in lives lost, more frequent and severe illnesses, missed school days and lost labor productivity, [while] the $590 million in savings would go mostly into the pockets of a small group of Trump’s fossil fuel donors.”

The Senators emphasize that the shift contradicts EPA’s core obligation to protect health, the Clean Air Act’s directive to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare,” and commitments Administrator Zeldin himself made during his confirmation hearing, where he testified that, “the goal, the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.” Administrator Zeldin’s action now flies in the face of his earlier testimony.

“That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist—it just means that [EPA] will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests,”concluded the Senators.

This change also paves the way to looser controls on other pollutants, including coal-burning power plants.

In addition to Senators Van Hollen and Whitehouse, the letter was signed by Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King, Jr. (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The Senators are requesting documents and information related to this decision, including draft and final analyses, cost-benefit modeling, scientific justifications, communications with industry representatives, and any White House involvement, by February 24, 2026.

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Administrator Zeldin,

We write in response to EPA’s apparent decision that it will no longer count health effects when conducting cost-benefit analysis for Clean Air Act rules limiting dangerous pollutants. In a recent rulemaking concerning power plant regulations, EPA has specifically announced its intention to apply this policy to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and ozone, alleging that the benefits calculus for these pollutants is particularly “uncertain”.

EPA’s new policy is irrational. Even where health benefits are “uncertain”, what is certain is that they are not zero. It will lead to perverse outcomes in which EPA will reject actions that would impose relatively minor costs on polluting industries while resulting in massive benefits to public health – including in saved lives. It is contrary to Congress’s intent and directive as spelled out in the Clean Air Act. It is legally flawed. The only beneficiaries will be polluting industries, many of which are among President Trump’s largest donors.

The purpose of the Clean Air Act, as confirmed repeatedly by the text of the statute, is to promote clean air. In 1967, on the opening page of the Act, Congress stated that “air pollution…has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and welfare” and determined that it was therefore the purpose of the Act to “protect and enhance the quality of the Nation’s air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare...” You yourself affirmed this directive under oath in your own confirmation hearing in January 2025, when you testified to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee that “[EPA’s] mission is simple, but essential: to protect human health and the environment.” You can’t “protect human health” if you don’t count it.

Since the Clean Air Act’s inception, EPA has implemented its health-protecting mission through rulemaking and enforcement. For several decades, since the issuance of Executive Order 12866, EPA and other federal agencies have conducted robust cost-benefit analyses, comparing monetized expected health benefits against compliance costs, as an often-foundational component of rulemaking. Indeed, cost-benefit analyses are often relied upon by courts to determine if a rulemaking was reasonable and not “arbitrary and capricious”.

It is true that a cost-benefit analysis is an inexact metric for evaluating the value of a human life. It is also true that some health benefits are difficult to quantify to their full extent. But these points simply show that health benefits are often destined, even when monetized, to be undervalued—which makes it more important than ever that EPA at a minimum weigh those health benefits that are monetizable. Putting a minimum dollars and cents value on health assures the public that EPA is doing the work it is obligated to do; protecting the public health and considering compliance costs in the context of overall benefits, including the benefits that the Clean Air Act is designed to achieve. This assurance is doubly important now, when your EPA has shown time and time again that it values corporate profit over protecting the public. Instead of giving this assurance, your EPA now intends to set health benefits to zero.

EPA has declared that it will no longer monetize the benefits of reducing PM2.5 and ozone pollution, on the basis that the benefits of their reduction are “uncertain”. But the benefit of reducing air pollution is demonstrably not zero. PM2.5 pollution causes heart attacks, asthma, bronchitis, lung cancer, strokes, premature births, and death. Ozone pollution causes lung disease, asthma attacks, nervous system and cardiovascular problems, and reproductive issues. Economists and scientists have long established workable metrics for monetarily quantifying the health benefits of reduced pollution. The method for calculating PM2.5 benefits, according to a former EPA economist who worked at the agency from 1998 until 2025, is “one of the most heavily reviewed processes probably ever in the federal government, and [it] has been through many iterations in both Democratic and Republican administrations.” In setting its updated PM2.5 national ambient air quality (NAAQs) standards in 2024, EPA calculated a benefit of between $22 and $46 billion in avoided morbidities and premature death in the year 2032. The total compliance cost to industry, meanwhile, was calculated to be $590 million—between one and two onehundredths of the estimated health benefit value. Moreover, as EPA itself acknowledges, compliance cost values themselves are subject to a significant degree of uncertainty. EPA has frequently overestimated cost to industry when promulgating regulations in the past. Finally, even assuming $590 million is correct, it must be noted that while the expense of forgoing the $22 to 46 billion benefit would burden Americans across the country in lives lost, more frequent and severe illnesses, missed school days and lost labor productivity, the $590 million in savings would go mostly into the pockets of a small group of Trump’s fossil fuel donors.

It seems self-evident that where EPA does conduct a cost-benefit analysis, it would be irrational to consider only the cost of setting standards, while ignoring the monetized public health benefits of those standards. Self-evident or not, we can rely on the edict of the Administrative Procedure Act, confirmed by Supreme Court precedent, which holds that agency rulemaking is arbitrary and capricious, and therefore invalid, when the agency fails to consider an important aspect of the problem. The devastating and astronomically expensive impacts that PM2.5, ozone, and other dangerous pollutants have on the public health is clearly an “important aspect” of the problem of regulating them. This clear conclusion is further supported by the Ninth Circuit case Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), in which that court vacated Bush-era vehicle standards after NHTSA failed to consider the benefits of reduced greenhouse gases in an associated environmental review. The court held that “NHTSA’s reasoning is arbitrary and capricious for several reasons. First, while the record shows that there is a range of values, the value of carbon emissions reduction is certainly not zero.”

The Supreme Court has also recognized that considering health benefits is of fundamental importance. In Michigan v. EPA, the Supreme Court rejected an EPA power plants rule promulgated under section 112 after the agency determined that it need not consider cost of compliance when determining that it was “appropriate and necessary” to regulate the source in question. The Court disagreed, expressing its concern that it would not be rational or “appropriate” to “impose billions of dollars in economic costs in return for a few dollars in health or environmental benefits”, and further that EPA’s interpretation was legally flawed because it could “preclude[] the Agency from considering any type of cost”, including harms to “human health or the environment”. The Court did not specifically direct EPA to monetize health benefits in Michigan, but its reasoning and dicta throughout suggested an underlying understanding that such a calculation is an important aspect of reasonable rulemaking. Crucially, the Court noted, “[c]onsideration of cost reflects the understanding that reasonable regulation ordinarily requires paying attention to the advantages and the disadvantages of agency decisions.” This statement, read both ways, reflects the logical understanding that where EPA estimates compliance costs in dollars, it should also monetize associated public health benefits – what matters are the relative costs and benefits, and the agency needs to calculate both in order to compare them.. EPA might contest that “paying attention” to health benefits does not require monetizing them, but failing to do so risks comparing apples and oranges and, as discussed above, vastly underestimating the dangers of deregulation.

When you appeared before the Committee at your confirmation hearing, you testified: “the goal, the end state of all the conversations that we might have, any regulations that might get passed, any laws that might get passed by Congress” is to “have the cleanest, healthiest air, [and] drinking water.” And when Senator Blunt Rochester asked you to confirm that it was still your position that “EPA’s mission is to protect the health of the public and the environment,” you responded simply “yes.” Yet now, faced with the opportunity to consider quantifiable statistics about human health, you choose to ignore them entirely. That EPA may no longer monetize health benefits when setting new clean air standards does not mean that those health benefits don’t exist—it just means that you will ignore them and reject safer standards, in favor of protecting corporate interests.

To help us better understand EPA’s decision-making process, please respond to the following requests for information and documents no later than February 26, 2026:

1. On what basis did EPA make the decision to no longer quantify health effects of PM2.5 and ozone pollution when undertaking the cost-benefit analysis as part of its Clean Air Act rulemaking? In your answer, please include a discussion of all EPA experts and offices consulted as part of the decision-making process.

2. What exactly will EPA take into account when undertaking Clean Air Act rulemaking cost-benefit analyses? Please clearly identify all factors it will consider as “costs” and all factors it will consider as “benefits.”

3. Has EPA discussed ceasing to quantify health effects of other pollutants, in addition to PM2.5 and ozone? If so, which pollutants?

4. Before making the decision to no longer take health effects into account when undertaking clean-air rulemaking cost-benefit analyses, did EPA consult with any third parties, including but not limited to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the U.S. Surgeon General, public health experts, and interested civil society groups such as the “Make America Healthy Again” movement?

a. If yes, please provide the date of each such meeting and a description of the matters discussed.

b. If no, why not?

5. Please produce any documents, including contemporaneous notes, memorializing any internal or external discussions and communications concerning items (1) through (4). Please also produce all communications between and among EPA and third parties, including but not limited to the White House, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Office of the United States Surgeon General, and the fossil fuel industry concerning items (1) through (3), including but not limited to emails, briefing materials, talking points, calendar entries, reports, memoranda, internal analyses, and correspondence.

Sincerely,


Amo Statement on the Shooting in Pawtucket at Lynch Arena

“My thoughts are with the victims of the shooting in Pawtucket at Lynch Arena. I also send comfort to all of the families and spectators who witnessed this horror.

I’m saddened that gun violence has impacted another community — an ice arena should be a safe place for kids and families to come together. It’s horrible that the memory of these teams’ high school hockey Senior Night, with families from across Rhode Island, will be a tragedy.


Rep. Ami Bera in Meidas Touch: I’m Skipping the State of the Union. Here’s Why.

As a senior member of the House of Representatives, I feel an obligation to attend the State of the Union out of respect for the president as they outline their vision for our country. This year I feel different.

After watching President Trump run roughshod over the Constitution, display utter disregard for Congress, and openly engage in corruption as he and his family use the office to enrich themselves and tarnish this country that I love, I will not give him the dignity of having my presence at the State of the Union.

Donald Trump is a troll. As such, I expect him to use this annual event at our Nation’s Capitol –– a building I hold sacred –– to troll both my Democratic and Republican colleagues.

I expect him to intentionally make outrageous and inflammatory statements that will make Democrats furious and rise in protest. I expect him to make outright lies and exaggerations, boastfully talk about his brilliance, and stare down my Republican colleagues until they stand, applaud feverishly, and demonstrate their fealty to this malignant narcissist.

I would urge my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle not to fall for his traps or feed his massive ego. Remember: we are the first branch of government. We represent the people of this great nation. We work for our constituents, not this maleficent autocrat.

As Democrats, we should realize that while people do not like President Trump and his policies, we need to do a better job defining what we stand for and who we are fighting for. The American people want secure borders, safe streets, and immigration enforcement focused on arresting and deporting violent criminals. They do not want masked and armed ICE agents randomly picking up people because of the color of their skin or the language that they speak.

They support their local law enforcement to keep their communities safe. They only want National Guard help if their governors or mayors seek assistance to keep the peace.

They want their schools to better prepare their children for a rapidly changing world and workforce. They do not want to censor books and dismantle the Department of Education.

They want a president focused on lowering the cost of healthcare, groceries, utility bills, and rent. Not one that illegally invades other countries, tries to take sovereign territory from our friends, or tears down the White House to build a monument to himself.

They support making sure other countries play by the same rules that they place on our exported goods and services. They do not support the president’s random and haphazard implementation of tariffs that have shifted the costs onto working families with already strained budgets.

And while they think our allies should pay their fair share for their own defense and national security, they also know that the world is a better place when America leads with strong partnerships and alliances, and stands up for democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

I know that the United States of America is better than what we see coming out of this president and this White House. I still believe that America is that “shining city on a hill” President Reagan described in his farewell address. I believe who we are as a nation is reflected in our Pledge of Allegiance with the words “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

If only the president believed these words. We’re better than this. We have more moral character than this. And we believe in our country more than he does.

Donald Trump does not define the United States of America. We do.

Representative Ami Bera, M.D., has represented Sacramento County in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2013. He serves as a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.


ICYMI – Rep. Ami Bera in Meidas Touch: I’m Skipping the State of the Union. Here’s Why.

SACRAMENTO COUNTY, CA –– Today, Representative Ami Bera, M.D. (CA-06) released an op-ed in MeidasTouch explaining why he will not attend President Trump’s State of the Union address. In the op-ed, Bera urges his colleagues on both sides of the aisle not to legitimize Trump’s political theater and calls on Democrats to clearly define and communicate an alternative to the Trump agenda.

You can read the full op-ed here and below:

As a senior member of the House of Representatives, I feel an obligation to attend the State of the Union out of respect for the president as they outline their vision for our country. This year I feel different.

After watching President Trump run roughshod over the Constitution, display utter disregard for Congress, and openly engage in corruption as he and his family use the office to enrich themselves and tarnish this country that I love, I will not give him the dignity of having my presence at the State of the Union.

Donald Trump is a troll. As such, I expect him to use this annual event at our Nation’s Capitol –– a building I hold sacred –– to troll both my Democratic and Republican colleagues.

I expect him to intentionally make outrageous and inflammatory statements that will make Democrats furious and rise in protest. I expect him to make outright lies and exaggerations, boastfully talk about his brilliance, and stare down my Republican colleagues until they stand, applaud feverishly, and demonstrate their fealty to this malignant narcissist.

I would urge my colleagues and friends on both sides of the aisle not to fall for his traps or feed his massive ego. Remember: we are the first branch of government. We represent the people of this great nation. We work for our constituents, not this maleficent autocrat.

As Democrats, we should realize that while people do not like President Trump and his policies, we need to do a better job defining what we stand for and who we are fighting for. The American people want secure borders, safe streets, and immigration enforcement focused on arresting and deporting violent criminals. They do not want masked and armed ICE agents randomly picking up people because of the color of their skin or the language that they speak.

They support their local law enforcement to keep their communities safe. They only want National Guard help if their governors or mayors seek assistance to keep the peace.

They want their schools to better prepare their children for a rapidly changing world and workforce. They do not want to censor books and dismantle the Department of Education.

They want a president focused on lowering the cost of healthcare, groceries, utility bills, and rent. Not one that illegally invades other countries, tries to take sovereign territory from our friends, or tears down the White House to build a monument to himself.

They support making sure other countries play by the same rules that they place on our exported goods and services. They do not support the president’s random and haphazard implementation of tariffs that have shifted the costs onto working families with already strained budgets.

And while they think our allies should pay their fair share for their own defense and national security, they also know that the world is a better place when America leads with strong partnerships and alliances, and stands up for democracy, freedom, and the rule of law.

I know that the United States of America is better than what we see coming out of this president and this White House. I still believe that America is that “shining city on a hill” President Reagan described in his farewell address. I believe who we are as a nation is reflected in our Pledge of Allegiance with the words “one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

If only the president believed these words. We’re better than this. We have more moral character than this. And we believe in our country more than he does.

Donald Trump does not define the United States of America. We do.

Representative Ami Bera, M.D., has represented Sacramento County in the U.S. House of Representatives since 2013. He serves as a senior Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee and the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

###


Congressman John Carter Announces New VA Outpatient Clinic Serving Copperas Cove and Killeen Area

Copperas Cove, TX – Congressman John Carter (TX-31) joined the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to announce a major expansion of healthcare access for Central Texas veterans with the establishment of a new VA outpatient clinic serving the Copperas Cove and Killeen region.

Located just five miles from Fort Hood, the new clinic will bring VA healthcare closer to home for thousands of veterans across Central Texas.

The facility will serve a regional veteran population approaching 200,000, including many who served at Fort Cavazos and chose to remain in the region after their military service. The clinic will reduce drive times, expand access to mental health and outpatient specialty services, and improve appointment availability for veterans and their families.

The project reflects a strong partnership between Congress and the Department of Veterans Affairs to strengthen outpatient care capacity in Central Texas while supporting one of the largest veteran populations in the nation. The development and operation of the clinic is also expected to create more than 500 jobs.

“This clinic brings care closer to home for the veterans who served our nation,” said Congressman Carter. “It reduces drive time, expands access to critical services, and strengthens support for the military and retiree community in Central Texas.”

“After our men and women in uniform complete their service, we must continue to serve them as veterans," said Congressman Pfluger. "Killeen is the center of Texas military might and it’s time we match that need. This new VA clinic offers our local veterans quicker access to quality care, and is a major win for the community. I was proud to help bring this VA to Killeen, and I applaud my friend Judge Carter for his partnership and leadership in making it happen.”

“The brave men and women who defended our nation in uniform deserve the highest quality health care,” said Sen. Cornyn. “The new VA Outpatient Clinic in Copperas Cove will ensure veterans in Central Texas have access to the medical care they need. I was proud to support the creation of this clinic alongside my colleague, Congressman John Carter, and I look forward to seeing how it serves our veterans for years to come.”

“VA has opened more than two dozen new health care facilities during the second Trump Administration, and this proposed clinic underscores President Trump’s steadfast commitment to bringing more care to Veterans closer to home,” said VA Secretary Doug Collins.

The new outpatient clinic represents a continued commitment to ensuring veterans in the Copperas Cove and Killeen area receive timely, accessible, and high-quality care.