Arkansas cotton leader wants Congress to approve tax credits to boost consumption

By Alex Thomas

WASHINGTON -- One Arkansas farmer says federal lawmakers need to boost interest in domestic cotton products as producers continue to struggle amid poor economic conditions.

The U.S. Senate Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry Committee hosted agriculture leaders on Tuesday for a hearing on domestic consumption of American-grown agricultural products. The panel held its hearing as farmers continue preparation for the upcoming crop year.

Marianna farmer Nathan Reed was among the witnesses before the Senate panel. His appearance stemmed from his role as chair of the National Cotton Council, a trade association representing growers, textile manufacturers and other parties within the cotton industry.

"The financial situation of U.S. cotton growers continues to deteriorate with market prices still well below the cost of production," Reed told senators. "This is on top of deep losses producers suffered in 2023, 2024 and 2025."

Agriculture organizations have been urging Congress to help operations ahead of the new crop year. In their calls for action, the groups have cited mounting financial stress from multiple years of high input costs and low crop prices.

A recent American Farm Bureau analysis shows farm-related Chapter 12 bankruptcies increased by 46% between 2024 and 2025, reaching 315 filings nationwide.

Agriculture is Arkansas' leading industry with a $25.6 billion annual contribution to the state's economy. Arkansas is among the leading states in cotton, with the Arkansas Department of Agriculture reporting production has a $568 million value. The American Farm Bureau report mentions Arkansas led the United States last year in farm-related Chapter 12 bankruptcies with 33 filings.

According to Reed, cotton producers face additional headwinds from rising international competition and human-made fiber consumption. He specifically mentioned Brazil's growing global presence; the country has eclipsed the United States as the third-largest cotton-producing country.

"Over the last 20 years, cotton has seen no consistent demand growth," Reed added.

Reed and the National Cotton Council have thrown support behind the Buying American Cotton Act. The bicameral legislation would establish a tax credit for companies to incentivize the sale of domestic cotton products.

Arkansas Republicans John Boozman and Tom Cotton are cosponsoring the Senate version of the measure. Rep. Rick Crawford, R-Ark., has signed on to the House bill; the Jonesboro congressman serves on the House of Representatives Agriculture Committee.

Mississippi Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith, the Senate legislation's lead sponsor, touted the Buying American Cotton Act during Tuesday's hearing. She said it is imperative for Congress to "invest in long-term demand-building initiatives."

"We in Washington need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for domestic consumption that lifts all of American agriculture products," she said. "That is how all growers benefit, and it is the only fix worth having."

Minnesota Democrat Amy Klobuchar, the Senate agriculture committee's top Democrat, voiced support for efforts to increase domestic consumption of American agriculture products. She also said the Trump administration's international trade agenda -- which prioritizes tariffs on foreign products -- has fostered uncertainty among farmers.

"The chaos caused by our tariff and trade policy is causing many, many issues," she said.

The hearing came as the U.S. Department of Agriculture continues accepting applications for its Farmer Bridge Assistance Program. Most of the program's funds -- $11 billion -- have been set aside for farmers of cotton and other row crops, while producers of specialty crops can apply for the remaining dollars.

Boozman, of Rogers, and Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., unveiled legislation in January to expand coverage of the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program and increase farm ownership and operating loan limits. Boozman chairs the Senate agriculture committee. Hoeven serves on the committee and leads the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Agriculture and Rural Development.

"If you're putting something in the ground, you're losing money," Boozman said Tuesday. "It doesn't matter what you're planting or where you're planting it. No row crop is currently profitable."

Boozman and other Republicans have touted language in the GOP's One Big Beautiful Bill Act modernizing agriculture programs. The law -- which President Donald Trump signed into law in July -- includes an increase in commodity reference prices among other changes, yet these updates will not take effect until October.

Reed expressed gratitude for the incoming ad hoc support and revamped programs. He stressed, however, the United States' cotton industry "cannot survive without stronger demand."

"We are in a dire situation in cotton due to cheap polyester and cheap foreign cotton," Reed said.

"Providing more consumption of American cotton will absolutely reverse the trend of the loss of cotton-processing facilities," he added. "Once they're gone, it's very difficult to get those back."


Buying American Cotton Act hopes to foster inelastic cotton demand

Louis Dreyfus Co. executive Joe Nicosia says the U.S. cotton industry is in jeopardy, but he has faith in a bill working its way through Congress that could offer huge support to domestic producers.

by Whitney Shannon Heckel, Staff Writer, Delta Farm Press

At a Glance

• The U.S. remains the world’s largest exporter of cotton.

• The viability of the U.S. cotton industry requires inelastic demand.

• The Buying American Cotton Act can incentivize the use of U.S. cotton in domestically sold products.

“What can we do to give our industry a chance to not just survive, but to thrive?” asked Joe Nicosia, global trading operations officer and executive vice president, Louis Dreyfus Co., during his Outlook for U.S. and World Cotton presentation at the 2026 Mid-South Farm and Gin Show.

He said a solution for the U.S. cotton industry requires a shift in focus, with less emphasis on supply and more on demand. “For us to have a future, we need to make some changes,” he said. “One way we can do this is to create inelastic demand for our product.”

The most promising tool to foster a demand-focused environment, the Buying American Cotton Act, was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives in January and in the Senate last May. During his presentation, Nicosia outlined the bill’s details and emphasized the need for “demand from the American consumer to strengthen American agriculture.”

Shifts in cotton production

Nicosia stressed that the U.S. cotton industry cannot chase production because other cotton-producing countries have increased their production, generating uncertainty and an imbalance in global supply.

For instance, China is now the highest-yielding country, averaging close to 2,300 lint pounds per acre. Following closely behind are Australia and Brazil. Meanwhile, the average U.S. cotton planted yield has seen a downtrend over the last 10 years, now averaging around 800 lint pounds per acre.

Although Nicosia acknowledged the U.S. average does not reflect higher regional yields, he underscored the urgency of the issue. “When other countries are yielding 200% to 300% higher than we are in America, we are not going to win the production race.”

Moreover, Brazil has more than tripled its annual cotton production in the past 10 years, from 6 million bales a decade ago to 19.5 million bales this year. The U.S. remains the largest exporter of cotton, but Nicosia said Brazil’s level of production presents a challenge to the U.S.

In India, cotton yields are low, but the country’s agricultural acreage is massive. Nicosia explained that if the average cotton yield in India increased by just 100 pounds, it would bump the country’s annual cotton production up tremendously. Therefore, India is a country we need to be watching, he said.

Another critical issue is cotton’s competition with polyester, and China is the largest global manufacturer of polyester, producing almost 65 million tons a year. Nicosia said this calculates to a cotton equivalent of almost 300 million bales. With China being the largest textile apparel exporter in the world, polyester has taken a sizeable portion of the market, threatening the demand for cotton.

As a result, other countries have expanded cotton activities. Bangladesh was the largest importer of cotton in 2024-25, and other countries, such as Vietnam and Pakistan, are also showing more interest in cotton.

“I believe our future hinges on our ability to attack the demand side of the coin,” Nicosia said.

Buying American Cotton Act

The U.S. is both the world’s largest importer of cotton goods and biggest spender on textile products ($320 billion annually). These cotton imports come out to around 16 million to 20 million bales a year, but the bad news is that 75% to 80% of every product imported into the U.S. supports foreign-grown cotton.

But if U.S. cotton production is around 15 million to 16 million bales each year, why isn’t the U.S. using its own cotton for the products and apparel sold domestically? This question has led industry leaders and legislators to explore how the U.S. can leverage its assets, and there is a solution on the horizon.

The Buying American Cotton Act (BACA) has been introduced in both houses of Congress. “It makes so much sense, and its amazing we haven’t already done it in the past,” Nicosia said. “We need to leverage the power of the U.S. consumer to strengthen American agriculture. We are not going to win a production war, but we can win a demand war.”

BACA aims to prioritize the use of American-grown cotton in federal government procurement to support domestic farmers and a viable U.S. cotton industry. The bill encourages the purchase of locally produced cotton by offering a tax credit to brands and retailers that prove they sell products with U.S.-grown cotton. It seeks to boost the economy, create jobs and reduce reliance on imports, and reflects a commitment to promoting American agriculture and ensuring sustainability in the cotton supply chain.

Nicosia expressed gratitude to Reps. Greg Murphy, R-N.C., and Terri Sewell, D-Ala., and Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith, R-Miss., for their work in getting BACA before Congress. He also expressed thanks to other organizations that have supported the bill.

Some of the supporters in the retail sales industry include Gap, Levi Strauss & Co., Target, Under Armour and Victoria’s Secret. National industry associations also back it.

“Why is BACA resonating with so many different voters?” Nicosia asked. “The reason I think we are going to get BACA is because there is something in it for everyone. It is traceable and supports responsible production.”

BACA is in the early stages of the legislative process and awaiting committee review. If passed, the bill has the potential to raise awareness of cotton, boost cotton-rich products and incentivize brands and retailers to specifically ask for products to be made from cotton.

What will it take for a rally?

“The ability for this market to rally depends on its ability to increase demand,” Nicosia said, stressing that to support a rally, we need consumption to exceed production, and BACA has the potential to create inelastic demand for U.S. cotton.

In addition, he said, enumerating trade deals is necessary. “We need trade deals that are not ambiguous and tie down volume to buy from the United States or whether we give them the return trade back into the United States,” he said.

Finally, for inelastic demand, Nicosia said we need crop failures. While he does not wish that on the U.S., crop failure creates fear. “Today, no one is fearful because of the large supplies in South America on top of the North American crops. There is no fear of shortage, but crop failure will create that.”


HYDE-SMITH BUILDS SUPPORT FOR HER BILL TO HELP STEM THE DECLINE OF U.S. COTTON

Senate Ag Committee Examines How to Increase Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Products

VIDEO: Senator Hyde-Smith Promotes Inclusion of U.S. Cotton Consumption Incentives in Long-term Solutions for American Agriculture.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.) today argued that her legislation to incentivize the use of U.S.-grown cotton to stem the decline of domestic cotton production must be part of finding long-term solutions to sustain American agriculture.

Hyde-Smith promoted her Buying American Cotton Act (BACA) at a Tuesday Senate Agriculture Committee hearing titled, Increasing Domestic Consumption of U.S.-Grown Agricultural Products. The hearing featured witnesses from the cotton, corn, soybean, and fresh produce sectors.

“We in Washington need to adopt a comprehensive strategy for domestic consumption that lifts all of American agriculture. That is how all growers benefit, and it’s the only fix worth having. Today I am here to emphasize that complex problems are rarely solved with one simple solution, and that the Buying American Cotton Act should be part of the overall solution we’re seeking,” Hyde-Smith said.

BACA (S.1919) would establish tax credits to incentivize the use of U.S.-grown cotton and U.S. cotton-manufactured products like yarns and fabric in cotton-based products sold in the United States. Hyde-Smith offered the bipartisan measure as one long-term solution to stem the decline of domestic cotton production, which has seen a 50 percent decline in planted acres since the mid-1990s and, more dire, a 28 percent decline in the past four years.

“Here’s why we should care about the U.S. cotton industry and passing the Buying American Cotton Act. While cotton planted acreage is small compared to other major row crops, its economic output and associated jobs dwarf other major row crops on a per-acre basis – just do the math. The supply chain is far more intricate than other major row crops – that means jobs, money, more jobs, and more money,” Hyde-Smith said. “U.S. producers now have to export more than 85 percent of the cotton that they grow. Why can’t we use that here?”

National Cotton Council Chairman Nathan Reed warned in his testimony, “Our industry will not survive without stronger demand, and BACA would help position U.S. cotton to compete more effectively against synthetic fibers and against foreign cotton producers, including Brazil. The U.S. represents a 20-million-bale retail market for cotton finished goods, yet we estimate that only 4 million bales of that are U.S. cotton. BACA aims to correct this imbalance.”

Zippy Duvall, President of the American Farm Bureau Federation, also testified in favor of BACA.

“Your bill will incentivize companies to use American-grown cotton, which is a good thing for our cotton farmers,” Duvall said. “But the key thing is not only will it help farmers; it’s going to help rural communities. We’ve lost 1,700 cotton gins since 1980 – 1,700. That infrastructure will never be replaced again. Never be replaced again. And all the jobs that went with it and all the communities that depended on that infrastructure just went away. We’ve seen it all over the southeast and southern part of our country. So, that bill will be a tremendous help not only to farmers, cotton farmers, but it'll be a big help for our rural communities in those areas of our country.”

At the hearing, Hyde-Smith entered into the record a letter of support for BACA signed by more than 80 industry stakeholders, textile mills, major brands and retailers, and Farm Bureaus from states across the country. In addition to organizations like the Delta Council, signers included retailers like Target, American Trench, GAP, and Dignity Apparel.

Overall, Hyde-Smith said Congress must “invest in long-term, demand-building initiatives” like BACA to reduce the need for ad hoc disaster assistance, while also providing another round of short-term support to supplement the Farmer Bridge Assistance Program until farm safety net reforms in the Working Families Tax Cut Act are implemented.

“This will help keep American farmers and ranchers in operation, while saving taxpayer dollars down the road,” Hyde-Smith said.

###


Kaine, Curtis, King, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan Fiscal Commission Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) joined U.S. Senators John Curtis (R-UT) and Angus King (I-ME) and other colleagues in introducing the Fiscal Commission Act, bipartisan legislation to strengthen America’s fiscal health and stabilize the nation’s finances for future generations. The bill would create a bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission tasked with finding legislative solutions to stabilize spending and decrease the national debt, which now exceeds $38.8 trillion.

“We must find a bipartisan path forward to address our nation’s debt while preserving vital programs that Americans rely on,” said Kaine. “That’s why I’m introducing this bipartisan legislation with my colleagues that would create a commission so we can have this important dialogue and take steps toward addressing the debt."

The national debt now exceeds $38.8 trillion, which is approximately 124% of the entire U.S. economy. Both parties are to blame—fiscal policies enacted by both Democrats and Republicans have led to soaring annual budget deficits, which totaled $1.7 trillion in calendar year 2025 alone. It’s projected that the federal government will spend more than $1 trillion on interest on the debt alone in 2026, making it a larger expenditure than Medicare and national defense, and second only to Social Security.

The Fiscal Commission Act would:

Establish a 16-member bipartisan, bicameral commission consisting of 12 elected officials and four outside experts.

The Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader each appoint four individuals to the Commission, of which three must be members from their respective chambers and one must be an outside expert.

Require the Commission to produce a report and propose legislation aiming to improve the long-term fiscal condition of the Federal Government, stabilize the ratio of public debt to GDP within a 15-year period, and improve the solvency of Federal trust funds over a 75-year period.

Require the Commission to vote on approval of the report and legislative language by May 17, 2027.

Any report or legislative language produced by the Commission must be approved by a majority of the 12 elected official members, with at least two being from each party.

If the Commission approves proposed legislative language, it would receive expedited consideration in both chambers.

While 60 votes would be required to invoke cloture prior to final passage in the Senate, only a simple majority would be needed for the motion to proceed, which would be privileged.

In addition to Kaine, Curtis, and King, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Coons (D-DE), Todd Young (R-IN), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Mark R. Warner (D-VA).

The full bill text is available here.

###


Kelly, Cruz, Cornyn, Gallego Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Restore Fairness in Federal Highway Funding

Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Ted Cruz (R-TX), John Cornyn (R-TX), and Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) reintroduced the Highway Formula Fairness Act to modernize the Highway Trust Fund (HTF) distribution formula to ensure states receive a fair share of federal surface transportation funding based on the amount they contribute to the HTF. Companion legislation was introduced in the House by Representative Chip Roy (R-TX-21).

“Arizona is one of the fastest-growing states in the country, but we’ve been shortchanged for decades when it comes to federal funding for the highways, roads, and bridges we rely on every day,”said Senator Kelly. “Arizona drivers send their tax dollars to Washington, and we should be getting our fair share back to build safer roads and keep our economy moving.”

“Texas is the second-largest contributor to the Highway Trust Fund (HTF), yet it has received a smaller share relative to its contributions than any other state over the life of the fund. This disparity is particularly untenable because Texas is growing rapidly, with a population that has increased by more than 4 million in a decade. This legislation will ensure we have a highway funding formula that guarantees every state receives its fair share of infrastructure investment. It is bipartisan, common sense, and should be advanced by Congress and sent to the President,” said Senator Cruz.

“The Lone Star State should not be forced to pay disproportionately more than other states to maintain federal highways, putting an undue burden on Texas taxpayers. By guaranteeing all states receive at least 95% of what they contribute to the Highway Trust Fund, this legislation would ensure fairness, transparency, and predictability for the distribution of federal highway resources and critical infrastructure projects in Texas, and I’m proud to support it,” said Senator Cornyn.

“Arizona is one of the fastest-growing states in the country, but since the formula used to allocate federal highway funding hasn’t been updated in over twenty years, Arizonans don’t get their fair share of assistance. Arizonans pay into the system, and they deserve to see that investment come back home. This bill would finally update those outdated formulas so fast-growing states like ours have the resources we need to maintain our roads, repair our bridges, and keep our communities moving,” said Senator Gallego.

“For too long, Texas has been shortchanged by the Highway Trust Fund, receiving less than our fair share of the dollars we send to Washington. Senator Cruz and I reintroduced this bill to fix that and ensure at least a 95 percent return on every dollar Texans contribute,” said Representative Roy.


King, Curtis, Colleagues Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Cut National Debt and Strengthen America’s Fiscal Health

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and John Curtis (R-UT) are introducing bipartisan legislation to strengthen America’s fiscal health and stabilize the nation’s finances for future generations. The Fiscal Commission Act bill would create a bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission tasked with finding legislative solutions to stabilize spending and evaluate revenues with the goal of decreasing the national debt. The commission would be required to hold field hearings and complete a public awareness and education campaign on its work.

The national debt now exceeds $38.8 trillion, which is approximately 124% of the entire U.S. economy. Both parties are responsible—fiscal policies enacted by both Democrats and Republicans have led to soaring annual budget deficits, which totaled $1.7 trillion in calendar year 2025 alone. It’s projected that the federal government will spend more than $1 trillion on interest on the debt alone in 2026, making it a larger expenditure than Medicare and national defense, and second only to Social Security.

“Right now, the national debt breaks down to over $113,000 for every man woman and child in this country – that’s overwhelming and unsustainable. To add insult to injury, payments on interest alone—just this year—have become a larger source of spending than both Medicare and national defense spending,” said Senator King. “The Fiscal Commission Act will ensure that our government works in a bipartisan, bicameral manner to find legislative solutions that stabilize spending and decrease the national debt, since both parties dug this hole and we need to work together to get out of it. This bill is an important step forward in fiscal responsibility for future generations and most importantly moves the country in a direction where the government is a more responsible steward of taxpayer dollars.”

“Our national debt has ballooned to over $38 trillion—a staggering figure that threatens higher costs for families, fewer economic opportunities, and a heavier burden for future generations,” said Senator Curtis. “Our children and grandchildren need real reform, which is why we’re introducing the Fiscal Commission Act. This legislation creates a bipartisan, bicameral process to develop meaningful solutions to confront our unsustainable debt, safeguard our economic strength, and ensure fiscal stability well into the future.”

Joining Curtis and King as cosponsors of the legislation are Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chris Coons (D-DE), Todd Young (R-IN), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), and Mark Warner (D-VA).

More specifically, the legislation would:

Establish a 16-member bipartisan, bicameral commission consisting of 12 elected officials and four outside experts.

The Speaker of the House, House Minority Leader, Senate Majority Leader, and Senate Minority Leader each appoint four individuals to the Commission, of which three must be members from their respective chambers and one must be an outside expert.

Require that the commission produce a report and propose legislation aiming to improve the long-term fiscal condition of the Federal Government, stabilize the ratio of public debt to GDP within a 15-year period, and improve the solvency of Federal trust funds over a 75-year period.

The Commission would also be required to vote on approval of the report and legislative language by May 17, 2027.

Necessitate any report or legislative language produced by the Commission be approved by a majority of the 12 elected official members, with at least two being from each party.

If the Commission approves proposed legislative language, it will receive expedited consideration in both chambers.

Ensure only a simple majority would be needed for the motion to proceed, which would be privileged. However, 60 votes would be required to invoke cloture prior to final passage in the Senate.

Companion legislation with more than 40 bipartisan cosponsors has also been introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives.

A one-pager on the legislation is available here, and the full bill text is available here.

###


King, Golden, Collins Demand IRS re-open Bangor and Augusta Tax Assistance Centers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Susan Collins and Angus King and U.S. Representative Jared Golden are calling on the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) to immediately reverse the closure of its Augusta and Bangor Tax Assistance Centers (TAC).

TACs are physical offices which offer assistance to Mainers who lack stable internet access, need help navigating technology, or otherwise need in-person assistance. With the Presque Isle TAC having previously been shuttered and Downeast Maine long lacking its own TAC, some rural Mainers already traveled hundreds of miles to access the IRS’ services in Bangor. If the Bangor and Augusta offices — the only locations available in the Second District — were to remain closed, a resident of Fort Kent could face a roughly ten-hour, 600-mile trip to Maine’s only remaining TAC in South Portland.

The trio recently contacted the IRS after receiving reports from constituents that the TACs they planned on using this filing season had closed. Following confirmation of the closures from the agency, the lawmakers are now making the case that rural Maine deserves the same quality of assistance as those living in the southern part of the state — especially for navigating the new tax provisions created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“TACs provide critical services to rural communities and seniors,” the lawmakers wrote. “...We ask that you restaff and re-open the TACs in Bangor and Augusta in a timely manner, and work with the Maine Congressional Delegation on a longer-term strategy to avoid future prolonged disruptions to these services in Maine.”

In addition to asking for a long-term plan to re-open the Presque Isle TAC, the lawmakers are also pressing the IRS for answers on how the federal hiring freeze affected TAC staffing in Maine, whether Mainers who are unable to access tax assistance will receive an extended deadline to file, and what the agency’s plans are to help affected Mainers in the meantime.

Last year, the IRS rolled back a previously scheduled closure of its Bangor TAC after outreach from Maine’s delegation.

The full letter can be found here, and is included in full below:

+++

March 10, 2026

The Honorable Scott Bessent

Secretary and Acting IRS Commissioner

U.S. Department of the Treasury

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, D.C. 20220

Dear Secretary Bessent:

We write to share our concerns regarding the closures of Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Taxpayer Assistance Centers (TAC) in Bangor and Augusta, Maine. TACs provide critical services to rural communities and seniors. Now, with the 2026 filing season in full swing, many of our constituents must travel for four and a half hours and over nearly 300 miles to Portland for in-person services. We urge you to reopen the Augusta and Bangor TACs without delay.

Recently, the Maine Congressional Delegation received outreach from constituents reporting the closures of the Augusta and Bangor TACs. Previously, the Bangor TAC was at risk of closure in December 2024. The Congressional Delegation sent a letter to the IRS urging reconsideration of this decision. We deeply appreciate that the IRS ultimately kept the Bangor TAC in service through the 2025 filing season. However, unfortunately, we received confirmation from the IRS Office of Legislative Affairs that both the Bangor and Augusta TACs will be closed during this tax filing season, absent the rapid hiring and onboarding of new staff. South Portland is now the only city in Maine with a TAC that provides in-person services.

Some of Maine’s most rural counties relied on the Bangor and Augusta TACs as their primary service center. Residents in Piscataquis County, which is 100 percent rural, regularly used Bangor and Augusta as their major service centers. Augusta was the closest TAC for residents of Washington County, the easternmost county in the United States, after the closure of the Bangor TAC. Washington County residents had to commute over two hours to Augusta to receive basic tax services and now will have to drive over three hours to South Portland. The same is true for Aroostook County, the second largest county east of the Mississippi River by total area, where some Mainers traveled over 200 miles to receive assistance from the Bangor TAC. Although the Office of Legislative Affairs indicated that taxpayers can use online resources, such as IRS.gov, for tax filing guidance in the interim, we fear that these resources may not be sufficient for taxpayers with complicated situations or those seeking to better understand the changes to the tax code as a result of the new tax provisions Congress approved last July in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Further, many of these communities have limited Internet and broadband access, making in-person TAC services essential.

As you know, the Office of Management and Budget announced a federal government-wide freeze on hiring, which also affects the IRS. This hiring freeze does not have a clear end date, creating uncertainty for our constituents in the middle of tax season. For these reasons, we ask that you restaff and re-open the TACs in Bangor and Augusta in a timely manner, and work with the Maine Congressional Delegation on a longer-term strategy to avoid future prolonged disruptions to these services in Maine. In addition, the Congressional Delegation would also value the opportunity to work with you to find a long-term solution that would reopen the Presque Isle TAC in Aroostook County and ensure that it can sustainably provide in-person services.

To get a better understanding of how the IRS plans to provide adequate taxpayer services to our constituents throughout this filing season and beyond, please provide us answers to the following questions by Tuesday, March 31st, 2026:

Is the IRS committed to meeting the demand and providing the same level of service in person, online, and by phone?

What is the IRS’s in-person assistance strategy?

How many Mainers have utilized services at the following TACs since 2008? Presque Isle, Bangor, Lewiston, Augusta, and South Portland.

What steps is the Southern Portland TAC taking to meet increased volume of service inquiries, including those which are in-person that go beyond the services offered online and by telephone?

Will residents be eligible for an extension to file their taxes if they are unable to receive in-person services at the South Portland TAC that goes beyond the automatic October 15th exemption that taxpayers can request?

While the Bangor and Augusta TACs are closed, how does the IRS plan to provide sufficient taxpayer services to rural Mainers with limited or no broadband access?

Did Treasury include TACs in their request for exemptions to the federal hiring freeze? If not, is there an indication when the federal hiring freeze will be lifted so the Bangor and Augusta TACs can be restaffed? Does the IRS have any plans to temporarily staff the Bangor and Augusta TACs in the interim?

How can the IRS prevent future TAC closures that are a result of staffing shortages?

What plans, if any, does the IRS have to expand TACs in Maine?

Thank you for considering our request, and we appreciate your attention to this important matter.

###


ICYMI: Chairman Graham Highlights the Costs & Dangers of Sanctuary City Policies

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina), Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, today held a hearing entitled, “Sanctuary Cities: The Cost of Undermining Law and Order.” This hearing focused on the consequences of sanctuary policies that have been adopted by more than two hundred cities and twelve states across the nation.

GRAHAM: “We’ll never fix illegal immigration, until [we] get to the source of the problem. And one of the problems we have is magnets to encourage future illegal immigration.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=5DDFTn2mzaehZCI7&t=174

GRAHAM: “We believe [sanctuary cities] endanger public safety. [There have been] 10,000 criminals released by sanctuary policies who went on to be arrested for additional crimes. They should have been turned over, [but] they weren’t. They stayed in the country, and they committed crimes. Nine billion [dollars] in fraud -- that we know of -- and probably growing. Fifty-nine percent of illegal immigrant households [are] on government welfare programs costing taxpayers $42 billion a year.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=C6SFtPCGxmTfVXJV&t=207

One recent example of the dangers that stem from sanctuary jurisdictions involves the story of Abdul Jalloh, an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone with a long criminal history, who murdered Stephanie Minter, a young mom from Virginia, in February. Chairman Graham described how the sanctuary policies of Fairfax County directly led to this tragedy.

GRAHAM: “We had this man in detention in Fairfax County, [Virginia], and they refused to turn him over for deportation. He was allowed to stay in the county, and the rest is history. A young mom is dead because of that decision.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=vsmEBUqgCf2VPVfo&t=300

GRAHAM: “How many people need to be stabbed before a guy like that is deported? And what’s the upside of keeping him here? Is this the model citizen we want to keep in America? Now, there’s an ideology around sanctuary cities that needs to be broken, and we’re here to break it.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=Tuasp50daGs9PS8h&t=419

Senate Democrats have refused to fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) unless President Trump and Republicans cave to their list of demands involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). One of their most extreme demands would require ICE to obtain judicial warrants, as opposed to administrative warrants, to deport illegal immigrants.

GRAHAM: “When President Obama deported 3 million people, it was called being strong and good government. When [Republicans] try to deport people, as a result of being invaded by illegal immigrants for four years under the Biden Administration, we’re [called] nazis and bad guys. I don’t buy that at all. I think most Americans would like to get control over our country and [restore] sovereignty over our nation.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=he5ExoSAamtEl7sT&t=110

GRAHAM: “Is it accurate that Barack Obama deported 3 million people when he was president?”

BIER: “Those are total removals, not people deported from the interior.”

GRAHAM: “What does that mean?”

BIER: “Well, there are people deported from the borders who never lived in the United States.”

GRAHAM: “Were there people deported inside the United States?”

BIER: “Well, I think it’s a little unfair to compare people.”

GRAHAM: “You don’t want to answer a question, that’s fine, but don’t tell me what’s fair and unfair. Bottom line: did he use judicial warrants to deport anybody? When he deported somebody [from] the interior, did he have a judicial warrant?”

BIER: “No.”

GRAHAM: “No. Why? Because it’s stupid.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=XPt-gsEFja8XELYU&t=693

GRAHAM: “This hearing to me is stunning. I’m so glad we had it. [Democrats are] ‘all-in’ on sanctuary city policies… To America, if you’re looking for anybody to change this system, our Democratic friends have no interest. They think it’s good for America. [They think] the more illegal immigrants, the better. I don’t.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=mcRtw598udByrmcy&t=1033

GRAHAM: “[To Democrats] You’re not trying to reform ICE. You’re trying to stop deportations. If it were up to you, we would have more illegal immigrants.” https://youtu.be/LlkH_MMz1JM?si=KAmypZDC7fwc7O60&t=793

Click here to watch Chairman Graham’s Opening Statement, Questions and Closing Remarks.

###

Click play to view the video or follow this link

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlkH_MMz1JM


Senator Markey Introduces Legislation to Support American Astrophysics Leadership

Bill Text (PDF)

Washington (March 10, 2026) - Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a senior member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) today introduced the Support for Astrophysical Observatories and National High-Energy Astrophysics Hubs Act, legislation that would create national high-energy astrophysics hubs and support key astrophysics missions. This legislation was included in the amended version of the NASA Authorization Act of 2026 (S. 933), which was passed out of the Senate Commerce Committee on March 4.

“Our global leadership on high-energy astrophysics is hard-won and worth protecting,” said Senator Markey. “The brilliant workers who develop our capabilities on high-energy astrophysics, including at the Chandra X-ray Observatory facilities in Massachusetts, deserve to be recognized and supported, now and for flagship missions in the future.”

The Chandra X-ray Observatory, which is part of the Center for Astrophysics collaboration between the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory and Harvard College Observatory, is NASA’s flagship X-ray observatory and provides key data and information on astrophysics mysteries. Senators Markey and Warren, along with Representatives Jim McGovern (MA-02), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Seth Moulton (MA-06), and Lori Trahan (MA-03), wrote to the Chandra X-Ray Center (Chandra) in October 2024 to express concerns over the telescope’s long-term funding plans and seeking information on potential impacts from proposed future cuts. Senators Markey and Warren also led colleagues in requesting appropriations for Chandra, successfully preventing cuts to the observatory that would have imperiled its research.

###


Murkowski, Baldwin Bill to Protect Coastal Communities Passes Out of Senate

Washington, D.C. –U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) announced their Digital Coast Act reauthorization passed out of the Senate. This bipartisan bill will help coastal communities better prepare for storms, cope with varying water levels, and plan for future economic development. The bill reauthorizes the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Digital Coast Program, which Murkowski and Baldwin previously spearheaded efforts to reestablish the program in 2020.

“As we confront the escalating impacts of climate change, it is crucial our coastal communities remain equipped with the tools and data they need to adapt and thrive,” said Senator Murkowski. “The Digital Coast Program has proven to be a vital resource in this effort, providing essential information and support for our local leaders to make informed decisions.”

“Wisconsin is defined by our waters, from the Mighty Mississippi to our Great Lakes which have shaped our coastal communities, our economy, and our way of life. I’m committed to protecting these resources and giving the communities that rely on them the tools to confront the challenges they face,” said Senator Baldwin. “I’m proud to lead this bipartisan legislation that will help Wisconsin’s coastal communities prepare for disaster, keep our waters clean and safe, and help us plan for the future.”

NOAA currently assembles and hosts the Digital Coast Project, a collaborative online database of the most up-to-date coastal information and makes it available to both the public and private sectors. Digital Coast also provides tools for coastal communities to decipher and use the high-tech mapping data to make accurate decisions and smart investments in coastal communities.

The Digital Coast Act reauthorizes the program and ensures that communities will continue to have the data to make smart choices for economic development, shoreline management, and coastal restoration. The bill supports further development of the current project, including increasing access to uniform, up-to-date data, to help communities get the coastal data they need to respond to emergencies, plan for long-term coastal resilience, and manage their water resources.

Companion legislation in the U.S. House by Representatives has also advanced out of the House Committee on Natural Resources, teeing it up for a vote. The legislation is endorsed by Coastal States Organization, American Planning Association, Association of State Floodplain Managers, National Association of Counties, National Society of Professional Surveyors, U.S Geospatial Executives Organization (U.S. GEO), Surfrider Foundation, The Nature Conservancy, National States Geographic Information Council, National Estuarine Research Reserve Association, Quantum Spatial Inc., Wisconsin Society of Land Surveyors, and Digital Coast Partnership Advocacy Coalition.

Full bill text is available here.

###


Murkowski, Sullivan Announce $629 Million Funding to Boost Alaska’s Internet Connectivity

Washington, DC—Today, U.S. Senators Lisa Murkowski and Dan Sullivan (both R-AK) welcomed the approval of Alaska’s Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Final Proposal by the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), including more than $629 million in initial deployment awards to expand broadband access across the state. These investments will help narrow the digital divide in unserved and underserved communities and expand the economic opportunities that reliable internet connectivity brings to Alaskans.

The funding will support 29 broadband deployment projects carried out by 15 providers across Alaska. These projects—utilizing fiber, wireless, satellite, and hybrid technologies—are expected to bring high-speed internet service to more than 46,000 homes and small businesses across the state.

“For a state as vast and geographically diverse as Alaska, broadband access is not a luxury—it’s essential infrastructure,” said Senator Murkowski. “This investment will help connect more of our rural and remote communities to reliable, high-speed internet, opening the door to expanded economic opportunities, improved access to telehealth and education, and stronger connections between families and communities. I appreciate NTIA’s recognition of the importance of the BEAD program to our state and its efforts to ensure that we are able to maximize this initiative so that every Alaskan is connected.”

“As a member of the Senate Commerce Committee, the lack of Internet access in so many Alaskan communities was a driving force behind my work to ensure that the broadband provisions of the bipartisan infrastructure bill focused on the truly unserved, my work on improving Alaska’s broadband maps, and my relentless advocacy for Alaska with various federal officials who I have brought to see Alaska’s unique challenges,” said Senator Sullivan. “These funds will go a long way toward the goal of connecting every Alaskan, which will unlock possibilities of expanded telehealth, education and small business opportunities. Importantly, it will better allow Alaskans to connect with one another. I thank NTIA for working closely with Senator Murkowski and me to ensure that our unique geography was taken into account when determining this award.”

“Congratulations to the State of Alaska on the approval of its BEAD Final Proposal, which will enable universal broadband availability across the state while safeguarding taxpayer dollars,” said Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and NTIA Administrator Arielle Roth. “The Benefit of the Bargain rules ensured that each state and territory’s unique geography, terrain, and topography are accounted for when determining which technology solutions make the most sense to provide connectivity. No state presents more unique and formidable connectivity challenges than Alaska, and I commend the state broadband office for its tremendous work in bringing this Final Proposal over the finish line.”

Background

The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) established the Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program to fund broadband expansion in unserved and underserved areas across the country. Alaska received a total BEAD allocation of more than $1.017 billion to support broadband infrastructure investments across the state.

Under the program, funding is first directed toward deploying broadband infrastructure to unserved locations, followed by underserved areas and eligible community anchor institutions. The initial $629 million in deployment awards announced today will fund broadband deployment projects across Alaska using a mix of fiber, wireless, satellite, and hybrid technologies.

After funding deployment projects, remaining BEAD funds may be used for additional eligible purposes that support broadband connectivity and digital access. NTIA is expected to provide additional guidance on the use of remaining funds later this month. Senators Murkowski and Sullivan are actively working with NTIA as they craft revised guidance, with the intent of ensuring that Alaska maintains the ability to use its entire allocation to continue modernizing the state’s telecommunications infrastructure.

###


ICYMI: In New Video, Senator Murray Shines Spotlight on Horrific ICE and Border Patrol Shootings Across the Country

Senator Murray: “The painful reality is that in addition to the tragic killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good which—rightfully—got national attention, there are other cases where ICE and Border Patrol shot people, with no clear cause, and lied about it afterwards. We have to put an end to this alarming pattern—and that means we cannot let Republicans ignore it.”

***WATCH: Senator Murray’s Recap of Violent ICE Shootings***

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, released a video about the numerous violent shootings we are seeing from Trump’s reckless ICE and CBP agents across the country—and the urgent need to rein in these rogue agencies. Senator Murray highlighted the stories of Marimar Martinez, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, Carlos Jimenez, Francisco Longoria, and Carlitos Ricardo Parias—all of whom were shot by ICE or CBP agents. Throughout the video, Senator Murray calls out the egregious use of force from federal agents, their lies that don’t hold up in court, and the extreme danger they are putting families and communities in by recklessly using firearms. Senator Murray also called out Republicans for refusing to negotiate serious and common sense measures to rein in ICE and CBP. Last week, Murray pushed to pass legislation that would fund every agency within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS)—except ICE, CBP, and the Office of the Secretary—while negotiations continue to rein in ICE and Border Patrol, but Republicans blocked her effort.

“Republicans are so far refusing to do things as simple as requiring the masks to come off and requiring ICE to follow the same basic standards that local police follow every day when it comes to things like use of force, or getting an actual judicial warrant before bashing someone’s door in and dragging them away. Republicans would rather shut down DHS than pass a funding bill with basic oversight. I don’t know how Republicans can look at what happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or see the videos of peaceful protesters getting tear gassed and tackled, or see lawful observers getting their windows smashed and getting dragged out of their cars, and think—this is fine,” said Senator Murray. “I want to make the problem just a bit more clear to Republicans here in the Senate who are trying to sweep it under the rug, by discussing some other ICE and Border Patrol shootings you may have missed. Because the painful reality is that in addition to the tragic killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good which—rightfully—got national attention, there are other cases where ICE and Border Patrol shot people, with no clear cause, and lied about it afterwards. We have to put an end to this alarming pattern—and that means we cannot let Republicans ignore it. So, I am putting a spotlight on some of the details of other shootings ICE and Border Patrol do not want the American people to hear about.”

WATCH HERE: The Shootings ICE Doesn’t Want You To Know About…

“I know these stories are very upsetting—especially when Republicans want to try so hard to ignore what is happening. But I want to make sure you also know—we are not powerless. And the stories I’ve been sharing don’t just show how bad things have gotten, they are also a reminder about how we all can fight back in this country—with our voice and our votes,” continued Senator Murray. “These survivors are not staying silent. And we cannot be silent either—we have to keep speaking up. We have to keep making clear to people what is happening and demanding Republicans work with us to hold ICE and Border Patrol accountable. Republicans are hoping this will all just blow over—but that’s not up to them—it is up to us. Elections are just around the corner this fall. Remember that. So, I am going to keep using my platform here in D.C. to shine a spotlight on this, and I am going to keep using my position to demand accountability. And I hope all of you will keep using your voice out there as well.”

Senator Murray has spoken out forcefully and constantly throughout this year against the Trump administration’s cruel and counterproductive mass deportation campaign and the egregious treatment by ICE and DHS of American citizens, legal immigrants, and undocumented immigrants. Murray called attention to the violent assault of Wilmer Toledo-Martinez in Vancouver, Washington and she successfully advocated for his release from the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC). Wilmer was lured out of his home under false pretenses, violently detained by federal agents, and mauled by an attack dog despite not resisting arrest or attempting to flee. Murray also recently called attention to the case of Jose Paniagua Calderón, whose foot was run over by agents in Vancouver.

In November, Senator Murray joined 48 of her colleagues in the Senate and House of Representatives in introducing the Restoring Access to Detainees Act, which would mandate that DHS allow people who have been detained to contact their legal counsel and families. In February 2025, Senator Murray signed onto a letter led by Senators Martin Heinrich (D-NM) and Brian Schatz (D-HI) demanding that DHS end wrongful searches and interrogations of Tribal members, and continued to push for answers from DHS on the matter last December. Last year, Murray also reintroduced her Stop Shackling and Detaining Pregnant Women Act. She and Senator Richard Blumenthal led 27 of their Senate colleagues last year in a letter expressing concern with prevalence and treatment of pregnant, postpartum, and nursing women in ICE detention, and she also joined a letter led by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) calling for ICE to end the misuse of solitary confinement in immigration detention.

In Washington state, Senator Murray has been conducting oversight of the Northwest ICE Processing Center (NWIPC), despite the Trump administration’s efforts to block Congressional oversight of federal immigration detention facilities. After a protracted legal battle over Washington state’s ability to enforce health and safety standards at NWIPC, a federal appeals court ruled in August that the state should be allowed to enforce such standards at the detention center, and that failure to comply could result in fines of up to $10,000 per violation. In December, Senator Murray led Members of the Washington state Congressional delegation in a letter to Acting Director of ICE Todd Lyons expressing grave concerns with conditions at NWIPC in Tacoma, Washington and demanding answers to a long list of questions regarding overcrowding and lack of access to medical services, food, and legal counsel for individuals detained at the facility.

Senator Murray’s remarks, as delivered, are below:

“Hey everyone, Senator Patty Murray here.

“Before I begin, first, a note to everyone watching: We are going to be discussing instances where people were shot, and seriously hurt. So keep in mind: these stories, and some of the images from them, may be disturbing.

“You may have heard about the shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security.

“The gist is: Funding has run out for DHS, and before passing any new funding, Democrats are insisting on putting in place reasonable accountability measures for ICE and Border Patrol after the horrific killings and overreach we have seen.

“But Republicans are so far refusing to do things as simple as requiring the masks to come off and requiring ICE to follow the same basic standards that local police follow every day when it comes to things like use of force, or getting an actual judicial warrant before bashing someone’s door in and dragging them away.

“Republicans would rather shut down DHS than pass a funding bill with basic oversight.

“I don’t know how Republicans can look at what happened to Renee Good and Alex Pretti, or see the videos of peaceful protesters getting tear gassed and tackled, or see lawful observers getting their windows smashed and getting dragged out of their cars, and think—this is fine.

“But I am not budging. We have a rogue agency—and we need to rein it in.

“DHS officials even testified to Congress that filming their activities in public is perfectly legal. Yet they threaten citizens with arrest and take their pictures for unknown purposes. Sometimes they spray them in the face point-blank with pepper spray. Sometimes they gang-tackle them and shoot them in the back ten times.

“So today, I want to make the problem just a bit more clear to Republicans here in the Senate who are trying to sweep it under the rug, by discussing some other ICE and Border Patrol shootings you may have missed. Because the painful reality is that in addition to the tragic killings of Alex Pretti and Renee Good which—rightfully—got national attention, there are other cases where ICE and Border Patrol shot people, with no clear cause, and lied about it afterwards.

“We have to put an end to this alarming pattern—and that means we cannot let Republicans ignore it. So, I am putting a spotlight on some of the details of other shootings ICE and Border Patrol do not want the American people to hear about.

[MARIMAR MARTINEZ]

“Marimar Martinez is a U.S. citizen, and a teacher’s assistant in Chicago. Last year, a Border Patrol agent rammed her car and then shot her five times. And what happened next? The agent texted his colleagues bragging about it. He drove the vehicle immediately from Chicago to Maine. And the Trump Administration tried to label Martinez a domestic terrorist.

“But those lies came face-to-face with reality in court. And the charges against Martinez were dropped by the Department of Justice when the story DHS made up was completely contradicted by the evidence. They said officers were forced to fire when Martinez tried to run them over. But surveillance video does not show that at all.

“According to Martinez’s lawyer, the government’s own evidence showed one bullet hit the rear passenger window and another traveled from the back of the vehicle to the front. Not through the windshield like these agents claimed. They said that the Border Patrol vehicle was ‘boxed in’ by 10 cars. Again, the surveillance video shows—there were not 10 cars boxing them in.

“In fact, you can see there was no car in front of them and no car beside them. They tried to hide behind the fact Martinez had a gun in the car. One she has a permit for. One that she did not touch. And one that the government acknowledges was not even visible to agents when all of this went down.

“And last, but not least—DHS tried to say Martinez rammed Border Patrol agents. Well, we now have body cam footage from inside the Border Patrol vehicle. And it seems pretty clear from that video, the agent who shot Martinez, is the one doing the ramming. You can see him turn his wheel sharply to the left—where Martinez was driving. Followed by the impact.

“The dishonesty here is shocking—and honestly, scary. This woman—again, an American citizen—is lucky to be alive—and she has been bravely speaking out about what happened to her. And the same week the body cam footage from her shooting was released, lies from DHS in a different case in Minnesota also started falling apart.

[JULIO CESAR SOSA-CELIS]

“In January, ICE claimed a DoorDash driver, Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, was shot in the leg after attacking ICE agents with a shovel. Fast forward a month, and—ICE completely reversed course, and said two of its officers were being investigated for quote: ‘Untruthful statements.’ The district attorney said new evidence was ‘materially inconsistent’ with the allegations made by the ICE agents.

“So how did we get here? Because, after ICE shot this man in the leg, Secretary Noem tried to say the officer was ‘ambushed and attacked,’ said this was ‘attempted murder.’ A few problems with that story. The officer was not ambushed—he was chasing Julio and another man—mistakenly thinking they were someone else.

“Second, the officer said in his own statement to FBI investigators, that he fired as the men ran away from him, towards a house. And perhaps the biggest problem: Julio, and other witnesses at the scene—say he never attacked ICE agents. And they say the agent actually shot him through a door. I mean, how is it self-defense to shoot blindly at someone through a door?

“And, of course—what did DHS do initially? Well the same night the shooting took place they swept the building where it happened and detained several witnesses. They even detained Julio’s partner, and sent her to Texas—and then New Mexico. A judge had to step in to prevent them from deporting witnesses and tell them to stop moving these people around.

“But even as ICE was rounding up witnesses and moving them as far away as they could. There was other evidence they could not hide. Like the recording of the 911 call after the shooting—where you can hear a woman tell the operator someone was shot through the door.

“And there’s one more obvious hole in ICE’s story—that is the bullet hole in the door itself. At first, law enforcement tried to say they couldn’t find any bullet holes in the house. But then this photo was released, lo-and-behold, there is very clearly a bullet hole in the door. And there’s actually another hole from the bullet inside. Because the bullet traveled through the front door, and into the wall, before it stopped between a child’s bed and a crib.

“Talk about reckless! ICE should not be firing blindly through doors and putting kids in danger. Will Republicans finally join us to rein in this kind of behavior?

[CARLOS JIMENEZ]

“And another shooting in California further underscores ICE’s complete disregard for how their actions might affect kids. Carlos Jimenez is an American citizen, who works at a food bank. Last year, he saw some federal agents pulled over near a bus stop for a local elementary school. According to his attorney, he pulled up to let them know they are blocking a school bus stop, and there will be young kids gathering soon so they might want to wrap it up.

“The response he got for that notice? Well, an officer drew his gun, pointed it directly at Carlos’s face, and told him to ‘get the F out of here.’ So, Carlos backs up his vehicle to start turning around, he pulls forward to leave like he was told, and then he is shot in his shoulder.

“Now the DHS version of events is once again ridiculous. They say that officers fired at him after he tried to run them over. Though—as with so many other cases—there is basically no evidence of that so far. The bullet went in through the rear passenger window, as he started to pull forward to drive away. They arrested him at the hospital before he could get full treatment. They hand cuffed him, they dragged him back to the scene of the shooting, gave him a bag to puke in, slapped on what his lawyer describes as essentially a band-aid, and started interrogating him.

“And something else notable—this case happened just half an hour away from another ICE shooting that happened previously.

[FRANCISCO LONGORIA]

“Francisco Longoria and his teenage sons were driving through a San Bernadino neighborhood when they were pulled over by an unmarked car and suddenly surrounded by masked men—one with his gun already drawn. Mind you he was doing nothing but driving when this happened.

“They did not show a warrant or anything. And when Francisco refused to roll down his window without some answers—they smashed it in. So he drove away, which is when an agent behind him fired three shots—at the passenger side of the vehicle. That is—they fired shots at the side his teenage son was sitting on.

“You already know what comes next: A bunch of disgusting lies from the Trump Administration that this person was attempting to run over officers, followed by video evidence that completely debunks those lies. You can see from cellphone footage inside the car—there is no one in front of Francisco as he drove away. You can also see from cellphone footage outside the car—that there is no one in front of the vehicle.

“And there is still another California shooting that I really have to talk about.

[CARLITOS RICARDO PARIAS]

“Last year, in LA, Carlitos Parias, also known as RichardLA18 on TikTok where he streams local breaking news, was shot by a federal agent after having his car boxed in. An officer was also injured by the ricochet. To no one’s surprise, DHS blatantly lied about the incident and said Carlitos was shot after he ‘weaponized his vehicle and began ramming the law enforcement vehicle in an attempt to flee.’

“But in court the government dragged its feet during discovery, only releasing the body camera footage five days after the deadline! So what did the footage show? Federal agents box Carlitos in, officers walk up and smash in his windows, and an officer swears after his gun goes off accidentally while he is switching hands to open the passenger door. Warning, the following clip is disturbing.

“There is a huge world of difference between an accidental discharge and a firing in self-defense. And there is just no world where the original DHS story has a shred of honesty here. A few weeks after the footage was released—a judge dismissed this case with prejudice, and noted the Government not only failed to comply with court deadlines—but deprived Carlitos of access to his lawyer.

[CONCLUSION]

“The pattern in these cases is clear and alarming. ICE and Border Patrol agents are charging into our communities with guns blazing. They are shooting people with zero justification, and then the Trump Administration is lying about it, slandering innocent people, and covering up the facts for as long as they can get away with.

“It is deeply alarming—and there are so many more examples that deserve more attention. Like the man who nearly died after he had eight fractures in his skull, and ICE tried to say it was from running into a wall on purpose. Or there’s one of the men who died in ICE detention after being asphyxiated by facility staff. DHS said it was a suicide—but an autopsy found it was a homicide. Or there’s a blind refugee, who died after immigration officials dumped him alone at a Tim Horton’s five miles away from home, once they realized they had no grounds to deport him.

“If there’s an example you think people need to hear about, need to talk about, or need to know about—please share it in the comments. Let people know! We need accountability. We need to rein in ICE and Border Patrol. That is what Democrats are insisting on, common sense measures to protect Americans from out-of-control masked federal agents. But Republicans would rather shut down DHS than rein in ICE.

“I know these stories are very upsetting—especially when Republicans want to try so hard to ignore what is happening. But I want to make sure you also know—we are not powerless. And the stories I’ve been sharing don’t just show how bad things have gotten, they are also a reminder about how we all can fight back in this country—with our voice and our votes.

“Carlitos used his TikTok reporting to keep his community informed about ICE activities. Francisco Longoria’s son-in-law came here to D.C. alongside Marimar Martinez, and Renee Good’s brother to share their stories with lawmakers. Marimar is not just speaking out—she fought to make sure the evidence in her case became public, and she announced she is suing DHS. And do you know what Carlos Jiminez did a few days after he was shot by federal agents? He went to vote in California’s special election.

“These survivors are not staying silent. And we cannot be silent either—we have to keep speaking up. We have to keep making clear to people what is happening and demanding Republicans work with us to hold ICE and Border Patrol accountable.

“Republicans are hoping this will all just blow over—but that’s not up to them—it is up to us. Elections are just around the corner this fall. Remember that.

“So, I am going to keep using my platform here in D.C. to shine a spotlight on this, and I am going to keep using my position to demand accountability.

“And I hope all of you will keep using your voice out there as well.”

###


In Letter, Murray, Cantwell Express Concern Over Proposed Student Loan Limits and Classification of Professional Degrees

Senate Democrats outline how changes to student loan programs will make it more difficult for working-class students to afford graduate and professional study in critical fields such as nursing, public health, social work, early childhood education, teaching, mental health, and many more

Washington, D.C. — Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), a former chair and senior member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, and Maria Cantwell (D-WA) joined Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Ranking Member of the HELP committee, and fellow Senate Democrats in sending a letter to Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon regarding the dangers of the proposed rule, “Reimagining and Improving Student Education,” (RISE). Under RISE, barriers to higher education created by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) would increase significantly through the elimination of existing affordable student loan repayment options and the creation of caps on federal student aid, particularly for students pursuing professional degrees.

“Collectively, the Department’s proposed regulations will make it more difficult for working-class students to afford graduate and professional study in critical fields such as nursing, public health, social work, early childhood education, teaching, mental health, and many more. At a time when there is a severe shortage of professionals in these essential fields, we should be making it easier, not more difficult, for students to pursue these professions,” the Senators write. “The proposed rule also builds on the severe harm caused by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which will increase millions of borrowers’ student loan payments by an estimated $4,000 per year, and make it harder for students to afford college costs, and remove a vital safety net for student loan borrowers experiencing economic hardship.”

The Senators detail how OBBBA cut over $300 billion from higher education, all to pay for massive tax breaks for billionaires at the expense of working families, and note that due to RISE, millions of student loan borrowers will now be at risk of defaulting on their loans, “OBBBA eliminated existing affordable student loan repayment options, increased college costs for working families by capping federal student aid, and made it easier for predatory, private lenders to trap working families in even greater debt. Now, the Department’s proposed rule sets the stage to implement the changes passed in OBBBA in a manner that puts students and families with fewer means to afford college costs and at greater risk of default. To date, approximately 8 million borrowers are in default on their student loans, and over 4 million more are behind on their monthly payments. This means, absent significant action from the Department, well over 10 million borrowers could be in default in the coming months.”

“We also implore the Department to expand the definition of ‘professional’ programs to include all programs that generally require advanced study for licensure, certification, or employment, and urge the Department not to arbitrarily prohibit certain professional programs from accessing the higher loan limits,” the Senators continue.

The Senators urge Secretary McMahon to reconsider RISE, reiterating how crucial affordable and accessible education is as our nation faces dwindling workforces across vital industries: “At a time when higher education is increasingly unaffordable and our country is facing significant workforce shortages in areas such as health care, teaching, mental health, and social work, it is unacceptable for the Department to adopt a restrictive approach to college access. In doing so, the Department is arbitrarily excluding programs from being able to access critical aid that opens the door to opportunity for working-class students. Students should not be deterred from pursuing higher education in any field due to cost or inability to pay.”

“The Department must do everything in its power to ensure the path to higher education and training remains open to all students regardless of their socioeconomic status or background, especially for those pursuing graduate or professional training in essential, in-demand fields,” the Senators conclude.

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to provide our comments to the U.S. Department of Education’s (“Department”) proposed rule, “Reimagining and Improving Student Education,” (RISE). Collectively, the Department’s proposed regulations will make it more difficult for working-class students to afford graduate and professional study in critical fields such as nursing, public health, social work, early childhood education, teaching, mental health, and many more. At a time when there is a severe shortage of professionals in these essential fields, we should be making it easier, not more difficult, for students to pursue these professions. The proposed rule also builds on the severe harm caused by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), which will increase millions of borrowers’ student loan payments by an estimated $4,000 per year, make it harder for students to afford college costs, and remove a vital safety net for student loan borrowers experiencing economic hardship.

In July, congressional Republicans passed the OBBBA, which cut over $300 billion from higher education to pay for massive tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires at the expense of working families. Specifically, OBBBA eliminated existing affordable student loan repayment options, increased college costs for working families by capping federal student aid, and made it easier for predatory, private lenders to trap working families in even greater debt. Now, the Department’s proposed rule sets the stage to implement the changes passed in OBBBA in a manner that puts students and families with fewer means to afford college costs and at greater risk of default.

To date, approximately 8 million borrowers are in default on their student loans, and over 4 million more are behind on their monthly payments. This means, absent significant action from the Department, well over 10 million borrowers could be in default in the coming months. As such, we urge the Department to hold borrowers harmless as they implement the student loan repayment changes in the proposed rule and ensure borrowers have no less than one-year to transition repayment plans, are given clarity on the steps they are expected to take, and are provided guidance as repayment options shift in the coming years.

We also implore the Department to expand the definition of “professional” programs to include all programs that generally require advanced study for licensure, certification, or employment, and urge the Department not to arbitrarily prohibit certain professional programs from accessing the higher loan limits. Finally, we encourage the Department to implement the process to allow borrowers in default to rehabilitate their loan twice as quickly as possible and ensure borrowers seeking rehabilitation can do so swiftly, without delay.

Below, we provide more detailed input on the draft regulations proposed by the Department.

Student loan borrowers must be held harmless as the Department implements changes to repayment.

We appreciate the Department’s proposal to amend sections 674.39, 682.204, and 685.405 to provide student loan borrowers the ability to rehabilitate their loans in default twice. Approximately 8 million borrowers are in default on their federal student loans, with more borrowers entering default every day. It is imperative that the Department implement this change in policy quickly and in a manner that ensures borrowers can access rehabilitation without additional bureaucratic red tape. Additionally, the Department must ensure that all student loan servicers are providing borrowers with accurate, timely information on their loan options, including information on deferment, forbearance, and income-driven repayment.

If current trends hold, more borrowers will soon be in default than prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. Yet, rather than take substantial steps to address the looming default cliff, recent reporting suggests the Department is not making sufficient progress in addressing existing backlogs or conducting adequate oversight of student loan servicers. In recent months, student loan borrowers have endured long delays in accessing income-driven repayment and have even received false notifications on the status of their student loan. No borrower should suffer the consequences of default due to a lack of information, servicer error, or processing delays at the Department. We urge the Department to implement the student loan repayment, forbearance, deferment, and rehabilitation changes proposed in this NPRM in a manner that holds borrowers harmless and enables borrowers to make the repayment choices that work best for their financial circumstances.

The new definition of professional program will harm occupations vital to our economy and essential to our communities.

The Department’s proposal in section 685.102 creates a novel and arbitrary distinction between programs classified as “graduate” and programs classified as “professional” for the purpose of accessing higher federal student loan limits. The Department’s narrow interpretation of “professional” programs will make it more difficult for students to afford degrees in critical professions such as social work, medicine, public health, education, mental health, and more.

Over the next two years alone, the U.S. will face a shortage of well over 350,000 nurses and over the next twelve years we are facing a shortage of over 400,000 mental health practitioners. A recent American Association of Colleges of Nursing survey found that 82 percent of student respondents reported the new loan limits would negatively impact their ability to finance their education. Respondent’s also reported an average annual cost of $38,542 for their programs, which exceeds the $20,500 annual limit for programs classified as “graduate.”

What’s more, approximately 1 in 8 teaching positions are unfilled or filled by a teacher that is not fully certified, and the Department’s decision to exclude graduate education programs from the definition of professional will only exacerbate those shortages. Fifteen states have laws requiring school districts to pay teachers with master’s degrees more and 90 percent of urban districts also have a pay premium for educators with a master’s degree. If the Department chooses to arbitrarily exclude education programs from eligibility for higher loan limits, then not only will it be more difficult for districts to fill vacant teaching positions, it will also make it even more difficult for teachers to access higher pay. Additionally, the OBBBA reduced loan eligibility for students attending programs less than full-time, and nearly half of graduate education students attend on a less than full-time basis, which will make it even more difficult for graduate education students to cover the costs of their program

Further, low-income students are more likely to be disproportionately impacted by these new limits: 17 percent of students that received a Pell Grant as an undergraduate historically have borrowed amounts that exceed the new borrowing limits for graduate and professional study as opposed to only 10-percent of students that did not receive Pell. Additionally, more than half of individuals from low- to moderate-income neighborhoods have limited credit history or poor credit scores, meaning that working-class students are also least likely to be able to fill any gaps in aid with low-interest, private loans.

The Department’s definition of “professional” results in arbitrary and contradictory program exclusions.

The Department acknowledges that the definition of “professional” programs cited in the OBBBA incorporated words that appear “ambiguous” and “vague,” and the list of programs included within the definition are not exhaustive but illustrative. As such, the Department acknowledges it has some flexibility in defining professional programs to include additional programs not explicitly listed by the definition cited in the OBBBA.

In section 685.102, the Department outlines a three-part test in determining if a program should be considered a professional program for purposes of Title IV aid based on the definition provided in the OBBBA: “First, the degree must signify completion of the academic requirements for beginning practice in a given profession. Second, the profession the graduate enters must require a level of professional skill beyond what is normally required for a bachelor’s degree. Third, the profession that the degree holder would enter after graduating generally requires professional licensure.”

The Department’s application of its own three-part test results in a list of “professional programs” that is arbitrary and contradictory. The Department both excludes programs that reliably satisfy each element of the test and includes programs that fail the test. Though purporting to adopt an objective test to determine eligibility for professional loan limits, the actual result penalizes programs based on the Department’s preferences.

For example, the Department excludes professional nursing programs (Masters of Science in Nursing or Doctor of Nursing Practice) and social work programs (e.g. Master of Social Work (MSW)) from the definition of professional, even though both of these types of programs satisfy each element of the test—they (i) are necessary for beginning practice within a profession, (ii) require a level of professional skill beyond what is normally required for a bachelor’s degree, and (iii) professional licensure is generally required for each.

More specifically, the Department’s haphazard interpretation of the first element of the test—that the degree satisfies requirements for beginning practice in a given profession— is applied inconsistently. For example, a Master of Science in Nursing (MSN) is required to begin practice as a nurse practitioner, and a Master of Social Work (MSW) is required to begin work as a licensed clinical social worker. However, in the proposed rule, the Department argues that MSN and MSW degrees do not meet the definition of professional because they are not necessary in order to enter the fields of nursing or social work. But as noted above, MSN and MSW degrees are required to begin practice in a given profession in the fields of nursing and social work, which satisfies the definition in the OBBBA.

At the same time, theology degrees are listed as a “professional” program in the illustrative list of program examples in the proposed rule. These degrees, such as a Master of Divinity (M.Div), are not necessary to begin work in ministry or as a pastor. A M.Div is generally required to enter pastoral leadership positions and specific roles within Christian ministry, but not necessarily required to begin practice in the field of ministry more broadly. The same is true for MSN, MSW, Master of Education (M.Ed), and similar degree programs, which are required to begin specific roles, receive promotions, or advancement within their respective fields, but not to enter the field itself.

As the Department notes, the list of programs included in the OBBBA definition is illustrative, not exhaustive. Therefore, the very inclusion of theology programs in the definition of “professional” opens the door for consideration of additional, similar programs such as nursing, education, social work, occupational therapy, flight education programs, and others. The common trait among these degree programs, including theology, is each of these degree programs are required to begin practice in a given profession within each of their respective fields, though not required to enter the fields themselves.

Regarding the second element of the test, which states the profession requires a level of professional skill beyond what is normally required for a bachelor’s degree, programs such as nursing, teaching, social work, flight training, occupational therapy, or physical therapy, each satisfy the second element. Each of these professions are highly skilled, in-demand occupations that require extensive training and expertise beyond the traditional scope of a bachelor’s degree.

Finally, when evaluating programs such as nursing, social work, and teaching against the third element of the test—that the profession a degree holder would enter generally requires professional licensure— each of the above programs have licensure requirements that satisfy this standard. MSN degrees are required to become licensed as a nurse practitioner and MSW degrees are required to become a licensed clinical social worker. By the OBBBA’s own definition, programs such as those listed above, and others, should be classified as professional programs for purposes of federal student loans.

In choosing to exclude certain programs that otherwise meet the definition of professional, the Department has taken a haphazard, arbitrary approach in interpreting the definition of professional programs in the OBBBA. In order to ensure all students are able to pursue training in fields vital to our communities, the Department must adhere to their own definition and allow all professional programs that meet the proposed standards to access the professional loan limits established in the OBBBA.

Conclusion

At a time when higher education is increasingly unaffordable and our country is facing significant workforce shortages in areas such as health care, teaching, mental health, and social work, it is unacceptable for the Department to adopt a restrictive approach to college access. In doing so, the Department is arbitrarily excluding programs from being able to access critical aid that opens the door to opportunity for working-class students. Students should not be deterred from pursuing higher education in any field due to cost or inability to pay. The Department must do everything in its power to ensure the path to higher education and training remains open to all students regardless of their socioeconomic status or background, especially for those pursuing graduate or professional training in essential, in-demand fields.

Further, at a time when nearly one in four borrowers could soon enter default, borrowers will be forced to transition into new plans, with fewer safety nets and less servicer oversight. Therefore, we call on the Department to utilize every tool available to ensure borrowers are given clear and concise information on next steps and are protected from being pushed into delinquency and default due to delays or errors. Borrowers must be held harmless as the Department implements the sweeping changes imposed by the OBBBA and the Department must hold servicers accountable to providing borrowers with accurate information.

Thank you for your attention to our requests.

###


WATCH: Padilla Defends Constitutional Right to Birthright Citizenship, Slams Detainment of Orange County Father of Three Marines

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, condemned President Trump and Republicans’ un-American efforts to end the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. As the son of Mexican immigrants himself, Padilla underscored that the 14th Amendment clearly grants citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.”

Padilla questioned Virginia Law School professor Amanda Frost on the 14th Amendment citizenship clause, hearing from her that the provision was added in the 1860s to overturn the Dred Scott case and its harsh legacy after the Civil War. She emphasized that the debates surrounding the ratification of the 14th Amendment made clear that outside of extremely narrow common law exceptions, everyone born in the United States should be granted citizenship. Frost also underscored that the Supreme Court considered various scenarios in United States v. Wong Kim Ark and ruled that anyone born in the United States is a U.S. citizen. She also highlighted that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed this decision multiple times, leading to every lower federal court — including judges nominated by Republican presidents — blocking Trump’s unconstitutional executive order.

In his remarks, Padilla also slammed the Administration’s treatment of Narciso Barranco — a father of three U.S. citizen Marine veterans — who was violently detained by masked Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents in Orange County last summer. His case was finally dismissed by an immigration judge last month after the Administration tried to deport him.

Alejandro, Narciso’s eldest son, served as a witness at today’s hearing. Despite risking his life to serve the nation as a Marine, Republicans’ efforts to dismantle birthright citizenship could take away citizenship from Alejandro and his brothers, who are active-duty Marines. Padilla rebuked Republicans’ for sending such an un-American, hypocritical message to service members and their families by questioning their citizenship. At a hearing last year, Alejandro told Padilla about the dangers of indiscriminate immigration enforcement, including the sweeping up of hardworking people, like his father, with no history of violent crime.

Senator Padilla has been a leading advocate fighting back against Republicans’ unconstitutional efforts to erode birthright citizenship. Last month, Padilla joined Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), and 26 other Senate Democrats in filing a bicameral amicus brief standing up for birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara. In June, Padilla sharply criticized the Supreme Court’s ruling to curtail federal courts’ power to issue injunctions, arguing that the Court emboldened President Trump’s unconstitutional attack on birthright citizenship and incentivized presidential overreach. Earlier last year, Padilla cosponsored the Born in the USA Act to effectively block the implementation of Trump’s unconstitutional executive order attempting to end birthright citizenship for certain children born in the United States, or a similar subsequent executive order. Padilla also opposed advancing the nomination of Attorney General Pam Bondi after she repeatedly refused to affirm that birthright citizenship is the law.

Key Excerpts:

PADILLA: In the Constitution, it’s pretty straightforward. Citizenship is granted to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States.” All persons born in the United States. Doesn’t matter if your ancestry goes back to the Mayflower, or if you’re first gen like myself, or somewhere in between. If you were born on American soil, you’re an American citizen. Full stop, end of story.

PADILLA: Think about the message that this is sending when Mr. Barranco and his brothers chose to enlist and went to enlist. The United States government, the United States Marine Corps, was more than willing to say, “yes, thank you, welcome. We can use you. We will train you. We will educate you. We will deploy you — at risk.” Mr. Barranco has been honorably discharged. He’s a veteran. But when it comes to how this Administration is treating the father of three Marines, it is the opposite question. Despite years of living in the United States, despite working, despite paying taxes, despite raising a family, despite encouraging and inspiring not one, not two, but three, service members willing to pay the ultimate sacrifice for the United States of America, this Administration thinks Mr. Barranco needs to go. Think about the message that this Administration is sending.

PADILLA: Question for Professor Frost, President Trump is trying to change the way we fundamentally understand citizenship. My question is yes or no, is the 14th Amendment citizenship clause clear about birthright citizenship? Yes or no?

FROST: Yes.

PADILLA: All right, so in my minute and a half left, a few more seconds, if you’d like, let me transport you. Let’s suggest that you are appearing before the United States Supreme Court. What would your message be to the justices?

FROST: I would tell the justices that the Reconstruction Congress in 1866 and the nation in 1868 added this provision to overturn Dred Scott and the stain of that decision as it had sullied our Constitution. And during those debates, they made clear that the citizenship clause applied to everyone born on U.S. soil. The only exceptions discussed were the narrow common law exceptions for children of ambassadors and Native Americans, which they added in light of the unique American tradition of Native sovereignty. And then I would point out to the Supreme Court, in addition to that language, in addition to what that Reconstruction Congress told us and what the nation understood at the time, that its own precedent from 1898 established clearly that Wong Kim Ark, born in the United States, and everyone else born in the United States, whether here, “for business or pleasure,” whether just “passing through,” and that’s also a quote, is a citizen of the United States. And then this very court, if I’m making this argument before the justices, I’d point out they repeated that in decisions in the 1950s, in the 1960s, and the 1980s, and that’s why every lower federal court to address this issue has rejected the Trump Administration’s executive order as unconstitutional, including a number of judges who were nominated by Republican presidents.

###


WATCH: Padilla Dismantles Republicans’ Baseless Attacks on Sanctuary Cities

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, slammed Republicans’ lies about sanctuary city policies during a Senate Budget Committee hearing. As Republicans try to falsely cast sanctuary cities as lawless, Padilla set the record straight that sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government — not state and local authorities.

He emphasized that these laws do not prevent Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officers and agents from arresting violent criminals in these cities once they are released from prison. Padilla stressed, however, that state and local authorities cannot be forced into performing these inherently federal responsibilities, diverting attention and resources away from critical public safety priorities for their communities.

“[This hearing] is not about the federal budget, not about an economic outlook, but I understand why the Republican majority wouldn’t want to talk about that. Not while gas prices are spiking because of an unauthorized war against Iran. Instead, we’re here to discuss how off-base this whole sanctuary conversation really is.”

“Sanctuary policies simply affirm that immigration enforcement is the job of the federal government, and that the federal government cannot unilaterally decide to co-opt state and local authorities or their resources — precious resources — in carrying out these responsibilities.”

“It means carrying out immigration enforcement activities is ICE’s purview, while respecting state and local law enforcement agencies to make decisions around how to focus and direct their limited resources that they deem best protects and serves their constituents.”

Padilla underscored that the legality of sanctuary cities has repeatedly been upheld in court. Justice Scalia in Printz v. United States wrote, “The Federal Government may neither issue directives requiring the States to address particular problems, nor command the States’ officers, or those of their political subdivisions, to administer or enforce a federal regulatory program.” He also blasted the Trump Administration for using lies and misinformation about sanctuary policies to justify their cruel immigration enforcement campaign that has caused chaos in American cities and taken the lives of at least two citizens.

“We can have disagreements on policy, but the fundamental misunderstanding about what sanctuary policies are has led to the promotion of enforcement actions across the country that have become damaging to our communities and to our local economies.”

Padilla rebuked Congressional Republicans for supporting the Administration’s blatant federal overreach that would limit local law enforcement’s ability to investigate and prosecute serious other issues like human trafficking, violent crimes, and fentanyl offenses. He highlighted research that shows that cities with sanctuary policies have lower crime rates, higher median household income, less poverty, less reliance on public assistance, higher labor force participation, and lower unemployment.

“It seems to me that this debate has not really been about public safety. Because if it were, we could also be talking about how the data shows that sanctuary policies actually make communities safer, healthier, and more prosperous.”

Padilla concluded by calling for accountability and oversight over ICE and CBP officers and agents’ lawless and reckless actions under President Trump. He urged Republicans to get serious about protecting public safety and stop lying about what sanctuary policies do.

“Let’s stop perpetuating the lies. Let’s ensure that ICE and CBP agents are accountable and conduct their jobs in accordance with the law and the Constitution. Let’s allow local law enforcement leaders to do what they deem is best for public safety.”

Video of Senator Padilla’s remarks is available here.

Last month, Senator Padilla blocked Senator Lindsay Graham’s (R-S.C.) End Sanctuary Cities Act of 2026 that would have undermined sanctuary policies in California and across the country. During a spotlight forum last year, Padilla warned against the dangers of the Trump Administration’s unprecedented withholding of federal funding over disagreements in immigration policy and stressed that punishing sanctuary cities threatens public safety by keeping immigrants from reporting crimes out of fear.

###