WATCH: Sen. Schiff, Leader Schumer, January 6th Committee Members, Congressional Leaders Gather to Honor Heroes Who Defended Capitol at the Site of Newly Installed Plaque

Washington, DC – On Wednesday, March 25, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.-08), Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Homeland Security and former Chairman of the January 6th Committee Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.-02), and members of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol gathered at a ceremony to commemorate the installation of the plaque honoring the bravery of U.S. Capitol Police, Washington D.C. Metropolitan Police Department, and other law enforcement officers who protected the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021.

The ceremony took place on the Senate’s Upper Terrace on the West Front of the Capitol, at the very place where rioters stormed the Capitol building during the deadly insurrection. Guests included law enforcement officers and the families of fallen officers who defended our democracy that day, as well as lawmakers and former staff of the January 6th Committee.

“Today, we come together to honor those who risked and, in some cases, gave their lives to protect our Capitol on January 6, 2021. They will be forever remembered for their heroism and now through this plaque for their contributions to our safety and our democracy and will become an essential part of the fabric of the Capitol building itself,” said Senator Schiff.

Watch Schiff’s opening remarks HERE. Download remarks HERE.

Read the full transcript of his remarks as delivered below:

Good evening, everyone. It’s an honor to be here with you today.

Five years ago, our nation and its democracy experienced one of its darkest days when a violent mob attacked the Capitol in an effort to overturn a free and fair election. It was the first serious effort to interfere with the peaceful transfer of power in our history.

Brave police officers were beaten, crushed, bear sprayed and maced while defending our democracy with their bare hands.

The halls of Congress were desecrated. Symbols of hate were paraded through a convening place of the greatest democracy in history. Blood and worse were smeared on the walls and floors.

The certification of the election was delayed.

During that horrific day, we witnessed the immense heroism of the Capitol Police, the D.C. metropolitan police and other law enforcement officers who protected this temple of democracy.

Like many of you, I remember January 6, 2021, vividly.

I remember being on the floor of the House of Representatives as one of the managers of the floor debate that day, opposing efforts to decertify the electors.

As the chaos began, I remember noticing members on their phones watching hundreds and then thousands of people outside the Capitol starting to beat their way into this building.

Breaking down fences and barricades, attacking officers, including in the very spot we gather today.

Until I could hear them myself inside the chamber, banging on the doors and trying to get in.

I remember our Capitol police officers coming onto the House floor to evacuate our leadership and making increasingly serious statements about the emergency at hand.

Advising us to get out our gas masks, creating an escape route, telling us eventually you need to get out, now.

At the center of those memories are the brave law enforcement officers who protected us in the face of this unprecedented tragedy.

Today, we come together to honor those who risked and, in some cases, gave their lives to protect our Capitol on January 6, 2021.

They will be forever remembered for their heroism and now through this plaque for their contributions to our safety and our democracy and will become an essential part of the fabric of the Capitol building itself.

I want to recognize some of those joining us today, Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. Aquilino, thank you for being here, who protected our Capitol on January 6, along with Erin Smith, whose late husband D.C. Metropolitan Police Officer Jeffrey Smith, tragically passed away in the days following the insurrection. Erin, thank you for being here. Both of you I know, carry the heavy burden of what occurred that day. And we are grateful to you both for your service and sacrifice.

I want to recognize our Leader Chuck Schumer for being here today. He, along with Leader Thune, were instrumental in having a plaque that could be installed to honor the service of our Capitol police force and other law enforcement agencies who protected the Capitol that day.

My deep appreciation as well to Senator Jeff Merkley and Senator Thom Tillis, who introduced the bipartisan resolution to ensure the plaque we are here to recognize would be put up in the Capitol.

I want to recognize my colleague, Senator Alex Padilla, the Ranking Member of the Rules Committee; Senator Amy Klobuchar, the former chair of the Rules Committee; and Senator Patty Murray, who is also here Vice Chair of the Appropriations Committee, and who also contributed enormously to those efforts.

We’re also very grateful to Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi for their leadership on that day and for joining us today.

In the aftermath of that attack, we knew we needed to investigate and tell the full story of what happened.

I’m proud to have served on the January 6 Committee alongside my colleagues who are here, our January 6 Committee Chair, Bennie Thompson, Congressman Pete Aguilar, Congressman Jamie Raskin and Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren and those who could not make it today, Vice Chair Liz Cheney, Congressman Adam Kinzinger, Congresswoman Stephanie Murphy and Congresswoman Elaine Luria, along with dozens of our former January 6 Committee staff who worked diligently to provide a full documentation and painstaking detail of how our democracy held just barely, in large part, thanks to a critical mass of honorable officials of both parties.

I will close with this.

Despite the painful memories of what happened at the Capitol on January 6, there continues to be an insidious effort to paper over the truth of what occurred to rewrite the history of that day, to undermine elections and the rule of law.

We must never allow the truth of what happened five years ago to be forgotten, and we must rededicate ourselves to making sure that something like January 6 never happens in our country again. That’s what this plaque represents.

I thank you all for attending.

###


Senator Schmitt Chairs Senate Judiciary Hearing Highlighting Painful Consequences of Sanctuary City Policies

Schmitt Exposes Democrats’ Refusal to Prioritize American Citizens Over Illegal Aliens

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, held a hearing titled “Protecting American Citizenship II: Federalism, Sanctuary Cities, and the Rule of Law.” Schmitt highlighted the painful results sanctuary cities have on American families and called out Senate Democrats for prioritizing illegal immigrants over American citizens.

Watch the Senator’s opening remarks HERE.

“There are moments when a policy debate stops being a policy debate, when all the abstractions fall away, when all the buzzwords and talking points and legal jargon fall away, and what we’re left with is very simple question about the first duty of government. Sanctuary policies force this question, because this is not really about federalism. It’s not really about local control, and it certainly isn’t about compassion. It’s about who comes first, the American citizen or the illegal alien? And sanctuary jurisdictions have answered that question. They’ve answered it with their laws. They’ve answered it with their policies. They’ve answered it with their conduct. They put the illegal alien first. That is what a sanctuary policy means in the real world. An illegal alien commits a crime and gets arrested by local law enforcement. That arrest tells government exactly where the person is. Federal immigration authorities then make a very simple request, let us know when this person is being released, so that we can take him into custody and begin the removal proceedings. That is not some extraordinary burden, that is not a constitutional crisis, that is not conscription, that is basic cooperation. It’s the kind of coordination that happens every single day between state, local, and federal law enforcement in every other context. And yet, when the subject is immigration, sanctuary jurisdictions refuse, they withhold the information, they block the transfer, they release the alien, and then they send the alien back into the community. That is a choice, a very deliberate choice, and it’s a choice that gets people hurt. Sometimes it gets people killed. The defenders of these policies always want to keep this debate at a level of theory. They want to talk about values and discretion and trust and constitutional structure. They never want to talk about the consequences. But the consequences are the story. The consequences look like Laken Riley, murdered by an illegal alien who had already had encounters with law enforcement and was still turned loose in a system that puts ideology ahead of public safety. Consequences look like Stephanie Minter, an American mother whose killer was shielded by Fairfax County sanctuary policies. The consequences look like Sheridan Gorman, an 18 year old college student in Chicago shot in the back while walking with friends by an illegal alien who had already been caught at the border, released, arrested again, then released again. They look like Katie Abraham, a young woman in Illinois killed by an illegal immigrant drunk driver who had already been deported once, reentered the country, and evaded the laws thanks to sanctuary policies. These are not freak accidents. They’re not acts of God. There are foreseeable consequences of public officials making a conscious decision to obstruct immigration enforcement and release people who should never have been released back onto the streets in the first place.”, said Senator Schmitt during his opening remarks.

Senator Schmitt asks Mr. Joe Abraham, a parent who lost his daughter at the hands of an illegal immigrant released in a sanctuary city, what he would say to Democrats on the painful consequences of their open border policies.

Schmitt: “I appreciate your courage in being outspoken about this. What message would you give to these politicians who defend sanctuary cities? What are they missing, what do they not understand about the impact that this has”

Mr. Joe Abraham: “First, I know they have no consideration for that, that’s just my take from my own experience so that’s one. I wish they were able to put themselves in someone else’s position and look at what their policies are doing. This intention thing, or the moral high ground they all think they have, when they’re doing it for really a immoral purpose, it does not make it moral, it does not make it right. You’re going to tell me that four or five years ago you had everyone in the world bomb rush our border and that’s okay? Now you’re saying we can’t be extreme in what we’re doing, where were these voices four years ago saying this is way to extreme? It didn’t take legislation to stop what happened over those years. If you want to get down to the nitty gritty here; anyone who came in during the Biden regime ought to be looked at. Katie’s killer wasn’t the worst of the worst, that poor girl in Chicago, he wasn’t the worst of the worst. How does it become that way? It shouldn’t just be worst of the worst. I’m sorry they missed that.”

Watch the Senator’s full questioning HERE.

###


SCHUMER, GILLIBRAND DEMAND VA STOP SUDDEN PLAN TO CLOSE SCHENECTADY VETERANS’ CLINIC AND IMMEDIATELY BEGIN WORK WITH LOCAL LEADERS TO ENSURE NO DISRUPTIONS IN CARE FOR 1,500+ CAPITAL REGION VETERANS...

Sudden Closure Announcement For The Schenectady VA Clinic Has Prompted Major Concerns From Capital Region Vets That Care Could Be Disrupted, Have Veterans Facing Long Wait Times, Or Major Inconveniences For Receiving The Healthcare They Earned After Serving Our Country

Senators Say Capital Region Vets Need Answers and Assurances They Will Continue To Get The Local, Convenient, High-Quality Healthcare They Deserve Before Any Plan Can Move Forward

Schumer, Gillibrand: We Must Protect Healthcare For Capital Region Vets

After the sudden announcement from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to close the Schenectady VA clinic, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today demanded the VA provide immediate answers to ensure the healthcare for the over 1,500 Capital Region veterans who rely on this clinic will not be disrupted. The senators said this plan cannot move forward until local veterans and leaders have the assurances they need that veterans will have continued access to high-quality care, including distance to alternative clinics, access to transportation services, and how wait times will be impacted at these alternative clinics.

“The Schenectady VA clinic is the hub for healthcare for over 1,500 Capital Region veterans. Some have built relationships with doctors that go back decades, we cannot risk disrupting their care. Local veterans are justifiably concerned this could lead to longer wait times or major inconveniences for getting the high-quality, convenient healthcare they earned through services to our country,” said Senator Schumer. “Capital Region veterans risked their lives for us, and we need to do right by them. This plan cannot move forward without local leaders at the table and veterans confident they will continue to get the healthcare they need. Capital Region veterans deserve nothing less.”

“The Schenectady VA provides care to more than 1,500 veterans in the Capital Region who have served our country, and the decision to close this facility will have devastating consequences,” said Senator Gillibrand, member of the Senate Armed Services Committee. “Veterans put their lives on the line to defend our nation, and we have both a promise and responsibility to ensure their care. Any plans going forward must include the veterans who rely daily on the care of the Schenectady VA.”

Schumer and Gillibrand’s letter to VA Secretary Collins can be found HERE or below:

Dear Secretary Collins:

We write to express serious concerns and demand immediate answers regarding the sudden announcement to close the community-based outpatient clinic in Schenectady, NY, on August 28 and transition veterans to care at other VA facilities in the coming months. Any closure would impact healthcare access for the more than 1,500 veterans who rely on the personal care and relationships they have built at the facility by threatening their continuity of quality care. This sudden plan to shut down the clinic cannot move forward until Capital Region veterans have the answers and assurances that the high-quality, local, and accessible care they need will continue without disruption or inconvenience.

The new plan has raised concerns among the local Capital Region veterans’ community. The VA has said that patients based in the Schenectady VA clinic will be redirected to clinics in Albany, Clifton Park, Fonda, or Oneonta. In addition, the Albany VA clinic already receives a higher volume of requests, and local veterans fear being forced to wait months before they can access medical attention. With further drives and longer waits, Capital Region veterans are worried about accessing the same quality of care they are used to and deserve in a timely manner.

Our nation’s veterans experience a wide range of health issues due to their military service and other factors, all of which require accessible, high-quality, and continuous care. Some veterans have ongoing relationships with providers at the Schenectady VA clinic dating as far back as 1998. Disruptions and closures can prevent the VA from delivering continuous care to our veterans. The Capital Region veterans’ community deserves assurances that their care will not be impeded before any transition can take place. Anything else would be an abdication of responsibility to those who have served our country most honorably.

Please provide answers to the following questions by April 10, 2026:

Please provide all studies done to justify the decision to close the Schenectady VA outpatient clinic.

How did the VA decide that redirecting veterans to other local clinics would better serve local veterans than maintaining access for these same veterans to the Schenectady clinic?

With veterans expected to be redirected to four other clinics across the Capital Region, how will the VA decide which patients will be redirected where?

Though the VA has stated it will increase staff and services at the Clifton Park VA clinic, what is the VA’s plan to ensure wait times and strained emergency services do not get worse at other remaining clinics which could expect hundreds of new patients?

What steps will the VA take to ease this transition for local veterans who may find this disruptive now having to travel far distances for care? Will the VA provide transportation for veterans unable to travel to other clinics?

How many veterans will be impacted by the closure of the Schenectady clinic? How many and what types of jobs are expected to be lost?

Does the Schenectady clinic provide any specialty care that is not offered at the nearby Clifton Park VA clinic? If so, how does the VA plan on assuring veterans can continue accessing that specialty care?

We firmly believe this plan should not move forward until our local veterans receive assurances that the quality of their care will not be impacted. Local providers and veterans can attest to the importance of the Schenectady VA clinic to the community. Our nation’s veterans deserve efficient access to the highest quality of care at VA facilities. We cannot risk disrupting their access to care, and we request an explanation for this decision and answers about the VA’s plan. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

###


Sen. Tim Scott reintroduces legislation to protect and support pregnant women and families

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) reintroduced the Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act, legislation aimed at ensuring pregnant women and new mothers have access to critical support services by protecting funding for pregnancy resource centers and community-based family organizations.

Joining Sen. Scott in introducing the legislation are Sens. Jim Justice (R-WV), John Cornyn (R-TX), Jim Risch (R-ID), and Todd Young (R-IN).

“Supporting women means ensuring they have real resources, real care, and real options,” said Sen. Scott. “I am proud to lead this legislation to protect and strengthen the community organizations that serve women and families every day—offering guidance, support, and critical services so no mother faces pregnancy or parenthood alone.”

“Our pregnancy resource centers need to know that we have their backs. They’re stepping up every single day for expecting moms and young families in ways that just can’t be replaced. This bill makes it clear: states can continue to partner with these organizations without the federal government limiting their funding. We should be doing everything in our power to help women, support parents, and strengthen families. This is just common sense, and a strong step in the right direction,” said Sen. Justice.

“Pregnancy resource centers have a long history of empowering women on their journey to motherhood, and it’s unconscionable that the Biden Health and Human Services Department attempted to undercut their funding,” said Sen. Cornyn. “By permanently prohibiting any restrictions on TANF funding for pregnancy centers, this legislation would safeguard these life-changing organizations against the woke policies of future Democrat administrations and equip expectant mothers with the resources to give our most vulnerable the best chance of survival.”

“Pregnancy centers are often an important lifeline for mothers and growing families,” said Sen. Risch. “The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act ensures these critical resources remain available to those who need it most.”

“Pregnancy resource centers play an important role in our communities. They provide critical care to women and families, including parenting education, counseling, and material support like diapers and baby supplies. Our bill will ensure that states, including Indiana, can continue to champion and support these centers,” said Sen. Young.

The Supporting Pregnant and Parenting Women and Families Act would safeguard federal funding for pregnancy resource centers and family-support organizations that provide life-affirming care to women and families in need. These organizations offer a wide range of services, including parenting education, material assistance, housing referrals, and health care guidance—often at no cost, particularly for low-income and underserved communities.

The bill is designed to strengthen support systems for pregnant and parenting women by protecting community-based organizations from politically or ideologically motivated funding restrictions. The legislation combats attempts by the previous Biden administration to discriminate against pregnancy resource centers, which have increasingly faced conditions that threaten their ability to provide essential services when women and families need them most.

Sen. Scott has consistently fought to ensure that support for mothers, children, and families is expanded so they have access to the care, guidance, and resources necessary to thrive at every stage of pregnancy and parenthood.

The legislation is supported by a broad coalition of organizations committed to life-affirming care and family support, including:

National Right to Life

Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America

March for Life Action

Americans United for Life

Heartbeat International

Students for Life Action

Concerned Women for America

Family Policy Alliance

Full text of the bill can be found here.

###


Shaheen Introduces Legislation to Reform Crop Insurance, Save Taxpayers More Than $40 Billion

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), a senior member of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies (Ag-FDA) Subcommittee, is introducing legislation to reform the federal government’s crop insurance program, save roughly $40 billion over the next ten years, level the playing field for smaller farms and target fraud and abuse in the program. The bill comes as already struggling small, diversified farms face rising costs from President Trump’s tariffs and skyrocketing fuel and fertilizer prices due to the conflict with Iran.

“American taxpayers shouldn’t be footing the bill for crop insurance companies and large agri-businesses to turn a profit on crop subsidies while small farms that actually need support don’t receive it,” said Senator Shaheen. “When I meet with farmers in my state they tell me crop insurance doesn't work for them and that the Trump Administration’s reckless policies are driving up their costs. It’s time we invest in small farms that are feeding our local communities. My legislation is a commonsense way to get help to the farmers who need it most while saving Americans money and shining a spotlight on those who abuse the federal crop insurance program.”

The federal crop insurance program is expected to cost taxpayers over $14 billion this year alone. According to the Congressional Budget Office, Shaheen’s Assisting Family Farmers through Insurance Reform Measures (AFFIRM) Act would save more than $40 billion over ten years by placing commonsense limitations, increasing transparency measures and reducing wasteful spending in the crop insurance program without reducing support for farmers who need it.

Specifically, the AFFIRM Act would:

Limit federal crop insurance subsidies to $40,000 per farmer per year and eliminate crop insurance premium subsidies for individuals with an adjusted gross income of more than $250,000.

Reduce government subsidy of crop insurance companies—capping government payments to insurers for administrative and operating costs at $900 million instead of $1.5 billion.

Eliminate subsidies for Harvest Price Option insurance policies—allowing farmers to take out generous policies while preventing taxpayers from footing the bill.

Increase transparency in government spending by requiring the reporting of all individuals or entities that receive federally subsidized crop insurance.

A copy of the bill text can be found HERE.

Shaheen first introduced the AFFIRM Act with then-Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) in 2015, and again with then-Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) in 2020. The legislation is endorsed by a coalition of groups including Taxpayers for Common Sense, R Street, the Taxpayers Protection Alliance, the National Taxpayers Union, Farm Action Fund and the Environmental Working Group.

Senator Shaheen has a strong record of working to support farmers in New Hampshire. In the Fiscal Year 2026 Ag-FDA appropriations legislation, Shaheen defended conservation tools used by the state’s agricultural producers, maintained funding for Farm Service Agency staffing in county offices in the Granite State, made $10.5 billion in farm loans available to help producers access capital across the country and funded research that helps improve cultivation practices in New England. Last year, Shaheen held two separate roundtable discussions with New Hampshire farmers and agricultural producers from across the state to discuss the impacts farms experienced as a result of President Trump’s freeze on tens of billions of dollars of federal funding at USDA. In 2024, Shaheen successfully helped to secure disaster supplemental funding for farmers impacted by crop losses in 2023.

###


Slotkin, Young, Schiff, Curtis Lead Bipartisan Bill to Stop Insider Trading from Government Officials on Prediction Markets

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Todd Young (R-IN), Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) today introduced the bipartisan Public Integrity in Financial Predications Markets Act of 2026. The bill prohibits federally elected officials and government employees from using insider information to bet on a prediction market contract.

As noted in multiple news reports around the Iran war strikes, elected and government officials at all levels are privy to confidential information that could appear on a prediction market. This legislation would ban them from using non-material public information of any kind on any event contract.

“No one should be profiting off the information and knowledge gained as a public servant, period,” said Senator Slotkin. “This bill is an important first step in placing common sense rules around prediction markets, and it has real teeth to ensure those who break these rules face real consequences. I am proud of our bipartisan coalition, and I thank Senators Young, Schiff and Curtis for working with me to move this important bill forward.”

“Public service should never be a pathway to personal profit based on insider information,” said Senator Young. “Recent activity in prediction markets has raised real concerns that individuals with access to sensitive, nonpublic information could exploit that advantage for financial gain. Our bill will prohibit elected officials, staff, and executive branch employees from trading prediction market event contracts based on information acquired as part of their official duties. This is a sensible step to protect taxpayers and promote integrity in government.”

“The prediction markets industry can’t be left alone to self-police,” said Senator Schiff. “That’s why we need strong rules to protect against elected officials exploiting insider information to profit on prediction markets. I’m proud to join this bipartisan effort to crack down on this insidious form of insider trading.”

“Our bipartisan legislation makes clear that public service is not a pathway to private gain,” said Senator Curtis. “As financial markets evolve, so too must our ethics laws. By extending long-standing insider trading principles to prediction markets, this bill closes a dangerous loophole and reinforces a basic expectation: those entrusted with sensitive information cannot use it to bet on the future for personal profit.”

The details of the Public Integrity in Financial Markets Act of 2026:

Covered individuals: President, Vice President, Members of Congress, employees of the House of Representatives and Senate, political appointees (including the President’s cabinet), employees of an Executive agency or independent regulatory agency.

Insider information: Any information that a reasonable investor would consider important in making a decision related to a prediction market contract and is not publicly available.

Covered transactions: The purchase, sale, or exchange of any prediction market contract that is offered on a U.S. or foreign domiciled platform.

Penalties: Any covered individual who violates the prohibition shall be fined the greater of either $500, or the amount equal to double the profit made in the transaction.

Enforcing body: No later than 180 days after date of enactment the Office of Government Ethics, Select Committee on Ethics, and Committee on Ethics of the House of Representatives will: impose and collect penalties, establish procedures and standards, issue rules and guidelines in consultation with the Commodity Futures Trading Commission – and publish such information on a website.

Reporting Requirements: No later than 30 days after a covered transaction over $250, the covered individual must submit a report to the supervising ethics office and include the number of contracts purchased, price of contract, date and time of transaction, name of contract, position taken on contract, name of trading platform used, profit or loss made on transaction. If the contract is not settled within 30 days of purchasing the contract an additional report shall be submitted after the contract closes or covered persons exits the position.


Thune on Voter ID: Will Democrats Put Their Money Where Their Mouth Is?

Clickhereto watch the video.

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

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, just where do Senate Democrats stand on voter ID?

“It’s pretty darn hard to tell.

“I mean, we spent years hearing from Democrats how voter ID … is a tool of voter suppression.

“As recently as mid-February, the Democrat leader was decrying voter ID.

“And then suddenly Democrats started hedging their bets.

“Wait, of course Democrats support voter ID, Democrat after Democrat has been claiming.

“And photo ID specifically!

“The Democrat leader said last week, and I quote, ‘Our objection, as Democrats, is not to a photo ID.’

“Except …

“Is that true, Mr. President? Is that really true?

“Because on Tuesday the Democrat leader came down to the floor and made it very clear that he, at least, does object to photo ID.

“We need, in his words, ‘inclusive’ voter ID options.

“Like leases or utility bills or debit cards – or photocopies thereof.

“He’s apparently okay with a demand for photo ID in a million other situations – from boarding a plane to signing your kid up for school to opening a bank account.

“But heaven forbid that we ask Americans to produce the same ID they produce all over town when they go to the polls.

“It’s not ‘inclusive.’

“Other Democrats have acted similarly: paying lip service to voter ID – and photo ID in particular – but backpedaling the minute actually supporting voter ID legislation comes into question.

“The senior Democrat from New Jersey was on CNN Tuesday, and said that he would support a voter ID bill, until he was pressed on that commitment, and then he suddenly started avoiding the question.

“The junior Democrat senator from Georgia boldly claimed, and I quote, ‘I think you should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. I support voter ID.’

“And then he went on to knock the voter ID requirements under discussion.

“And Mr. President, just to give you an example of some of the – I mean, this actually is quite revealing.

“Here are quotes from one, two, three, four, five Democrats.

“This one: ‘Who could be against that, requiring an ID to vote?’ That from a couple of days ago.

“Here’s the senator from Arizona: ‘If people want to adopt the Arizona way, which is strict voter ID, I think that would be fine.’ That was about a week ago.

“Senator from Rhode Island: ‘I represent a state that has a sensible voter ID law and that regularly reviews its voter rolls. This approach has been extremely effective.’ That again, just a few days ago.

“And as then I said, is the Democrat leader, and this is 10 days ago: ‘Democrats support voter ID.’

“Senator from Michigan, and I quote again: ‘… hopefully all Americans are in agreement about [voter ID].’ That from a week ago.

“Here’s the other senator from Georgia, again, and I quote: ‘We have voter ID laws in my state. You should have to prove that you are who you say you are before you vote. That is basic.’ That also from about a week ago, Mr. President.

“So the question is, will Democrats vote the way they talk?

“Well, Mr. President, today they’re going to get a chance to support voter ID – without supporting the SAVE America Act.

“We’re going to have an … amendment vote on a clean voter ID bill.

“The only thing – the only thing – the amendment would do would be to require a photo ID at the polls.

“A driver’s license. A tribal ID. A military ID. A veteran ID. A passport.

“That’s all it would say, Mr. President.

“And something that a lot of Democrats have been out there openly advocating for.

“And again, supporting this amendment doesn’t require Democrats to support the overall SAVE America Act.

“It doesn’t obligate them to vote in any way on the final bill.

“They can vote for this amendment and vote against the SAVE America Act.

“What this amendment will do, however, is force Democrats to come clean on whether or not they actually support voter ID in a real way.

“Not photocopies of debit cards or utility bills, as Democrats once proposed.

“Real IDs, with photos, issued by states or the federal government.

“The kind of IDs Americans use all the time in their daily lives.

“The kind of IDs that polls show Americans overwhelmingly support.

“Democrats have been trying to have their cake and eat it too, Mr. President – pretending that they stand with the overwhelming majority of Americans who support photo IDs at the polls, while declining any occasion to put their money where their mouth is and support actual legislation.

“So here’s their chance, Mr. President.

“If Democrats are being honest – if they really think that showing an ID is ‘reasonable,’ as the Democrat whip claimed – then they can support this clean photo ID amendment.

“Clean, Mr. President.

“No other provisions.

“Just a requirement to show the same kind of photo ID at the polls that Americans show elsewhere on a daily basis.

“No obligation to vote for the overall bill.

“No statement on the overall bill.

“Just a clean photo ID provision.

“Mr. President, I look forward to seeing where Democrats really stand.”


Thune Joins Guy Benson on Fox News Radio

Clickhere to listen to the interview.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today joined Guy Benson on Fox News Radio.

On Democrats’ DHS shutdown:

“The Democrats have now kept the department shut down for 41 days. It’s a shutdown of their own design and their own making, and it’s the second one. As you know, from last fall we had a 43, the longest shutdown in American history, and that was for all of government. But this one is rooted, really, in a deep desire on the part of the Democrats to defund the men and women in federal law enforcement, who wake up every day with the sole mission of protecting American communities. And so among the shutdown hostages, in this case, you’ve got employees at TSA, you’ve got employees at Coast Guard, FEMA, CISA, which is the cybersecurity operations that the country uses to protect us from cyber attacks from foreign enemies …

“The administration has been engaging with [Democrats] in good faith now to end this shutdown, literally for weeks. And there are now 120,000 people at DHS who are missing paychecks. And many of them, as I said, they work with agencies that are crucial to our national security. So it’s really a sad commentary on the current state of the Democrat party, but it’s a reality, and it’s one we’re dealing with here in the United States Senate.”

On Democrats’ preposterous shutdown politics:

“I think that [Democrats] believe this is a political winner for them, and they want to create as much chaos as possible as we head into … the campaign season and the November elections. And there really isn’t any good explanation for it, other than it’s never enough. And when their far-left base, which is demanding not only that they defund ICE, but that they basically strip them of any of the authorities they have to enforce the law.”

On voter ID:

“When we brought the SAVE America Act up on the floor … I used something that I have at my disposal, which is filling the amendment tree, which allows us to control the debate on the floor and which amendments ultimately get voted on. And one of the amendments I put on the tree, which we voted on earlier today, was a strictly photo ID requirement. Very clean, very straightforward. None of the other SAVE America Act elements to it. Just straightforward, purely and simply photo ID – which could be a government ID, it could be a driver’s license … it could be a military ID, could be a tribal ID, any of those things would work.

“The Democrats … voted to block it. And it’s remarkable, because in my remarks on the floor this morning, I had a chart where I put up the statements that a half a dozen Democrat senators have made, where they endorsed photo ID, said that it works really well, is very effective in their states if they’ve got, in a state that uses it. I mean, the hypocrisy on this knows no bounds … you can’t make this stuff up …”


Thune Joins America’s Newsroom on Fox News

Clickhere to watch.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) today joined America’s Newsroom on Fox News.

On Democrats’ DHS shutdown:

“Every single day [Democrats] move the goalposts. And remember how we got here. They agreed to a bicameral, bipartisan, Democrat and Republican deal to open up and fund DHS. And then they walked away from it. They wanted to talk about reforms. The administration sat down, they talked reforms, they had agreed to some things. Democrats kept moving the goalposts. Then they said, ‘We don’t want to fund ICE.’ And now they’re saying, ‘We don’t want to fund ICE, and we want reforms.’

“I mean … they’re talking in circles … I think there’s a lot of chaos. I think they’re really confused. I think they’ve got a crisis of leadership in the Democrat conference right now, and they’ve got all these different people, as you’ve seen them, going out in different directions, saying different things. So we’re trying to narrow it in and home in on a deal that we can strike here in the next, hopefully in the very near future.”

On Democrats’ preposterous shutdown politics:

“For [Democrats], it’s all about politics, and it always has been. You go back to the fall shutdown, the Democrats shut … the whole government down for [43] days last fall. And if you remember Chuck Schumer’s statement that ‘every day gets better for us.’ And then you have Brian Schatz, a member of the Democrat leadership, in this shutdown saying, ‘we are very serene.’

“I think they’re just playing politics with this, have been from the beginning. They think it’s really good with their base. Their left-wing base won’t take … yes for an answer. And so the Democrats are having a hard time taking yes for an answer. But they’re going to have to, because at some point, people are realizing that it is the Democrats who are blockading, and have been blockading, funding the Department of Homeland Security now, literally for [41] days.

“This has got to stop. It needs to stop now. I think [Democrats are] going to come to their senses. I hope they do, because if they don’t … it’s going to get really ugly out there.”

On voter ID:

“We’re on [the SAVE America Act] right now on the floor. If we get a deal on DHS, we will pivot to that, but we will come back to the SAVE America Act. We are going to have a vote on [voter ID] later today … This is one of the key tenets and principles of the SAVE America Act … that people ought to have to show a photo when they go vote. That … particular amendment is going to be voted on today on the floor of the United States Senate. So we’ll put the Democrats on the record, because they’re all out there saying, ‘Oh, we support photo ID.’ They’re going to get a chance to really answer the American people on whether they do or they don’t.”

[…]

“The whole SAVE America Act does include proving citizenship to register – which, frankly, is common sense too, and I think an overwhelming majority of Americans support that – but the vote we’re going to have on the floor today is a narrow one. It’s on photo ID. Should you, when you have to go in and vote, should you have to produce an ID that basically [says] you are who you say you are … I think that is a huge winner with the American people. Democrats, including Chuck Schumer, [are] going to get a chance to … put their money where their mouth is today.”


Thune: Democrats Must Fund DHS

Clickhereto watch the video.

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

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, enough is enough!

“Republicans have bent over backward to negotiate with Democrats.

“And now Democrats need to get serious about funding the Department of Homeland Security.

“Let’s just review things for a minute here, Mr. President.

“In January, Republicans and Democrats in the House and the Senate reached an agreement on the Department of Homeland Security funding bill, including a number of reforms: deescalation training for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers, increased funding for body cameras, and increased oversight of border security and immigration enforcement funding.

“Then Democrats reneged on that agreement.

“Republicans said okay, we’ll reopen negotiations.

“The White House offered up a robust list of additional reforms.

“And Democrats said no.

“And then over the weekend, Democrats suggested that they would agree to fund the entire department with the exception of immigration enforcement operations.

“And we offered them a bill to do exactly that.

“And Democrats still refused.

“Mr. President, it seems that Democrats have no interest in reaching an agreement.

“Many of them are perfectly willing to leave the Department of Homeland Security unfunded for the long term.

“They claim that they want to fund the department.

“They claim that they’re concerned about TSA officers and others working without pay.

“But Mr. President, talk is cheap.

“And their actions belie their words.

“If Democrats cared about TSA officers, if they cared about Coast Guard employees, if they cared about the vital work of the Department of Homeland Security, then they would be getting serious about closing a deal – not ceaselessly offering up the same, unchanging list of demands like a broken record, or a particularly nightmarish version of Groundhog Day.

“Mr. President, last fall, Democrats shut down the entire federal government for a record-breaking 43 days.

“Their Department of Homeland Security shutdown is on its 41st day.

“Which means that thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half – almost half – of the fiscal year working without pay.

“Let that sink in for a minute, Mr. President.

“Thanks to Democrats, TSA agents have spent almost half of this fiscal year working without pay.

“It’s no wonder they’re quitting in droves.

“Or that, as an NBC article yesterday reported, they’ve been reduced to things like selling blood and plasma – yep, blood and plasma, that’s from an NBC article – just to get by.

“And all of this, Mr. President, all of this because Democrats have been unwilling to consider anything other than what they think will serve them politically.

“Mr. President, Republicans are at the table.

“We’ve been at the table.

“And now it’s long past time for Democrats to get serious.

“How much worse do things have to get, how many more Americans have to suffer, before Democrats do their jobs and work with Republicans to fund the government?”


Tuberville Receives Update on Timeline for SPACECOM Moving to Huntsville

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) spoke with U.S. Space Command Commander, General Stephen Whiting, and U.S. Strategic Command Commander, Admiral Richard Correll during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing. During the hearing, they spoke about the plans to move Space Command to Huntsville, Alabama, and the need to build more submarines for America’s nuclear capabilities.

Read Sen. Tuberville’s comments below or watch on YouTube or Rumble.

TUBERVILLE: “Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Good] morning.

General Whiting, just a couple updates, a move from Space Command, securing a new military construction agent today, March 26th is the deadline. Do we have any update on that?”

WHITING: “Senator, thank you for the question. Our move to Huntsville is moving forward. And we are right now in final discussions with elements of the United States Air Force, and the Army Corps of Engineers [to] pull together what the team of that construction agent will look like. I believe the Secretary of the Air Force, Secretary Meink, and I will memorialize that decision in the very near future. So, I’m very happy that we’re able to take advantage of the MILCON reform language that the Committee inserted into the last National Defense Authorization Act, which is allowing us to build our new headquarters in a different way than we would have last year without that language.”

TUBERVILLE: “[What about the] existing facilities? What are you thinking about that? Or are you thinking of new facilities? Any update on that?”

WHITING: “Yes, Senator. As we’re building that new headquarters, that will take a few years. We are modifying the existing facilities on Redstone Arsenal. And in fact, next month in April, we will do our first ribbon cutting on a top secret SCIF that’ll seat over 80 people, and then we will start moving personnel there to begin work at that level. So, I’m happy at the progress that we’re making and that progress will continue over the next couple of years as we work to get a significant portion of our staff there even while the permanent headquarters is being built.”

TUBERVILLE: “Yeah. What’s the timeline on that? My understanding was three to seven years. Is that correct?”

WHITING: “For the permanent headquarters, Senator? I would expect right now that that facility will break ground next year and will come online likely in 2031. And then there’ll be probably a year’s worth of time that we’re moving people into that facility. But that’s the timeline we’re currently looking at.”

TUBERVILLE: “Personnel transition. Any update on that present, future?”

WHITING: “Yes, Senator. So, we have a small office that we’ve stood up there—about 20 people right now. And then by the end of this year, we are targeting that number to be closer to 200 people that will be working from Redstone, from our headquarters. Of course, that will be paced with the delivery of interim facilities that are appropriate to the security classification level we need, and that we have all of the appropriate IT networks. We are offering relocation incentives for our workforce in Colorado to consider moving to Alabama.

We also are offering retention incentives because I need my workforce to stay with me in Colorado until their function is ready to move. And so those are some of the updates that we have as we’re working the movement of personnel, Senator.”

TUBERVILLE: “Talk about logistics for a second of SPACECOM missions. Air Force has over 10% of its aircraft dedicated to aerial refueling. Satellites have historically been built with no way to refuel here in the U.S., but the Chinese Communist Party demonstrated space refueling capabilities for the first time last year. Any recommendations for the future?”

WHITING: “Senator, you know well in your question that our traditional domains, the air, land, and sea, those military services that have lead there, have extraordinary percentages of their force dedicated to enabling maneuver through sustainment and logistics. In fact, there’s a great quote from Admiral Nimitz in World War II that he said that at sea replenishment and refueling is what won World War II for the U.S. Navy because they could continue to fight. And as you noted, in space, we launch, typically, a satellite with all the fuel it’s ever going to have. And every time we maneuver, we expend fuel, and so we always have to have this discussion, ‘Should I maneuver even though it’s gonna take life off the end of that satellite?’ And that creates a psychology of scarcity across our enterprise where we don’t enable tactical commanders to maneuver the way they might want to because we’re concerned about the expenditure of fuel.

So, my recommendation, Senator, is that the United States develop on orbit logistics and servicing capability that would allow us to bring maneuver warfare to space the same way that the U.S. Navy, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Army, U.S. Marine Corps execute maneuver warfare in their respective domains.”

TUBERVILLE: “Thank you, Admiral [Correll], submarines are the tip of the spear for our nuclear capabilities. The problem is we just can’t seem to build them fast enough. So, what flexibility and capabilities do STRATCOM gain if we were able to fill 16 Columbia class submarines versus 12?”

CORRELL: “Senator, the existing capability we have includes 14 Ohio class boats with 20 tubes. So, that’s 280 launch tubes. The program of record is a minimum of 12 Columbia [class boats] with 16 tubes each and that’s 192. So that’s 280 versus 192.

Chairman Wicker in his opening remarks talked about the challenges and the complexities in the strategic environment. So, additional capacity and capability at sea in terms of launchers is very beneficial from my perspective. There’s ongoing work within the Department [of War] in terms of force efficiency, and that work will inform any future budget decisions associated with Columbia [class]. But if you just do the math for what we have and the program of record, I will continue to advocate for additional capability at sea in terms of the Columbia class.”

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

###


Tuberville Takes Action to Ban Dangerous Abortion Drug

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) joined U.S. Sen. Josh Hawley (R-MO) in introducing the Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act to withdraw approval of the dangerous mifepristone abortion drug and to empower women who were harmed by taking the drug to sue its manufacturers.

“It’s a shame that the federal government has allowed George Soros-funded drug manufacturers to get rich while women suffer from this dangerous abortion drug,” said Sen. Tuberville. “One in ten women who take this drug suffer serious health problems and it needs to be banned. These companies need to be put out of business and forced to pay the price for the damage they’ve caused. I’m proud to join this legislation with Sen. Hawley to ban mifepristone and empower the women who have been harmed to hold these pharmaceutical companies accountable.”

One recent study found that nearly 11% of women who use mifepristone experience sepsis, infection, hemorrhaging, an emergency room visit, or another serious adverse event within 45 days. Shady corporate manufacturers of the abortion drug are profiting handsomely while women are harmed. The maker of mifepristone, Danco Laboratories, first registered in the Cayman Islands and received backing from prominent liberal billionaires, including George Soros and private equity managers. Its ownership structure is designed to evade scrutiny and escape liability. In 2022, the company’s CFO said investments in the company had been “extremely profitable.” Chemical abortion rates, and the harm to women, have only increased since then.

The Safeguarding Women from Chemical Abortion Act would:

Withdraw the FDA’s approval of mifepristone for abortion.

Make distributing and labeling mifepristone for pregnancy termination violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Create a private right of action for women harmed by chemical abortion to sue manufacturers for damages.

Full text of the bill can be found here.

Sen. Tuberville has long been a staunch pro-life advocate, raising awareness about illegal and immoral taxpayer-funded abortions being administered at the Biden-era Department of Veterans Affairs and the Biden-era Department of Defense. Sen. Tuberville’s efforts led to the reversal of both policies under the Trump administration.

MORE:

Tuberville Calls on Trump Administration to Reevaluate Safety of Dangerous Abortion Pill

Tuberville Applauds Trump Administration’s Reversal of Illegal, Taxpayer-Funded Abortion Policy at the VA

Tuberville, Banks Make Push for Transparency in Medicaid Payments to Abortion Providers

Tuberville Releases Statement Following Pentagon’s Reversal of Illegal and Immoral Abortion Travel Policy

Tuberville Holds Biden Administration Accountable for Taxpayer-Funded Abortions Facilitated by the Department of Veterans Affairs

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

###


Van Hollen, Warren, Alsobrooks Press Trump Administration for Answers on Relocation of Housing and Urban Development Headquarters

Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) wrote to Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner, pressing him on the Department’s lack of transparency around the relocation of its headquarters and employees from its current location in Washington, D.C. to Alexandria, Virginia. In their letter, the Senators underscored their opposition to this move – raising concerns that these actions were taken unlawfully, threaten to further undermine the Department’s capacity to address the nation’s housing affordability crisis, and compound strain on HUD employees after mass firings last year that have left them under resourced. The Senators ask for answers to a series of questions on the move including its cost and planning behind the decision.

“We write to express our deep concern about and opposition to the reported move of employees from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) headquarters in the Robert C. Weaver Building in the District of Columbia to 2415 Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia. HUD appears to have made the decision to undergo this move without due regard to federal law, the needs of HUD employees, nor the administration of our nation’s housing programs,” the Senators began.

“In response to a request from Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has initiated a review of the legality of the move of substantially all HUD programmatic offices to Virginia and will report on whether there is any legal basis for the move. At the time of writing, HUD has failed to provide Congress with an official legal opinion to justify the move, and we remain deeply concerned that the move lacks legal justification,” they wrote.

“As Congress awaits the results of the GAO inquiry, we have been deeply troubled by reports of the chaos and lack of respect HUD employees continue to experience,” they continued, going on to outline strong opposition from members of the union that represents HUD employees. “We have also heard reports that HUD leadership has failed to provide basic information regarding the move to employees; instead, HUD has left key questions regarding building hours, commutes, and accessibility needs unanswered. […] It also has reportedly failed to provide sufficient documentation to the union related to the move, such as analyses comparing the cost of repairing and renovating HUD’s existing headquarters versus moving the headquarters to Alexandria.”

The Senators added that this relocation will further harm an already struggling department, writing, “HUD is on the front lines of our nation’s housing affordability crisis. HUD employees are responsible for critical programs that advance housing construction and preservation, rental assistance, affordable mortgage credit, and assistance for people who are experiencing homelessness. However, under your leadership, HUD has already lost over 30 percent of its staff. By undertaking this move over the concerns of HUD’s employees and the opposition of their union, HUD risks the departure of more mission-critical staff at a time when staff capacity is already stretched thin. Losing another 20 percent of the remaining workforce at headquarters—as AFGE’s survey indicates could take place—would be catastrophic. Accordingly, this process threatens to further erode the Department’s ability to carry out its programs and respond to our urgent housing affordability crisis.”

“HUD has reportedly cited the Weaver Building’s longstanding need for renovations and maintenance as a potential justification for the move. Yet the condition of the Weaver Building does not eliminate the Department’s responsibility to comply with federal law, honor its collective bargaining agreements, and treat its workers with dignity and respect. Instead, the rapid and seemingly illegal move of its headquarters to Alexandria further threatens the administration of HUD programs and undermines HUD’s mission,” the Senators concluded, going on to list questions for Secretary Turner’s response regarding the legal basis for the relocation, costs incurred to date and the total expected, and Department leadership’s communications with employees.

Text of the letter can be viewed here and below.

Dear Secretary Turner:

We write to express our deep concern about and opposition to the reported move of employees from the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) headquarters in the Robert C. Weaver Building in the District of Columbia to 2415 Eisenhower Avenue in Alexandria, Virginia. HUD appears to have made the decision to undergo this move without due regard to federal law, the needs of HUD employees, nor the administration of our nation’s housing programs. Therefore, we request information regarding this move no later than April 10, 2026.

According to information received by our offices, on March 11, 2026, senior leadership at HUD circulated a schedule for moving 20 HUD program offices to Alexandria by April 10, 2026. The schedule lists all major programmatic offices, including the Office of the Secretary and Ginnie Mae. As you are aware, HUD and Ginnie Mae’s authorizing statutes mandate the physical location of HUD and Ginnie Mae in the District of Columbia. In response to a request from Congress, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has initiated a review of the legality of the move of substantially all HUD programmatic offices to Virginia and will report on whether there is any legal basis for the move. At the time of writing, HUD has failed to provide Congress with an official legal opinion to justify the move, and we remain deeply concerned that the move lacks legal justification.

As Congress awaits the results of the GAO inquiry, we have been deeply troubled by reports of the chaos and lack of respect HUD employees continue to experience. The union representing HUD’s headquarters, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 476, recently conducted a survey that indicates 77 percent of respondents oppose the relocation; 82 percent expect longer and more complex commutes; and nearly 20 percent indicate they may transfer, retire or resign within six months if the relocation proceeds. Respondents noted the impact of the rushed move on their families, with some raising concerns regarding access to childcare. We have also heard reports that HUD leadership has failed to provide basic information regarding the move to employees; instead, HUD has left key questions regarding building hours, commutes, and accessibility needs unanswered. Reports indicate many employees received only one or a few days’ notice of their actual move date, and the move schedules and floor plans are constantly changing. Employees have reported to the Eisenhower Avenue building as directed on their move date, only to be turned away and told an office was not yet ready.

In addition, according to public reporting, HUD is refusing to comply with its duty, pursuant to its collective bargaining agreement, to negotiate the terms of the proposed move with the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) Local 476. It also has reportedly failed to provide sufficient documentation to the union related to the move, such as analyses comparing the cost of repairing and renovating HUD’s existing headquarters versus moving the headquarters to Alexandria.

HUD is on the front lines of our nation’s housing affordability crisis. HUD employees are responsible for critical programs that advance housing construction and preservation, rental assistance, affordable mortgage credit, and assistance for people who are experiencing homelessness. However, under your leadership, HUD has already lost over 30 percent of its staff. By undertaking this move over the concerns of HUD’s employees and the opposition of their union, HUD risks the departure of more mission-critical staff at a time when staff capacity is already stretched thin. Losing another 20 percent of the remaining workforce at headquarters—as AFGE’s survey indicates could take place—would be catastrophic. Accordingly, this process threatens to further erode the Department’s ability to carry out its programs and respond to our urgent housing affordability crisis.

HUD has reportedly cited the Weaver Building’s longstanding need for renovations and maintenance as a potential justification for the move. Yet the condition of the Weaver Building does not eliminate the Department’s responsibility to comply with federal law, honor its collective bargaining agreements, and treat its workers with dignity and respect. Instead, the rapid and seemingly illegal move of its headquarters to Alexandria further threatens the administration of HUD programs and undermines HUD’s mission. Accordingly, we request answers to the following questions no later than April 10, 2026:


Warner, Blackburn Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Keep Rural Hospitals Open

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) today introduced the Save Struggling Hospitals Act, legislation to help make sure rural hospitals are fairly reimbursed for their services by the federal government.

Low patient volumes and significant financial strain are often the primary factors in rural hospital closures, with more than 40% of rural hospitals operating in the red. In most of these cases, financial strain for rural hospitals is compounded by the flawed Medicare Area Wage Index that has disproportionately harmed rural hospitals. The Medicare Area Wage Index formula is based on outdated assumptions for labor costs and fails to account for hospitals increasingly competing for workers in national labor markets. Many hospitals in rural areas lack the resources available to those in more populated areas and struggle to offer competitive salaries. Due to those salary differences, rural hospitals receive lower reimbursements from the federal government, which contributes to their lack of resources and perpetuates a harmful staffing crisis.

“Rural hospitals are struggling to recruit and retain talented health care professionals, and too many are closing at an alarming rate,” said Sen. Warner. “I am proud to introduce this bipartisan legislation to help keep rural hospitals open and serving their communities, so every American can access quality care.”

“Rural hospitals are closing at an alarming rate due to significant financial strain compounded by the flawed Medicare Area Wage Index that results in rural hospitals receiving lower reimbursement,” said Sen. Blackburn. “Our Save Struggling Hospitals Act would strengthen rural health care by ensuring that hospitals in rural and low-wage areas receive fair payment for the essential services they provide.”

The Save Struggling Hospitals Act would codify the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services’ low-wage index hospital policy (LWIHP) that increased Medicare wage index values for hospitals with wage indexes in the bottom 25th percentile from FY2020 to FY2024. The LWIHP allowed hospitals in rural areas to compete for, and retain, high-quality staff by increasing reimbursements to hospitals in rural areas with lower overall wages, resulting in higher Medicare payouts for rural hospitals. Following a July 2024 court ruling in Bridgeport Hospital v. Becerra declaring it unlawful, CMS removed the policy for FY2025 and finalized its termination for FY2026. HHS Secretary Kennedy has expressed a willingness to work on the policy, but CMS requires legislative action to go beyond the Bridgeport ruling.

Almost twenty Virginia hospitals used to be in the low-wage first quartile and received higher payments during CMS’s temporary policy. The policy worked—these hospitals were able to pay the higher wages needed to attract talented health care professionals to work in rural areas. But these hospitals are right at the cusp of the lowest wage indexes, codifying this policy into law would help make sure these hospitals don’t re-enter the death spiral.

The Alabama Hospital Association, Ballad Health, Community Health Systems, Lifepoint Health, National Association of Rural Health Clinics, National Rural Health Association, Tennessee Hospital Association, University of Memphis Medical Center, and the Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association have endorsed the Save Struggling Hospitals Act.

“The Medicare Area Wage Index unfairly penalizes hospitals in states like Virginia by relying on outdated assumptions that drive lower reimbursement for hospitals in rural and lower-wage regions,” said Sean T. Connaughton, President & CEO, Virginia Hospital & Healthcare Association. “Senator Warner’s legislation takes an important step toward correcting this inequity and ensuring hospitals are paid more fairly for the care they provide. Addressing this long-standing imbalance will help strengthen hospitals that are essential to maintaining access to care in communities across the Commonwealth.”

“The National Rural Health Association (NRHA) strongly supports the Save Struggling Hospitals Act of 2026, led by Senators Mark Warner and Marsha Blackburn. Rural hospitals are operating under sustained financial pressure, and the current Medicare Area Wage Index continues to disadvantage providers in low-wage and rural markets,” said Alan Morgan, CEO, NRHA. “This legislation takes a pragmatic, budget-neutral approach to improving payment accuracy by strengthening support for hospitals in the lowest wage index quartile while maintaining stability across the broader system. Ensuring more appropriate reimbursement is critical to preserving access to care in rural communities, supporting the health workforce, and maintaining essential services close to home. NRHA looks forward to working with Congress to advance this important legislation.”

“Hospitals across Tennessee continue to struggle for financial stability and one of the major obstacles is the flawed area wage index, which has strained Tennessee hospitals for decades,” said Wendy Long, President & CEO, Tennessee Hospital Association. “I applaud Senator Blackburn for her leadership on this critical legislation. By mitigating the downward spiral hospitals face, the Save Struggling Hospitals Act will help to level the playing field and ensure patients across Tennessee have access to the care they need.”

Read the bill text here.

###


At Hearing, Warren Blasts Trump Administration’s Flip-Flopping on Iran War, Alienating U.S. Allies

Warren: “It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs, and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that.”

Warren: “Trump has alienated many of our allies, and those costs are becoming clear.”

Video of Exchange (YouTube)

Washington, D.C. — At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) pressed Admiral Richard A. Correll, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), on how President Donald Trump’s foreign policy decisions impact U.S. alliances as the war against Iran continues. U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for strategic deterrence and nuclear operations.

On February 28, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the first attack on Iran. Longstanding U.S. allies alleged they were not informed of President Trump’s plan to start the war until after the first strikes. Now, President Trump has publicly criticized those allies for not providing support to address Iran’s chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz while oil prices soar.

“It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs, and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that,” said Senator Warren.

Senator Warren noted that Admiral Correll has previously said repeatedly that alliances are critical to deterrence. When pressed on if Russia and China would view U.S. alliances as strong, given the lack of support from allies, Admiral Correll asserted, "I think China's and Russia's behavior…demonstrates their continued concern for America's alliances.” Senator Warren challenged his view, stating, “You're telling me your view is there's no threat here, and I'm just telling you that just does not bear credible analysis.”

Senator Warren also raised her concerns about how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be pursuing different objectives regarding the war compared to President Trump's claimed reasoning. On March 18, the Israeli government bombed one of the largest oil fields in the Middle East. Afterwards, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the U.S. was unaware of this attack, condemning it because of the economic danger that it would pose.

The Trump administration also continues to change its objectives for launching a war with Iran. Last year, the White House issued a press release proclaiming that “Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news.” The Trump administration has still not given a clear goal for its war against Iran, but has insisted on the threat of Iran’s nuclear weapons as one of many objectives.

“If this administration can't keep its main partner in line and can't keep its own story straight, then we've got a problem,” said Senator Warren.

When Senator Warren questioned Admiral Correll on whether it enhances strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining U.S. policy goals or for the Trump administration to continue changing its reasons for attacking Iran, he repeatedly refused to answer the senator's question. Instead, pointing to disagreeing with the senator’s assessment, Admiral Correll stated, “I have no further comments to make other than what I've previously said.”

Senator Warren concluded the hearing by raising her concern over Admiral Correll's unclear responses to her questions and emphasized the importance of understanding the impact of President Trump and his administration’s changing narratives on U.S. interests.

Transcript: Hearings to examine the posture of the United States Space Command and United States Strategic Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2027 and the future years defense program.

Senate Armed Services Committee

March 26, 2026

Senator Elizabeth Warren: President Trump has dragged us into war against Iran, and we're all paying the price. Service members have died. Oil prices are soaring, and we are facing a global economic crisis over the Strait of Hormuz. One big reason? Donald Trump's go-it-alone approach to blowing up long-standing American alliances. He has insulted and tariffed just about everyone, and he launched this war alongside Israel without telling our other allies. And then when he sees gas prices skyrocket, Donald Trump changes his tune and starts begging our allies to help us patrol the Strait of Hormuz. And our partners have said they want to help, but only if the fighting stops.

Admiral Correll, U.S. Strategic Command, is responsible for strategic deterrence and nuclear operations, and you have said repeatedly that alliances are critical to deterrence. So, Admiral, do Russia and China think that our alliances are strong when our partners refuse to help?

Admiral Richard A. Correll: My military assessment is that they continue to think they're very strong, and I think China and Russia's behavior in terms of attempting to undermine those alliances demonstrates their continued concern for America's alliances.

Senator Warren: I just have to say your answer makes no sense to me. That Russia and China watch us insult our allies, then beg for their help, and then our allies don't give that help. And you think Russia and China think, “There's an alliance that's working just great.” Look, it is not only an embarrassment when the President begs and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that. It is your job to advise the Secretary about how to deter our greatest threats. And you're telling me your view is there's no threat here, and I'm just telling you that just does not bear credible analysis.

Trump has alienated many of our allies, and those costs are becoming clear. At the same time, we have launched war with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who seems to be pursuing a completely different set of objectives, and President Trump is unwilling or unable even to rein in Netanyahu. On March 18, the Netanyahu government bombed one of the region's largest oil fields. Trump then posted that the U.S. didn't even know in advance and that we didn't want further oil strikes because of the economic danger that it would pose.

So, Admiral, does it enhance strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining explicit US policy goals?

Admiral Correll: Senator, I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment.

Senator Warren: What part do you disagree with that Trump posted that we didn't know and didn’t agree with what Netanyahu did, but Netanyahu did it anyway? What part are you disagreeing with?

Admiral Correll: Senator, I can just speak to my portfolio and my responsibilities, and you know, our capabilities remain ready to respond and deter, and they deter each and every day.

Senator Warren: I appreciate that. But that is not my question. My question is, does it enhance strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining explicit US policy goals?

Admiral Correll: Strong, mil-to-mil relationships and our alliance network are part of our overall deterrence.

Senator Warren: Look, again, your answer just lacks any credibility. If this administration can't keep its main partner in line and can't keep its own story straight, then we've got a problem. In June, the White House issued a press release proclaiming that, quote, “Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news,” and yet now Iran's nuclear program is one of the many changing reasons that the administration has given for this war.

So, Admiral Correll, let me ask one more. Does it help strategic deterrence when the White House changes its story minute by minute on the reasons for this war?

Chairman Roger Wicker: Senator Warren, the witness on three occasions, has said that he is declining to answer that question because he disagrees with the premise. I appreciate that members are able. To make whatever points they want, but I think it's clear why he's unable to answer your question because he completely disagrees with the premise.

Senator Warren: I'm glad that it's clear to you, Mr. Chairman, but with respect, I don't understand what part of the premise he disagrees with. I'm stating facts here. I'm asking if those facts are helpful for the United States or unhelpful for the United States?

Chairman Wicker: Admiral, you can answer the question if you're able.

Admiral Correll: I have no further comments to make other than what I've previously said.

Chairman Wicker: Thank you, Senator Warren.

###


ICYMI: Warren Slams Trump Considering Raising the Retirement Age: “Americans Aren't Buying It and We Will Keep Fighting Back"

Warren: “I'm all for older Americans working longer if they want to work longer. But let’s not confuse wanting to work with being forced to work because the Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to Social Security”

Social Security Expert: Raising retirement age could lead to up to 50% benefits cut

Video of Exchange (YouTube)

Washington, D.C. — At a hearing of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) questioned Dan Adcock of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare about Republicans’ plans to raise the retirement age.

Mr. Adcock explained that if the Trump administration were to raise the retirement age by one year, it would cost retirees $24,000 in missed benefits, which amounts to about a 7% benefit cut. If the administration were to raise the retirement age by three years, it would amount to a 20% benefit cut.

Mr. Adcock also highlighted that a cut would disproportionately hurt low-income individuals and people without a college degreee—who are more likely to work physically demanding jobs and have to retire early. He underscored that people who retire early out of need often live less on average, meaning that a combination of raising the retirement age on top of a shorter retirement would amount to an even steeper cut.

“I'm all for older Americans working longer if they want to work longer. But let’s not confuse wanting to work with being forced to work because the Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to Social Security,” said Senator Warren.

“Social Security is not charity. It is a promise…that people have earned. The Trump administration is trying to strip away the promise, trying to chisel it, trying to shrink it up, and then rebrand it as an opportunity to work. Americans aren't buying it and we will keep fighting back,” Senator Warren concluded.

Senator Warren’s Social Security Emergency Inflation Relief Act would increase benefits by $200 a month for every senior and would protect the program long-term.

Last spring, Senator Warren launched the Social Security War Room, a coordinated effort for Democrats to fight Trump’s mishandling of the Social Security Administration. Through that effort, she has exposed inconsistencies in SSA’s customer service metrics under Commissioner Frank Bisigano and investigated the agency’s mishandling of customer service through staff cuts and reassignments.

Transcript: Hearing on Examining the Social Security Retirement Earnings Test

Senate Special Committee on Aging

March 25, 2026

Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, when he ran for President in 2024, Donald Trump repeatedly promised that he “wouldn’t touch” Social Security. And as soon as he took office, he immediately directed Elon Musk—who thinks Social Security is a “ponzi scheme”—to DOGE his way through the Social Security Administration. He slashed staff, he created new administrative hurdles that make it harder for Americans to get their checks—money that they earned. That is effectively a benefits cut.

Senate Democrats have fought back, and we have forced the Trump Administration to reverse course on some of their most harmful policies. But this fight is not over. The Social Security Administration is still facing a customer service crisis, and the Trump Administration and Republicans are still looking for ways to cut Social Security. So their current approach is: making Americans work until they drop dead.

So, just listen to what Trump’s appointees are saying: When asked about raising the retirement age, Social Security Administrator Frank Bisigano said: “everything’s being considered and will be considered.”

Mr. Adcock, you are a Social Security expert. How would raising the retirement age affect Americans’ benefits?

Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare: Well, simply put, it’s a benefits cut. It doesn't matter whether you claim benefits at 62 or 70 or how long you live, it is a benefit cut any way you slice it. And so, for every year you decide that you’re going to raise the retirement age, you are losing $24,000 of income for every year.

In your future benefits, for every year it’s increased, you are losing about 7% of your benefits.

Senator Warren: So raising the retirement age on Social Security by one year costs $24,000 and, over your lifetime, is about a 7% benefit cut. Is that right?

Mr. Adcock: For each year.

Senator Warren: For each year?

Mr. Adcock: Yeah, that’s right. Some of the proposals being discussed would raise it from 67 to 69 or 67 to 70.

Senator Warren: So, if you go to 70 — if you do the math — how big is the cut?

Mr. Adcock: Well, it ends up being about a 20% future cut.

Senator Warren: 20% future cut. Okay. So, Frank Bisignano is not alone in this. After the Republicans blew trillions of dollars on the tax cut for their rich buddies in their Big Beautiful Bill, Dr. Oz said the way we dig out of the deficit is having, “the average American work a year later and not retire.”

Mr. Adcock, how many Americans without a college degree work in physically demanding jobs?

Mr. Adcock: In that category of people who don't have college educations, about 41% of them.

Senator Warren: So what does it mean to work an extra year?

Mr. Adcock: It means an extra year that you don't have benefits — and especially when we’re talking about this particular group of people who need to retire early — generally their longevity isn't as long. I think I have seen studies where when you take the bottom half of the income scale, they live about five years less than the people at the top of the income scale.

Senator Warren: Wow.

Mr. Adcock: And the other part of this is, if you do have a physically demanding job, you are likely to be from a community of color. In these situations it means that you’re going to need to claim benefits early. Today under current law, if you claim early at 62, you're taking about a 30% cut to your benefits, had you not waited until your full retirement age, which is currently at 67. But if you were to raise the retirement age to 70, we are talking about a 50% cut.

Senator Warren: Wow. And I just want to add in this, there are obviously also people who have college degrees who also have physically demanding jobs.

Am I right on that?

Mr. Adcock: Absolutely.

Senator Warren: My favorite example are kindergarten teachers. Try it sometime. But unsurprisingly, Dr. Oz is not thinking about the millions of Americans who work in manual labor and have physically demanding jobs, many of whom have ground their bodies for decades at construction sites, hauling boxes in warehouses, scrubbing bathroom floors and literally may not be capable of adding work.

Indeed, as you say, these are often people who have to retire early because they are just physically spent. And look, I'm all for older Americans working longer if they want to work longer. But let’s not confuse wanting to work with being forced to work because the Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to Social Security.

Instead of hanging those workers out to dry, we should be expanding and protecting Social Security, especially when tariffs and war are now driving up prices for seniors, for everybody in the country.

So, Mr. Adcock, how could we pay for bigger Social Security benefits?

Mr. Adcock: Our preferred solution would be making the wealthy pay their fair share.

Senator Warren: Yeah, that seems right to me. Look, we’ve got to make sure the wealthiest Americans pay their fair share and not force seniors to work until they drop dead.

Right now a billionaire — Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Elon Musk — pays as much in Social Security taxes as someone who makes $175,000 a year. I have a bill to fix that and it would raise enough money to increase benefits by $200 per month for every senior, and help stabilize Social Security and make sure it is around for the long haul. Social Security is not charity. It is a promise. And it is a promise that people have earned. The Trump administration is trying to strip away the promise, trying to chisel it, trying to shrink it up, and then rebrand it as an opportunity to work.

Americans aren't buying it and we will keep fighting back. Thank you Mr. Chairman.

###


Warren, Hawley Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Limit Stock Buybacks in Defense Contracting Following President Trump’s Executive Order

The bill would implement key directives of President Trump’s EO

Bill One-Pager (PDF) | Bill Text (PDF)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) introduced the bipartisan Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting Act of 2026, new legislation that would limit stock buybacks and excessive executive compensation in defense contracting. This follows after President Trump issued an executive order with similar directives to promote increased investments to meet the needs of our service members.

“It makes no sense for the federal government to fork over billions in taxpayer dollars to giant military contractors while their executives buy back their own company's stock instead of investing in our national defense,” said Senator Warren. “This bipartisan bill will stop defense contractors from abusing the system at taxpayer expense and put our national security over Wall Street profits.”

“America’s defense contractors should be focused on expanding production, not padding their bottom lines. But even as they make record profits, some firms have spent big on stock buybacks, dividend payouts, and exorbitant executive salaries. Earlier this year, President Trump led the way with an executive order barring underperforming defense companies from engaging in these practices. Now, it’s time for Congress to act by codifying the President’s executive order into law, ensuring that America’s warfighters are prioritized over corporate profit,” Senator Hawley said.

For decades, defense contractors have consistently fallen short in delivering weapons programs to the Department of Defense (DoD) on time and on budget. In a recent study, the Government Accountability Office's annual weapons system assessment found that programs continue to be plagued by delays and cost overruns. In 2025, delays for major programs over a single year increased “by 18 months,” and combined cost estimates rose by over $49 billion.

At the same time, many defense contractors have spent billions on stock buybacks, dividends, and excessive executive compensation. Since 2020, the five largest contractors have ploughed more than $100 billion into buybacks and dividends—more than twice what they invested in capital expenditures. A 2023 review by the Pentagon found that “despite increased profit and cash flow [between 2009 and 2019], defense contractors chose to reduce the overall share of revenue spent on [independent research and development] and capital expenditures.” Yet the share of industry revenue devoted to stock buybacks grew from 3.7% to 6.4% during the same period.

In January, President Trump issued an executive order to address this issue, restricting executive pay packages and limiting stock buybacks and dividend payments for defense contractors that don’t meet DoD’s needs and fail to invest in expanding their production capacity.

The senators’ bill would codify President Trump’s executive order, ensuring that America’s defense needs are prioritized over contractors’ bottom lines.

The Prioritizing the Warfighter in Defense Contracting Act would:

Prohibits Defense Contractors from Enriching Executives and Shareholders at the Cost of the Warfighter by prohibiting any large defense contractor from purchasing its own stock, paying out dividends, paying executives more than $5 million, or linking executive pay to short-term financial metrics unless the Secretary of Defense issues a waiver certifying that the company is meeting the Department’s needs.

Prescribes Reforms for Failing Contractors by establishing a review process for the Pentagon to identify underperforming contractors and allows for contractors so designated to present a remediation plan to the Pentagon.

Holds Contractors Accountable by authorizing the Department to hold delinquent contractors accountable, including by suspending contract payments, ending eligibility for progress payments, and terminating contracts.

Increases Transparency by requiring the Pentagon to publish annual reports identifying contractors who are subject to the requirements of the bill, any waivers that have been granted, and any contractor violations of the bill’s provisions. It also requires the Department to provide Congress with information on waivers granted.

This legislation is endorsed by the Project on Government Oversight.

###


Warren, Hawley Lead Bipartisan Push For Mandatory Energy Use Reporting Requirements for Data Centers

This data is critical to hold tech companies and other large loads accountable and protect ratepayers.

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) are pushing the Energy Information Administration (EIA) to establish mandatory annual reporting requirements for data centers and other large energy consumers. This data is necessary to hold data center companies accountable for the impacts they can have on local communities, including ensuring Big Tech companies’ compliance with their commitments to shoulder their fair share of utility costs

“Comprehensive information regarding the operations of data centers and other large loads is essential for accurate grid planning and will support policymaking to prevent large companies from increasing electricity costs for American families,” wrote the senators.

Data centers require enormous amounts of energy. The International Energy Agency estimates that data centers will account for roughly half of U.S. power demand growth from 2025 to 2030. To meet data centers’ energy demands, utility companies are pouring billions of dollars into building expensive new grid infrastructure. These infrastructure buildouts are largely funded upfront by the utility companies, which recoup the costs by raising electricity prices for all consumers in the region. Despite data centers’ impact on surrounding communities, contracts between data centers and utility companies are often confidential, and landowners and public officials are regularly required to sign non-disclosure agreements.

On March 4, 2026, seven technology companies signed the Administration’s “Ratepayer Protection Pledge,” promising to “build, bring, or buy the new generation resources and electricity needed to satisfy their new energy demands.” However, both Congress and the public currently lack the data necessary to hold these companies accountable to this voluntary pledge. Standardized, comprehensive data reporting is essential to Congressional grid oversight and efforts to combat rising utility costs.

“To ensure adherence to these commitments, and to better understand the current and future impact of data centers and other large loads on the electrical grid, it is critical that EIA mandate annual, comprehensive reporting for these entities,” wrote the senators.

Specifically, the senators are pushing the EIA to collect and share information regarding:

Large load energy consumption (hourly, annual, and peak);

Pricing and rates paid for electricity consumed;

Upfront payments and security deposits;

Load flexibility and demand response strategies used;

Energy consumption of AI servers compared to energy consumption of general cloud computing workloads;

And the costs of any transmission or distribution upgrades triggered by large load operations and how those costs are distributed among customers.

EIA has explicit authority under the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 to require energy consumption and related data from these facilities, and the agency already requires annual reporting on electricity sales and pricing from distribution utilities.

“Comprehensive, annual energy-use disclosures by data centers and other large loads will inform federal, state, and local policymaking and ensure technology companies operating these large loads comply with their commitments to pay for their own electricity and infrastructure upgrades,” concluded the senators. “Without this data, policymakers, utility companies, and local communities are operating in the dark.”

The senators requested that EIA Administrator Tristan Abbey provide a response regarding EIA’s plans to conduct surveys around the impact of data centers and other large loads no later than April 9, 2026.

Senator Warren has been pushing for greater transparency and oversight around how data centers are driving up consumers’ electricity costs. The senator opened an investigation into the extent to which Big Tech data centers are driving up consumers’ electricity costs in December 2025, and secured a number of new commitments from the companies in January 2026.

###