Kaine, Van Hollen, Colleagues Press Trump Administration to Reverse Course on Rollback of Federal Employee Protections

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) joined Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and other Senate colleagues urging the Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) against implementing two rules that would severely weaken longstanding civil service protections for federal employees. The senators submitted two letters for OPM’s official comment periods on its proposed rules regarding Suitability Action and Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals.

In the first letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over suitability action appeals when an employee or prospective employee is deemed unsuitable for federal service from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. In the second letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over RIF appeals from the MSPB to OPM. In both letters, the senators expressed concern that the rules would shift the adjudication of appeals from the independent MSPB to an internal OPM process overseen by a political appointee – a clear conflict of interest in which OPM is the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter of these appeals. Further, they noted that these moves will erode protections for employees and invite political interference in workforce matters. The senators stressed that these proposed changes are especially dangerous given the Administration’s recent abuses of federal employees.

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully,” the senators wrote in their suitability action appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades,” the senators wrote in their RIF appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

In addition to Kaine and Van Hollen on the suitability action appeals letter are Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD). In addition to Kaine and Van Hollen on the reduction in force appeals letter are Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD).

Full text of both letters can be viewed below:

Suitability Action Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully.

Congress spoke clearly when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That law reformed the former Civil Service Commission and deliberately created separate entities with distinct missions where personnel policymaking authority was assigned to OPM and independent adjudication of workforce appeals was assigned to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This separation was not accidental. Congress sought to prevent precisely the structure this rule would create, one where the same agency that promulgates personnel policy also adjudicates claims that those policies were applied improperly or unlawfully. By transferring suitability appeals from MSPB to OPM, the proposed rule collapses this intentionally designed safeguard and recreates aspects of the system Congress chose to abandon.

By contrast, the MSPB was structured to provide independent, balanced adjudication. Removing appeals from MSPB eliminates this neutral forum and centralizes authority within the policymaking body of OPM. Under this proposal, OPM would draft suitability policies, implement those policies, and adjudicate appeals arising from them. This consolidation makes OPM the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter.

OPM contends that internal reporting structures will preserve impartiality, claiming that staff taking suitability actions will operate in separate units and report through different supervisory chains than those deciding appeals. However, in practice, this separation cannot play out when both chains ultimately report to you in your politically appointed role as the Director of OPM as the rule clearly states that the Director of OPM will be the final arbiter of appeals.

Further, the proposal comes alongside multiple rules related to removing authority from the MSPB to OPM, including the appeal process for both probationary employees and reductions in force (RIFs). Transferring all these appeal responsibilities to OPM particularly amid a reduced internal workforce and without demonstrated adjudicatory capacity risks inconsistency, delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes—the exact consequences OPM claims this rule seeks to remedy.

This rule must also be considered in the broader context of recent suitability rulemaking that would further centralize personnel authority within OPM. Taken together, these actions would concentrate extraordinary power in a single agency led by political appointees, enabling OPM to sidestep long-established due process protections that shield federal employees from adverse actions based on political considerations, retaliation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse, or other conduct protected by the merit system principles. This approach risks undermining merit based governance while weakening accountability and increasing politization.

For these reasons, we strongly urge OPM to withdraw this proposed rule and instead work collaboratively with Congress and stakeholders to modernize and improve suitability processes while maintaining the independence and merit principles that underpin our civil service system.

Reduction in Force Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades.

In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress divided the former Civil Service Commission’s responsibilities between OPM and MSPB, assigning OPM the task of promulgation and interpretation of federal personnel policy, while entrusting MSPB with the independent adjudication of workforce appeals. This separation was not incidental; it was designed to prevent the very conflict of interest this proposed rule would create. By consolidating policymaking and adjudicatory authority within OPM, the agency that writes and interprets RIF regulations would also determine whether those same regulations were lawfully applied. The proposed rule directly contradicts the statutory framework Congress deliberately constructed to safeguard neutrality and merit principles.

The proposed rule contends that the current “dual-track” structure by which OPM creates RIF regulations and MSPB adjudicates appeals creates inefficiencies. It also asserts that MSPB, as opposed to OPM, lacks institutional expertise about RIFs. However, the quasi-judicial procedures available before MSPB, which include hearings, discovery, and the development of a formal record, are not bureaucratic obstacles; rather, they are consequential safeguards for employees in a merit-based system. Particularly in RIF disputes involving complex claims related to the application of retention factors, preferences, or allegations of improper motive, a transparent and independent process is critical to preserve procedural fairness and employees’ rights.

The proposal further undermines both efficiency and independence by designating the Director of OPM as the final decision-maker in workforce appeals. Concentrating final adjudicatory authority in a single political appointee could create delays, and it would erode the structural independence Congress sought to protect when it separated this type of policymaking from its adjudication.

Additionally, OPM has not demonstrated that it possesses the adjudicatory capacity necessary to replace MSPB’s established system. The rule would shift appeals to OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC), which reports directly to the OPM Director and lacks the independent, balanced, multi-member board structure of the MSPB. Transferring appeals without evidence of readiness would risk inconsistent determinations, procedural delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes, which are the very issues the proposal claims to address.

Further, this rule accompanies several other proposed rules that would shift additional authority from the MSPB to OPM, including appeals involving probationary employees and suitability determinations. Concentrating all these adjudicatory functions within OPM at a time of reduced internal staffing and without demonstrated capacity would create further risk of inconsistent determinations and procedural delays.

Equally troubling is the erosion of procedural safeguards acknowledged within the proposal itself. Eliminating or weakening hearing rights and evidentiary collection processes would diminish the ability of employees to meaningfully challenge agency errors and would undermine confidence in the integrity of the system.

Finally, this proposal cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of the Administration’s attacks on the merit-based federal workforce. Recent attempts at mass removals and the President’s rhetoric suggesting that personnel actions are directed at political opponents underscore the importance of maintaining robust, independent oversight of RIF actions. Even if this restructuring were presented as purely administrative, it would still collapse the policymaking and adjudicatory separation Congress directed. Especially in the current political climate, the agency that sets personnel policy should not also have adjudicatory authority. If it were to have this concentrated authority, it would heighten the risk of misuse and politicization of workforce decisions.

As members of Congress, we have witnessed firsthand the vital services delivered to the American people by a nonpartisan and highly skilled federal workforce. It is our responsibility to ensure that the civil service remains protected from political retaliation and that it is guaranteed full due process rights. This proposed rule runs counter to those principles. We strongly urge OPM to reject it and instead collaborate with Congress to responsibly manage and modernize federal workforce operations.

###


ICYMI: Kelly Calls Out Intelligence Officials’ Lack of Clear Answers About Iran War and Consequences to National Security

“You just get this strong sense that they have a very hard time speaking truth to power. And that’s how you find yourself in a situation where we are at war with a country with no strategic goal, no plan, no timeline, no end state, no exit strategy.”

In case you missed it, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly joined MS NOW’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki this week after pressing senior Intelligence officials at a Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI) hearing for answers on what President Trump knew or didn’t know ahead of the escalating conflict with Iran, emphasizing the Administration’s lack of strategy. Kelly also warned about the dangers to our national security of the president being surrounded by “yes people.”

Watch the full MS NOW interview here. See key excerpts below:

OntheAdministrations’lack of accountability to the American people…

“It doesn’t take you long to figure out that those folks testifying, that work for the President, are performing for the President. That they know there is one audience. We don’t matter. Democrats, Republicans on the Committee do not matter. What matters is the guy who might have the TV on in the Oval Office or up there in the personnel quarters of the White House, watching them. And you just get this strong sense that they have a very hard time speaking truth to power. And that’s how you find yourself in a situation where we are at war with a country with no strategic goal, no plan, no timeline, no end state, no exit strategy.”

On DNI Tulsi Gabbard’s deflecting during the hearing…

“As the DNI, part of her job is to try to coordinate all this stuff between these agencies and get an overall picture for the president, but it is also her role to decide what to bring him. And she brings him the stuff at the top of the list—’hey, here’s the stuff we have to react to right now. Here’s the imminent danger to U.S. citizens, whether it’s at home or abroad’. That’s in the job description. So, she was just deflecting. […] This president is very rarely honest with the American people about anything, and having a bunch of sycophants around him has just made it worse.”


New Jersey Disability Rights Advocate Paul Aronsohn Joins Senator Andy Kim’s Office as State Director

Aronsohn brings decades of experience as a public servant looking out for state’s most vulnerable

JERSEY CITY, N.J. – Senator Kim promised the people of New Jersey that he will build a different kind of politics, one that serves everyone. In particular, Senator Kim is working to build a “Caregiving Movement” across our state and nation to address the crisis of affordability and health care that is hurting millions of American families. Today, Senator Kim is grateful to be joined by Paul Aronsohn, longtime disability rights advocate and New Jersey’s first Ombudsman for the state’s disability community, as State Director.

“I’ve always believed in the idea that you can better judge the character of a society by how it treats the vulnerable and struggling among us rather than those who are most successful and advantaged,” said Senator Andy Kim. “In Paul, I met someone who isn’t interested in the theater of politics but is instead driven by a deeply personal mission of public service that is too rare these days. I’ve asked him to serve as my State Director because I want to build something different. I want to build the strongest constituent service operation in the country and a team that will focus on solving problems for Jersey families, not for the powerful and well-connect.”

Before joining Senator Kim’s office, Aronsohn held several positions in both the public and private sectors. He most recently served as New Jersey’s first statewide Ombudsman for Individuals with Intellectual or Developmental Disabilities and Their Families, a position he served for the last eight years. He also was appointed to President Joe Biden’s Committee for People with Intellectual Disabilities, advocating for those with disabilities across the country.

“I am truly excited to join Senator Andy Kim and his strong, mission-driven team. I admire and appreciate Senator Kim’s serious, thoughtful approach to the issues that matter most to the people in our State – an approach rooted in his commitment to deliver meaningful results for all 9.5 million people who call New Jersey home,” said Paul Aronsohn, State Director for Senator Andy Kim. “Now, more than ever, there is important work to be done both here in New Jersey and in Washington, and I look forward to working with Senator Kim and our team to get it done.”

Prior to serving as Ombudsman, Aronsohn served as Mayor of Ridgewood, NJ and Councilmember of his Bergen County town. He also served in communications roles for former New Jersey Governor James McGreevy.

Earlier in his career, Aronsohn worked at the U.S. Department of State, where his focus was largely on international security matters, such as nonproliferation, arms control and peacekeeping.

In addition to his work as a public servant, Aronsohn also has several years of experience working in the life sciences industry in communications and public affairs roles.

A longtime active member of community organizations across New Jersey, Aronsohn currently serves as Member-at-Large of the NAACP’s NJ State Conference as well as an Executive Committee Member of its Bergen County Branch. He is a member of Temple Israel of Ridgewood, on the Bergen County Disability Services Advisory Board, and the National Council of Severe Autism’s N.J. Chapter Professional Advisory Board.

Senator Kim serves as the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on National Security and International Trade and Finance on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs. He is a member of the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation; the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP); the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs; and the Special Committee on Aging. Before being elected to the U.S. Senate, Kim represented New Jersey’s Third Congressional District in the U.S. House of Representatives and was a career public servant working in national security and diplomacy at the White House, State Department, and Pentagon.

###


King, Cramer Take Action to Reduce Federal Budget Deficit, Avoid Passing Down Debt to Next Generation

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Kevin Cramer (R-ND) are introducing bipartisan, bicameral legislation to spur Congress to reduce the federal budget deficit and avoid passing down large sums of debt to the next generation. The 3% Resolution would support the goal of reducing the federal budget deficit to 3% of gross domestic product (GDP) by 2030.

“Restoring fiscal discipline isn’t about politics—it’s about responsibility,” said King. “Our 3% Resolution sets a clear, achievable target to benchmark progress on the deficit to stabilize our economic growth trajectory. Sound economic policy will take members of both parties working together to evaluate spending and revenues to create a better future for the next generation.”

“It sure doesn’t take an economist to recognize the fiscal path we’re on is unsustainable, we all know that,” said Cramer. “Congress controls the purse and it’s long past time we address this imbalance of our ledgers. It is not going to happen without laser focus on economic growth and a willingness to look at every facet of the federal budget. Our 3% Resolution is a roadmap to what I consider fiscal sustainability, and I’m looking forward, and plead with my colleagues to work together on both sides of the aisle and both sides of the Capitol, as we focus our efforts to deliver greater economic growth, for our country, for our people, and ultimately, our fiscal situation.”

The 3% Resolution is also supported by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget and the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) Action group.

“The best way to tackle a daunting fiscal challenge is to set a clear, achievable goal and then build a practical plan to reach it,” said Maya MacGuineas, President of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. “Senators Cramer and King, joined by Senators Peters and McCormick, are taking an important step by putting forward a 3 percent deficit-to-GDP target to help stabilize the nation’s fiscal trajectory. We hope their colleagues will come together to meet this moment and begin the real bipartisan work of putting our budget on a more sustainable path.”

“The nation’s large and growing debt hurts everyday Americans — driving up costs for families and weighing down future growth,” said Michele Stockwell, President of BPC Action. “By rallying around a 3%-of-GDP deficit target, Senators Cramer, King, McCormick, and Peters are charting a bipartisan path toward a brighter economic future. BPC Action urges Congress to get serious about our unsustainable debt and adopt this goal.”

Joining King and Cramer as cosponsors are U.S. Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Gary Peters (D-MI). U.S. Representatives Bill Huizenga (R-MI-04) and Scott Peters (D-CA-50) introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Senator King has long been an advocate for reducing the federal deficit to protect the next generation from financial harm. Earlier this month, Senator King introduced the Fiscal Commission Act to create a bipartisan, bicameral fiscal commission tasked with finding legislative solutions to stabilize spending and decrease the national debt, which now exceeds $38.8 trillion. In June, he sent a letter to IRS Commissioner Billy Long suggesting that plans to slash IRS funding would balloon the federal deficit and result in $2.4 trillion in lost revenue over the next decade. That same month, King also voted against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said would add $3.3 trillion dollars to the federal deficit over the next ten years, while also cutting $1.1 trillion from Medicaid over the same time, resulting in 11.8 million Americans losing healthcare.

More information on the 3% Resolution can be found here.

###


King, Curtis Lead Bipartisan Letter Urging Administration to Reverse Course on New Policy Limiting Path to Homeownership

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) and John Curtis (R-UT) are pressing the Trump Administration to reverse course on its decision to limit the path to home ownership for rural Americans. In a bipartisan letter to United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, the Senators asked that recent updates limiting additional access to the Rural Development Section 502 Direct Loan program are rescinded. Unfortunately, the new revisions drastically reduce the loan limits and add in new layers of administrative complexity.

The Senators began, “The Section 502 Direct Loan program administered by the Department has been instrumental in this success, financing homes for millions of families across the country. This program has also helped incentivize housing development in the rural communities that need it most. Unfortunately, the revisions issued to the handbook on February 10, 2026, PN655, severely curtail program eligibility and make it more difficult for non-profit partners to place rural families in homes.”

“One of the most concerning changes is the reduction of Section 502 loan limits from 80 to 60 percent of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 203(b) limit,” they continued in the letter. “This revision is coupled with another that prohibits loans from being issued when the appraised value of the house exceeds the loan limit. For families participating in the USDA Mutual Self-Help housing program, whose sweat equity lowers the total of the Section 502 loan but increases the value of the house, this change is especially problematic.”

“Finally, we are perplexed by new requirements that will make the loan review process less efficient for USDA. Namely, loan reviews must now go through two separate rounds of review by Rural Development State Directors before approval. In addition, the changes will limit the ability for non-profit organizations to package loans, which USDA cannot do on its own. These changes are not only burdensome but also create uncertainty for families navigating this process,” the Senators concluded.

The 502 loan program assists low- and very-low-income applicants obtain decent, safe, and sanitary housing in eligible rural areas by providing payment assistance to increase an applicant’s repayment ability. The amount of assistance is determined by the adjusted family income.

"Habitat for Humanity affiliates across Maine work closely with families who rely on the Section 502 Direct Loan program to access homeownership in rural communities. USDA’s recent changes to the program handbook—particularly lower loan caps, reduced income eligibility limits, and stricter appraisal rules—will make it far more difficult for these families to finance modest homes in many communities,” said Amy Nucci, Executive Director at Habitat for Humanity of Maine. “These shifts would slow Habitat’s ability to build new homes and support rural homebuyers, reducing much needed housing supply. Restoring the previous rules would keep this vital program working for the families and communities that depend on it."

"Avesta urges reconsideration of the new cap on rural home loans,” said Jennifer Hawkins, President & CEO of Avesta Housing, northern New England's largest affordable housing provider. “At this time of high prices, USDA should be using all of its tools to support homeownership, not make it more difficult for first-time buyers,"

Also joining King and Curtis on the letter are U.S Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), James Risch (R-ID), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Susan Collins (R-ME), and Alex Padilla (D-CA).

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

+++

Dear Secretary Rolllins:

We write today to express our concerns with the recent revisions to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development Section 502 Direct Loan handbook. Homeownership is the cornerstone of the American Dream, but all too frequently, it is out of reach for rural Americans. While we applaud all efforts to properly steward taxpayer dollars, we believe these revisions make the program less efficient and may leave families in our states without a path to homeownership.

Since 1949, USDA has been helping rural Americans become homeowners. The Section 502 Direct Loan program administered by the Department has been instrumental in this success, financing homes for millions of families across the country. This program has also helped incentivize housing development in the rural communities that need it most. Unfortunately, the revisions issued to the handbook on February 10, 2026, PN655, severely curtail program eligibility and make it more difficult for non-profit partners to place rural families in homes.

One of the most concerning changes is the reduction of Section 502 loan limits from 80 to 60 percent of the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Section 203(b) limit. This revision is coupled with another that prohibits loans from being issued when the appraised value of the house exceeds the loan limit. For families participating in the USDA Mutual Self-Help housing program, whose sweat equity lowers the total of the Section 502 loan but increases the value of the house, this change is especially problematic. Under the revised handbook, families who reduce risk to the federal government through their own labor may nonetheless be disqualified. Further, these changes present a fundamental misalignment with current home values, which are already soaring due to stubborn inflation, construction costs, and other supply-side challenges. We fear that reducing loan limits without exception will render the 502 Direct program inaccessible to countless rural households.

Finally, we are perplexed by new requirements that will make the loan review process less efficient for USDA. Namely, loan reviews must now go through two separate rounds of review by Rural Development State Directors before approval. In addition, the changes will limit the ability for non-profit organizations to package loans, which USDA cannot do on its own. These changes are not only burdensome but also create uncertainty for families navigating this process.

In closing, we respectfully request that USDA immediately rescind the February 10 revisions and restore prior guidance. We also ask that USDA work closely with Congress and the public to ensure that any future revisions to the handbook align with the statutory intent of the program and reflect the realities of rural housing markets. We are grateful for your attention to this matter, and we welcome the opportunity to discuss practical alternatives that preserve both program integrity and ensure the Section 502 Direct Loan program remains accessible to eligible rural families.

Sincerely,

###


ICYMI: Lankford Raises Concerns on AI Scams, Fentanyl, and Terror Financing at Worldwide Threats Hearing

WASHINGTON, DC — US Senator James Lankford (R-OK), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, questioned intelligence community officials during the Committee’s annual Worldwide Threat Assessment hearing, raising concerns about the rise in international scams targeting Americans, coordination with state and local law enforcement to combat narcotics trafficking, and terrorist networks, including the Muslim Brotherhood.

Excerpts:

On international scams and AI-enabled fraud:

Lankford: “A lot of Oklahomans I talk to, and quite frankly folks even outside the state, when they think about threats… they think about the threat to their family… a lot of it is international scammers that are now reaching into the United States to be able to gather data or to be able to steal money from them.”

“FBI had noted that in 2024, it was almost $17 billion that was assumed lost to scammers… some estimates are as high as $50 billion on it.”

“This is accelerating at a pace that’s pretty dramatic with the use of AI on this.”

FBI Director Patel: “What we’re doing on the homeland is going out into the streets of America, on the online platforms in America, and shutting down those networks and shutting down the capability of AI to interfere.”

“The scam center compounds are largely located in Cambodia and Burma and on the Thai border… we’ve… eliminated and scuttled… numerous compounds… and… go into those countries and shut down every single scam center compound.”

On counter-narcotics and law enforcement partnerships:

Lankford: “The counter-narcotics work has been phenomenal… What I’m interested in is how are you partnering with local law enforcement to continue to accelerate this process?”

FBI Director Patel: “The counter-narcotics mission can’t be complete without state and local law enforcement. We are embedding more task force officers across the country… and… stood up… the Southern Border Intelligence Center…”

“We seized enough fentanyl in 2025 to kill 178 million Americans… Opioid overdose deaths… dropped 20 points… and in Oklahoma… enough fentanyl to kill 500,000 Oklahomans.”

On terrorist financing and the Muslim Brotherhood:

Lankford: “The annual threat assessment highlights this year the Muslim Brotherhood in particular… How is the Muslim Brotherhood financing itself… and is there something that we need to do here to… protect Americans?”

CIA Director Ratcliffe: “With regard to the Muslim Brotherhood… the CIA is very focused on the counterterrorism front…”

“We’ve accomplished more in the last year than in the four years of the prior administration combined.”

You can watch Lankford’s full exchange HERE. You can download it HERE.

###


VIDEO: Luján Takes to Senate Floor to Fight Back Against Trump’s Voter Suppression Bill

WATCH Senator Luján’s Floor Speech HERE

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) took to the Senate floor to speak out against President Trump and Republicans’ anti-voter SAVE Act. Senator Luján highlighted the legislation’s harmful impact on New Mexicans and Americans across the country, including the devastating impact the SAVE Act poses on rural, Tribal, and Hispanic communities.

“President Trump made his intentions clear. He wants Republicans to rewrite the rules and take away Americans’ right to vote. They know their agenda isn’t working. If there’s any question about it, I’m voting against this legislation.”

The SAVE Act threatens to disenfranchise millions of Americans. The legislation creates significant and expensive new barriers that would disproportionately impact voters of color, married women, and others who have changed their names, rural and Tribal voters, young people, people with disabilities, and low-income communities.

Watch Senator Luján’s floor speech HERE.

###


Senator Markey Statement on Trump Executive Order to Prohibit States from Regulating AI

Washington (March 20, 2026) – Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, released the following statement after President Trump released his national artificial intelligence (AI) legislative framework that calls for Congress to prevent states from regulating AI:

“President Trump is continuing to repay Big Tech’s campaign donations by proposing to block states from protecting their communities from AI-related harms,” said Senator Markey. “Congress must not only reject Trump’s offensive proposal but also continue blocking Republicans’ bad faith effort to undermine states. We should pass my States’ Right to Regulate AI Act to put power back into the hands of people, not the Big Tech billionaire boys club cozying up to the White House.”

Senator Markey has been a leading voice against a moratorium on state AI regulations.

In December 2025, Senator Markey introduced the States’ Right to Regulate AI Act, legislation to prohibit the Trump administration from implementing his Executive Order that attempts to block states from regulating AI. Earlier that month, he decried Trump signing the Executive Order preempting state regulation of AI. In July 2025, the Senate voted 99-1 in favor of an amendment led by Senator Markey, Ranking Member Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and Senator Marsha Blackburn (R–Tenn.) to strip a ten-year moratorium on state AI regulations from the Republican budget reconciliation bill. On June 3, Senator Markey delivered remarks on the Senate floor opposing the provision in the House-passed reconciliation bill that would prevent states from regulating AI for the next ten years.

###


Sens. Moran, Bennet Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Revitalize Rural Hospitals

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Rural Health Caucus – and Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) – co-chair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus – yesterday introduced the Rural Hospital Revitalization Act, bipartisan legislation that would strengthen rural hospitals by providing zero-interest loans to support new construction and the renovation of existing hospital facilities. The resources would be provided through the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Community Facilities Direct Loan Program to improve the ability of hospitals to provide essential health care services to rural communities.

“Rural hospitals are critical to the well-being of the communities they serve in Kansas and across the country,” said Sen. Moran. “By providing a pathway for qualifying rural hospitals to make needed renovations and facility upgrades, this legislation will help promote the long-term viability of rural hospitals and communities.”

“Rural hospitals are a safety net for communities across the country, yet they have faced challenges with aging infrastructure and financial instability for years,” said Sen. Bennet. “I’m grateful to have worked with rural hospitals on the ground in Colorado to write this legislation, which will help eligible facilities upgrade their infrastructure and expand capacity so that they can better serve their communities and create jobs today and into the future.”

“Rural hospitals are on the front lines of care for older, sicker populations, yet too many are operating in aging facilities without access to affordable capital,” said Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association. “The Rural Hospital Revitalization Act takes an important, bipartisan approach to strengthening rural health infrastructure by utilizing existing USDA programs to deliver zero-interest capital to qualifying hospitals. This type of investment is essential to stabilizing rural health systems, preventing closures, and ensuring communities can access care close to home.”

To qualify for a loan, a hospital would need to meet the following criteria:

Be located within a county of fewer than 20,000 residents; and

Located at least 35 miles from the nearest hospital (or at least 15 miles if the hospital is in an area with mountainous terrain or only secondary roads); or

Is designated as a Critical Access Hospital or a Rural Emergency Hospital;

Have demonstrated need; and

Be financially stable.

Text of the legislation can be found here.

Items to note:

Last year, Sen. Moran helped to establish the Rural Health Transformation (RHT) Program, which directs the Centers of Medicare and Medicaid (CMS) to work with states to identify the root challenges facing rural health providers and invest in solutions to improve outcomes for struggling providers.

Kansas rural health providers have received $222 million in the first year of the five-year RHT Program, one of the highest amounts awarded and exceeded by only five other states.

As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Sen. Moran secured more than $7 million in federal investments for Kansas rural hospitals and community health centers in the FY26 appropriations legislation approved by Congress and signed into law earlier this year.


PASSED: Senate Approves Legislation Led by Sen. Moran & Colleagues to Honor Women in Agriculture

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry – today applauded the Senate’s unanimous passage of a bipartisan resolution he introduced with Sens. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) to designate March 21st, 2026, as “National Women in Agriculture Day.” The resolution honors the 1.2 million women producers in Kansas and across the U.S. and recognizes their significant contributions to the agriculture industry as farmers, educators, innovators and leaders.

“In Kansas and across the country, countless women play an important role in agriculture, managing family farms, educating the next generation of producers and supporting our rural communities,” said Sen. Moran. “As we recognize National Women in Agriculture Day, we thank them for their hard work, resilience and dedication to keeping our agriculture industry strong and investing in the future of rural America.”

“Women have always been at the heart of American agriculture,” said Sen. Ernst. “Growing up on a family farm, I saw firsthand the vital role women like my mother played, and today my sister continues that legacy. From family farms to cutting-edge agribusiness, women are leading, innovating, and helping feed and fuel the world. I’m proud to lead this resolution to recognize and support the women who are breaking barriers and shaping the future of agriculture.”

“Agriculture is the backbone of Minnesota’s economy, and women have always played an essential role in this sector,” said Sen. Smith. “I’m proud we have introduced this bipartisan resolution to designate a day during Women’s History Month and National Agriculture Week to recognize the achievements of the women across the country who have been the key to our agricultural success.”

Full text of the resolution can be found here.

The resolution was also cosponsored by Sens. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Katie Britt (R-Ala.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Bill Cassidy (R-La.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Kevin Cramer (R-N.D.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), Cindy Hyde-Smith (R-Miss.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Marshall (R-Kan.), Ashley Moody (R-Fla.), Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), Tommy Tuberville (R-Ala.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), John Fetterman (D-Penn.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Angus King (I-Maine), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.). U.S. Representatives Kat Cammack (R-FL-03) and Angie Craig (D-MN-02) have introduced a companion resolution in the U.S. House of Representatives.

# # #


Murphy Introduces Bill To Protect Small Businesses From Corporate Gouging, Lower Prices For American Families

WASHINGTON–U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Thursday introduced the Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act, a bill that would bring down prices for American families and support small businesses by cracking down on corporate price discrimination. The bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

Small businesses nationwide - from small town grocers to big city restaurants - are forced by mega-corporations to pay higher prices for identical products and pass those higher prices on to customers. Existing laws are supposed to stop big corporations from using their size to force suppliers into charging smaller businesses more, so they can undercut those competitors and clear the market for themselves. But over the last four decades, the Executive Branch and the courts have mostly looked the other way and refused to enforce these laws. Communities paid the price as huge corporations used price discrimination to crush small businesses, with more than 100,000 small retailers shutting their doors in the last few decades, hollowing out local economies and creating food deserts in poor and rural areas.

Under the leadership of Lina Khan, the FTC exposed how the world’s biggest corporations illegally conspire to drive up costs on mom-and-pop businesses. In one case, the FTC uncovered how Pepsi and Walmart allegedly colluded to drive up the price of Pepsi products at grocery stores that compete with Walmart. These mega-corporations still benefit from a wide range of legal loopholes that stall enforcement and disincentivize small businesses from fighting back. The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act would strengthen and modernize our price discrimination laws to level the playing field for small businesses and ensure mega-corporations can be held accountable.

“For decades, corporations have been allowed to break the law and rig the system to make small businesses pay higher prices for the exact same products,” said Murphy. “Their goal was to crush the competition so they could hoard even more profit and power, even if that meant decimating local economies and raising prices on families. Small businesses are the lifeblood of a community and they should be able to compete with these soulless mega-corporations on equal footing. This bill would end the disastrous, price rigging lawlessness by providing both small businesses and federal regulators with a larger set of legal tools to punish corporations that run these schemes.“

“Small businesses are the backbone of our economy, yet for far too long they’ve been forced to compete with massive corporations who use their power to squeeze out local competitors. The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act will ensure accountability by giving local retailers a chance, strengthening competition, and ultimately delivering better prices for consumers. I’m proud to support this legislation to level the playing field for our local businesses,” said Blumenthal.

“High costs are crushing working families and small businesses,” said Fetterman. “The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act would level the playing field and make sure small businesses can buy products on the same terms as big corporations.”

“When suppliers can charge small businesses more than big corporations for the exact same products, local shops shut down, a handful of companies run the market, and families end up paying more at the checkout line,” said Gallego. “This bill gives regulators the tools they need to hold big retailers accountable and make sure local businesses have a fair shot to compete. By leveling the playing field, we can bring prices down for American families.”

“Vermont’s small businesses are the backbone of our economy, but they can’t compete when they’re forced to pay more than big retailers for the same goods and services. That kind of price discrimination squeezes local businesses and raises costs for consumers,” said Welch. “The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act helps level the playing field and holds bad actors accountable.”

The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act would:

Repeal the “meeting competition” defense: Under current law, price discrimination is legal if the supplier is meeting a competitor’s price to the retailer. Massive retailers would no longer be able to squeeze all their competing suppliers for special deals, creating competition that brings down prices at retailers large and small alike.

Hold power buyers accountable: Big retailers are rarely held accountable for receiving illegal price discrimination because plaintiffs must prove they did so knowingly. The bill would eliminate the “knowingly” requirement for retailers with more than $100 billion in annual sales, because these huge corporations should know how suppliers price their products.

Expand the law to cover services, not just goods: Local shops and restaurants would no longer pay higher costs for services like delivery apps, point of sale systems, and credit card swipe fees.

Set minimum damages to equal the cost of price discrimination: The bill would simplify damage awards for victims of price discrimination to at least match the higher prices they had to pay.

The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act is endorsed by: Open Markets Institute, Small Business Majority, Farm Action Fund, American Booksellers Association, Independent Restaurant Coalition, Institute for Local Self-Reliance, American Economic Liberties Project, Demand Progress, National Supermarket Association, Main Street Competition Coalition, Small Business Rising, and RAFI.

“Senator Murphy’s Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act is an essential effort to fight the extraordinary buyer power of large corporations. Giants like Amazon and Walmart use their market muscle to squeeze suppliers and their workers, extract discriminatory discounts and other concessions, and thereby gain an unfair and illegitimate advantage over rivals, whether regional chains or mom-and-pop stores. This bill strengthens the existing Robinson-Patman Act by extending its coverage to services and undoing Supreme Court misinterpretations of the law and empowers the federal government and private parties to end the widespread abuse of buyer power in today’s economy,” said Sandeep Vaheesan, Legal Director at Open Markets Institute.

“Independent supermarkets are not asking for special treatment, we are demanding fair treatment. When national suppliers offer better pricing and services to large chains while charging neighborhood grocers more for the exact same products, it puts community stores and the families we serve at a disadvantage. Enforcing price discrimination protections is about leveling the playing field, protecting local jobs, and keeping groceries affordable in working-class and immigrant neighborhoods,” said Anthony Peña, National President of the National Supermarket Association.

"The Robinson-Patman Act is a strong law, but decades of judicial narrowing have left independent businesses without the tools they need to fight back against discriminatory pricing by dominant firms. The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act closes critical loopholes and gives antitrust enforcers and Main Street businesses the strong tools they need to restore competitive fairness in the modern marketplace,” said Chris Jones, Executive Director of the Main Street Competition Coalition.

"Having seen the ways in which price fixing and similar anti-competitive practices can put small businesses at a severe disadvantage, we're pleased that Congress is taking action to strengthen existing antitrust law to give regulators greater power to stop repeat offenders who are committing violations of the Robinson-Patman Act. More robust enforcement of laws intended to level the playing field for small firms would go a long way toward helping small businesses compete with larger companies when accessing goods and services for their business," said Alexis D'Amato Falvey, Senior Director of Federal Government Affairs for Small Business Majority.

Joe Maxwell, President of Farm Action Fund, said, “For decades, powerful corporations have used price discrimination to squeeze independent farmers, small businesses, and local communities. This legislation takes direct aim at this rigged pricing system, restoring the promise of the Robinson-Patman Act by making clear that no corporation is too big to play by the same rules—and that fair competition still matters in America. As a farmer, I thank Senator Murphy for filing this important legislation.”

“The American Booksellers Association is grateful for Senator Murphy’s leadership in introducing the “Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act.” For far too long, independent bookstores have had to compete with online megacorporations who often sell bestselling titles at prices below what bookstores pay to suppliers. They are rarely held accountable, even though it is illegal for dominant retailers to use their power over suppliers to secure lower prices and other benefits. Senator Murphy’s bill will make them play fair by strengthening and clarifying antitrust regulations, which ABA believes will help level the playing field for Main Street businesses like indie bookstores,” said David Grogan, Director of Advocacy & Public Policy, American Booksellers Association.

“RAFI is proud to endorse the Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act. As can be seen in RAFI’s Grocery Gap Atlas, the accelerating consolidation of the grocery industry has allowed for entities like Walmart and Dollar General to drive the local grocery stores that feed rural places out of business through their predatory practices. This isn’t just a food access and consumer choice issue. Farmers all across the country feel the squeeze of a dominated grocery sector, with fewer pathways to market than ever before. A retail environment that functions fairly and allows for more robust competition will directly benefit our dwindling population of farmers who seek to feed the country domestically,” said Melanie Canales, Challenging Corporate Power Project Manager, RAFI.

"Independent restaurants are being crushed by a rigged system where massive corporations and platforms use their market power to secure sweetheart deals that local businesses can never access," said Erika Polmar, Executive Director of the Independent Restaurant Coalition. "Whether it's delivery platforms offering preferential terms to chains, or suppliers giving volume discounts that independent operators could never dream of, price discrimination is crushing neighborhood restaurants while corporate giants proper. This isn't just unfair—it's destroying the restaurants that anchor our communities and support local jobs. We're grateful to Senator Murphy for his leadership on this critical issue. The Fair Prices for Local Businesses Act will level the playing field so independent restaurants can compete on quality, not backroom deals."

"When the government stopped enforcing price discrimination laws, corporate consolidation exploded and so did prices for groceries and prescriptions," said Katherine Van Dyck, Senior Legal Fellow at American Economic Liberties Project. "This legislation modernizes the Robinson-Patman Act for today's economy by expanding protections to services like delivery apps and credit card fees, eliminating a loophole that lets dominant buyers escape accountability, and making it easier for independent businesses to prove damages. The Senate should act quickly on this essential reform to protect small businesses and deliver lower prices to American families.”

Carter Dougherty, Senior Fellow for Antimonopoly and Finance at Demand Progress, said, "The penalty imposed by the giants for being a small player in your home state or town is a problem long-recognized by the authors of the Robinson-Patman Act, and it's up to us today to carry on their work. This legislation, with its focus on preventing unfair pricing in services -- especially finance -- is a vital step in the right direction."

“For decades, powerful chain stores, like Walmart, Amazon, and Kroger, have used their economic muscle to extract sweetheart deals from suppliers — deals that squeeze out independent competitors and drive up prices for everyone else. Senator Murphy's legislation would give enforcers the tools they need to finally call that what it is: illegal. ILSR applauds this effort to restore fairness in US markets, allow local businesses to compete, and make groceries and goods more affordable for the communities that need it most," said Ron Knox, Senior Researcher and Policy Advocate, Institute for Local Self-Reliance.


Padilla, Merkley Lead Senate Colleagues in Demanding Timely Funding for Agricultural Farm Worker Student Education

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) led eight Senators in urging U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon to ensure the timely delivery of federal funds for the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP), which support important educational opportunities for agricultural farm worker students.

Across the nation, HEP and CAMP serve more than 8,000 students from agricultural farm worker families. California receives the largest allocation of these funds. The failure to ensure the timely execution of these federal programs threatens to undermine students’ success in California and across the country.

“HEP and CAMP programs have a 50+ year legacy of supporting students from farmworker and rural backgrounds so they can earn their High School Equivalency Diploma and succeed in college, thereby contributing to our country’s economic workforce,” wrote the Senators. “We are deeply concerned that any delays in administering the HEP and CAMP programs will result in irreversible damage to our students, families, and communities.”

“We urge the Department of Education to follow the letter and spirit of the law by posting notices inviting applications as soon as possible to ensure that the HEP and CAMP programs are able to continue their vital work,” continued the Senators.

On September 18, the Education Department released HEP and CAMP funding but did not issue any new grants. Two California HEP programs, West Hills Community College and California State University (CSU) San Bernardino, and two California CAMP programs, CSU Fresno and CSU Monterey Bay, received non-continuation letters in the middle of their funding cycles. The Senators also urged the Department to award prior experience points for programs that submit applications that were canceled or discontinued in the last competition.

In addition to Padilla and Merkley, Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) also signed the letter.

In response to the Administration’s previously delayed releasing of HEP CAMP funding, which caused providers to eliminate programs and fire the staff that support our nation’s migrant and farm worker students, Padilla and Merkley led a bipartisan group of Senate and House lawmakers in demanding that the Office of Management and Budget and the Education Department immediately release $52.1 million in federal funding for the programs. Padilla also joined Merkley and a bipartisan group of Senators to sound the alarm over the Trump Administration delaying millions of dollars in federal education grants with no-cost extensions for TRIO programs, which support low-income, first-generation college students from all backgrounds.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We are writing to urge you to issue a notice inviting applications as soon as possible for two competitive grant programs that support agricultural farmworker students: the High School Equivalency Program (HEP) and the College Assistance Migrant Program (CAMP). These are important programs serving farmworker and rural communities that enjoy longstanding bipartisan support. HEP and CAMP will be best positioned to achieve statutory requirements through timely execution actions by the Department of Education.

As you likely know, HEP and CAMP programs provide critical access to educational opportunities for students from migrant or seasonal farmworker families. HEP helps students who have dropped out of high school get their High School Equivalency Credential and serves more than 6,000 students annually. CAMP assists students in their first year of college with academic, personal, and financial support, and serves approximately 2,400 migrant participants annually. Overall, nearly three-quarters of all CAMP students graduate with baccalaureate degrees.

Congress annually appropriates funding for HEP and CAMP programs on a bipartisan basis, and the FY26 Consolidated Appropriations Act, which President Trump signed into law, appropriated $52.1 million for the grants authorized under these programs.

Notably, the Senate Report accompanying the FY26 Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, which carries forward in the explanatory statement accompanying the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, directs the federal government to ensure the timely execution of all grants. The report reads: “it is critical that the Federal grant making process is implemented in a timely, efficient, and consistent matter. The Committee directs the Departments funded in this act . . . to ensure that funding opportunity announcements are posted, non-competing continuation awards are made, new grants are awarded, and funding is disbursed all in a timely, efficient, and consistent manner.”

The aforementioned Senate Report also contains explicit language directing the Department to administer HEP and CAMP in a timely manner. More specifically, the report says: “The Committee urges the Department to accelerate the program development timeline so notices inviting applications can be issued early enough for the Department to make new and noncompeting continuation awards before July 1.” In order for the Department to make this July 1 deadline, we urge the Department to issue notices inviting applications as soon as possible with a 60-day deadline for grantees to apply.

Unfortunately, in FY25, the Department of Education cancelled the competition that was underway for the HEP and CAMP programs, which resulted in the elimination of 30 existing programs that were competing for another 5-year grant. The Department also discontinued 13 mid-cycle grants that had been approved, which negatively impacted programs. As such, for the HEP and CAMP programs that did not receive funding due to the cancelled FY25 competition or were discontinued, we urge the Department to afford these programs prior experience points in the event they submit a grant in a new FY26 grant competition.

The Department of Education currently has significant funding available this fiscal year to administer robust grant competitions. The Department created the situation when it chose to front-load awards for certain grantees for future budget years of approved applications and cancelled the competition underway for HEP and CAMP programs.

HEP and CAMP programs have a 50+ year legacy of supporting students from farmworker and rural backgrounds so they can earn their High School Equivalency Diploma and succeed in college, thereby contributing to our country’s economic workforce. We are deeply concerned that any delays in administering the HEP and CAMP programs will result in irreversible damage to our students, families, and communities.

Therefore, we urge the Department of Education to follow the letter and spirit of the law by posting notices inviting applications as soon as possible to ensure that the HEP and CAMP programs are able to continue their vital work. We appreciate your support in positively impacting countless more students’ lives by following the recent appropriations law and helping keep these important programs working to support farm-working families and communities.

###


Risch, Crapo, Cornyn Introduce Bill to Allow Law Enforcement Officers to Purchase Retired Firearms

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), and John Cornyn (R-Texas) introduced the Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act, which would allow active and retired federal law enforcement officers in good standing to purchase retired service weapons and firearms.

“Destroying a perfectly good firearm when a federal agency no longer needs it is a waste of taxpayer dollars,” said Risch. “Allowing law enforcement to purchase these firearms is fiscally responsible and plain commonsense.”

“Millions of taxpayer dollars are spent each year destroying retired federal service firearms,” said Crapo. “This practice effectively means the government pays for the same firearm twice—first when it is purchased, and again when it is destroyed. Allowing federal officers in good standing to purchase their retired service weapons is a common-sense, cost saving measure.”

“There’s no reason the brave men and women in law enforcement who dedicate their lives to preserving public safety should not be able to purchase retired firearms,” said Cornyn. “This commonsense legislation would reduce unnecessary waste and save both taxpayers and federal agencies money by allowing officers to exercise their Second Amendment rights.”

Risch, Crapo, and Cornyn are joined by U.S. Senators Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), Cynthis Lummis (R-Wyo.), Roger Wicker (R-Miss.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Jim Justice (R-W.V.), Ted Cruz (R-Texas), and Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.). Congressman Russell Fry (S.C.-07) introduced companion legislation, which passed the U.S. House of Representatives last year.

This legislation is endorsed by the Association of State Criminal Investigative Agencies, Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County Sheriffs of America, National Association of Police Organizations, National Narcotics Officers’ Associations’ Coalition, and National Fraternal Order of Police.

Current federal regulations require agencies to destroy a firearm once it is retired from use or is no longer needed, costing taxpayers millions of dollars each year.

The Federal Law Enforcement Officer Service Weapon Purchase Act would reduce this waste and honor the Second Amendment rights of our law enforcement by allowing eligible federal officers to buy retired firearms at fair-market or discounted rates. Recovering this value can in turn offset the cost of new equipment and technology, fund training programs, and support other public safety needs.


Schatz: Nearly $12 Million Heading To Hawai‘i To Purchase New Buses, Improve Transit Reliability On O‘ahu

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) announced the Honolulu Department of Transportation Services will receive more than $11.5 million from the Federal Transit Administration to purchase replacement buses and other equipment. The new funding will allow for an aging fleet to be replenished with newer, modern buses which will improve reliability for passengers.

“As more people on O‘ahu ride transit, this funding will strengthen the bus system and help people get to where they need to go, safely and more reliably,” said Senator Schatz, a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

“Honolulu has long taken pride in our award-winning TheBus system, and this investment helps us build on that legacy,” said Mayor Rick Blangiardi. “Modernizing our fleet means providing riders with a smoother, more reliable commute while strengthening the role public transit plays in keeping our island moving. By replacing older buses with new, state-of-the-art vehicles, we’re ensuring our residents continue to receive the high-quality service they expect and deserve. A big mahalo to Senator Brian Schatz and his office for championing this important funding and supporting Honolulu’s efforts to keep improving transit for our community.”

###


Senator Schmitt Discusses the SAVE America Act on Fox Business

WASHINGTON, DC — U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) joined Fox Business’ Evening Edit to tout the SAVE America Act as common sense legislation that the majority of Americans support, and to call out Senate Democrats on opposing voter ID.

Watch the full interview HERE.

Senator Schmitt on the SAVE America Act as Common Sense:

“Look, this isn’t controversial anywhere in the country, except here in Congress, with Congressional and Senate Democrats. And the truth is, Liz, they want to be able to cheat. They brought 15 million people here illegally, and they want to make it easier to cheat through mass mail in balloting, no photo ID, you don’t have to be an American citizen, and I think we’re standing up for the American people, saying American elections are for American citizens. And this is sort of a basic level of competence I think we should have as a country, if you want to hold on to it. But the Democrats, again, have just so been so radicalized. If Chuck Schumer could only talk to his former self if the ghost of Chuck Schumer from the 90s would haunt Chuck Schumer tonight, he would whisper into his ear, Chuck, you’ve lost your mind. You need to vote for this bill. We’ll see if that happens.”

Senator Schmitt on Democrats Opposing Voter ID:

“It’s very difficult to determine after the fact, what we do know happens currently, is there are some illegal immigrants that get driver’s licenses. If you have a driver’s license, you can register to vote oftentimes. And so, this is the flaw in the system, and this is the sort of the confluence of the crisis, is that when you let that many people in here illegally, we don’t know who they are. They shouldn’t be allowed to vote. We should be able to, as Republicans and Democrats, stand together in a sane country, and say, we don’t think non-citizens, illegal immigrants, should be able to vote in our elections. The Democrats are unwilling to say that. They’re also unwilling to say that you should have to show who you are at the ballot box when you’re voting. This is just like basic stuff. It’s common sense. 90 percent of America agrees with it. The Democrats are on the wrong side of it, and that’s why they lost the last election. I think this debate is highlighting how insane they’ve become.”

###


Shaheen Continues “Affordability Action Tour,” Highlights Federal Funding She Secured for Education Infrastructure Renovations in Croydon and the Well Collaborative in Claremont

(Claremont, NH) – Today, U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) highlighted her efforts to lower costs and improve access to everyday essentials with visits to the Croydon Village School and the Well Collaborative’s Entrepreneurial Center in Claremont. Both are the most recent stops on Shaheen’s ongoing “Affordability Action Tour,” which launched last August to learn from Granite Staters about what is needed to tackle the rising costs communities across New Hampshire are facing.

Photos from today’s events can be found HERE.

Shaheen began the day at the Croydon Village School, where she learned about planned renovations to upgrade their one-room schoolhouse, known as “Little Red.” Shaheen secured $1,176,000 in Congressionally Directed Spending (CDS) for the project in thebipartisan Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 government funding legislation that was signed into law earlier this year. Built in 1780, the “Little Red” is one of only two continuously operating one-room schoolhouses in the United States. The funding secured by Shaheen will be used to update the schoolhouse and improve student safety and security.

“The one-room ‘Little Red’ schoolhouse is beloved by the Croydon community and one of the many historic sites that make New Hampshire so special,” said Senator Shaheen. “With students across our state confronting the Trump Administration’s reckless cuts to New Hampshire education programs, I was proud to secure federal dollars that will fund critical infrastructure upgrades to the schoolhouse—improving education access and preserving a staple of this community for years to come.”

Senator Shaheen has long championed efforts to expand education access, especially amid the Trump Administration’s efforts to slash critical education funding in the Granite State. In September, Shaheen led the New Hampshire Congressional delegation in calling on the U.S. Department of Education to restore Congressionally approved funding for the Education Alliance for New Hampshire’s Statewide Family Engagement Center grant, TRIO grants for the University of New Hampshire’s (UNH) Talent Search and McNair programs and the state’s Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR UP).

Later, Shaheen travelled to the First Congregational Church in Claremont to tour the Well Collaborative’s Entrepreneurial Center and meet with local Claremont officials. Shaheen received updates on a project that will transform the historic church into a community hub that will offer child care, a commercial kitchen and a public meeting space. The renovations will deliver relief to working families, support community programs and strengthen Claremont’s local economy. The transformation project received a $821,353.60 Northern Border Regional Commission (NBRC) grant through its Catalyst Program.

“Nonprofit organizations like the Well Collaborative do essential work to strengthen the fabric of New Hampshire communities, support hardworking families and boost local economies across our state,” said Senator Shaheen. “It was great to see firsthand how NBRC federal funding I helped deliver is being used to revitalize the Claremont community and, most importantly, expand child care access and lower costs.”

Senator Shaheen leads efforts to support the work of NBRC and its Catalyst program, which supports a broad range of economic development initiatives in New Hampshire, including critical projects to expand access to child care and lower costs. As a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, Shaheen helped secure a $1.5 million increase in funding for the NBRC in the Fiscal Year 2026 government funding legislation.

Shaheen has remained a firm advocate of quality, affordable child care. Earlier this year, Shaheen secured key priorities in the bipartisan Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations, including $8.8 billion for the Child Care and Development Block Grant and $1.19 billion for TRIO programs, in opposition to its proposed elimination in the President’s budget. Shaheen is a vocal opponent of the Trump Administration’s attacks on Head Start, and has introduced legislation to respond to the nation’s child care shortage, including her signature, bipartisan Expanding Child Care for Military Families Act.

###


Thune: The SAVE America Act Delivers Commonsense Protections for Women’s Sports and America’s Children

Click here to 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, I said at the beginning of this debate that I was going to use the word commonsense a lot.

“And that’s because the SAVE America Act unites a bunch of commonsense policies: the kind of things that are just intuitively obvious, or at least they should be, and should be getting 80 to 90 votes – or more! – here in the Senate.

“I’ve talked at length this week about commonsense election policies like showing a photo ID at the polls – and demonstrating that you’re an American citizen (in other words, eligible to vote) when you register.

“Today I want to talk about a couple of other commonsense policies in this bill – in this case, not about protecting our elections, but about protecting our youth.

“Mr. President, in recent years we have seen men, biological men who identify as women, take up spaces in athletics meant for actual women and girls.

“And this is happening across a range of sports.

“Track. Swimming. Volleyball. Basketball. Soccer. Softball.

“And the list goes on.

“Now, I don’t think I really need to tell anyone the problems with that.

“They’re pretty obvious.

“There is the physical danger, of course, that can be posed to women by men competing in their sports.

“But more than that, Mr. President, this is an issue of fairness and equality.

“At the most basic level, every roster spot that goes to a male is a roster spot that doesn’t go to a female.

“That’s a high school girl who has lost out on the chance to play high school sports because a male has taken up her space.

“And for those women who are on the roster – the presence of a male on the team can and frequently does rob them of opportunities to excel.

“The simple, biological, scientific fact is that men possess physical advantages when it comes to sports – things like greater muscle mass and greater aerobic power.

“And that means that by and large, men are likely to dominate in women’s sports, taking wins and medal opportunities away from women.

“And it’s not just about the unfairness of losing out on a place on the podium.

“Being knocked out of medal contention can mean the loss of things like college scholarships.

“As one female runner who was robbed of multiple wins by a biological male described the situation, and I quote, ‘It robs girls of the chance to race in front of college scouts who show up for elite meets, and to compete for the scholarships and opportunities that come with college recruitment. I’ll never know how my own college recruitment was impacted by losing those four state championship titles to a male. When colleges looked at my record, they didn’t see the fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.’

“Let me read that again, Mr. President.

“‘When colleges looked at my record, they didn’t see the fastest girl in Connecticut. They saw a second- or third-place runner.’

“Mr. President, that’s unconscionable.

“And what is even more unconscionable is that my Democrat colleagues are apparently okay with allowing this to happen.

“With the way they talk about themselves as defenders of women’s rights, you would think they would be the very first people up to bat for fairness and equality for female athletes.

“But they’re not.

“Last March, the Senate took up the Protection of Women and Girls in Sports Act – legislation to ensure that women, and women only, participate in women’s sports at federally funded educational institutions.

“And every single one of my Democrat colleagues voted against the bill.

“Not one Democrat had the courage to say that women’s sports are for women.

“Mr. President, as the father of two female athletes – and grandfather to a granddaughter who has started playing sports – I feel pretty passionately about this subject.

“I’m grateful for the tremendous strides that have been made in women’s athletic programs over the past half-century.

“And I cannot believe that one half of the United States Senate is apparently content to see those gains undermined by allowing men to take up places in sports meant for women.

“With the SAVE America Act, Democrats are getting another chance to vote for legislation that would protect women’s sports.

“It would be nice if this time, they had the courage to stand up for female athletes.

“Mr. President, I wish this were the only issue – the only consequence of radical transgender ideology – that we had to worry about.

“But as bad as it is for a female athlete to lose out on a college scholarship because her achievements were overshadowed by those of a biological male, the subjection of children to gender transition procedures is even worse.

“Mr. President, in recent years, substantial numbers of children diagnosed with gender dysphoria have been prescribed puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and, in the most extreme cases, been approved for irreversible surgical procedures that permanently mutilate their bodies.

“And all of this has been done with little to no scientific evidence to support these dramatic interventions.

“The Cass Review – a landmark, comprehensive study on medicine, gender issues, and youth conducted in Great Britain – repeatedly highlights the lack of scientific evidence to support gender transition procedures for minors.

“And thanks in substantial part to that review, Britain’s National [Health] Service decided to largely discontinue providing puberty blockers to children.

“And Britain’s not the only European country that has reined in its provision of gender transition procedures for minors.

“Finland, Sweden, and Denmark have also done so, and a New York Times piece notes that there is reason to believe that there are other European countries that may follow suit.

“Meanwhile, both the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and the American Medical Association have come out against surgical gender transition procedures for minors, noting the lack of evidence to support their use.

“Mr. President, it’s become very clear that we simply do not have substantial scientific evidence to suggest that gender transition procedures benefit children.

“What we do have, however, is scientific knowledge of how dangerous these procedures can be.

“And the list of side effects is long and serious.

“A 2025 report from the Department of Health and Human Services notes that side effects for gender transition procedures can include infertility, loss of bone density, heart disease and metabolic disorders, surgical complications, negative cognitive impacts, psychiatric disorders, and more.

“It is unthinkable that we’re subjecting children to these dangers before they can have any real understanding of what they’re consenting to.

“Twelve- and thirteen-year-olds, Mr. President, cannot understand what it will mean to possibly damage their bones for the long term.

“Fourteen- and fifteen-year-olds are not capable of comprehending what giving up their fertility could mean.

“That’s because they’re children, Mr. President.

“They’re still changing and growing and developing – and through no fault of their own they simply don’t have the experience and knowledge to grasp the full magnitude of what they’re consenting to.

“Mr. President, the Senate’s been officially debating the SAVE America Act – which would ban gender transition procedures for minors – since Tuesday.

“And I have been struck by the near-total silence of my Democrat colleagues on this issue during this debate.

“Despite their embrace of the extremes of radical gender ideology – witness the refusal of even one Democrat to stand up for women in sports – I’m not sure I’ve seen a single Democrat come to the floor to defend gender transition procedures for minors.

“Now, they could just be keeping their powder dry for now.

“But I have to wonder if maybe some Democrats are reluctant to publicly advocate for subjecting children to in many cases irreversible medical procedures, backed up by little scientific evidence, with a whole host of serious, long-term side effects.

“Open the 2025 HHS report on gender transition for children, and you come across this horrifying passage, and I quote, Mr. President: ‘In many areas of medicine, treatments are first established as safe and effective in adults before being extended to pediatric populations. In this case, however, the opposite occurred: clinician-researchers developed the pediatric medical transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial outcomes in adults who underwent medical transition.’

“Let me just say that again, Mr. President.

“‘… clinician-researchers developed the pediatric medical transition protocol in response to disappointing psychosocial outcomes in adults who underwent medical transition.’

“We’ve essentially been using children as guinea pigs, Mr. President.

“It’s unconscionable.

“And it should stop now.

“The SAVE America Act will give every member of this body a chance to take a stand against the abuse of children.

“And I urge every member of this body to vote to protect children from further harm.”


Thune Joins America’s Newsroom and The Brian Kilmeade Show

Click here to watch America’s Newsroom and here to listen to Kilmeade Radio.

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

On the SAVE America Act:

“We’re going to roll through the weekend on [the SAVE America Act] into next week, and every day that we’re debating it on the floor is another day that Democrats have to try and defend an indefensible position … I … think that this … puts a spotlight on the Democrats’ opposition to something that 80 percent of the American people and a huge majority of Democrats even support.”

On voter ID:

“This is such a commonsense issue for the American people. I mean you literally … have to show a photo ID to get into a library in this country, and here we are, one of the most important sacred rights in our American system is the right to vote, and … the Democrats are saying, ‘We don’t care. I mean, we honestly don’t care.’ They’re willing to let noncitizens vote in our elections.

“It’s a very straightforward issue – show an ID, photo ID, when you vote, be a citizen to register to vote. That’s the issue at stake here, and the Democrats are currently blocking it. Again, not a defensible position. The American people believe that this policy ought to be in place, 80 percent, and a huge majority of Democrats as well. I don’t know how they can continue to defend this, but they are … trying.”

On Democrats’ DHS shutdown:

“[Democrats] keep moving the goal posts … We … haven’t seen it yet, Bill – that [Democrats are] actually serious. I think right now they think the politics work for them, which is why you’ve got Schumer and Democrat leaders talking about how serene they are about where things are. Well, I can tell you, the people that are sitting in lines at the airports right now because of the TSA shutdown are not very serene about it. This needs to be fixed, and they need to come to the table, work with the administration, and get a solution.”

[…]

“In the 35 days of this shutdown, from day one, the White House has indicated a willingness to sit down with Democrat leadership and try and resolve this and get the government and all these agencies and really important functions of our government operating again, and the Democrats have resisted … In fact, the last White House proposal, the Democrats sat on it for 18 days without responding. So we’re trying to force the issue … The White House has been incredibly accommodating trying to work with Democrats on reforms, and I think been very forthcoming in trying to get a deal here.

“The question is, do they have a partner and do Democrats actually want a deal, or do they just want an issue? And my impression, at least up until now, is this is all about politics for Chuck Schumer and the Democrats. The far-left base is demanding, again, that they fight the president. And in the meantime, you got a lot of important functions of government, a lot of people who aren’t working, jobs that aren’t getting done. And I have never seen this in my time in politics, where one political party, their hatred of a president actually surpasses what they know is in the clear interest of the safety and security of the American people.”


Tuberville Attends Ribbon Cutting of New Submarine Manufacturing Facility in Muscle Shoals

MUSCLE SHOALS – Today, U.S. Senator Tommy Tuberville (R-AL) attended the ribbon cutting ceremony of a new submarine manufacturing facility opening in Cherokee, Alabama. Hadrian’s 2.2 million square foot site will mass produce components for Virginia-class attack submarines and Columbia-class ballistic missile submarines. The Navy secured $900 million for the project through the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), which will be combined with $1.5 billion in private capital. It is estimated that the new facility will bring more than 1,000 high-paying jobs to Alabama.

As Alabama’s representative on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Tuberville fought hard to secure funding for this project through OBBB and then to bring it home to Muscle Shoals. He previewed it last week during his speech to the Huntsville Chamber of Commerce. He was honored to be joined at the ribbon cutting by Secretary of the Navy John Phelan, U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-AL), along with other officials.

“It’s been less than a year since President Trump signed his Executive Order titled ‘Restoring America’s Maritime Dominance,’” said Senator Tuberville. “And here we are today cutting the ribbon on this new manufacturing facility that will change shipbuilding forever. We are no longer limited by shipyards and coastline. We will build submarines, at least pieces of them, in Muscle Shoals, Alabama. Alabama is already a leader in space, defense, and cyber technology and now we’ll be leading the way in restoring America’s maritime dominance.”

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, Colleagues Press Trump Administration to Reverse Course on Rollback of Federal Employee Protections

U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and more than ten of his Senate colleagues are urging the Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) against implementing two rules that would severely weaken longstanding civil service protections for federal employees. The Senators submitted two letters for OPM’s official comment periods on its proposed rules regarding Suitability Action and Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals.

In the first letter, the Senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over suitability action appeals when an employee or prospective employee is deemed unsuitable for federal service from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. In the second letter, the Senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over RIF appeals from the MSPB to OPM. In both letters, the Senators expressed concern that the rules would shift the adjudication of appeals from the independent MSPB to an internal OPM process overseen by a political appointee – a clear conflict of interest in which OPM is the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter of these appeals. Further, they noted that these moves will erode protections for employees and invite political interference in workforce matters. The Senators stressed that these proposed changes are especially dangerous given the Administration’s recent abuses of federal employees.

Joining Senator Van Hollen on the suitability action appeals letter are Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.). Joining Senator Van Hollen on the reduction in force appeals letter are Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Cal.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.).

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully,” the Senators wrote in their suitability action appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades,” the Senators wrote in their RIF appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

Full text of both letters can be viewed below.

Suitability Action Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully.

Congress spoke clearly when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That law reformed the former Civil Service Commission and deliberately created separate entities with distinct missions where personnel policymaking authority was assigned to OPM and independent adjudication of workforce appeals was assigned to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This separation was not accidental. Congress sought to prevent precisely the structure this rule would create, one where the same agency that promulgates personnel policy also adjudicates claims that those policies were applied improperly or unlawfully. By transferring suitability appeals from MSPB to OPM, the proposed rule collapses this intentionally designed safeguard and recreates aspects of the system Congress chose to abandon.

By contrast, the MSPB was structured to provide independent, balanced adjudication. Removing appeals from MSPB eliminates this neutral forum and centralizes authority within the policymaking body of OPM. Under this proposal, OPM would draft suitability policies, implement those policies, and adjudicate appeals arising from them. This consolidation makes OPM the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter.

OPM contends that internal reporting structures will preserve impartiality, claiming that staff taking suitability actions will operate in separate units and report through different supervisory chains than those deciding appeals. However, in practice, this separation cannot play out when both chains ultimately report to you in your politically appointed role as the Director of OPM as the rule clearly states that the Director of OPM will be the final arbiter of appeals.

Further, the proposal comes alongside multiple rules related to removing authority from the MSPB to OPM, including the appeal process for both probationary employees and reductions in force (RIFs). Transferring all these appeal responsibilities to OPM particularly amid a reduced internal workforce and without demonstrated adjudicatory capacity risks inconsistency, delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes—the exact consequences OPM claims this rule seeks to remedy.

This rule must also be considered in the broader context of recent suitability rulemaking that would further centralize personnel authority within OPM. Taken together, these actions would concentrate extraordinary power in a single agency led by political appointees, enabling OPM to sidestep long-established due process protections that shield federal employees from adverse actions based on political considerations, retaliation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse, or other conduct protected by the merit system principles. This approach risks undermining merit based governance while weakening accountability and increasing politization.

For these reasons, we strongly urge OPM to withdraw this proposed rule and instead work collaboratively with Congress and stakeholders to modernize and improve suitability processes while maintaining the independence and merit principles that underpin our civil service system.

Reduction in Force Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades.

In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress divided the former Civil Service Commission’s responsibilities between OPM and MSPB, assigning OPM the task of promulgation and interpretation of federal personnel policy, while entrusting MSPB with the independent adjudication of workforce appeals. This separation was not incidental; it was designed to prevent the very conflict of interest this proposed rule would create. By consolidating policymaking and adjudicatory authority within OPM, the agency that writes and interprets RIF regulations would also determine whether those same regulations were lawfully applied. The proposed rule directly contradicts the statutory framework Congress deliberately constructed to safeguard neutrality and merit principles.

The proposed rule contends that the current “dual-track” structure by which OPM creates RIF regulations and MSPB adjudicates appeals creates inefficiencies. It also asserts that MSPB, as opposed to OPM, lacks institutional expertise about RIFs. However, the quasi-judicial procedures available before MSPB, which include hearings, discovery, and the development of a formal record, are not bureaucratic obstacles; rather, they are consequential safeguards for employees in a merit-based system. Particularly in RIF disputes involving complex claims related to the application of retention factors, preferences, or allegations of improper motive, a transparent and independent process is critical to preserve procedural fairness and employees’ rights.

The proposal further undermines both efficiency and independence by designating the Director of OPM as the final decision-maker in workforce appeals. Concentrating final adjudicatory authority in a single political appointee could create delays, and it would erode the structural independence Congress sought to protect when it separated this type of policymaking from its adjudication.

Additionally, OPM has not demonstrated that it possesses the adjudicatory capacity necessary to replace MSPB’s established system. The rule would shift appeals to OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC), which reports directly to the OPM Director and lacks the independent, balanced, multi-member board structure of the MSPB. Transferring appeals without evidence of readiness would risk inconsistent determinations, procedural delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes, which are the very issues the proposal claims to address.

Further, this rule accompanies several other proposed rules that would shift additional authority from the MSPB to OPM, including appeals involving probationary employees and suitability determinations. Concentrating all these adjudicatory functions within OPM at a time of reduced internal staffing and without demonstrated capacity would create further risk of inconsistent determinations and procedural delays.

Equally troubling is the erosion of procedural safeguards acknowledged within the proposal itself. Eliminating or weakening hearing rights and evidentiary collection processes would diminish the ability of employees to meaningfully challenge agency errors and would undermine confidence in the integrity of the system.

Finally, this proposal cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of the Administration’s attacks on the merit-based federal workforce. Recent attempts at mass removals and the President’s rhetoric suggesting that personnel actions are directed at political opponents underscore the importance of maintaining robust, independent oversight of RIF actions. Even if this restructuring were presented as purely administrative, it would still collapse the policymaking and adjudicatory separation Congress directed. Especially in the current political climate, the agency that sets personnel policy should not also have adjudicatory authority. If it were to have this concentrated authority, it would heighten the risk of misuse and politicization of workforce decisions.

As members of Congress, we have witnessed firsthand the vital services delivered to the American people by a nonpartisan and highly skilled federal workforce. It is our responsibility to ensure that the civil service remains protected from political retaliation and that it is guaranteed full due process rights. This proposed rule runs counter to those principles. We strongly urge OPM to reject it and instead collaborate with Congress to responsibly manage and modernize federal workforce operations.