Ricketts Hosts Omaha Roundtable on Working Families Tax Cuts; Focuses on Wins for Workers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last week, U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-NE) hosted a Working Families Tax Cuts roundtable at La Casa Pizzeria in Omaha. The roundtable focused on provisions from the Working Families Tax Cuts that will benefit families and restaurant workers.

“Nebraska is the best place in the world to work, live, and raise a family. Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts, it’s going to get even better,” said Ricketts. “During the roundtable, I heard from Nebraska restaurant owners, franchisees, and hotel managers. One restaurant owner told me the Working Families Tax Cuts will help him do a deferred maintenance on his restaurant. Another manager told me of a waitress who received an extra $1,500 in her tax returns as a result of the no tax on overtime provision. The Working Families Tax Cuts will benefit hard-working Nebraskans such as restaurant and hotel workers.”

“The local restaurant and hospitality industry appreciates Sen. Ricketts’ support and his vote for the Working Families Tax Cuts,” said Nicole Jesse, owner of La Casa Pizzeria. “The Qualified Business Income deduction will be especially important to my small business, because I can reinvest the savings into new equipment and general maintenance needs to help us stay competitive. And for our employees the No Tax on Tips and No Tax on Overtime means more take-home pay, which they really have welcomed.”

“The Working Families Tax Cut provisions are good for Nebraska’s restaurant and hospitality business owners and workforce,”said Linda Dennis, Executive Director of the Nebraska Hospitality Association. “The No Tax on Tips deduction for servers and bartenders alone will put up to $38 million dollars back in their pockets when they file their tax return. It was great for our members to get to talk with Sen. Ricketts about the savings and thank him for his support of the state restaurant and hospitality industry.”

“The restaurant industry is a powerful economic engine – generating more than $1.4 trillion in annual economic activity and employing more than 15 million people nationwide,”said Sean Kennedy, executive vice president for Public Affairs at the National Restaurant Association.“The pro-growth tax policies in the Working Families Tax Cut help make it easier to grow or modernize a restaurant and put more money in the pockets of many of our workers. We appreciate Sen. Ricketts’ support of restaurants and hospitality businesses and welcomed the opportunity to share the impact his decisions in Washington have on businesses back home.”

The roundtable featured local Nebraska small business owners, franchisees, restaurant owners, and hotel managers.


IN CASE YOU MISSED IT… Sens. Rick Scott, Tom Cotton Urge AG Bondi to Investigate Communist Chinese-Owned Surrogacy Centers

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Last Thursday, Senator Rick Scott led a letter with Senator Tom Cotton urging Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate surrogacy centers operated by foreign nationals, especially centers run by those with ties to Communist China. Recent reports highlight how Communist Chinese nationals exploit our current surrogacy system and birthright citizenship laws to infiltrate the United States, while abusing newborns and U.S. surrogate mothers.

This letter follows the introduction of Senator Scott’s SAFE KIDS Act, which would prevent adversarial nations, like Communist China, from abusing our surrogacy system.

Read the full letter HERE or below:

Dear Attorney General Bondi:

We write requesting that the Department of Justice (DOJ) investigate surrogacy centers operated by foreign nationals. Alarming reports indicate that Chinese nationals are systematically exploiting America’s surrogacy and birthright citizenship laws.

Recent reports have uncovered more than 107 Chinese-owned surrogacy agencies operating in Southern California alone. These agencies cater almost exclusively to wealthy Chinese clients, and some are affiliated with Chinese state-owned entities. Chinese nationals pay women living in the United States more than $50,000 to serve as surrogates. The children are born on United States soil and granted automatic citizenship. And in most cases, the infants are promptly flown to China and raised there under the direct influence of the Chinese Communist Party.

In one instance, a single Chinese billionaire has fathered more than 100 American-born children through this process, with the explicit goal of producing male heirs who hold U.S. passports. These children will eventually be eligible to vote in American elections, access sensitive positions, or otherwise advance Beijing’s interests, all while owing their allegiance to the CCP. This not only exploits our current immigration and citizenship laws, but also raises serious concerns whether this is a deliberate, long-term strategy by an adversary to ideologically and systematically undermine the United States. This practice poses a serious national security risk.

We therefore request that the DOJ launch a full investigation into the matter. We also respectfully request written responses to the following questions no later than March 13, 2026:

Has the DOJ identified any potential violations of federal statutes—including but not limited to immigration fraud, human trafficking, or foreign-agent registration requirements—by foreign-owned surrogacy agencies or their clients?

What is the DOJ’s current estimate of the total number of surrogacy clinics and agencies operated by foreign nationals nationwide?

Of those clinics and agencies, how many are owned or primarily controlled by Chinese nationals?

We look forward to working with you on this matter.

###


Schatz Condemns Trump’s War Of Choice Against Iran

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i) spoke on the Senate floor today against President Trump’s “war of choice” against Iran. Schatz voiced his support for a War Powers Resolution to block U.S. military action in Iran and highlighted the president’s failure to explain to the public why military action was necessary.

“This is a war of choice. It did not have to happen,” said Senator Schatz, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. “There was no imminent threat from Iran. The indications right up until the attacks were that negotiations were actually trending well. And remember that if Donald Trump hadn't pulled out of the JCPOA to begin with, Iran's nuclear program would have continued to be managed. This is the president of the United States asserting that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, with the most powerful military in history at his disposal.”

Senator Schatz added, “Congress has a duty not just to check a reckless president, but also to represent the will of the people. And the American people – left, right and center – do not want another regime change war in the Middle East.”

A transcript of Senator Schatz’s remarks is available here. Video is available here.

This is a war of choice. It did not have to happen. There was no imminent threat from Iran. The indications right up until the attacks were that negotiations were actually trending well. And remember that if Donald Trump hadn't pulled out of the JCPOA to begin with, Iran's nuclear program would have continued to be managed.

This is the president of the United States asserting that he can do whatever he wants, wherever he wants, with the most powerful military in history at his disposal. It is important to point out that a lot of people put Donald Trump in office because he promised to oppose forever wars. It was central to his foreign policy pitch as a candidate for over a decade. But what we've seen in the past two months alone is a president that is eager to use kinetic force as a first option and then figure it out from there. And the challenge with the Venezuela action was that our men and women in the military and intelligence agencies, they executed that thing so efficiently and effectively, that I think Donald Trump got it into his head. ‘This is great. What else you got? This is great. What are we doing this in Cuba? Are we doing this in Iran? What else you got?’ And so he gets on an airplane, and he starts shooting the breeze with members of the Republican Congress, and he decides in that moment, on Air Force One, to start a war.

In the days after capturing Nicolas Maduro, the administration offered up confusing and contradictory claims. They said that the United States was going to run Venezuela indefinitely, but then left most of the illegitimate Maduro regime in place. They said that American companies would go in and rebuild the refineries, even though most of the American companies said they wanted nothing to do with it. And maybe most confusingly, they said that the United States would control oil sales, but not the revenue from those sales. Two months later, we still don't know what their plan is, and that was easy compared to this. That was easy compared to this.

There is no coherent strategy, much less an attempt to even explain it. I want everybody to understand how unique this is in American history – maybe world history. To have a leader say, ‘I declare war, and I'll let you know why later. I'm going to send Secretary Hegseth out there to say some things that are kind of indecipherable.’ Then Secretary Rubio, certainly a better communicator, but also still indecipherable. And then the president of the United States has a press conference, presumably to explain himself. And he's personally so distracted by the ballroom renovation that it makes me sound like I'm some person who is so obsessed with Donald Trump that I watch MSNBC – I have a IV drip of MSNBC and TikTok to make me hate this president – but actually that's what he did. He took a kinetic action against another country. And then when it was his time to explain why, he sort of talked a bit about it, but then he was really passionate about the curtains that he chose, about the color of the ballroom, about the jackhammers running from 6:30 a.m. to 11 p.m.. That's his passion. And he is letting these neoconservatives run wild within his administration.

And I want to make a very specific point about tomorrow's, hopefully, tomorrow's, War Powers resolution, introduced by Senator Kaine and others to block the use of American forces in Iran. I will support that, of course. But make no mistake. If a War Powers Resolution is defeated, that does not constitute an authorization of the use of military force. The way this works, right, is that a president has some flexibility to basically take a kinetic action, to use the United States military to protect American interests if there is an imminent threat. What do we mean by imminent threat? It is what it sounds like. They're about to attack us.

And Secretary Rubio, again, very good communicator, and I talk to him all the time. He said it about an hour and a half ago. He said the imminent threat – I want you to listen to this logic chain. The imminent threat to the United States was that Israel was going to attack Iran, and we anticipated that in retaliation, Iran was going to attack our interests, therefore imminent threat. That's not what we mean by imminent threat. There are no bank shots when we're describing an imminent threat. If we want to conduct a war of choice, and we have in the past, we need hearings. We need briefings. We need a proper debate. And then we need a vote on the authorization of the use of military force. That is foundational to the oath of office that we took when we became United States Senators.

This is actually not a particularly controversial point, except that we're in this very weird moment where I think the public was sort of not tracking at all that maybe the president was going to wake up one morning and go, ‘Why don't we go to war with Iran? I'll explain it to you over a period of time.’ And I understand that his method of communication is, if nothing else, rather unconventional and meandering and contingent, and he thinks he's preserving his optionality. Maybe it'll be short, maybe it'll be long. We'll see what happens. All that stuff. You can't do that with the American people. The American people are not his negotiating counterpart. They are the foundation that you need if you are going to take a military action. If you're going to go to war, you need the American people behind you. And you need them to understand why in the heck are we doing this.

Do I think Iran is a malevolent actor in the region and even across the planet? Of course I do. But that's not the question at hand. The question at hand is, why in the world are we trying to do another regime change? Iraq, Libya, Vietnam. I don't care what you think should happen. This is a question of what is very likely to happen based on what always happens when our extraordinary, trained, courageous military executes well, and in the first couple of days, there's two things that everybody does. They correctly praise are United States service members. And then if anybody raises any objections, they go, ‘Oh, you want that bad guy still in power? Is that what you want?’ Of course, I don't want a bad guy in power. However, the world is full of bad guys in power. And so the question at hand is not do I wish there were better people in charge of other countries, but rather has it met the threshold for the United States government to declare war against another country, especially in a region where we keep screwing it up.

That's not a rhetorical flourish. I sound like Donald Trump a year-and-a-half ago. He just is so fixated. I don't know if it's the ballroom or his legacy or some sort of revenge fantasy about Iran, but this man is not thinking clearly, either politically or geo-strategically. Geo-strategically, this is a terrible decision, and he has no plan for what happens next. His view is, just like Venezuela, we're going to decapitate the person we don't like, we'll get a client state. Not so easy in Iran, not so easy in Iran. And these things have a terrible tendency to metastasize. They really do. And after the Iraq War, my goodness, I thought there was going to be bipartisan consensus that we are not going to go into a war of choice again.

Congress has a duty not just to check a reckless president, but also to represent the will of the people. And the American people, left, right and center, do not want another regime change war in the Middle East. It's about time our president started paying attention to the American people.

###


Sheehy Statement on Zinke’s Retirement Announcement

U.S. SENATE – Senator Tim Sheehy today released the following statement on Congressman Ryan Zinke’s retirement announcement:

“Commander Zinke is a great American who dedicated his life to serving our nation and delivering results for Montanans. A fellow Navy SEAL and public servant, he has been a role model, mentor, and friend. Montana owes him a deep debt of gratitude, and he will be deeply missed in the halls of Congress.”


Slotkin Announces Support for New Bipartisan Bill to Create a Strategic Critical Minerals Reserve

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) announced her support for a new bipartisan, bicameral piece of legislation that supports domestic supply chains for critical minerals to meet national and economic security needs through the creation of a new Strategic Resilience Reserve (SRR).

“Everything from our cars to the chips in our defense systems require critical minerals,” said Senator Slotkin. “This legislation ensures we have a plan to stockpile critical minerals, counter China and protect our economy. This is an important to step to ensure China or other hostile nations never have a veto over our national security or our economy.”

The Securing Essential and Critical U.S. Resources and Elements (SECURE) Minerals Act:

Establishes the SRR in an independent government corporation—run by a seven-member board appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

The board will focus on supporting the critical minerals market, through stabilizing prices and expanding domestic and allied production capacity.

The legislation also prioritizes support for projects that recycle, reuse or repurpose critical minerals or extract minerals from mining or industrial waste.

Last year, Slotkin introduced bipartisan legislation highlighting the need to cut through the red tape and allow for an expedited environmental review to streamline federal permitting for critical defense and energy supply chain projects.

The bill was introduced by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Todd Young (R-IN), alongside U.S. Representatives Rob Wittman (R-VA-01) and John Moolenaar (R-MI-02).

Click here to read full bill text.

###


Slotkin, Peters Urge Secretary Noem to Redesignate and Extend TPS for Yemen Due to the Ongoing Armed Conflict

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Gary Peters (D‑MI) are urging DHS Secretary Kristi Noem to reverse her recent decision ending Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Yemeni nationals in the U.S. In a letter to Noem, the senators stress that terminating TPS will force hundreds of Yemeni nationals, including a significant number in Michigan, to risk their lives by returning to a country facing an ongoing armed conflict, economic collapse, food insecurity, and the breakdown of essential services.

“Yemeni nationals currently present in the United States should not be forced to return,” wrote the senators. “Extending and redesignating Yemen for TPS would enable Yemeni nationals currently in the United States, including business owners, workers, students, taxpayers, and community members who contribute positively to local economies and civic life, to be able to remain safely in the United States and to work legally to support themselves and their families.”

The senators continued in their letter: “Yemen was initially designated for TPS on September 3, 2015, because forcing Yemeni nationals to return to Yemen would pose a serious threat to their personal safety due to the ongoing armed conflict. The Department of Homeland Security has either extended, or extended and redesignated, Yemen for TPS multiple times.”

“We urge you to extend and redesignate Yemen for TPS to protect Yemeni nationals in the United States without delay – in accordance with the law, facts on the ground, and America’s longstanding commitment to humane immigration policy.” the senators concluded.

Text of the full letter is available here.

###


Thune on U.S. Airstrikes in Iran

Clickhereto watch the video.

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

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, over the weekend, American forces took action against the long-time threat posed by the mullahs in Tehran.

“For decades, Iran has fomented terror throughout the Middle East, endangering U.S. servicemembers, U.S. citizens and personnel in the region, and many of our allies.

“In addition, Iran has relentlessly pursued the development of its own nuclear program, despite repeated violations identified by the international atomic watchdog, the IAEA.

“Iran is also aggressively growing the range and inventory of its ballistic missiles and launchers – an inventory that is already the largest in the region.

“Combine that with a navy that aims to threaten a key shipping channel, and it is clear that Iran poses a serious risk to America’s national security interests, as well as those of our allies and partners.

“Mr. President, President Trump and his administration relentlessly pursued a diplomatic solution to the threat posed by Iran, but the Iranian regime refused diplomatic off-ramps.

“And so now the president is taking action.

“My prayers are for the success of the mission, and, above all, for the safety of U.S. personnel in harm’s way.

“Four U.S. servicemembers have lost their lives as a result of Iranian attacks.

“My thoughts and prayers today are with their families and loved ones, and with their fellow servicemembers.”


Thune: Senate Bill to Unlock Affordable Housing for Working Families

Clickhereto watch the video.

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

Thune’s remarks below (as delivered):

“Mr. President, ask a group of people what they think of when they think of the American dream, and homeownership is pretty likely to come up.

“A house, a neighborhood, a yard for the kids (or pet) to play.

“Getting the keys to a place of your own.

“That’s a part of the American dream for a lot of Americans.

“But it’s a part of the American dream that has been increasingly out of reach for many.

“A lot of Americans – particularly younger Americans – are simply being priced out of the housing market.

“Home prices have risen sharply in the past few years – surging roughly 50 percent since the pandemic, according to the New York Times.

“A 2025 report from the Joint Center for Housing Studies at Harvard reported, and I quote, ‘the US median existing single-family home price hit a new high of $412,500 in 2024, according to the National Association of Realtors. This is a shocking five times the median household income and significantly above the price-to-income ratio of 3 that has traditionally been considered affordable.”

“Well, with numbers like these, Mr. President, it’s no wonder that the age of first-time homebuyers has risen sharply as well – to an all-time high of age 40.

“Mr. President, the American people have been through a lot over the last few years – notably the historic inflation crisis that defined the Biden administration.

“And since we took office last January, Republicans’ priority here in Congress has been easing the burden on hardworking Americans.

“That started with preventing the massive, $2.6 trillion tax hike that was scheduled to hit Americans making less than $400,000 a year.

“And it continued with a slew of new tax relief for hardworking Americans in the Working Families Tax Cuts, which Republicans passed last summer.

“There’s nothing like having more money in your pocket to make it a little easier to deal with financial challenges and unexpected bills.

“In January of this year, we took aim at health care costs, with a bill that included multiple measures to lower the price of prescription drugs at the pharmacy counter.

“And this week, Mr. President, we are tackling the challenges of homeownership and beginning work on the most significant housing bill in a decade or more.

“The ROAD to Housing Act, the product of extensive work from the Senate Banking Committee (and particularly from its chairman Tim Scott), packages together a number of bills focused on lowering housing costs and increasing housing supply.

“And it takes aim at these goals in multiple ways.

“One primary focus of the bill is removing unnecessary regulatory barriers that drive up the cost of housing or complicate construction.

“The bill’s Housing Supply Expansion Act, for example – which is the product of Senators Britt, Tillis, Crapo, and others – removes the outdated chassis requirement for manufactured housing.

“This will not only lower the cost of manufactured homes, but it will also allow for more innovation in the manufactured-home design process, such as two-story houses.

“Manufactured homes are already substantially less expensive than site-built dwellings, and removing the outdated chassis rule will further increase their affordability – and create more manufactured options that suit more families.

“And that, Mr. President, is just the tip of the iceberg.

“Senator Rounds has multiple bills in the ROAD to Housing Act that will increase housing supply by streamlining the environmental review process.

“The Choice in Affordable Housing Act – the work of Senators Cramer, Sullivan, Moran, and Curtis as well as others – will streamline inspection requirements for affordable homes financed by multiple government programs.

“And I could go on.

“There are a lot more measures in the ROAD to Housing Act to eliminate or streamline regulations.

“And with regulations accounting for around 25 percent of the costs of constructing a single-family dwelling, and for roughly 40 percent of the costs of multifamily housing projects, anything we can do to streamline and simplify can go a long way toward making housing more affordable.

“But the ROAD to Housing Act does a lot more than simply targeting unnecessary regulations.

“The act is also designed to unleash private-sector investment in more affordable homes.

“ROAD Act legislation from Senators Scott, Moreno, McCormick, Cassidy, and Crapo, for example, will increase a statutory cap that limits banks’ ability to invest in more affordable housing and other community development projects.

“The Build Now Act from Senator Kennedy creates a pilot program to incentivize a wide variety of housing development in communities that participate in the federal Community Development Block Grant program.

“Mr. President, there’s a lot more in the ROAD to Housing Act than I can discuss in one speech.

“There’s much more I could say on the ways this bill will streamline regulation and unleash investment.

“And I haven’t even mentioned the bill’s provisions to help veterans, or increase the supply of housing in rural communities, or help Americans living in government-assisted housing build the savings they need for homeownership.

“There is a lot in this bill, Mr. President.

“And I want to extend my thanks to Banking Committee Chairman Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren for putting in the work to assemble so many good pieces of legislation and to get the final product to the floor.

“The ROAD to Housing Act doesn’t spend a single taxpayer dollar, Mr. President.

“But by removing barriers to affordable housing construction and unleashing investment, this bill stands to open the door to affordable homes for hardworking Americans around the country.

“And I look forward to passing this legislation in the very near future.”


Van Hollen, Warren, Markey, Pressley, Lawmakers Question Rubio on Abuse of Power to Deport Students, Academics; Violation of First Amendment Rights

U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), led 12 lawmakers in pressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio on his abuse of power and possible First Amendment violations. Recent reports revealed that under Secretary Rubio, the State Department reportedly targeted students and academics for detention and deportation based on constitutionally protected speech.

“This abuse of your authority risks normalizing a future where Secretaries of State may summarily revoke visas based on speech, depriving individuals of their rights and whittling down the guarantees of the First Amendment,” wrote the lawmakers.

Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Representatives Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), joined in signing the letter.

Recently unsealed court records confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security identified students for deportation based on the students’ articles, participation in protests, and social media posts, and shared that information with the State Department. Many of the students were detained for months, despite the fact that none of them were accused of a crime at the time — or have been to date.

Among those detained was Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, a Massachusetts resident who was arrested and had her visa revoked in March 2025, reportedly because of an op-ed she wrote related to the war in Gaza. The State Department has admitted that it does not have any evidence Ozturk engaged in anti-Semitic activity.

Columbia University students, as well as a Georgetown University post-doc student, were arrested and detained on similar grounds. The unsealed documents reveal that the State Department determined it did not have evidence to justify deporting these students on the basis of allegedly supporting terrorists. At the same time, the administration has said that some students displayed “support for a terrorist organization” on social media.

“[These memos] raise substantial questions about the process the State Department follows, if any, in independently verifying the evidence presented by DHS in whether to pursue deportations,” wrote the lawmakers.

The lawmakers expressed particular concern over Secretary Rubio’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives the Secretary of State the power to deport noncitizens the Secretary believes “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Rubio was reportedly advised to personally determine whether this provision justified many of the deportations, a power that had never previously been exercised.

The lawmakers asked the Secretary to provide detailed explanations regarding the unprecedented invocation of this personal authority and all of the cases in which he has determined that a noncitizen be deported, as well as the agency’s reliance on information provided by political organizations to inform its determinations.

This letter is endorsed by The National Immigration Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

The full text of the letter is available here and below.

Dear Secretary Rubio:

We write with regard to recent disclosures that the government appeared to target students largely based on their speech, potentially violating their First Amendment rights while seeking their deportation despite the fact that none of these students were accused of a crime at the time or have been to date.

In the spring of 2025, you “personally approved the deportation of five students activists” based on an ill-conceived, and unconstitutional, legal theory. At the time, we raised concerns that this was part of a broader pattern of arresting students with valid green cards and visas because of their political views. Recently unsealed court documents confirm that the State Department and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) assessed the students’ speech and participation in protests around the war in Gaza and that you personally approved their arrest and the revocation of their visas in the United States. The documents show that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provided summaries to State evaluating the students’ articles, speeches, and social media posts. Testimony by a DHS official affirms that the Department’s work was heavily informed by organizations called Canary Mission, “an opaque, anonymous pro-Israel group,” and Betar U.S.

These reports reveal that State and ICE took these actions even though government “officials privately anticipated the possibility that the deportations might not hold up in court because much of the conduct highlighted could be seen as protected speech.” For example, a State Department official determined that “a court may consider [one student’s] actions inextricably tied to speech protected under the First Amendment.”

We are particularly concerned by the unprecedented use of Section 237 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) to justify many of these removals. The provision states that, “[a]n alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States is deportable.” You were reportedly advised that in “cases in which the basis for this determination is the alien’s past, current, or expected beliefs, statements, or associations that are otherwise lawful, the Secretary of State must personally determine that the alien’s presence or activities would compromise a compelling U.S. foreign policy interest.” Before your decision to revoke the visas, the State Department itself acknowledged that it was not aware “of any prior exercises of the Secretary’s removal authority in INA Section 237(a)(4)(C),” and that the courts might “scrutinize the basis for these determinations.” In one case, you appear to have also relied on Section 221(i) of the INA to revoke the visa of a student who engaged in activity protected by the First Amendment and pursue their deportation.

You personally justified the removals of these students by citing a national foreign policy objective of combatting anti-Semitism, while on social media labeling some of the students as supporting terrorists. However, in the case of Tufts student Rümeysa Öztürk, the State Department wrote that “DHS/ICE/HIS has not…provided any evidence showing that OZTURK has engaged in any antisemitic activity or made any public statements indicating support for a terrorist organization or antisemitism generally.” The State Department further determined in an internal memo that DHS was unable to identify any other legal avenue for deporting Columbia University students Yunseo Chung, Mohsen Mahdawi, or Mahmoud Khalil, including removability on the grounds of a noncitizen having “provided material support to a foreign terrorist organization or terrorist activity.” The State Department made the same determination in the cases of Rümeysa Öztürk and Georgetown University student Badar Khan Suri, conceding that it could not identify factual grounds for deportation based on support to a foreign terrorist organization. These State Department’s assessments raise serious concerns about the factual basis of your decisions under the authority granted in INA Sections 237(a)(4)(C) and 221(i) and whether you purposely misled the public about your use of these authorities.

The released memos also raise substantial questions about the process the State Department follows, if any, in independently verifying the evidence presented by DHS in whether to pursue deportations.

In attempting to deport these five students, a court ruled that you took actions “to chill the rights to freedom of speech and peacefully to assemble” of students and academics across the country. Already, noncitizen student journalists at other universities have attested to their inability to freely cover the impact of the war in Gaza on their campuses, even as the administration attempts to dismiss their cases against the federal government under the claim that the government “do[es] not pursue visa revocations and removal proceedings purely based on political speech.” These documents seem to suggest otherwise. This abuse of your authority risks normalizing a future where Secretaries of State may summarily revoke visas based on speech, depriving individuals of their rights and whittling down the guarantees of the First Amendment.

In order to fulfill our legislative responsibilities, we request that you provide written responses to the following questions no later than March 16, 2026:

Questions

1. Since 1990, in how many cases has the Secretary of State personally determined that a noncitizen should be deported pursuant to INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)?

a. Please provide a list of all instances in which a former Secretary of State has invoked this authority, and the circumstances for such invocation. Include the date of the invocation of the authority, the individual identified for removal, and the current status of those proceedings.

b. Please provide a list of all instances in which a former Secretary of State has invoked this authority, and under what circumstances they did so. Include the date of the invocation of the authority, the individual identified for removal, and the current status of those proceedings.

2. For how many individuals have you personally determined that a noncitizen’s presence in the United States compromises a compelling United States foreign policy interest and recommended the initiation of deportation proceedings pursuant to INA section 237(a)(4) (C)?

a. Please provide a list of all such individuals, the compelling foreign policy interest for such determinations, and the date of each authorization.

3. How many individuals have had their nonimmigrant visas revoked pursuant to INA section 221(i) based on speech or other activity normally protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution?

4. What is the State Department’s current policy for assessing whether to pursue deportations under INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)?

a. Does the State Department have an independent process for verifying factual assessments made by ICE, other parts of DHS, or any other U.S. Government (USG) agency when pursuing an INA Section 237(a)(4)(C) removal?

i. If so, provide any documentation reflecting the procedures of this process.

b. Has the State Department made any revisions to its policy for deportation under INA Section 237(a)(4)(C) since January 2025?

i. If so, please provide documentation and description of any updates.

c. Did information from Canary Mission or Betar U.S. inform the State Department’s determination when recommending any INA Section 237(a)(4)(C) removals?

i. Does the State Department ever consider input from political organizations in establishing the factual basis for its determinations in INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)? If so, what criteria does the Department use to determine the credibility of the information provided and the integrity of the organization?

d. Does the State Department have a process for receiving recommendations for revoking visas and pursuing deportations under INA Section 237(a)(4)(c)?

i. If so, please provide a copy of any policy that documents this process.

e. Does the State Department have any partnerships with outside organizations to investigate visa holders subject to an INA Section 237(a)(4)(C) removal?

i. If so, please provide a list of outside organizations that the Department partners with, and a description of their contracted or agreed-upon responsibilities in this process.

f. Have you met the statutory requirement to notify the Chair of the appropriate committees of jurisdiction of the invocation of INA Section 237(a)(4)(C)?

i. Please produce copies of any notifications that were provided.

ii. If notifications were not provided, what was the basis for not providing those notifications?

5. What is the State Department’s current policy for reviewing visa revocation and denial under INA 221(i)?

a. Does the State Department have an independent process for verifying factual assessments made by ICE, other parts of DHS, or any other U.S. Government (USG) agency when pursuing an INA Section 221(i) visa revocation?

i. If so, provide any documentation reflecting the procedures of this process.

b. Did information from Canary Mission or Betar U.S. inform the State Department’s determination when recommending any INA Section 221(i) removals?

i. Does the State Department ever consider input from political organizations in establishing the factual basis for its determinations under INA Section 221(i)? If so, what criteria does the Department use to determine the credibility of the information provided and the integrity of the organization?

c. Has the State Department made any revisions to its policy for visa revocation under INA Section 221(i) since January 2025? i. If so, please provide documentation and description of any updates.

d. Does the State Department have a process for receiving recommendations for revoking visas under INA Section 221(i)?

i. If so, please provide a copy of any policy that documents this process.

e. Does the State Department have any partnerships with outside organizations to investigate visa holders to pursue INA Section 221(i) revocations?

i. If so, please provide a list of outside organizations that the Department partners with, and a description of their contracted or agreed-upon responsibilities in this process.

Sincerely,


Warner, Kaine Press Department of Education on Decision to Limit Student Loans to Health Care Workers

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, (both D-VA) sent a letter to Secretary of Education Linda McMahon pressing her on the Department of Education’s decision to propose student financial aid provisions that alter the definition of “professional degree” to only include doctorate-level degrees. This rule would limit the amount that many health care workers who require long, costly programs for professional licensure could borrow. At a time when Virginia – like the rest of the country – is facing a health care workforce crisis and is in need of tens of thousands of health care workers, this cap on student loan borrowing does not reflect the needs of the health care system.

“We write to raise concern over the Department of Education’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the student financial aid provisions included in Public Law 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While we have broad concerns regarding the elimination of the Federal Direct Grad PLUS loan program and the implementation of new annual and lifetime student loan limits in Public Law 119-21, we write today with concern specifically regarding the proposal to exclude certain critical post-baccalaureate health care degrees from the regulatory definition of ‘professional degree.’ This decision caps student loan borrowing limits for these professionals at a lower threshold than those included in the proposed definition at a time when Virginia and our country face a health care workforce crisis that worsens by the day. We urge you to recognize this health emergency and broaden the definition of ‘professional degree’ to ensure it reflects the reality of our health care system and doesn’t worsen a crisis that already exists in all corners of our country,” wrote the senators.

Republicans’ budget megabill, which was passed last year without a single Democratic vote, states that students earning “professional degrees” may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate in student loans, yet those earning “graduate degrees” are subject to borrowing limits of $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate. Under this law and the Department of Education’s proposed interpretation of the term “professional degree,” student financial aid would be limited for advanced practice registered nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, social workers, and more, despite the expertise of these health care workers being just as critical as the expertise of doctors and dentists.

The senators stressed, “Virginia, consistent with trends nationwide, is facing historic ongoing health care workforce shortages. As of July 2024, all 133 localities in Virgina are federally designated as behavioral health shortage areas and 96 localities are designated as primary care shortage areas, with 44% of neighborhoods lacking acceptable access to primary care services. According to a study by George Mason University’s Center for Health Workforce, Virginia is in need of over 17,000 more registered nurses, 3,700 more physical therapists, and 2,400 more mental health and substance use disorder social workers to meet the health care needs of our constituents. If current trends persist, these shortages in the nursing, primary care, and behavioral health workforce are set to increase in Virginia. This problem is not unique to our Commonwealth; nationwide, it is projected that 1.2 million new nurses will be needed by 2030 to address existing health care workforce shortages.”

Every county in Southwest Virginia, with the exception of Pulaski, Montgomery, and Roanoke counties, is a designated Health Professional Shortage Area (HPSA). The region needs more than 860 nurses, 200 physical therapists, and 130 postsecondary health specialties teachers. Additionally, Hampton Roads need more than 2,800 nurses, 934 physical therapists, 437 mental health and substance use disorder social workers, and 131 postsecondary health specialties teachers. Central Virginia also needs more than 800 nurses.

“Cutting off access to adequate federal loan amounts will needlessly exacerbate the rapidly worsening workforce crisis impacting Virginians and Americans across the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that individuals in certain professions default more often than those in other professions, raising the question of why there is the need to limit borrowing by profession. In fact, the degrees being excluded from the RISE Committee’s definition of ‘professional degree’ are amongst some of the fastest growing jobs in the country. Average job growth is projected to be 3 percent in the next ten years; in contrast, job growth is projected to be 11 percent for physical therapists and audiologists, 14 percent for occupational therapists, 19 percent for speech-language pathologists, 20 percent for physician assistants, and over 40 percent for advanced nursing degree jobs. Now is the time to bolster support for individuals training to enter our health care workforce, not make it harder for them to afford to pursue degrees in nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and other key health care professions desperately needed in our communities,” the senators added.

Warner and Kaine concluded the letter by urging the Department of Education to expand the definition of “professional degree” to include a more comprehensive list of post-baccalaureate health care degrees. If health care professionals and trainees are blocked access to necessary financial support, Virginia and the nation’s health care workforce crisis will only worsen.

During a recent roundtable at Virginia Health Catalyst in Glen Allen, Sen. Warner heard directly from Virginians, health care providers, and stakeholders about the health care workforce crisis and the added stress that this new student financial aid provision will place on the health care system.

This letter is endorsed by the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA) Virginia, National Association of Hispanic Nurses DC Metro Chapter, Philippine Nurses Association of Virginia Inc (PNAVA), Society of Southeastern Virginia Oncology Nursing Society (SEVONS), The Speech Language Hearing Association of Virginia, Urologic Nurses and Associates Chapter 111 (SUNA), UVA Health, Virginia Association of Clinical Nurse Specialists (VaCNS), Virginia Association of Colleges of Nursing (VACN), Virginia Association of Nurse Anesthesiologists, Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners, Virginia Nurses Association, and Virginia Occupational Therapy Association.

“As we consider the critical healthcare needs of our Commonwealth and country, APTA Virginia is deeply concerned by the Department of Education's proposed rule to exclude the Doctor of Physical Therapy (DPT) from the ‘professional degree’ classification. At a time when our profession is facing a 9.5% vacancy rate in outpatient physical therapy, nearly double the national average of vacancies in other professions, limiting the financial resources for these doctoral students will exacerbate our provider shortages, increase patient wait times, and decrease patient outcomes. If the DPT were to be classified as a professional degree with a $50,000 annual limit, 90% of our nation's programs can continue training the workforce we desperately need,” said APTA Virginia President Emily J. Hawkins, PT, DPT, PhD.

“The Speech-Language-Hearing Association of Virginia joins our state legislators and health care partners in expressing strong support for expanding access to federal financial aid and loan programs for students pursuing degrees in health care professions. Speech-language pathologists and audiologists are vital members of Virginia’s health care system—supporting individuals across the lifespan with communication, hearing, and swallowing needs—yet both professions face growing difficulties in recruitment and retention due to educational costs and limited loan access. Ensuring equitable access to federal financial support for these programs is essential to rebuilding and sustaining Virginia’s health care workforce—and to safeguarding the communication health of our communities,” said Melanie-Joy H. Dorn MA CCC-SLP , Vice President of Professional and Government Affairs for The Speech Language Hearing Association.

“UVA Health is grateful for Sens. Warner and Kaine’s support in urging the Department of Education to broaden the types of health care professions eligible for higher federal loan limits. As one of the Commonwealth’s major education and training sites for the next generation of health care professionals, UVA Health believes failing to recognize this larger advance-trained and interprofessional healthcare workforce structure risks undermining both the future availability of qualified healthcare providers and broader long-term healthcare system viability,” said Mitchell H. Rosner, MD, MACP, FRCP, CEO of UVA Health and Executive Vice President for Health Affairs for the University of Virginia.

“Excluding advanced practice registered nursing programs from the Department of Education’s list of professional degrees would further disadvantage already underfunded nursing programs, strain faculty capacity, and make advanced education less attainable - particularly for the lifelong learners who advance through every level of nursing and pursue terminal degrees while balancing other responsibilities outside of advancing their education. While we support fiscally responsible policies that make healthcare education more affordable across all disciplines, this proposal would have the opposite effect on advanced practice nursing and ultimately limit Virginians’ access to care. We urge the Department to reverse this exclusion,” said Dr. Alysia E. Pack, President, Virginia Council of Nurse Practitioners.

“The Virginia Nurses Association urges that graduate nursing programs be included in the federal ‘professional degree’ category so that students pursuing advanced nursing degrees are eligible for the full $200,000 loan cap. Ensuring equitable access to these loan opportunities is essential to sustaining the pipeline of advanced practice registered nurses, nurse leaders, and nurse faculty. Excluding graduate nursing students from this category would limit opportunities for those seeking to serve in these critical roles and, over time, weaken the nursing workforce that supports the health of every community in the Commonwealth,” said Virginia Nurses Association Chief Executive Officer Lindsey Cardwell, MSN, RN, NPD-BC.

"The Virginia Occupational Therapy Association shares Senator Warner’s concern that excluding occupational therapy from the definition of a professional degree will worsen workforce shortages and limit patient access to essential services. Occupational therapists are graduate-educated, licensed healthcare providers who support Virginians of all ages and abilities in participating in daily life activities, including essential personal care tasks, education, work, and health management. Occupational therapy plays a critical role in improving outcomes and reducing reliance on more costly levels of care. Maintaining equitable access to federal student loan support is essential to preparing the next generation of providers that Virginia’s health system and communities depend on," said Savannah Howe, President of the Virginia Occupational Therapy Association.

Read the full letter here or below:

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to raise concern over the Department of Education’s notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) to implement the student financial aid provisions included in Public Law 119-21, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. While we have broad concerns regarding the elimination of the Federal Direct Grad PLUS loan program and the implementation of new annual and lifetime student loan limits in Public Law 119-21, we write today with concern specifically regarding the proposal to exclude certain critical post-baccalaureate health care degrees from the regulatory definition of “professional degree.” This decision caps student loan borrowing limits for these professionals at a lower threshold than those included in the proposed definition at a time when Virginia and our country face a health care workforce crisis that worsens by the day. We urge you to recognize this health emergency and broaden the definition of “professional degree” to ensure it reflects the reality of our health care system and doesn’t worsen a crisis that already exists in all corners of our country.

As you know, Public Law 119-21 states that students earning defined “professional degrees” may borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 aggregate in student loans. In contrast, students earning “graduate degrees” under P.L. 119-21 definition are subject to borrowing limits of only $20,500 annually and $100,000 aggregate. Current regulations include a number of examples of professional health care degrees: Pharmacy (PharmD), Dentistry (DDS or DMD), Medicine (MD/DO), Optometry (OD), Podiatry (DPM), Chiropractic (DC). These regulations also say the definition includes the above but should not be considered an exhaustive list.

During the negotiated rulemaking process completed in November 2025, the RISE Committee proposed a definition of “professional degree” that is inconsistent with the realities of the health care workforce. On January 30, 2026, the Department of Education formally released the NPRM on the proposed change. Our health care system relies on the specialized training and expertise of so many provider types, including ones practicing independently. By focusing on doctoral-level degrees, the Department’s interpretation of the term “professional degree” leaves out advanced practice registered nurses, registered nurses, physician assistants, physical therapists, occupational therapists, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, social workers, and other degrees requiring lengthy, costly programs for professional licensure. In addition, their training is not generally considered a stepping stone for further training, and their expertise is no less critical in our health care system than those of doctors and dentists.

Virginia, consistent with trends nationwide, is facing historic ongoing health care workforce shortages. As of July 2024, all 133 localities in Virgina are federally designated as behavioral health shortage areas and 96 localities are designated as primary care shortage areas, with 44% of neighborhoods lacking acceptable access to primary care services. According to a study by George Mason University’s Center for Health Workforce, Virginia is in need of over 17,000 more registered nurses, 3,700 more physical therapists, and 2,400 more mental health and substance use disorder social workers to meet the health care needs of our constituents. If current trends persist, these shortages in the nursing, primary care, and behavioral health workforce are set to increase in Virginia. This problem is not unique to our Commonwealth; nationwide, it is projected that 1.2 million new nurses will be needed by 2030 to address existing health care workforce shortages.

Cutting off access to adequate federal loan amounts will needlessly exacerbate the rapidly worsening workforce crisis impacting Virginians and Americans across the country. Furthermore, there is no evidence that individuals in certain professions default more often than those in other professions, raising the question of why there is the need to limit borrowing by profession. In fact, the degrees being excluded from the RISE Committee’s definition of “professional degree” are amongst some of the fastest growing jobs in the country. Average job growth is projected to be 3 percent in the next ten years; in contrast, job growth is projected to be 11 percent for physical therapists and audiologists, 14 percent for occupational therapists, 19 percent for speech-language pathologists, 20 percent for physician assistants, and over 40 percent for advanced nursing degree jobs. Now is the time to bolster support for individuals training to enter our health care workforce, not make it harder for them to afford to pursue degrees in nursing, physical and occupational therapy, and other key health care professions desperately needed in our communities.

We strongly urge the Department of Education to further expand the definition of “professional program” to include a more comprehensive list of programs. The health care workforce disaster will only worsen if our health care professionals and trainees are blocked from access to necessary financial support. Nurses, speech and language pathologists, physician assistants, and other health providers are paramount to keeping our system afloat. It is critical that all post-baccalaureate health care degrees are equally protected to the greatest extent possible from the negative impacts of Public Law 119-21.

Thank you for your consideration of this request and we look forward to your response.

###

* High-quality photographs of Sen. Mark R. Warner are available for download here *


Warren, Liccardo, Blumenthal Press Bondi, Wiles on Whether Trump Administration Favoritism Helped Paramount Win Warner Bros. Bidding War

Bondi, Wiles reportedly met with Netflix CEO mere hours before Netflix dropped out of bidding war

“If Paramount Skydance’s deal with Warner Bros. goes through, one family will become a dominant force in American entertainment…Federal antitrust law is designed to prevent mergers that would create massive conglomerates like this, which are bad for our economy and for Americans.”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Representative Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.), and Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) pressed Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles on their role in Netflix abandoning its bid to acquire Warner Bros. Discovery (Warner Bros.), and whether political influence with the Trump administration helped Paramount Skydance (Paramount) win instead. Bondi and Wiles reportedly met with Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos hours before the company dropped its bid, and President Trump reportedly favored Paramount to buy Warner Bros.

“Your conversations with Mr. Sarandos…rais[e] suspicions that the Trump administration’s DOJ is making merger review decisions based on politicized favoritism rather than the law or the facts,” wrote the lawmakers.

On February 26th, Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos reportedly met with Bondi, Wiles, and Department of Justice (DOJ) antitrust officials in an attempt to dissuade the administration from blocking the Netflix-Warner Bros. merger on antitrust grounds. Hours later, Netflix bowed out of the Warner Bros. bidding war, leaving Paramount as the apparent winner of the contest to purchase the company.

From the beginning, President Trump reportedly favored Paramount’s bid to take over Warner Bros. As a result of its merger with media giant Skydance in 2025, Paramount is owned by Trump ally David Ellison. Ellison’s allies have reportedly suggested Paramount “is the only buyer who would pass muster with Trump administration regulators,” and made “Trump’s implicit support for the deal … their number one talking point” in negotiations. Just last week, Ellison attended the State of the Union address as a guest of Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.).

“[Your reported meetings with Mr. Sarandos] look even more disturbing because the meetings occurred just days after the politicized ouster of Antitrust Division Chief Gail Slater and amidst increasing lobbyist influence over DOJ’s antitrust work,” wrote the lawmakers.

Public reporting indicates DOJ leadership has been meeting with lobbyists and influence-peddlers for companies involved in merger discussions, and has repeatedly overridden antitrust concerns in order to approve massive deals. One such lobbying firm is Ballard Partners, hired by both Netflix and Paramount. Federal law requires executive branch officials to recuse themselves from matters of former employers they worked for in the past year, but Bondi and Wiles, who both worked for Ballard Partners, “appear to be heavily involved in politicized discussions about the merger.”

David Ellison is the son of billionaire Trump ally Larry Ellison, who recently acquired a stake in TikTok. If Paramount successfully merges with Warner Bros., the Ellison family will own Warner Bros., Paramount+, HBO, CBS News, CNN, TNT, TBS, Food Network, Discovery Channel, Animal Planet, HGTV, among other media properties, and have partial ownership of TikTok’s U.S. business. Paramount is expected to derive $6 billion in “synergies” from the deal, which could come largely from firing workers and cutting content.

“Federal antitrust law is designed to prevent mergers that would create massive conglomerates like this, which are bad for our economy and for Americans,” wrote the lawmakers.

“The American people deserve to know what Mr. Sarandos was seeking in your meetings, what you said to him, and how your discussions may have contributed to Netflix backing out of the bidding war,” the lawmakers concluded.

The lawmakers asked Bondi and Wiles to provide details about their conversations regarding the Warner Bros. merger, including any communications with Netflix CEO Ted Sarandos and Paramount CEO David Ellison, by March 16, 2026.

###


Warren, Markey, Van Hollen, Pressley, Lawmakers Question Rubio on Abuse of Power to Deport Students, Academics; Violation of First Amendment Rights

“This abuse of your authority risks normalizing a future where Secretaries of State may summarily revoke visas based on speech, depriving individuals of their rights and whittling down the guarantees of the First Amendment”

Text of Letter (PDF)

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Representative Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), led 12 lawmakers in pressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio on his abuse of power and possible First Amendment violations. Recent reports revealed that under Secretary Rubio, the State Department reportedly targeted students and academics for detention and deportation based on constitutionally protected speech.

“This abuse of your authority risks normalizing a future where Secretaries of State may summarily revoke visas based on speech, depriving individuals of their rights and whittling down the guarantees of the First Amendment,” wrote the lawmakers.

Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), along with Representatives Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), joined in signing the letter.

Recently unsealed court records confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security identified students for deportation based on the students’ articles, participation in protests, and social media posts, and shared that information with the State Department. Many of the students were detained for months, despite the fact that none of them were accused of a crime at the time — or have been to date.

Among those detained was Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk, a Massachusetts resident who was arrested and had her visa revoked in March 2025, reportedly because of an op-ed she wrote related to the war in Gaza. The State Department has admitted that it does not have any evidence Ozturk engaged in anti-Semitic activity.

Columbia University students, as well as a Georgetown University post-doc student, were arrested and detained on similar grounds. The unsealed documents reveal that the State Department determined it did not have evidence to justify deporting these students on the basis of allegedly supporting terrorists. At the same time, the administration has said that some students displayed “support for a terrorist organization” on social media.

“[These memos] raise substantial questions about the process the State Department follows, if any, in independently verifying the evidence presented by DHS in whether to pursue deportations,” wrote the lawmakers.

The lawmakers expressed particular concern over Secretary Rubio’s use of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), which gives the Secretary of State the power to deport noncitizens the Secretary believes “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.”

Rubio was reportedly advised to personally determine whether this provision justified many of the deportations, a power that had never previously been exercised.

The lawmakers asked the Secretary to provide detailed explanations regarding the unprecedented invocation of this personal authority and all of the cases in which he has determined that a noncitizen be deported, as well as the agency’s reliance on information provided by political organizations to inform its determinations.

This letter is endorsed by The National Immigration Law Center and the Center for Constitutional Rights.

###


Welch Condemns Trump’s Reckless Attack on Iran from the Senate Floor: “America does not want this war.”

“President Trump’s unilateral decision to go to war with Iran is reckless and wrong. I share my concern with all Vermonters about the well-being of our troops, who will now be in harm’s way. Our hopes and prayers are with them and their families for their safety.

“The Iran regime is a threat to its own people, violently killing thousands of its citizens for protesting; a threat to the region, where it supports violent proxies like Hezbollah and Hamas; and a potential global threat as it seeks to acquire nuclear weapons.

“There are many more questions than answers after this attack: First, President Trump has not told the American people why he is abandoning the diplomatic approach he said he preferred and starting military action. Is it to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, which he said was already obliterated after the Operation Midnight Hammer attack? Is it for regime change? If so, can that be accomplished by bombing alone or does the president intend to put American boots on the ground to finish the job? And then what happens? Our past attempts at regime change in the Middle East have been costly failures.

“Donald Trump said he was running for president to end wars, not start them. We have seen how regime change wars—Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya—are easy to start but hard and costly to end. And when they do end there is more, not less, regional instability.

“President Trump has initiated this war. It is a war of choice. The president owes it to the American people to come to Congress and explain his objectives and his justification. He has done neither.

“The United States Senate must immediately reconvene to take up the War Powers Resolution put forward by Senator Kaine and Senator Paul. Congress has a duty under Article I of the Constitution to be the branch that authorizes whether the United States will go to war.”


Welch, McCormick Introduce Bipartisan REWIRE Act to Modernize America’s Electric Grid and Cut Red Tape

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, and U.S. Senator Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), Chair of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee on Energy, introduced the Reconductoring Existing Wires for Infrastructure Reliability and Expansion (REWIRE) Act, new bipartisan legislation to modernize the nation’s electric grid and meet America’s growing energy demand. The Senators’ legislation cuts permitting delays, incentivizes advanced transmission upgrades, strengthens state grid planning, and accelerates the deployment of innovative grid technologies to lower costs and improve grid reliability for American families and businesses.

“We’re up against the clock when it comes to meeting America’s growing energy needs. Increasing the capacity of the grid by accelerating the permitting process and incentivizing practices like reconductoring will not only allow us to connect new and affordable clean energy to the grid—it’ll also save consumers money,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to partner with Senator McCormick on this bipartisan effort to upgrade America’s grid and meet the energy demand of the future.”

“Electricity demand in Pennsylvania and across America is rising rapidly and that requires innovative solutions to strengthen our electric grid and cut through the bureaucracy that holding us back,” said Senator McCormick. “The bipartisan REWIRE Act is exactly the kind of common-sense fix we need by using the infrastructure we already have, bringing down costs, and stopping years of unnecessary permitting delays from standing in the way of real progress.”

After two decades of stagnation, American electricity demand is projected to rise by as much as 5.7% by 2030—the fastest increase since the 1960s. Meeting this demand will require nearly 5,000 miles of new high-capacity transmission lines each year, according to the Department of Energy. Yet in 2024, only 322 miles of new high-voltage transmission were completed.

The REWIRE Act provides a commonsense path forward: rather than building from scratch, upgrade existing transmission lines with advanced conductors that can double capacity (a process known as “reconductoring”). By reducing congestion and bypassing lengthy permitting requirements, reconductoring could reduce grid costs by $85 billion by 2035 and $180 billion by 2050.

Specifically, the REWIRE Act will:

Streamline environmental reviews by creating a categorical exclusion under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for projects that increase grid capacity within existing rights-of-way, including reconductoring with advanced conductors, deploying grid-enhancing technologies (GETs), and deploying energy storage.

Incentivize modern transmission upgrades by directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to improve the return on equity for reconductoring projects, encouraging wider adoption of advanced transmission conductors.

Expand funding flexibility by allowing State Energy Offices to use Department of Energy (DOE) State Energy Program funds to conduct feasibility studies for reconductoring and GETs projects.

Build a regional knowledge network by establishing regional collaboratives between DOE, National Laboratories, and universities to evaluate grid performance and identify high-impact opportunities for advanced conductor and GET deployment.

Share best practices nationally by authorizing DOE to assist transmission developers and create a national clearinghouse of advanced transmission technology applications, case studies, and best practices

The REWIRE Act is supported by American Clean Power (ACP); American Conservation Coalition Action (ACC Action); AMP Coalition; Allegheny Conference on Community Development; American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE); Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action); Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES); ClearPath Action; Conservative Energy Network; CTC Global; Electricity Consumers Resource Council (ELCON); Eos Energy; EQT Corporation; Foundation for American Innovation (FAI); Grid Action; GridWise Alliance; National Electrical Manufacturers Association (NEMA); Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC); New American Industrial Alliance (NAIA); Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association and Allegheny Electric Cooperative; PPL Corporation; Securing America’s Future Energy (SAFE); Siemens; Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA); The Nature Conservancy; Third Way; and the Vermont Electric Power Company (VELCO).

“ACP appreciates the work of Senators McCormick and Welch to incorporate and better utilize these technologies to improve capacity and ensure a more reliable transmission system. These tools are critical to help meet rising electricity demand,” said Frank Macchiarola, Chief Advocacy Officer, American Clean Power (ACP).

“Upgrading existing transmission lines with more efficient technology is the fastest and cheapest way to update our electric grid and meet growing electricity demand. The REWIRE Act will help break down bottlenecks to make sure tomorrow’s grid will be ready to meet tomorrow’s demand affordably and reliably,” said Ray Long, President, American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE).

“The REWIRE Act is a smart, bipartisan step that improves financial incentives, strengthens technical support, and streamlines permitting for High Performance Conductors that can deliver more capacity, faster and at lower cost to consumers. We applaud Senators Welch and McCormick for their leadership in modernizing America’s grid,” said Nathan Shreve on behalf of the AMP Coalition.

“Advanced transmission technologies, including high-performance conductors and grid-enhancing technologies, are a common-sense way to increase the overall capacity and efficiency of our existing grid infrastructure, boost reliability, and lower energy prices. We applaud Sens. Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Peter Welch (D-VT) for the introduction of the REWIRE Act, which would aid in the deployment of these next-generation grid technologies,” said Michele Stockwell, President, Bipartisan Policy Center Action (BPC Action).

“As growing demand for energy puts increasing strain on the power grid and household budgets, Congress needs to take meaningful, bipartisan steps to support investment that can deliver the clean, reliable, and affordable electricity America needs. The REWIRE Act, introduced by Senators Welch and McCormick is an important, common-sense approach that will help the businesses and households who are the foundation of the U.S. economy. As we work toward sensible reforms that can help expedite the construction of new energy infrastructure, expanding electric line capacity within existing rights-of-way is exactly the kind of sensible policymaking that Americans should expect from Congress,” said Brad Townsend, Vice President, Policy and Outreach, Center for Climate and Energy Solutions (C2ES).

“America needs a smarter, stronger grid to promote American energy security, AI leadership, and manufacturing competitiveness. The REWIRE Act, introduced by Senators Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Peter Welch (D-VT), positions the U.S. to optimize our existing grid through American innovation – delivering more power with greater efficiency and affordability to American homes and businesses. We commend these bipartisan efforts to streamline the permitting for and industry adoption of innovative grid technologies that let American energy move,” said Jeremy Harrell, CEO, ClearPath Action.

“At a time when families and businesses are facing rising electricity costs, the REWIRE Act offers a market-driven solution to expand grid capacity at lower cost. By enabling advanced conductors and grid-enhancing technologies within existing rights-of-way, this legislation can reduce congestion, improve efficiency, and help keep rates stable. Smart infrastructure upgrades are a win for reliability and a win for ratepayers,” said John Szoka, CEO, Conservative Energy Network.

“The REWIRE Act is exactly the kind of pragmatic, bipartisan policy needed to unlock grid capacity quickly and affordably. By accelerating reconductoring with advanced conductors in existing rights-of-way, the bill lowers costs, strengthens reliability, and delivers meaningful transmission capacity on timelines the grid urgently needs,” said Theodore Paradise, Chief Policy and Grid Strategy Officer, CTC Global.

“To maintain America’s competitive edge in manufacturing and AI, we need a grid that is both agile and affordable. By prioritizing advanced grid technologies, the REWIRE Act allows us to optimize our current energy highways, reducing congestion costs for industrial users and providing a bridge to the future as we build the next generation of transmission,” said Karen Onaran, President and CEO, Electricity Consumers Resource Council.

“We welcome the bipartisan leadership of Senators McCormick and Welch to address the urgent need for reliable and affordable power for Pennsylvanians and communities across the country through this critical legislation,” said Joe Mastrangelo, Chief Executive Officer, Eos Energy. “As energy demand continues to rise, Eos stands ready to deliver American‑made energy storage solutions that improve efficiency, accelerate speed‑to‑power, and enhance affordability for ratepayers—goals the REWIRE Act is designed to advance.”

“Grid reliability and affordability depend on faster, common-sense upgrades. FAI Action applauds Senators Welch and McCormick for introducing the REWIRE Act and supports this effort to accelerate grid development in existing corridors,” said the Foundation for American Innovation (FAI).

“The REWIRE Act is a smart, bipartisan step to unlock more capacity from the grid we already have. Reconductoring and advanced transmission technologies can deliver meaningful reliability gains and additional transfer capability faster and more cost-effectively by working within existing rights-of-way. As electricity demand accelerates, we need both near-term upgrades like this and a broader buildout of new transmission infrastructure. This bill moves the country in the right direction.” Christina Hayes, Executive Director, Grid Action.

“The GridWise Alliance applauds Senators McCormick and Welch for introducing the bipartisan REWIRE Act of 2026, which supports the GridWise Alliance’s vision for an integrated grid by removing the permitting barriers and financial disincentives that have long delayed the deployment of reconductoring and grid-enhancing technologies. These are near-term, cost-effective solutions to expand the capacity of the nation’s existing transmission capacity, and this legislation offers a pragmatic, no-regrets path to meeting surging electricity demand while reducing system-wide costs by for consumers,” said Karen Wayland, CEO, GridWise Alliance.

“Modernizing the electric grid is essential to keeping America competitive. The REWIRE Act takes bipartisan steps to cut red tape and accelerate capacity additions on existing infrastructure, including reconductoring, grid-enhancing technologies, and storage,” said Spencer Pederso, Senior Vice President of Public Affairs, NEMA. “This bill helps move more energy faster along existing corridors without sacrificing responsible oversight, and it’s a commonsense, near-term way to add capacity and strengthen reliability.”

“Senators McCormick and Welch recognize the urgent need to modernize and expand our aging transmission system. The REWIRE Act helps meet this challenge by speeding up efforts to upgrade the system in places where transmission is already built. With rising electricity rates, it is more important than ever that we are ensuring our grid can move the electricity we need quickly and cheaply,” said Sam Goodstein, Managing Director of Federal Affairs, NRDC.

“In a time of rising energy demand, we must do everything we can to increase access while lowering costs for American consumers. By removing unnecessary bureaucratic burdens hindering grid reconductoring, empowering state energy offices, and fostering innovation through cross-sector collaboration, the REWIRE Act will do just that. We thank Senator Welch and Senator McCormick for their efforts to power America’s reindustrialization,” said the New American Industrial Alliance (NAIA).

“The electric industry is facing unprecedented challenges. In order to keep up with increasing demand while still maintaining affordable and reliable service, utilities need to have access to every tool in the toolbox. This legislation would help utilities increase capacity along existing transmission corridors and do so quickly while reducing costs. I applaud Sen. McCormick and Sen. Welch for working in a bipartisan manner to address these critical infrastructure issues and I urge the Senate to take up this legislation,” said Steve Brame, President & CEO, Pennsylvania Rural Electric Association and Allegheny Electric Cooperative.

“PPL is building the utilities of the future by deploying advanced technologies across our grid. In 2022, PPL Electric Utilities became the first U.S. electric utility to fully integrate dynamic line ratings—a grid‑enhancing technology—into real‑time operations with PJM. While not a substitute for needed new transmission, GETs can unlock additional capacity from existing infrastructure, improve efficiency, and reduce congestion costs for customers. We applaud Senator McCormick’s leadership in introducing the REWIRE Act and welcome continued collaboration with our federal partners to help scale proven solutions nationwide for the benefit of our customers,” said Vincent Sorgi, President and Chief Executive Officer, PPL Corporation.

“Rising electricity demand related to reindustrialization, electrification, and U.S. leadership in AI is one of the most pressing issues facing policymakers today,” said Avery Ash, CEO, Securing America’s Future Energy. “The REWIRE Act charts a decisive path to expand the capacity of our electric grid, fortifying America’s national security and economic strength. It recognizes that scaling advanced transmission technologies and deploying energy storage are essential tools to unlock that capacity, delivering results now as we build the grid of the future.”

“Solar + storage is the fastest — and in most cases the cheapest — way to meet skyrocketing energy demand while keeping Americans’ energy bills down,” said Darren Van’t Hof, Interim President and CEO, Solar Energy Industries Association. “In the race to ensure global A.I. leadership and energy independence at home, we need every electron on the grid that we can get. The bipartisan REWIRE Act takes critical steps to strengthen the grid, reduce delays to getting more energy onto the grid, and keep energy prices down for Americans. We thank Sens. Welch and McCormick for their work to champion this legislation.”

“Modernizing America’s transmission system is imperative to meeting rising energy demand with reliable, affordable clean power. By making smarter use of the infrastructure we already have, we can lower costs, shorten permitting timelines and reduce impacts on nature and communities. REWIRE advances two practical solutions—upgrading existing power lines to carry more electricity and using new technologies that increase grid efficiency. We applaud Senators Welch and McCormick for their bipartisan leadership behind this effort to strengthen our nation’s energy future,” said Jason Albritton, North America Climate Mitigation Program Director, The Nature Conservancy.

“At a time of surging energy demand, we cannot afford to let grid constraints hold back American economic growth and innovation. The REWIRE Act takes an important step to modernize energy infrastructure by accelerating the use of advanced transmission technologies, utilizing current rights-of-way, and increasing existing grid capacity. These are cost-effective, commonsense solutions that can help meet growing demand in the short term while we ramp up deployment of new generation and transmission infrastructure,” said Ryan Fitzpatrick, Vice President of Climate and Energy Program, Third Way.

Learn more about the REWIRE Act.

Read and download the full text of the bill.

###


Reed & Whitehouse Seek Tariff Refunds for RIers & Small Businesses

U.S. Senators send letter demanding U.S. Treasury give Americans their money back

WASHINGTON, DC – “You need to give the people their money back.” That is the simple message U.S. Senators Jack Reed, Sheldon Whitehouse, and 22 of their Democratic colleagues are sending to the Trump Administration after the U.S. Supreme Court ruling last week that invalidated President Trump’s misuse of emergency powers law for tariffs.

As Senate Democrats continue fighting to rein in President Trump’s price-hiking trade wars and chaotic economic policies that are raising prices on hardworking families and small businesses alike, Reed and Whitehouse say the Trump Administration must quickly develop a plan to refund the American people, who were unfairly forced to pay the inflated costs of Trump’s ‘so-called emergency’ tariffs.

On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in Learning Resources v. Trump and Trump v. V.O.S. Selections, Inc. that the Trump Administration abused its authorities under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad-based tariffs. Trump’s illegal tariff taxes cost small businesses, consumers, and families over $130 billion.

Today, Reed, Whitehouse, and 22 Senate Democrats sent a letter to U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent demanding the Trump Administration refund those who were unfairly forced to pay the costs of Trump’s ‘so-called emergency’ tariffs.

Noting Secretary Bessent’s previous public assurance in January that refunds “won’t be a problem” if the U.S. Supreme Cort ruled against Trump’s tariffs, the Senate Democrats’ letter points out the Trump administration “collected over $130 billion in illegal taxes and then refused — with a smile and a shrug — to give it back.”

The letter urges the Trump Administration to direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection “to begin processing automatic refunds for all tariffs and customs duties unlawfully collected under IEEPA since Jan. 20, 2025.” It urges CBP to “immediately” launch the refund process within the next 90 days and to prioritize the needs of those hit hardest by these tariffs, including small businesses.

“You need to give the people their money back,” the 24 U.S. Senators wrote. “The American people — small business owners, importers, manufacturers, and the consumers who ultimately bore the cost of these illegal taxes — deserve better than this stonewalling. This money does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to the businesses and individuals you illegally taxed.”

Returning the funds to Americans should not be that difficult, given that Trump Administration lawyers themselves argued in lower courts that the administration would need to refund the money if the tariffs got struck down.

“The Supreme Court’s ruling was not, as you characterized it, ‘a loss for the American people.’ It was a reaffirmation that no president is above the law,” the lawmakers concluded.

In addition to Reed and Whitehouse the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Michael Bennet (D-CO), and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE).

Full text of the letter follows:

Dear Secretary Bessent:

Your comments following the Supreme Court’s decision to correctly invalidate this administration’s illegal tariff regime are completely unacceptable, as is the administration’s apparent decision to deny automatic refunds of these illegally collected tariffs.

On Friday, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, you said “the American people won’t see” the billions of dollars in tariff revenue unlawfully collected from them. Then, on Sunday, you doubled down, dismissing questions about refunds as “bad framing,” repeatedly insisting the matter is “up to the lower court” rather than the administration, and refusing to answer whether small business owners who bore the cost of these illegal tariffs would ever get their money back.

These statements stand in direct contradiction to your own prior commitments and are a slap in the face to American businesses and families who you illegally taxed by well over $130 billion. In January, you said that issuing tariff refunds “won’t be a problem” for the Treasury, and that “if the court says it, we’d have to do it.” The Court has said it. In a 6-3 ruling, it found that the president exceeded his legal authority. You need to give the people their money back.

The American people — small business owners, importers, manufacturers, and the consumers who ultimately bore the cost of these illegal taxes — deserve better than this stonewalling. This money does not belong to the federal government. It belongs to the businesses and individuals you illegally taxed.

The administration must immediately:

1. Direct U.S. Customs and Border Protection to begin processing automatic refunds for all tariffs and customs duties unlawfully collected under IEEPA since January 20, 2025;

2. Establish a transparent and expeditious refund process that prioritizes small businesses and ensures that funds are returned to those who bore the costs;

3. Provide a clear public timeline — no longer than 90 days — for the initiation of refund disbursements; and,

4. Cease any efforts to delay, condition, or deny refunds pending further litigation, in keeping with your prior assurances that refunds would be issued if the Court ruled.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was not, as you characterized it, “a loss for the American people.” It was a reaffirmation that no president is above the law. The true loss for the American people would be an administration that collected over $130 billion in illegal taxes and then refused — with a smile and a shrug — to give it back. If this administration does not act, Congress will.

Sincerely,


Wyden, Beyer Lead Colleagues Calling on Judicial Center to Restore Critical Climate Judicial Guidance

Members of Congress cite political pressure by Republicans to erase climate guidance

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and Representative Donald S. Beyer Jr., Va.-08, today said they are leading their bicameral colleagues in pushing the Federal Judicial Center (FJC) to reverse course on its decision to rescind critical judicial guidance on climate science following politically-motivated pressure by Republicans.

“After facing political pressure from Republican attorneys general and conservative organizations, you made the decision to eliminate the entire chapter on climate science from the FJC Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence,” the lawmakers wrote to FJC Director, Judge Robin Rosenberg. “We vehemently oppose this decision and are writing to understand why, after publishing, the FJC made the decision to delete this chapter. The decision to censor this information recklessly disregards scientific consensus and the work of experts in a critical field of science.”

As part of its responsibilities, the FJC publishes a more-than-1,000 page reference manual for judicial use in partnership with the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. This manual, entitled the Reference Manual on Scientific Evidence, provides “impartial and reliable primary reference source on science for judges” and is written and reviewed by dozens of leading scientific experts.

Pulling this guidance leaves judges without the resources they need to make important rulings on climate-related lawsuits. Republicans have long voiced opposition to the inclusion of climate-related guidance, arguing that it is skewed against oil and gas producers.

In addition to their request that the FJC rescind its guidance, Wyden, Beyer, and their colleagues also requested that the FJC answer the following questions:

Describe in detail how the decision was made to remove this chapter.

What review processes did this chapter undergo prior to initial publication?

Were the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine consulted prior to the removal of this chapter?

What steps, if any, are you taking to eliminate partisan influence in the work of the FJC?

Wyden and Beyer were joined by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., Chris Van Hollen, D-Md., Richard Durbin, D-Ill., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Representatives Steve Cohen, D-Tenn., Nydia M. Velázquez, D-N.Y., Paul D. Tonko, D-N.Y., Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., Mike Thompson, D-Calif., Maxwell Alejandro Frost, D-Fl., Madeleine Dean, D-Pa., Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., Mike Quigley, D-Ill., and Shri Thanedar, D-Mich.

The text of the letter is here.

###