Husted backs National Police Week resolution, law enforcement safety bill

“I will always support and honor our law enforcement—this week and every week.”

WASHINGTON – Sen. Jon Husted (R-Ohio) is backing a resolution and a bill to support law enforcement during National Police Week.

Husted joined the National Police Week Resolution as an original cosponsor. This resolution would designate May 10, 2026, to May 16, 2026, as National Police Week and honor fallen law enforcement officers. This includes four Ohio officers who were killed in the line of duty in 2025: Trooper Nicholas P. Cayton, Police Officer Phillip C. Wagner, Deputy Sheriff D. Weston Sherrer and Special Deputy Sheriff Larry Henderson Jr.

Husted honored the fallen Ohioans on the Senate floor.

“Ohioans remain thankful for the service and dedication of our police officers, including Deputy Larry Henderson, Officer Phillip Wagner, Deputy D. Weston Sherrer and Trooper Nicholas Cayton, who gave their lives while protecting our communities. I will always support and honor our law enforcement—this week and every week,” said Husted.

Husted also joined Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ben Ray Luján’s (D-N.M.) bipartisan Improving Law Enforcement Officer Safety and Wellness Through Data Act. This bill would protect law enforcement from ambush-style attacks.

The bill would strengthen protections for law enforcement officers by enhancing data collection on anti-police attacks and expanding access to mental health support for officers.

“Our law enforcement officers put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities, and they deserve every tool and resource available to keep them safe. As targeted attacks against police officers continue to rise, this bipartisan bill would help us better understand these threats, improve officer safety and ensure law enforcement have access to the mental health support they need,” said Husted.

There were 67 ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers in 2025, resulting in 90 officers shot, and 22 officers killed. One of those attacks claimed the life of Officer Wagner of Lorain County and wounded two of his colleagues.

This bill builds on Husted’s work to support law enforcement officers. He recently joined the LEOSA Reform Act, a bill that would expand the concealed-carry rights of qualified law enforcement officers.

Husted is also backing the Protect and Serve Act, a bill that would establish strong federal penalties for criminals who target law enforcement officers.


New: How $1 Billion Could Fund Law Enforcement Instead of Trump’s Ballroom

WASHINGTON, D.C. – During National Police Week, U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) released the following report outlining how the $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to pay for Donald Trump’s ballroom project could instead be used to fund several federal programs that would support hiring and training for law enforcement agencies across the country, and benefits programs for officers and their families.

“Taxpayer dollars should be directed toward the priorities that matter most to Americans – not Donald Trump’s extravagant vanity projects,” said the senators. “One billion dollars could be spent helping local governments hire and train law enforcement officers, supporting first responders, and strengthening public safety. Instead, Republicans in Congress are preparing to put it towards a ballroom.”

Last week, Warner and Kaine released data on the many ways $1 billion could help Virginians instead of funding Trump’s ballroom – including a year’s worth of groceries for nearly 120,000 Virginia families, rent for more than 46,000 Virginia households, or child care for nearly 60,000 Virginia infants.

Below are estimates of what $1 billion in funding for Trump’s ballroom could do for crucial law enforcement programs instead:

COPS Hiring Program:

$1 billion could fund nearly four years of the COPS Hiring Program.

In Fiscal Year 2026, over $250 million was appropriated for this program, which is designed to provide funding directly to local law enforcement agencies to hire and/or retain officers and support community policing efforts.

Public Safety Officer Benefits Program:

$1 billion could fully fund four years of the Public Safety Officers’ Benefits Program.

In Fiscal Year 2026, $236 million was appropriated for this program, which provides death and education benefits to survivors of fallen law enforcement officers, firefighters, and other first responders, and disability benefits to officers catastrophically injured in the line of duty.

Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program:

$1 billion could fund a full year of the Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grants.

This program is the leading source of federal justice funding to state and local jurisdictions, and provides flexible funding to support personnel, equipment, supplies, contractual support, training, technical assistance, and information systems for criminal justice or civil proceedings, for a multitude of programs, including:

Law enforcement;

Prevention and Education;

Corrections;

Drug treatment;

Witness protection; and

Mental health and behavioral programs.

###


Warner, Kaine Announce More Than $21 Million In Federal Funding to Upgrade 8 Virginia Airports

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) announced $21,024,663 in federal funding to improve airport infrastructure across Virginia. This funding was awarded through the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which the senators have supported robust funding for through the annual federal budget process.

“Travelers deserve the comfort of knowing they can move safely and efficiently through Virginia airports,” said the senators. “We’re proud to announce this funding to modernize and improve our airport infrastructure and passenger experience.”

The program grants are allocated as follows:

$18,397,704 for the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority to conduct projects at Ronald Reagan Washington Airport to reconstruct existing paved runways that have reached the end of their useful lives.

$600,000 for the Stafford Regional Airport Authority to rehabilitate existing taxiways, associated taxiway connectors, and taxiways connectors lighting systems to extend their useful lives.

$465,500 for the County of Fauquier to conduct projects at the Warrenton-Fauquier Airport to reconstruct runway lighting, end identifier lights systems, and precision approach path indicator systems, as well as rehabilitate existing paved runway to maintain structural integrity and minimize foreign object debris to extend its useful life.

$450,000 for the Winchester Regional Airport Authority to reconstruct existing terminal apron pavement, as well as construct a new terminal apron and parallel taxiway to bring the airport into conformity with current standards.

$439,850 for the City of Danville to conduct projects at the Danville Regional Airport to rehabilitate existing taxiway and runway lighting that have reached the end of their useful lives.

$300,000 for the County of Louisa to conduct a project at the Louisa County Airport to update the existing airport layout plan.

$261,647 for the Tazewell County Airport Authority to fund a portion of the new construction of a non-exclusive use hanger for aircraft storage to assist the airport in its mission to generate new revenue and be self-sustaining.

$109,962 for the County of New Kent to carry out projects at the New Kent County Airport to remove trees identified as obstructions by the FAA and purchase an avigation easement.

Sens. Warner and Kaine have been fierce supporters of efforts to modernize Virginia’s airports. Last year, the senators announced almost $106 million in federal funding for airports across Virginia. Many of these grants were made possible by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, legislation the senators helped pass that has secured billions in federal funding for airport infrastructure since 2021.

###


Warner, Kaine, Hickenlooper, Fetterman Release GAO Report Highlighting Gaps In Black Lung Benefits for Miners and Families

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mark R. Warner (D-VA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Tim Kaine (D-VA), and John Fetterman (D-PA) announced the release of a study conducted by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate the adequacy of black lung benefits to meet the income and health care needs of disabled miners and their families. The senators requested the report from the GAO in March 2023 in order to inform policy aimed at helping coal miners and their families in the Appalachian region.

“For years we have heard from coal miners and their families about how hard it is to secure federal black lung benefits and how it’s often not enough to support their families. As miners in central Appalachia get sicker and at younger ages, we are grateful GAO accepted our request to examine the benefits they receive once they do get sick,” the senators said. “GAO also confirmed what we have heard for years: miners face drawn-out, years-long fights to secure black lung benefits, the spouses and families left behind often struggle to access the survivor benefits they’re owed, and benefit amounts are too low for many families to make ends meet. Although we’re glad the Department of Labor agreed to provide more oversight of the medical benefits that mine operators provide, Congress must still enact legislation to ensure miners receive the benefits they need to support themselves and their families once they’re too sick to continue working in the mines.”

Sens. Warner, Kaine, and Fetterman have introduced the Relief for Survivors of Miners Act and the Black Lung Benefits Improvement Act, bills that would remove barriers to benefits and ensure that miners and their families are properly compensated. The senators previously issued a statement on the Trump administration’s decision to pause enforcement of a Department of Labor rule to protect miners from silica dust, which is contributing to a significant uptick in severe black lung disease, particularly among younger miners in their thirties and forties.

The report included feedback from focus groups with 64 miners to gather their opinions on the application process and benefits received due to black lung disease. There was a total of six focus groups with miners in the four states with the largest numbers of Black Lung Benefits Program beneficiaries: Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia.

The one key recommendation focused on miners’ difficulty accessing medical benefits – particularly when those benefits were the responsibility of mine operators rather than the Department of Labor (DOL). After hearing repeated concerns in focus groups, the GAO recommended that DOL collect information on and monitor the extent to which responsible mine operators are providing required medical benefits. The DOL agreed with the recommendation and said it will add questions about medical benefits to its survey of miners.

Other takeaways from the report include:

In 2024, about 16,000 miners and their survivors were beneficiaries of the Black Lung Benefits Program, with half being living miners and the other half being surviving family members of deceased miners. Eighty percent resided in Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia. Ninety percent were age 62 or older, and 10 percent were under age 62.

GAO noted that miners in most focus groups suggested changes such as increasing the benefit amount, improving benefits for survivors, and expediting the application process.

Twenty-four percent of federal black lung benefits beneficiaries under age 62 received only federal black lung benefits payments, which average about $13,400 annually, well below the federal poverty line. Sixty-one percent of younger miners received both federal black lung benefits and Social Security Disability Insurance, which can still be “below the average annual wages of extraction miners in their state.” At least one miner in all six focus groups said that the benefit payments did not provide enough money for them to make ends meet and that “miners in most groups recommended raising the benefit amount.”

Appealed claims could take more than three years to close, and miners expressed frustration with the length of the process. GAO noted that “miners in most groups described the financial strain of the application process, such as paying for more testing to support an application” and that “miners in most groups described appeals judges who had limited knowledge of mining.” Of the nearly 53,000 closed miner claims filed from January 2013 through mid-August 2024, GAO identified 11 claims that took more than 10 years to close. GAO heard from black lung clinics about how challenging it can be for a surviving spouse to prove their partner died of black lung if the miner had not already been approved for benefits. GAO found that among miners whose claims were ultimately approved by mid-August 2024 and who died between January 2013 and mid-August 2024, 2,620 died before their claim was closed. Many received interim benefits.

The potential need to repay interim benefits creates uncertainty for miners. Only a small number of claims (less than 1 percent) are denied after an appeal, but when that happens, miners must repay those interim benefits. GAO found that while some families use these benefits, others are afraid to spend them.

GAO acknowledged the growing concern about worsening outcomes from silica exposure: “According to one of [the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health’s] studies, between 1999 and 2016, the average years of lost life expectancy attributable to black lung disease increased from 8.1 to 12.6 years, likely due to increase disease severity resulting from cutting through rock to reach thinner coal seams”

GAO found that cases of progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) are increasing. PMF is the most severe and disabling form of black lung disease and may affect younger miners more than other forms of the disease.

Read the full report here.

###


Warner, Kaine, Hickenlooper, Fetterman Release GAO Report Highlighting Gaps In Black Lung Benefits for Miners and Families
Gaps In Black Lung Benefits for Miners and Families


ICYMI: On CNN, Kelly Responds to Hegseth’s New Retaliatory Threat: “What He’s Trying to Avoid is Accountability”

“Not only is he ill-prepared, unprepared, unqualified for this job, he doesn’t want to be held accountable for his actions.”

In case you missed it, Arizona Senator Mark Kelly was on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper and responded to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s threat to launch a review of his speech.

Kelly also sounded the alarm on the real costs of Trump’s Iran war for American servicemembers and everyday Arizonans.

Sen. Kelly speaks to Jake Tapper.

Watch the full conversation here. See key excepts below:

On Hegseth’sthreatto investigate Kelly forquotingcommentsHegsethmade in an open hearing…

“He doesn’t want to be held accountable. They’ve expended an enormous amount of munitions. The only investigation we need, the one we need right now, is after 15,000 strikes, all we got out of this, we have 13 dead Americans, we got the Strait of Hormuz closed, gas prices in Arizona are $4.80 a gallon, seem to be heading up. And we have a Secretary of Defense, not only is he ill-prepared, unprepared, unqualified for this job, he doesn’t want to be held accountable for the actions.”

OnHegseth avoiding accountability…

“Nothing I said was classified. We had this discussion in an open hearing. When you are going to hit 15,000 targets, you’re going to use a lot of munitions. […] And by the way, he’s asking for $25 to $50 billion to replenish these munitions where he said it’s going to take years. So again, what he’s trying to avoid is accountability. This thing is not going the way they expected. They went into this without a strategic goal, without a plan, without a timeline…

“When somebody like me starts asking them questions, whether it’s I make a point on a show like yours or in an open hearing, they don’t want to give specific answers because they probably, at this point, they realize that they’ve made a number of mistakes.”

On theAdministrationthreatening retiredservicemembers’First Amendment rights…

“This is about 2 million retired servicemembers. And for anybody who listened to that hearing last week, one of the really interesting parts was at the end when Pete Hegseth’s lawyer, which is a DOJ lawyer, said that if any servicemember, like myself, who served 20 or 25 years in the military, if they want their First Amendment rights, they should give up their retirement, give up their pension, give up their health care, and then they would be free to speak out. How un-American is that?

“People who have given the most for this country are being asked now by this administration or told, ‘Hey, if you don’t do this, if you don’t shut up, you could lose your pension, you could lose your rank and retirement.’”


Kelly Calls on Congress to Pass Permanent Solution for Dreamers

Today, Senators Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Alex Padilla (D-CA) held a press conference alongside TheDream.US to call for a permanent legislative fix for Dreamers as DACA processing delays, detentions, and deportation threats leave hundreds of thousands unable to work and live safely in the country they call home.

Jen Rickling, mother-in-law of Annie Ramos, was also in attendance to share her perspective as a mother and a community member whose family has been directly impacted by America’s broken immigration system. Annie is a military spouse who was detained on base and Kelly helped secure her release.

Sen. Kelly speaks on Capitol Hill.

Watch the full press conference here. See key excerpts from Kelly’s remarks below:

Kelly emphasized that enforcing immigration lawsdoesn’thave to meantearing families apart: “I think most of us, and most Americans, agree that we can enforce our laws without chaos in the streets or tearing hardworking families apart. And that our country would benefit from an immigration system that is fair and actually works. Instead, in Arizona and across the country, we’ve seen the targeting of law-abiding individuals including Dreamers, grandmothers, business owners, veterans— and even young children.”

Kellyalsohighlighted the thousands ofpeoplelike Annie still in detention: “There are thousands of people like Annie who were brought to this country as kids, with no criminal record, who pay taxes and contribute to our country, being held by ICE right now and facing deportation to countries they don’t know. In what world does it make sense to focus time and resources chasing down and holding people like Annie, rather than serious criminals?”

Kelly closed with a call on Congress and the White House toact: “We can build an immigration system where people like Annie have a pathway to staying here without the constant fear of detention and deportation. A system that treats her and other Dreamers with fairness and dignity while ensuring our country remains safe and secure. That kind of progress can happen if Congress and the White House are serious about passing a long-term solution for Dreamers. And we can make it happen.”


WATCH: In SASC Hearing, Kelly Presses Army Secretary on Electronic Warfare Testing Cuts and Aviation Budget

This week, during a Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) hearing on the annual defense budget, Arizona Senator and Navy combat veteran Mark Kelly (D-AZ) pressed Secretary of the Army Daniel P. Driscoll on the Army’s lack of communication about ongoing changes at the Electronic Proving Ground in Fort Huachuca and a dramatic cut to Army aviation in the current budget request.

Kelly talked about the Army failing to communicate changes already underway at the Electronic Proving Ground near Fort Huachuca: “We’ve tried to engage with the Army multiple times. My office has learned about staffing reductions and mission impacts after they’ve happened. […] when the Army reduces capacity there without clearly articulating some kind of long-term plan, it raises real questions about how these decisions align with the Army’s stated priorities with regards to modernization.”

Driscoll committed to remedy the lack of communication.

Kelly also raised the alarm over the Army’s aviation budget: “Your requests include zero H-64 Apaches, zero Chinook Block IIs, and one UH-60 Blackhawk. And while I understand the intent of the Army Transformation Initiative, I’malso concerned that we’re divesting in some capabilities that fill a critical requirement. […] We don’t have a validated replacement for these systems.”

Kelly warned of the impact the budget could have: “This budget, I think, threatens the health of the defense industrial base in that regard. Industry has been very clear that foreign sales on these systems are not enough to sustain the production lines past maybe the early 2030s. We’ve also been hearing from some small businesses. I heard one that says, ‘Hey, the writing is on the wall here’, and he wants to get out of the business of supporting Army helicopters.”

Sen. Kelly questions Secretary Driscoll during a SASC hearing.

Click here to download a video of Kelly’s remarks. See the transcript below:

Senator Kelly:

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, thank you for being here today. Secretary Driscoll, the Electronic Proving Ground (EPG) near Fort Huachuca provides a very unique electronic warfare testing capability, largely because it has very favorable geography, protected airspace surrounded on all sides by terrain. And because of that, we’ve got an ability there to conduct very aggressive electronic warfare and jamming tests with minimal interference that goes beyond the area. This is the kind of testing we need to understand how our systems would perform if we were up against near-peer adversaries. And that’s why I’ve been kind of frustrated by the Army’s lack of communication regarding changes that are already underway at EPG. We’ve tried to engage with the Army multiple times. My office has learned about staffing reductions and mission impacts after they’ve happened, even though we’re trying to communicate with the leadership. So, we’re trying to proactively engage, but we’re not getting the response that we would normally expect. And it’s one of the Army’s premier facilities for E-W and spectrum operations. So, when the Army reduces capacity there without clearly articulating some kind of long-termplan, it raises real questions about how these decisions align with the Army’s stated priorities with regards to modernization. So, I’d just like a commitment from you if we could work with your office to try to figure out what’s going on and make sure that the decisions we are making are in the best interest of the Army.

Secretary Daniel P. Driscoll:

Senator. Absolutely. And just to go back a step, one of the things we’ve tried to model out in the last 18 months is ultra-responsiveness, ultra-transparency, ultra-clarity, both to the private sector, to our larger defense partners, to the primes and the smaller mids, and then also to all of you. And so, I apologize that we haven’t been faster and more clear, but we will remedy that.

Kelly:

All right. Thank you. And then on another subject, I’m a bit concerned about the Army’s direction here on aviation. You know, this year you’re spending $4 billion next year. You’re requesting half of that. Your requests include zero H-64 Apaches, zero Chinook Block IIs, and one UH-60 Blackhawk. And while I understand the intent of the Army Transformation Initiative, I’m also concerned that we’re divesting in some capabilities that fill a critical requirement. We talked a little bit about this about learning the correct lesson from the former conflict. And we’ve got to be really careful here. And we don’t have a validated replacement for these systems. A reasonable path forward, I think, would be to sustain Army aircraft we have and use their capacity until we integrate new technologies, but instead we’re facing a budget request that leaves Congress no assurances that the Army, and especially the National Guard, will not suffer from a significant capability gap in its ability to move people, and weapons, cargo, but also put fire downrange, especially with regards to the Apache. I’m concerned that we might be repeating a mistake that we saw with the Air Force in the A-10, where the service spent years arguing it could retire the platform, only to realize that there’s a critical mission need and nothing to fill it. And then suddenly, with extra costs now, extend the aircraft’s life after the industrial capacity and its sustainment challenges have gotten worse once production lines and suppliers and workforce capacity disappear, rebuilding them can be rather costly and time consuming. And this budget, I think, threatens the health of the defense industrial base in that regard. Industry has been very clear that foreign sales on these systems are not enough to sustain the production lines past maybe the early 2030s. We’ve also been hearing from some small businesses. I heard one that says, ‘Hey, the writing is on the wall here’, and he wants to get out of the business of supporting Army helicopters. So that could be something you’re going to have to deal with. But, Mr. Secretary, you continue to say that the Apache, Blackhawk, Chinook, have a role and need to be modernized, but the budget doesn’t actually get us there. So, can you explain? I know I’m over my time here, how do we do this and sustain these systems under this existing budget request?

Driscoll:

Absolutely, Senator. So, our intent we’ve– as you rightly pointed out, tried to say on the record a number of times, these systems will be in the Army’s life for a very long time. What we are trying to do is get out in advance of the number that we will have at total as we start to bring on things like Flora, what is that ideal balance look like? And so that’s what you see reflected in the current budget. I think we are optimistic that FMS will make up a lot of the cases to keep these lines on.

Kelly:

But still in the budget, you know, right now one Blackhawk, zero Apache, zero Chinook and the FMF thing, as my office has looked into this, it just doesn’t seem like enough to sustain the helicopter industrial base. So, thank you. I’m sorry. I’m over my time.


Senator Kim’s Statement on Today’s Decision to Temporarily Pause Further Development of the Roxbury Detention Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Senator Andy Kim (D-NJ) put out the following statement in response to today’s decision to temporarily pause further development of the Roxbury Detention Facility so that the Department of Homeland Security can conduct a proper review of the facility and surrounding community:

“This temporary pause proves what we already knew – DHS rushed this process without undertaking the proper legal reviews,” said Senator Kim. “The people of Roxbury don’t want this massive detention center; they’ve been very clear about that. I will continue pressing Secretary Mullin to abandon this project and will continue to fight attempts by this administration to impose broken immigration policies on New Jersey.”

###


Klobuchar Meets with Artemis II Crew

From L-R: Victor Glover, Reid Wiseman, Senator Amy Klobuchar, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar met with the Artemis II crew, Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen, during their visit to Washington, D.C.

“It was great to meet with the four members of the Artemis II crew — Reid Wiseman, Victor Glover, Christina Koch, and Jeremy Hansen — in Washington,” said Klobuchar. “Their historic trip around the moon — the first crewed lunar mission in more than 50 years — showcased American leadership, innovation, and the next chapter of exploration in outer space.”

###


Graham, Cortez Masto, Mast Welcome Unanimous Senate Passage of Medal of Sacrifice Act During National Police Week

Legislation Now Heads to President’s Desk

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada), and U.S. Representative Brian Mast (R-Florida) applauded the Senate’s unanimous passage of the Medal of Sacrifice Act (H.R. 3497) during National Police Week. The legislation would create a new presidential award to posthumously honor law enforcement officers and other first responders killed in the line of duty. Mast is the lead sponsor of the legislation, which passed the House of Representatives on February 2. Graham introduced companion legislation in the Senate and helped ensure its passage in the Senate.

As a strong supporter of law enforcement officers, Graham worked hand in hand with President Trump and Mast on this legislation. The sacrifices made by law enforcement officers, as well as firefighters and other first responders, in service of their communities are worthy of presidential tribute and distinction.

“Our law enforcement officers and first responders represent some of the best and bravest among us. These men and women selflessly put their lives on the line every day to keep us safe. If these law enforcement officers and first responders perish in the line of duty, that sacrifice deserves the highest level of recognition,” said Senator Graham. “I am proud to have worked with President Trump and Rep. Mast on this important legislation so that we can ensure these heroes are never forgotten, and look forward to it being signed into law.”

“Every single day, law enforcement officers put their lives on the line to protect and serve our communities and keep our families safe,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “The Medal of Sacrifice Act will go a long way to honoring those officers who lose their lives in the line of duty. This Police Week, I’m proud to have worked alongside Senator Graham and Congressman Mast to get our bill to the President’s desk.”

“I will never forget November 21, 2024, the day three lions of my community were taken after being struck on the side of the road. After we laid Palm Beach County Sheriff’s Deputies Waller, Diaz, and Paez to rest, President Trump and I agreed that their sacrifice can never be forgotten. That’s what the Medal of Sacrifice is all about, and I’ve worked every single day since then to pass this bill to honor every officer and first responder killed in action. In the face of incomprehensible loss, families of the fallen will now know they have a nation standing firmly behind them, directed by the highest office of our land. I am deeply grateful to Senator Graham for sharing this mission and for carrying it across the finish line in the Senate,” said Rep. Mast.

The Medal of Sacrifice Act is supported by the National Police Association, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association (FLEOA), the Sergeants Benevolent Association (SBA) and the Police Officers Defense Coalition.

####


FBI Director To Graham: We Need Logan's Law

WASHINGTON – During today’s hearing before the Senate Appropriations Committee’s Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies, U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina) questioned Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel on Graham’s legislation to create a Violent Criminal Offender Database, known as Logan’s Law.

Graham introduced Logan’s Law in response to the murder of Logan Federico at the hands of a violent repeat offender in Columbia, South Carolina. The bill seeks to shine a light on judges and prosecutors who fail to adequately hold criminals accountable.

GRAHAM: “Director Patel, when it comes to systems, do you think the country would be well-served to have a law like I’m proposing called Logan’s Law, that would require states to report to the Attorney General of the United States the results of all cases involving violent crime…to include the charge and the plea bargain, so we would know better about soft-on-crime prosecutors and judges?”

DIRECTOR PATEL: “That bill is critical to providing the information that we at the FBI house at our criminal justice information center - CJIS property - in West Virginia. We are only as good as the data we are given. We don’t go out and proactively and legally obtain that data from our partner enforcement agencies around the country.”

GRAHAM: “So you would support Logan’s Law, requiring that to be done?”

DIRECTOR PATEL: “Absolutely, we need it.”

GRAHAM: “Yeah, I think so too.” https://youtu.be/FTDDMyrs4nw?si=n7p9JFHb7D85AhDk&t=146

The actions of soft-on-crime judges and prosecutors directly affect Americans across the country. This week, a career criminal in Massachusetts fired 50 to 60 rounds while walking down a busy Massachusetts road. The perpetrator hit two innocent bystanders, leaving them in critical condition, and traded gunfire with both a police officer and a former Marine.

GRAHAM: “The man, who in Cambridge, Massachusetts, who shot at a bunch of drivers, he had a long criminal record. Are you familiar with that?”

DIRECTOR PATEL: “Yes, sir.”

GRAHAM: “As a matter of fact, while he was on probation, he shot at police officers and not much happened. Are you familiar with that?”

DIRECTOR PATEL: “Yes, sir.”

GRAHAM: “Do you agree that we need to break the cycle of catch-and-release and looking the other way when it comes to violent crime in this country?”

DIRECTOR PATEL: “I think catch-and-release is the number one cause of recidivist violent crime in the history of the United States of America.” https://youtu.be/FTDDMyrs4nw?si=ex8aFQh_118h78Gl&t=202

Watch Graham’s full exchange with Director Patel HERE.

####


Luján, Leger Fernández, Davids, Bacon Lead Bipartisan Bill to Prevent Wrongful Detention of Native Americans During ICE Enforcement

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), a member of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and U.S. Representatives Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM-03), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Indian and Insular Affairs, Sharice Davids (D-KS-03), and Don Bacon (R-NE-02) introduced the bipartisan Respect Tribal IDs Act to improve how Department of Homeland Security (DHS) personnel recognize and interact with Tribal identification documents during immigration enforcement. The legislation comes amid growing reports of Native Americans being questioned, delayed, or detained after federal officers failed to recognize valid Tribal IDs and documentation as proof of citizenship.

The Respect Tribal IDs Act would require DHS, in coordination with the Bureau of Indian Affairs and Tribal Nations, to develop standardized training for officers and employees involved in immigration enforcement. The training would include how to identify Tribal documents, when Tribal IDs qualify as proof of U.S. citizenship, proper protocols for interacting with enrolled Tribal members, and the federal government’s trust responsibility to Tribal Nations. The bill also requires DHS to create region-specific guidance and reference materials for officers, including examples of Tribal IDs used by federally recognized Tribes in areas where agents operate. Officers would be required to complete the training annually and whenever they are reassigned to a new region.

“In New Mexico and across the country, our Tribal brothers and sisters deserve to be treated with dignity and respect,” said Senator Luján. “Under the Trump administration, we’ve seen disturbing incidents where Tribal members were stopped, questioned, and harassed by ICE officers simply because of their appearance or because officers failed to recognize their Tribal IDs. That is unacceptable and deeply wrong. To address these failures, my legislation would establish clear standards and ensure DHS officers are properly trained to recognize and accept Tribal IDs. No one should have to fear being harassed because of a failure in training or accountability.”

“We’ve seen Trump’s Department of Homeland Security violate the rights of the first Americans countless times. Indigenous people in New Mexico and across the country have been unfairly questioned, harassed, and detained. This bill will require that DHS officers be trained to recognize Tribal IDs and prevent wrongful detentions,” said Representative Leger Fernández. “All law enforcement officials must respect tribal governments and the documents they provide their citizens. ICE and CBP agents must follow the law and respect tribal sovereignty.”

“Tribal sovereignty is a legal and constitutional recognition of Tribal Nations and their citizens, and the federal government has a responsibility to respect that,” said Representative Davids. “But lately, we’ve seen troubling reports of Native Americans being questioned or detained because federal officers lacked the training needed to recognize tribal documentation or understand Tribal Nation citizenship. This bipartisan bill is about preventing those failures, improving training and accountability, and making sure all people are treated with the dignity and respect they deserve.”

“The Respect Tribal IDs Act is a commonsense bill to ensure DHS personnel are properly trained to recognize Tribal IDs and work respectfully with Tribal communities,” said Representative Bacon. “Federal agencies have a responsibility to protect and support Tribal citizens, and this legislation helps ensure they do that.”

“The National Congress of American Indians supports this legislation to ensure that federal agents within the U.S. Department of Homeland Security are properly trained to recognize and respect Tribal identification documents,” said Larry Wright, Executive Director, National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). “Too often, the lack of consistent training has led to confusion, delays, and the improper treatment of Tribal citizens. By requiring comprehensive training on Tribal IDs, this bill affirms the validity of Tribal governments and strengthens the federal trust responsibility. NCAI urges its passage to promote respectful interactions, enhance security, and uphold the rights of Tribal citizens.”

The legislation follows multiple high-profile incidents and reports involving Native Americans whose Tribal documentation was reportedly rejected or questioned during federal enforcement encounters. Tribal leaders and advocates have raised concerns that inconsistent training and lack of familiarity with Tribal IDs have contributed to wrongful stops and confusion involving U.S. citizens, particularly in border states and regions with large Native populations. The legislation seeks to establish clearer standards and prevent future incidents by ensuring federal personnel are properly trained before conducting enforcement activities.

Following major DHS scandals, Senator Luján introduced legislation to hold ICE and CBP accountable, increase transparency, and make communities safer. Senator Luján opposed the confirmation of Senator Markwayne Mullin to serve as DHS Secretary. Senator Luján also voted against Kristi Noem’s confirmation as DHS Secretary and successfully pushed for her ouster. Additionally in January 2025, Senator Luján joined Representative Leger Fernández in a letter to President Trump demanding immediate action to address reports of ICE agents harassing, detaining, and questioning Native American Tribal members about their citizenship.

Congresswoman Leger Fernández has repeatedly confronted the Trump administration’s abuses of Native Americans. She secured language in the FY26 House Appropriations Homeland Security Subcommittee Bill Report for DHS to support Tribal governmental competency training to reduce immigration enforcement encounters with Native Americans. She also led a letter to President Trump in January 2025, demanding a stop to the unconscionable ICE Harassment and racial profiling of Native American Citizens. She further publicly sounded the alarm about ICE’s abuses against Native Americans through informing and questioning the House Appropriations Committee Chairman Tom Cole, about the issue. Additionally, she is leading a FY27 Homeland Security Appropriations request with 12 other Members for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers (FLETC), in collaboration with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, to provide tribal government competency training for federal immigration enforcement officers. Further, she is working with Tribal leadership and continuously bringing attention to the Trump administration’s ICE racial profiling, harassment, and detention of Native Americans.

Full bill text is available here.

###


Senate Unanimously Passes Bipartisan Luján, Barrasso Suicide Lifeline Bill

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) and John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) applauded the U.S. Senate for unanimously passing their bipartisan legislation Monday night to increase the efficiency of the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by assessing challenges to transmitting geolocation information.

“The 988 hotline is a critical resource for those facing mental health crises and has saved countless lives in New Mexico and across the country,” said Senator Luján. “Senate passage of our bipartisan bill is an important step toward making the 988 hotline more reliable, efficient, and responsive for those in need. I applaud my Senate colleagues for unanimously passing this vital legislation to help ensure people are connected with the local resources and emergency services they need. Now, I urge the House to act swiftly to send this bill to the President’s desk.”

“The 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is a vital tool that saves lives in Wyoming and across the country,” said Senator Barrasso. “I applaud the Senate for unanimously passing our bipartisan bill to help us better connect callers with local emergency services through geolocation information. The House should take up and pass our bill without delay so we can update this critical lifeline to better help those who need it most.”

In 2024, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) took action to require service providers to route phone calls to 988 to the nearest call center based on geographic location. Last July, the FCC took steps to require geo-routing for texts. Previously, calls and texts were routed based on the phone’s area code, often resulting in a geographic mismatch.

The 988 Lifeline Location Improvement Act is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va), Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), James Risch (R-Idaho), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.).

This legislation is supported by the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) and the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials International (APCO).

Background:

The 988 Lifeline Location Improvement Act would:

Instruct the FCC to open a Notice of Inquiry (NOI) to address the challenges to transmitting geolocation information with calls to the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline.

Direct the FCC to consider legal authorities, protection of consumer privacy, feasibility, technical implementation standards, assessment of funds, technical challenges for callers with disabilities, and current technology available.

Require the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a study and submit to Congress a report on the opportunities and challenges related to implementing geolocation in consultation with representatives from telecommunications, emergency centers, 911 service providers, small and rural local governments, community mental health centers, and individuals who have experience providing services for people who are deaf, hard of hearing, or have hearing loss.

Full text of the legislation can be found here.

###


Markey, Cantwell, Schumer, Colleagues Slam Trump for Terminating National Science Board, Continuing War on Science

Letter Text (PDF)

Washington (May 12, 2026) - Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Subcommittee on Primary Health and Retirement Security and member of the Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, along with Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Commerce Committee, today wrote to President Donald Trump and Brian Stone, acting head of the National Science Foundation (NSF), demanding answers on why the President dismissed all members of the NSF’s National Science Board (NSB), the advisory group that governs the agency. This mass firing of NSB members follows a pattern under this administration of terminating medical and scientific advisors, including the NSF’s outside advisory committees and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) vaccine advisory committee. Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and 23 senators also signed the letter.

In the letter, the Senators wrote, “This is yet another attack in this administration’s relentless war on science, forcing an agency into crisis. NSF now lacks a board, a permanent director, and a deputy director. The agency has also lost more than 30 percent of its staff since January 2025 due to the administration’s reckless mass terminations. In addition, the NSF terminated hundreds of active research awards and has been issuing new awards at the slowest pace in at least 35 years. The timing of the NSB terminations also raises significant suspicion of the motivation for the firings. The board was next scheduled to meet on May 5, 2026, and reporting indicates that a report on the United States ceding scientific ground to China was set to be released as part of the meeting—a report Congress urgently needs as experts and recent forecasts indicate that our country’s scientific and innovation leadership is at risk due to this administration’s actions undermining research.”

The lawmakers continued, “We are also greatly concerned by political interference by the White House over this independent agency. Terminated NSB members have stated that OMB instructed NSF leadership not to share details of the agency’s budget plans with the full board, despite the NSB’s statutorily mandated role in approving NSF’s spending. With the NSB now entirely vacated, there is no independent check on OMB’s influence, if not control, over NSF grant-making, strategic direction, and spending priorities. As one former board member warned, NSF could ‘essentially become a pass-through for implementing things in the domain of sciences and technology that the administration just wants to do.’”

The Senators requested the following information by May 29, 2026:

The legal and constitutional basis for the President’s termination of all NSB members on April 24, 2026.

How NSF will perform the NSB’s statutory functions—including approval of major awards and expenditures, establishment of NSF policies, and provision of advice to the President and Congress—during any period in which there is no functioning board.

Whether President Trump intends to appoint new NSB members and, if so, by what timeline.

Communications between OMB, the White House, or any other Executive Office of the President and NSF leadership directing NSF not to share budget, grant-making, or strategic planning information with NSB members.

What steps NSF has taken, or plans to take, to ensure that the mandated report on the state of science and engineering in the United States—including the forthcoming report on United States’ scientific competitiveness relative to China—is completed and transmitted to Congress in accordance with the agency’s statutory obligations.

Additional cosigners include Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

###


Senator Marshall Honors Law Enforcement Officers During National Police Week

Washington – As the nation recognizes National Police Week, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) is honoring the brave law enforcement officers across Kansas who put their lives on the line every day to protect their communities. Across all 105 counties, Kansas law enforcement officers are on the front lines of combating violent crime. In rural Kansas, especially, officers often cover hundreds of square miles, answering calls at all hours and serving not only as law enforcement officers, but as trusted members of the communities they protect.

Senator Marshall joined a bipartisan resolution, led by Senators Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL), designating May 10–16, 2026, as National Police Week. The resolution honors law enforcement officers who made the ultimate sacrifice in 2025. Tragically, Kansas lost four officers last year:

Undersheriff Brandon Gaede, Phillips County Sheriff’s Office

Deputy Elijah Ming, Wyandotte County Sheriff’s Office

Officer Hunter Simoncic, Kansas City, Kansas Police Department

Sergeant Scott Heimann, Hays Police Department

Read the full text of the resolution here.

“Growing up as the son of the Chief of Police in El Dorado, I learned early on about the sacrifices that our law enforcement officers make every single day,” said Senator Marshall. “These men and women leave their homes not knowing what dangers they may face, but they answer the call anyway because they care deeply about the safety of their communities. During National Police Week, we honor the brave officers who continue to serve and remember the heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice in the line of duty. Law enforcement officers are the backbone of law and order in this country, and we owe them our gratitude and support.”

Senator Marshall has been a consistent advocate for law enforcement throughout his time in the Senate. He has supported legislation to increase penalties for assaults on law enforcement officers, backed measures to ensure officers have access to the equipment and training they need, and fought to fully fund federal grant programs that flow directly to Kansas agencies.

As part of the annual federal appropriations process, Senator Marshall has submitted the following funding requests on behalf of Kansas law enforcement:

Robust funding for the Byrne Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, which provides support for a range of programs related to crime prevention, law enforcement, prosecution, corrections, and mental and behavioral health.

Robust funding for the Regional Information Sharing Systems (RISS) Program to support intelligence sharing and coordination among law enforcement agencies.

Robust funding for the High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, which assists federal, state, and local agencies in combatting drug trafficking.

Highest possible funding for the Office of National Drug Control Policy (ONDCP), which coordinates the nation’s efforts to combat drug use and trafficking.

###


Senator Marshall: Kansas Farmers Need Competitive, Affordable Fertilizer Markets

Senator Marshall Questions Witnesses at the Senate Ag Committee

Washington – On Tuesday, U.S. Senator Roger Marshall, M.D. (R-Kansas), questioned witness Mr. Corey Rosenbusch, President and CEO of the Fertilizer Institute, at the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing. The hearing focused on the fertilizer industry and ways to ensure a stable and affordable supply for American producers.

Senator Marshall’s focus was on rising fertilizer input costs, and his concerns over limited market competition and domestic supply constraints that he argued are contributing to higher costs for American farmers. He directly asked if the Fertilizer Institute supports removing the 16% countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate, to which the CEO declined to answer.

Click here to download the full video.

Highlights from the hearing include:

Senator Marshall: “Thank you so much, Chairman and Ranking Member, for your leadership on this as well. Thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts, crop insurance and reference prices have been taken care of for the most part, but now input costs are the number one issue concerning American farmers. In fact, fertilizer costs now account up to 40% of input costs. That is now the number one issue. American farmers are price takers on both ends, paying monopoly prices for inputs they must buy, then accepting commodity prices they cannot control with no pricing power on either side. That’s not a market. It’s a trap for the American farmers. I do point out that prices for fertilizer were higher for some 18 months when Russia invaded Ukraine, and those prices came now, but of course, now they’re up significantly. I’ll speak to Mr. Rosenbush first. As you know, one particular company controls 64% of us, phosphate rock, mind, and they account for 90% of retail sales to farmers. It’s being reported that this largest domestic supplier of phosphate is closing plants, which will reduce domestic supplies, while we have a 16% duty on Moroccan imports of phosphate. So, I guess the other question I would ask you is, what are these countervailing duties protecting? Aren’t farmers now getting squeezed from both sides with less domestic supply and restricted imports?”

Mr. Rosenbusch: “Yeah. Thank you, Senator Marshall, for that question. And really, an interesting topic that I think is going to be the hot topic going forward into the future. I can’t speak for a specific company’s business decisions. And as you are aware, those are companies that are all TFI members on opposite sides of that case, so we remain neutral when it comes to that specific case.”

Senator Marshall: “I’m not asking you to comment on their plan, but I think you would agree with me that the farmers are getting squeezed on both sides now that there’s less domestic supply and restricted imports. Does the Fertilizer Institute support free market competition and fertilizer pricing? Yes or no? But if the answer is yes, you must justify the duties that block the world’s largest phosphate producer from competing for American farmers’ business.”

Mr. Rosenbusch: “There’s no question, Senator, that farmers are going through a really difficult economic time, and TFI does support policies that promote open, fair, predictable, and transparent trading environment.”

Senator Marshall: “We understand all that. We understand there’s a shortage of sulfur when you need the sulfur to mine the phosphate. That’s pretty elementary chemistry. I’m just going to ask you directly, does the Fertilizer Institute support or oppose removing the 16% countervailing duties on Moroccan phosphate? The farmers in Kansas deserve an answer.”

Mr. Rosenbusch: “Senator, I understand how challenging that is for farmers, because we have member companies that are both on both sides of that case. We do not take a position on that particular case at the ITC right now.”

Senator Marshall: “American farmers paid almost $7 billion in excess costs over five years because of that 16% countervailing duty. Does the Fertilizer Institute believe American farmers should pay above market prices to protect a single company’s market position?”

Mr. Rosenbusch: “Senator, we definitely believe that farmers need access, and if five member companies are committed to ensuring they have supply, and that that supply is in line with what global markets are. In many cases, we have seen that the US market is actually traded at a bit of a discount right now, almost $150 cheaper than what Brazil pays for their phosphates. And that commitment that I think the US fertilizer suppliers have been to the farmer to get an affordable and abundant supply of fertilizers.”

Senator Marshall: “Would you agree that the American farmers deserve access to the lowest cost, highest quality fertilizers available regardless of where it’s produced?”

Mr. Rosenbusch: “We 100% agree that fertilizer manufacturing and bolstering the domestic supply of fertilizer is incredibly important to deliver to us growers the fertilizer they need in order to be profitable.”

Senator Marshall: “I just want to reiterate that the number one challenge with American farmers today is input cost. And fertilizers now account for up to 40% of those input costs. Look trade exports are up. We went from 2.3 to 2.8 billion bushels of corn last. Last year we had a 20% increase in corn and ethanol exports again this year, the problem is the input cost, and the fertilizer is the biggest chunk of those that we need to address. And I appreciate, again, the chairman and ranking member for giving us this opportunity to discuss these. We’ve been working on these again since Russia invaded Ukraine, and we need to give the American farmer some relief now, getting rid of those countervailing duties would be the quickest, most immediate impact that the American farmer could see in the real world today.”

###


McConnell Remarks at SAC-D FY27 Defense Budget Hearing

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, delivered the following opening statement at today’s hearing, “A Review of the President’s Fiscal Year 2027 Budget Request for the Department of Defense”:

Secretary Hegseth, General Caine – welcome. I’m looking forward to discussing the President’s budget request and I’m encouraged by this opportunity to work together for the common defense.

Today, the need for significant defense investments is as urgent and obvious as it is overdue. Quantity has a quality all its own. And the sheer scale of our defense commitments sends a powerful signal.

But what goes on under that topline matters. The way this budget request is structured matters. This is not a $1.5 trillion dollar defense appropriations request. It’s a request for $1.1 trillion in base appropriations and another $350 billion in reconciliation.

The good news? The base request reflects real growth, unlike the net cut in the FY26 request… and unlike the Biden-level CR for FY25.

But some of the most pressing items on the FY27 to-do list are downstream of missed opportunities in FY26… Like the failure to fully fund $28 billion in multiyear contracts for critical munitions. This subcommittee did what we could to increase munitions purchases above the FY26 requested levels. But we couldn’t do it all without sufficient topline.

This year, the FY27 request sets a higher topline…High enough, one would think, to build the Department’s highest priorities into the base budget request, instead of shunting them off into a one-time reconciliation request.

Which brings me to the bad news: The FY27 request fails to make room in the base budget for some of the military’s top priorities.

This distinction between base and reconciliation matters. Base funding is what creates budget stability for the services and sends consistent demand signals to industry. And base funding is what gets extended by short-term continuing resolutions when work on full-year appropriations is unfinished.

As I said last year, reconciliation should be a supplement to, not a substitute for, sustained annual funding.

Political realities will not always allow for party-line budget reconciliation, and if the Department’s top priorities aren’t built into annual appropriations, we’re taking a big risk.

The Department is right to make Golden Dome, munitions, the F-35 program, and drone dominance top priorities.

But these key lines of effort only work if we put them on solid fiscal footing.

So why is the Department requesting funding for multi-year munitions contracts – which, by definition, require steady year-on-year funding – via one-time reconciliation?

And why risk some of the President’s top priorities like Golden Dome by not firmly building them into the Department’s base budget?

National missile defense will require sustained funding over many years, not a one-off expenditure.

Other key platforms, like a second destroyer and the E-7 battle management aircraft aren’t requested in base or reconciliation.

Mr. Secretary, you’ve been outspoken about the place of America’s armed forces as the “most powerful, most lethal, and most prepared military on the planet”.

I’m as committed as you are to sustaining that role… But that’s precisely why I’m confused by the Administration’s failure to prioritize key systems in year-on-year base-budget spending.

Mr. Secretary, I hope you’ll also explain the Department’s current approach to allies and partners. The stunning success of Operation Midnight Hammer and Operation Epic Fury illustrates the importance of the access, basing, and overflight granted by allies in Europe and the Gulf.

I’m as frustrated as anyone about Spain, but they are the exception to the rule when it comes to European allies carrying more of the burden.

Likewise, it’s impossible to conceive of U.S. power projection in INDOPACOM without the reach that comes from decades-old alliance relationships.

So I’ll want to hear the Department’s view on the role of longtime allies in support of U.S. interests across the globe… Because it’s quite clear now that our expectation for European allies is no longer the “focus on your own continent” message they received from your subordinates for most of last year.

Our adversaries are working together to undermine America and the West.

Strained relations with our partners – who are making generational commitments to collective defense and driving investment into American-made weapons and systems – serves our adversaries’ interests and limits our capacity and deterrent power globally.

So I’ll want to hear about the future of capacity-building with committed allies and partners, from the Baltic States to Taiwan and the Philippines. And I expect that European capacity-building investments intended specifically for Ukraine reach their destination without further delay.

Wars in Ukraine and the Middle East clearly show that we have things to learn from our friends. If we want Drone Dominance, it makes perfect sense to deepen cooperation with the world’s foremost drone warfare experts.

This isn’t charity. When our partners are capable, deterrence is stronger and the risk to US servicemembers is lower. This is as true in the Middle East today as it is in Europe and in the Indo-Pacific.

Our allies and partners share many of our global interests, and if fail to take advantage of this alignment, we’re only hurting ourselves.

I’ll end with one final observation on the prospect of supplemental appropriations: The deficiencies of our critical munitions stocks and industrial capacity existed long before conflict with Iran and Russia’s escalation in Ukraine.

If the Administration sends Congress a supplemental appropriations request, it’ll be an important step toward fixing a longstanding problem and investing in future deterrence. It shouldn’t be a referendum on war in Iran.

I supported a national security supplemental in 2024 even though I thought President Biden’s approach to Russia and Iran was too weak.

I did it not only because supporting Ukraine is in our strategic interests, but because these funds helped replenish American stockpiles and restore our own defense industrial base.

Today, the need to expand munitions production and replace battlefield losses is even more urgent.

And if we get the chance to consider an emergency supplemental, I would urge each of our colleagues – even those who object to the president’s use of force against Iran – to leave politics at the door and help restore readiness.


Four Years Following Killing of Palestinian-American Journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, Van Hollen, Merkley, Welch Again Press for Justice, Accountability in Her Death

Washington, D.C. – Today, four years following the killing of Shireen Abu Akleh, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) once again pressed the Trump Administration to pursue justice and accountability in her death. The Senators urged Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel to release the report conducted by the United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) in 2023 into her death and to provide an update on the FBI’s investigation into her death.

The Senators begin, “We write regarding the pursuit of transparency and accountability for the shooting death of American citizen and respected journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh. It has now been four years since Ms. Abu Akleh was shot and killed by Israeli Defense Forces while she was reporting in the West Bank. There was reportedly deep disagreement over the Biden Administration’s public conclusions about the intentionality of the shooting from among the U.S. officials who closely examined the case. This reporting further underscores the need to release the summation report on the shooting death of Shireen Abu Akleh produced by the United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) in 2023. Additionally, we request a fulsome update from the FBI regarding their investigation into Ms. Abu Akleh’s killing.”

“As the New York Times outlined in October 2025, several U.S. officials in the USSC office believed that the Israeli soldier who shot Ms. Abu Akleh must have been aware he was targeting a journalist ‘based on the circumstances of the shooting and the available evidence.’ In particular, Col. Steve Gabavics – a career military policeman who was serving as chief of staff to Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel in the USSC office at the time of Ms. Abu Akleh’s shooting – was ‘flabbergasted’ that the July 4, 2022, State Department statement attributed the shooting to ‘tragic circumstances’ and he believes that the U.S. government soft-pedaled the USSC’s findings to appease the Israeli government,” the Senators continued.

They additionally noted, “In November 2022, the FBI reportedly opened its own investigation into the shooting death of Abu Akleh. And yet, to date, the FBI has not released any findings, nor has it shared an expectation that it may do so in the future. Last year, the FBI was supposed to provide a briefing for relevant Senate Appropriations Committee staff on the status of the Shireen Abu Akleh case. However, the FBI officials who conducted the briefing were not familiar with Abu Akleh’s case and only spoke at a high level about the FBI’s abilities and constraints in these types of cases. On May 7, 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists urged the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide a public update on the status of the investigation and reasons for delay, and to commit to a timeline for the FBI to complete a thorough, impartial, and independent criminal investigation and to publicly release its findings. Given the enormous public interest at stake in Abu Akleh’s case, as well as its implications for subsequent cases of violence against American citizens in the West Bank, it is long past time for the FBI to provide an update to Congress on its investigation into the shooting death of Shireen Abu Akleh.”

“Since Abu Akleh’s death in May 2022, there have been at least seven additional American citizens killed in the West Bank. The killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the U.S. government. The public release of the USSC summation report on Abu Akleh’s killing, as well as an update on the FBI’s investigation, are critical to ensuring transparency and accountability in Abu Akleh’s case, and also to avoid future preventable and wrongful deaths – goals we should all support,” the Senators concluded.

The text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Rubio and Director Patel:

We write regarding the pursuit of transparency and accountability for the shooting death of American citizen and respected journalist, Shireen Abu Akleh. It has now been four years since Ms. Abu Akleh was shot and killed by Israeli Defense Forces while she was reporting in the West Bank. There was reportedly deep disagreement over the Biden Administration’s public conclusions about the intentionality of the shooting from among the U.S. officials who closely examined the case. This reporting further underscores the need to release the summation report on the shooting death of Shireen Abu Akleh produced by the United States Security Coordinator for Israel and the Palestinian Authority (USSC) in 2023. Additionally, we request a fulsome update from the FBI regarding their investigation into Ms. Abu Akleh’s killing.

As the New York Times outlined in October 2025, several U.S. officials in the USSC office believed that the Israeli soldier who shot Ms. Abu Akleh must have been aware he was targeting a journalist “based on the circumstances of the shooting and the available evidence.” In particular, Col. Steve Gabavics – a career military policeman who was serving as chief of staff to Lt. Gen. Michael Fenzel in the USSC office at the time of Ms. Abu Akleh’s shooting – was “flabbergasted” that the July 4, 2022, State Department statement attributed the shooting to “tragic circumstances” and he believes that the U.S. government soft-pedaled the USSC’s findings to appease the Israeli government.

The Biden Administration had tasked the USSC office with examining the case of Ms. Abu Akleh’s shooting and writing a report on the evidence. Colonel Gabavics described himself as the lead U.S. investigator on the case and said he assessed the shooting was intentional due to several factors, including records of Israeli military radio traffic, visibility on that day, and the precision of the shots. Colonel Gabavics reportedly wrote these findings and strong language into a draft of the USSC report on the shooting, but General Fenzel disagreed with the assessment of intentionality and repeatedly softened the report language. According to the New York Times, this back-and-forth culminated in Gen. Fenzel ordering Col. Gabavics off the case and threatening his dismissal.

Ultimately, the final USSC summation report that was selectively shared with some members of Congress did not shed light on the state of mind of the individual responsible for firing the fatal shot, mainly because the Israeli government did not grant the USSC access to key witnesses. Nevertheless, the report does provide very important insights into the circumstances that led to Ms. Abu Akleh’s wrongful death, including relevant information and findings about the conduct of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) unit involved in that operation – as well as other IDF units operating in the West Bank. Following Ms. Abu Akleh’s death, Secretary Blinken asked the Israeli government to review the IDF rules of engagement in the West Bank, but he was rebuffed. Such a review remains necessary today to protect innocent civilians, including American citizens, in the West Bank. In addition, we urge the Administration to release the USSC summation report to the public to help ensure transparency and accountability in the shooting death of Ms. Abu Akleh.

In November 2022, the FBI reportedly opened its own investigation into the shooting death of Abu Akleh. And yet, to date, the FBI has not released any findings, nor has it shared an expectation that it may do so in the future. Last year, the FBI was supposed to provide a briefing for relevant Senate Appropriations Committee staff on the status of the Shireen Abu Akleh case. However, the FBI officials who conducted the briefing were not familiar with Abu Akleh’s case and only spoke at a high level about the FBI’s abilities and constraints in these types of cases. On May 7, 2026, the Committee to Protect Journalists urged the Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation to provide a public update on the status of the investigation and reasons for delay, and to commit to a timeline for the FBI to complete a thorough, impartial, and independent criminal investigation and to publicly release its findings. Given the enormous public interest at stake in Abu Akleh’s case, as well as its implications for subsequent cases of violence against American citizens in the West Bank, it is long past time for the FBI to provide an update to Congress on its investigation into the shooting death of Shireen Abu Akleh.

Since Abu Akleh’s death in May 2022, there have been at least seven additional American citizens killed in the West Bank. The killings of these Americans in the West Bank have been met by a lack of accountability from the Netanyahu government and an inability to secure justice by the U.S. government. The public release of the USSC summation report on Abu Akleh’s killing, as well as an update on the FBI’s investigation, are critical to ensuring transparency and accountability in Abu Akleh’s case, and also to avoid future preventable and wrongful deaths – goals we should all support.

Sincerely,

###


VIDEO: Sen. Moran Reaffirms Support for the ROTOR Act During Hearing with Secretary Hegseth

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) – a member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense – today underscored the need to pass and enact the ROTOR Act during a subcommittee hearing with Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. He also questioned Secretary Hegseth on the department’s reversal of support for the bill on the day before it was considered in the House, after its unanimous passage in the Senate.

“I worked closely with Senator Cruz to introduce and secure the unanimous Senate passage of the ROTOR Act,” said Sen. Moran. “There was an airplane that originated from Kansas that saw the death of 67 people near Reagan Airport. The department in December – December the 17th – released a statement in support of the ROTOR Act, and yet, when the House considered the ROTOR Act, the department released an additional statement and claimed that enactment would create significant unresolved budgetary burdens and operational security risks affecting national defense activities.”

“Can you explain what happened between the first statement and the second statement that caused there to be a different reaction?” continued Sen. Moran. “I ask this because it’s still very important to me that the ROTOR Act, or something very similar to the ROTOR Act, is enacted into law, and apparently for it to be passed, it needs to be something that the Department of Defense is supportive of. So, what is it that changed between this initial statement and the second statement so that we can bring the legislative endeavor to fruition?”

Click HERE to Watch Sen. Moran’s Full Remarks


Moreno Statement Following Trump’s Call for Passage of Housing Legislation, Institutional Investor Ban

WASHINGTON –Today, Senator Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio) released the following statement after President Trump called for the passage of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act and thanked him for his work in securing the ban on institutional investors purchasing single family homes in the legislation.


Murphy to Hegseth On Iran War: History Is Not On Your Side, Time Is Not On Our Side

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Tuesday questioned U.S. Secretary of Defense, Pete Hegseth, and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, during a hearing of the U.S. Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense. With the Strait of Hormuz still closed, and price increases on gas and basic goods fueling an economic crisis at home, Murphy grilled both witnesses on the Trump administration’s fundamentally misguided strategy in Iran. Murphy also highlighted significant inconsistencies between President Trump’s premature declarations of strategic victory in Iran and intelligence reports showing the regime retains most of its pre-existing missile and drone capacity.

Murphy pressed Hegseth on the Trump administration’s plan to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and bring down gas prices for Americans: “In other briefings, people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the strait, that ultimately it will be a political decision made by Iran. How are we going to get the strait open? Because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these spiraling gas prices which are bankrupting families and farmers all across the country.”

Murphy warned Trump’s long-game strategy in Iran guarantees economic doom for countless American farmers, small businesses, and families: “Time is not on our side here. I believe you are being way too optimistic in your assessment of their potential to cave. But, if this goes on for another 30 days, there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt. There are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so, time is not on our side. And I just don't believe that Iran is ready to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there is going to be a whole lot of families and businesses that are ruined in the United States.”

Murphy laid out the long history of failed economic pressure campaigns that dragged on for years: “The Russians believed, years ago, that Ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we were putting on them. Your own intelligence estimates, as has been reported, suggest that in fact, the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years. This is a high risk strategy, to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause [Iran]to voluntarily reopen the strait when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order to preserve national pride.”

Murphy called for transparency from Hegseth and Caine after they repeatedly refused to answer basic questions about whether the war’s objectives had been met: “How do we or the American public assess the success of the mission when you’ve stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capabilities? How do we assess whether we should continue funding this?”

A full transcript of the exchange is available below.

Murphy: Thank you Madame Chair, thank you all for being here. Let me give you a chance, Mr. Secretary, to answer Senator Coons’s question, which is a really simple one: how are we going to get the Strait open? Because nothing matters more to our constituents than doing something about these spiraling gas prices which are bankrupting families and farmers all across the country.

And maybe let me ask it this way: this is the first time you’ve come before this committee, but in other briefings people that work for you have told us in plain terms that there is no military mechanism to reopen the Strait, that ultimately it will be a political decision made by Iran. And I think you’re confirming that here today, by suggesting that it will be economic pressure that will create a political imperative inside Tehran to open the strait.

So can you just confirm for the committee that there is not a military mechanism or means to reopen the Strait? That ultimately we have to, essentially, use diplomacy, economic diplomacy in this case, in order to convince Iran to make the decision to reopen the strait.

Hegseth: I would say, Senator, there most certainly are military means by which we could open the Strait. Both targets on land and also what we do with our naval capabilities, not to mention our naval blockade, demonstrated by-

Murphy: Why haven’t you done that? If that's true and that's not what has been testified to us in private briefings, why haven’t you done that already?

Hegseth: Ultimately, a preferred long-term approach would be a deal where they open it up. Where they stop being pirates of an international waters, and allow countries from all nations to flow. You know, these aren’t US ships that are being blockaded there, these are ships from all around the world, creating much more pressure for other countries than ours. So the bad guy here is Iran, who is closing the Strait through piracy effectively, because they really only have fast boat capabilities. We’re blockading them, none of their stuff is getting out, they’re feeling all the pressure.

Murphy: Ok so here's my follow up question: you don’t worry that through a study of history you might come to the conclusion that you are overestimating their willingness to cave based upon economic pressure? The Russians believed, years ago, that Ukraine would cave because of the economic pressure they were putting on Ukraine. We thought the North Vietnamese would cave because of the economic pressure we were putting on them. Your own intelligence estimates, as has been reported, suggest that in fact, the Iranians are in a position to hold out for potentially years.

This is a high risk strategy, to hope that this economic pressure will eventually cause them to voluntarily reopen the Strait, when there's plenty of evidence from military history to show that countries that are being attacked or invaded or occupied are actually willing to put up with a whole lot of economic misery in order to preserve national pride.

Hegseth: Well aware. We understand all of those historical case studies. And it’s not just economic pressure: there is military pressure, diplomatic pressure, we certainly have a lot more military pressure we can bring to bear - if the President were to choose to do so. I think there are a lot of different dynamics that we can, cards that the president can play, holding all of them to ensure even greater economic pressure or even greater military pressure in Iran. And they know that and that’s why the negotiations are serious and ongoing right now about giving up their nuclear capabilities, because they understand that.

Murphy: The problem is time is not on our side here. I believe you are being way too optimistic in your assessment of their potential to cave. But, if this goes on for another 30 days, there are going to be thousands more farms that will go bankrupt, there are going to be families that are going to be ruined. And so, time is not on our side. And I just don't believe that Iran is ready to capitulate yet. And if they capitulate in a year, there is going to be a whole of families and businesses that are ruined in the United States.

Murphy: General Caine, let me finally ask you a question about what seems to be a difference of opinion between the intelligence services you rely on and the public statements of the President of the United States, with respect to our war objectives. The Secretary and others in the president's cabinet have said very clearly that our war objective is to destroy Iran's missile and drone program. The president said just a week ago that Iran maybe had 18% to 19% of their missile capacity left. But there is public reporting suggesting that our intelligence agencies say that Iran still has 70% of their missile and drone capability, which would be a failure of our objectives if that were to be true. What can you tell us about the number of missiles and drones they have left and do you dispute that intelligence estimate?

Caine: Sir, I'm not going to comment, with deep respect for the question, I am not going to comment in this forum, on what may or may not have been opined on by the IC, which would suggest a leak or a confirmation of any intel. So while I appreciate the question, I hope you will also appreciate my not answering it.

Murphy: The president said that 80% of-

Caine: I'm not going to comment either way Sir.

Murphy: How do we or the American public assess the success of the mission when you’ve stated publicly the purpose of the mission is to destroy their missile and drone capabilities? How do we assess whether we should continue funding this? If you can't state-

Caine: I am not going to answer what you guys in Congress consider decision criteria around continued funding or not. What I know is that I have not read the report you are talking about. All of our battle damage assessment matters are classified and it would be inappropriate for me to comment in this forum on that. I appreciate the question but I'm not going to answer it.

Murphy: Let me put it to Secretary Hegseth. The president said that 80% of the missile capacity had been destroyed. This public report says it’s only 30%. Can you give an answer?

Hegseth: I mean I would answer the same way as the chairman.

Murphy: Not talking to this committee about the damages?


Senator Murray Grills Hegseth on Iran War, Trump’s Astronomical $1.5 Trillion War Budget, and Spending Priorities

Pressed by Murray on Trump’s comments that the U.S. can’t afford child care or health care—only fighting wars, Hegseth defends Trump’s budget request: “I certainly support this.”

ICYMI: Senator Murray on President Trump’s FY27 Budget Request

***WATCH: Senator Murray’s full questioning***

Washington, D.C. — Today—at a Senate Appropriations Defense Subcommittee hearing on the FY27 budget request for the Department of Defense (DoD)—U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, questioned Secretary Pete Hegseth on the extraordinary cost of the Iran war, the president’s astronomical $1.5 trillion defense budget, and the administration’s position that there is no money for child care but plenty of money for war.

[INCREASING COSTS OF WAR WITH IRAN]

Senator Murray began her questioning by pressing Secretary Hegseth about the cost of the war with Iran, noting how the war has cost servicemembers their lives and cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and counting. Acting Comptroller Jules W. Hurst III also responded to Senator Murray’s questions about the damage to U.S. facilities in the war with Iran.

MURRAY: Mr. Secretary, the war in Iran has not only cost 13 American servicemembers lives, it is also costing American taxpayers dearly. Tens of billions of dollars and counting—and that’s money that could be helping people perhaps get health care, but instead we’re paying for bombs dropped in a war that American people overwhelmingly oppose.

Now, earlier this morning, I know that your team testified Trump’s war with Iran cost $29 billion so far. That is $29 billion blown on a war of choice—and that’s what it would have cost actually to save the ACA tax credits. But, as my colleagues have already stated, what is concerning as well is it seems quite clear that cost estimate is suspiciously low.

Now, your acting comptroller suggested that damage to U.S. facilities was not factored into that figure. It is clear that there has been extensive damage to American military assets. New reporting from the Washington Post and others indicates that Iran has hit at least 228 structures or pieces of equipment at U.S. military sites.

Can you tell us what the cost of damage done to U.S. facilities is because of this war is?

HEGSETH: Well, I think Jay covered pretty clearly what we can or cannot share, but I would simply respond that, and I think it’s an important point considering what the president is undertaking, is what is the cost of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon and the fact that this president has been willing to make a historic and courageous choice to confront that, it comes with costs, and we recognize that and we honor that but—

MURRAY: I understand what your judgement is, and we have a judgement as well. I’m asking if you can tell us, and at what point you can tell us, what the cost of damage done to U.S. facilities is because of this war?

HURST: Yes ma’am, thanks for the question, and so for future posture in the Middle East we don’t know what that’s going to look like, we don’t know how we’re going to design these bases—

MURRAY: The damage to date, you do not have any cost estimate on it at all?

HURST: For the military construction, I do not have a cost estimate to provide you at this time.

MURRAY: Well, when will we get that?

HURST: Again, it depends on what the future posture is, how we decide to construct those bases—

MURRAY: To date, to date. You know what has happened to date. We can’t get that number and that is a real concern to us—our job is to appropriate dollars, and we’re just told “it’s coming, it’s coming” and we don’t get it, so it’s very hard to do our budgets.

And right now, Mr. Secretary, people are paying four, five, even six, seven dollars for gas—and American taxpayers are now on the hook as well for paying for this disastrous war.

You’re spending families’ hard-earned tax dollars on a war that many strongly oppose. And you’re forcing people to pay more at the pump—and yet you’re not even providing a real breakdown for the cost of this war so far. We have no real details, you have indicated that, and yet now you want Congress to send you $1.5 trillion more.

To me, that is unacceptable—and I hope our Republican colleagues will join us in not only rejecting that absurd request, but in insisting that the American people get the actual answers on how much money—their money—we are spending on this.

[CUTTING CHILD CARE AND HEALTH CARE FOR DEFENSE BUDGET]

Senator Murray continued by pressing Secretary Hegseth on Trump’s FY27 budget request and his comments that the U.S. can only afford to pay for war, not child care or health care.

MURRAY: Let me turn and say, Secretary Hegseth, the president has called Medicaid, Medicare, and child care “little scams” and said, quote, “we’re fighting wars, we cannot take care of day care.”

I’m just trying to understand that, is it your position, since you’re asking taxpayers for another half trillion dollars for the war, that American families should be forced to give up child care and health coverage so that you can have a $1.5 trillion for this budget?

HEGSETH: Senator, that’s not my department and I certainly support this and I also support the president’s efforts to find and remove fraud wherever possible and in general sense. And we do that in our department as well—

MURRAY: Well, I’m not talking about fraud, I actually asked whether an American family should lose their health care or their child care to pay for this budget. That is literally what the president suggested.

HEGSETH: The president has proposed a historic $1.5 trillion budget that will defend the nation and confront threats like Iran, which previous presidents allowed to happen, as Senator Graham pointed out. Previous administrations said they wanted to take care of this problem and they did not, and he’s doing it.

MURRAY: The question in front of this committee, the question in front of the American people, is what are they being asked to give up for this $1.5 trillion? That’s [what] I was talking about.

[CLOSING COMMENTS]

MURRAY: And lastly, Mr. Secretary, your budget request cuts through Trump’s ramblings and really to me makes the truth clear that you and the president don’t value families, as much as you value defense contractors. You want to increase the war budget—

HEGSETH: I meet every family at Dover, okay? Don’t tell me we don’t care about families, we sure do and we take care of them in every way we possibly can.

MURRAY: Let me finish, Mr. Secretary. I’m asking you about taxpayer dollars that everybody has to—when we’ve been to war before we’ve asked people to do victory gardens, we’ve asked them to pay more, you are not doing that. You are taking—asking for $1.5 trillion which means something else has to be given up— that’s what this committee is looking at.

You want to increase the war budget for next year by half a trillion dollars. That is taxpayer money that could be used to feed families, or build new, affordable homes, or wipe out some diseases completely, or increase [child care] investments twenty times over. But you are asking us to blow it all on war—and that’s not even counting the money you’ve spent bombing Iran—or that you may still request in a separate supplemental.

And to me, this budget wasn’t even strategically crafted. 1.5 trillion dollars? It’s like the president decided that was the number and you all filled in the blanks. So, what I am here today to say is you asked for a massive laundry list of unnecessary spending—a huge payday for defense contractors, and you still don’t even ask to give DOD’s civilian workers a pay raise, and to me, this is absurd!

I know you don’t care what I have to say. So let me quote you someone you might actually listen to: President Eisenhower. He said: “Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children.”

That is what this budget proposal is asking. It’s going to leave Americans cold and hungry to fund Trump’s wars and make defense contractors a fortune. So that is why I hope this committee throws that in the trash and comes together with a budget that works for all American families.

###