Wyden, Merkley, Murray Demand Trump Administration Restore Key BLM Roles

Oregon and Washington senators sound alarm on reassignment of Public Information Officers ahead of wildfire season

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Patty Murray, D-Wash., today demanded the Trump administration immediately reinstate 13 federal employees in Oregon and Washington state who received “reassignment letters” terminating their roles at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) in May, with no apparent plan at the start of fire season to replace them.

The employees worked in BLM district offices as Public Affairs Officers or Public Information Officers often tasked with communicating life-saving information to communities about fire conditions and evacuations. Some of the employees were also designated ‘red card’ holders, qualifying them to support wildland firefighting operations.

“It is extremely concerning that there are now zero on-the-ground, district level personnel to communicate critical public safety information to our constituents, the media, and local officials,” the senators wrote to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “Removing these employees…at the very start of fire season with no apparent plan to replace them leaves communities across our states without the information and resources they need to stay safe during fires; this may have life-threatening consequences.”

With record low snowpack and worsening drought, Oregon and Washington are facing a potentially historic wildfire season. Budget and staffing cuts by the Trump administration have left much of the West without the necessary resources and firefighting personnel it needs to prepare for and battle fires. These most recent cuts will make it even harder for local communities across Oregon and Washington to get up-to-date information about fires and evacuation notices.

In the words of one whistleblower, “As a long serving, fire-qualified member of the wildland fire community, I am deeply concerned by the loss of experienced, on-the-ground communicators from BLM district offices at the start of fire season. Public Affairs Specialists and Public Information Officers are not simply media contacts, they are trained members of the incident response system who help ensure communities receive timely evacuation notices, safety information, and updates during rapidly evolving emergencies.

Removing experienced fire-qualified personnel from these roles means losing decades of institutional knowledge, local relationships, and wildfire response experience when those skills are needed most. As Oregon and Washington face the potential for another severe fire season, reducing the capacity to communicate critical public safety information risks leaving communities less informed and less prepared during emergencies. Public information is a core component of wildfire response and weakening that capability has real consequences for public safety.”


Senator Murray, Colleagues Call on DOT Inspector General to open Investigation into Secretary Sean Duffy’s Corporate Sponsored “Great American Road Trip”

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, led Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Mazie K. Hirono (D-HI), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), in sending a letter to call on the Department of Transportation Inspector General to open an official investigation into Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s involvement in the “Great American Road Trip” reality show which was paid for by the same corporations he is tasked with regulating.

Senator Murray’s call to investigate comes after Secretary Duffy’s appearance at last month’s Senate Appropriations Transportation, Housing and Urban Development, and Related Agencies Subcommittee hearing where he refused to answer basic questions about the arrangement. In May, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington filed a complaint against Secretary Duffy, contending that Duffy’s reality show production may have violated federal gift and travel rules.

“We write to request that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) open an investigation into potential misconduct and violations of federal laws, rules, and regulations associated with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy’s participation in ‘The Great American Road Trip’ reality show,” wrote the senators. “We respectfully request that you review new information that was raised during a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on May 19, 2026. Specifically, during testimony before the Committee, Secretary Duffy suggested that ‘The Great American Road Trip’ was an official activity. Secretary Duffy stated: ‘This was officially part of America 250 and you all sanctioned America 250.’”

“Secretary Duffy’s insistence that his participation in the ‘The Great American Road Trip’ was part of his official duties raises serious questions about use of funds and potential misconduct. A non-profit called the Great American Road Trip, Inc. organized and paid for ‘gas, lodging, car rentals, and other production costs’ associated with the show,” the senators continued. “We are concerned with this potential mix between personal and professional activities. If the road trip was personal, then it appears a Cabinet official spent several days over multiple months taking and filming a road trip that should have been paid for by the Secretary, but instead the Secretary accepted gas, lodging, and other travel expenses from a non-profit funded by the very companies the Secretary regulates. If it was official—as Secretary Duffy suggested before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee—then a number of DOT-regulated companies financed an official activity of the United States government through a non-profit pass-through.”

“Many of the companies listed as sponsors are actively doing business with DOT or are directly regulated by DOT. As one company that declined the sponsorship opportunity put it, ‘you’re paying for access.’ Furthermore, the agreement between DOT and the non-profit was signed in December 2025, months after the filming for the series began in September 2025. It is important to know: what specific business did any of these sponsors have before DOT during this period? Who, if anyone, screened the sponsor list for potential conflicts?” The senators concluded. “We support celebrating America’s 250th Anniversary, and encourage all Americans to explore our national parks, historical landmarks, and museums across the country this year and every year. Our concern lies with the sponsorship of the Secretary’s road trip and the serious questions it raises.”

The full letter is available HERE and below.

Dear Acting Inspector General Behm:

We write to request that the Office of Inspector General (OIG) open an investigation into potential misconduct and violations of federal laws, rules, and regulations associated with the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Secretary Sean Duffy’s participation in “The Great American Road Trip” reality show.

In addition to the potential violations outlined in the attached May 11, 2026, complaint from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), we respectfully request that you review new information that was raised during a U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on May 19, 2026. Specifically, during testimony before the Committee, Secretary Duffy suggested that “The Great American Road Trip” was an official activity. Secretary Duffy stated: “This was officially part of America 250 and you all sanctioned America 250. … This is an official partner of America 250. Also this body told me that I’m supposed to promote tourism and travel, and that’s what it does as well.” The Secretary later reiterated: “If I’m going to celebrate America 250. You gave me the ability to partner with America 250 and I did. You told me, this body said to celebrate tourism and travel and that’s what I’m doing.”

Further, in a frequently asked questions document about the show, DOT states twice that “celebrating America’s 250th Anniversary is part of Secretary Duffy’s official duties, and The Great American Road Trip is one aspect in support of those responsibilities.” Even the White House’s website dedicated to America’s 250th Anniversary touts that DOT “is aiding in coordination of The Great American Road Trip, a year long, multi modal journey featuring designated Freedom 250 destinations.” As CREW’s President and CEO recently said, “The reason why people have questions is because [Duffy] has mixed his work with this quasipersonal, quasi-official travel.

Secretary Duffy’s insistence that his participation in the “The Great American Road Trip” was part of his official duties raises serious questions about use of funds and potential misconduct. A non-profit called the Great American Road Trip, Inc. organized and paid for “gas, lodging, car rentals, and other production costs” associated with the show. The Great American Road Trip, Inc. lists “sponsors powering America’s road trip” on its website, including Boeing, Toyota, Shell, Electronic Payments Coalition, CRH, Google, Royal Caribbean Group, Travel, American Bus Association, Comcast NBCUniversal, Enterprise, United Airlines, U.S. Travel Association, Philadelphia Convention & Visitors Bureau, Yellowstone Vacations, Grand Canyon, and Brand USA.

We are concerned with this potential mix between personal and professional activities. If the road trip was personal, then it appears a Cabinet official spent several days over multiple months taking and filming a road trip that should have been paid for by the Secretary, but instead the Secretary accepted gas, lodging, and other travel expenses from a non-profit funded by the very companies the Secretary regulates. If it was official—as Secretary Duffy suggested before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee—then a number of DOT-regulated companies financed an official activity of the United States government through a non-profit pass-through.

We understand that the DOT and the Great American Road Trip Inc. entered into a memorandum of agreement that states that the non-profit will receive “no compensation for the Gift, its use by DOT or any DOT-authorized third party, nor any favorable consideration for any future federal assistance, action, contract, or other financial award.” However, the companies and organizations that provided sponsorship funding to the non-profit of up to $1 million or in-kind contributions were not subject to the same terms. Many of the companies listed as sponsors are actively doing business with DOT or are directly regulated by DOT. As one company that declined the sponsorship opportunity put it, “you’re paying for access.” Furthermore, the agreement between DOT and the non-profit was signed in December 2025, months after the filming for the series began in September 2025. It is important to know: what specific business did any of these sponsors have before DOT during this period? Who, if anyone, screened the sponsor list for potential conflicts?

We support celebrating America’s 250th Anniversary, and encourage all Americans to explore our national parks, historical landmarks, and museums across the country this year and every year. Our concern lies with the sponsorship of the Secretary’s road trip and the serious questions it raises.

We respectfully request that you promptly investigate this matter and complete the investigation by September 30, 2026.

###


Sen. Ossoff Pushing to Protect Georgia’s Specialty Crop Growers from Unfair Imports from Mexico

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff is pushing the Trump Administration to protect Georgia’s specialty crop growers from unfair imports from Mexico.

Sen. Ossoff is urging United States Trade Representative (USTR) Ambassador Jamieson Greer to address unfair labor and environmental practices in Mexican agriculture that force Georgia growers into unfair competition during this year’s U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA) Review.

A 2024 report from the University of Georgia observed “the fruits and vegetables industries face an additional challenge from cheaper imports from Mexico and South American countries produced during Georgia’s growing seasons.”

Additionally, agricultural wage rates in the United States are “five times to 14 times the average hourly agricultural wage in Mexico.”

“Deplorable labor and environmental practices in Mexican agriculture exploit workers, damage the environment, risk food safety, and force conscientious American growers into unfair competition. I urge you to take all possible actions to address this issue during USMCA’s review to ensure that growers in Georgia and across the country can compete fairly in the global market,” Sen. Ossoff wrote.

Sen. Ossoff continues working to support Georgia agriculture.

Last month, Sen. Ossoff introduced the Farm Disaster Tax Cut Act to provide eligible farmers with a tax cut after natural disasters, revenue losses, or pest outbreaks.

In March, Sens. Ossoff and Ashley Moody (R-FL), alongside Rev. Raphael Warnock and Rick Scott (R-FL), introducedthe bipartisan Land Grant Research Prioritization Act of 2026 to improve research and development for advanced agricultural technologies, including mechanization technology.

Also in March, Sens. Ossoff and Rev. Warnock announced more than $531 million in Hurricane Helene Federal relief for Georgia’s farmers after Sen. Ossoff successfully fought to pass a bipartisan disaster relief package in December 2024 that included $21 billion in agricultural disaster funding to help Georgia farmers recovering from the disastrous impacts of Hurricane Helene and farmers nationwide impacted by natural disasters.

Earlier this year, Sen. Ossoff cosponsored the bipartisan Buying American Cotton Act of 2025 to incentivize retailers to sell products made with U.S. cotton to boost demand for cotton grown in the U.S., becoming the first Senate Democrat to back the bill.

In November 2025, Sen. Ossoff cosponsored the bipartisan Securing American Agriculture Act to decrease dependence on China for agricultural imports.

In September 2025, Sen. Ossoff joined lawmakers across the aisle to urge the United States Trade Representative to prioritize American pecan producers in ongoing trade negotiations with India.

In August 2025, Sen. Ossoff cosponsored the bipartisan United States Citrus Protection Act alongside Sen. Rick Scott (R-FL) to support and protect Georgia’s citrus growers by banning imports of fresh citrus from China, which can often undercut domestic citrus producers and hurt the rapidly growing citrus industry in Georgia.

In 2024, Sen. Ossoff and Congressman Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02) introduced the Protecting Our Produce Act to boost resources and support for Georgia specialty crop growers facing unfairly priced imports.

Click here to read Sen. Ossoff’s inquiry.

# # #


Padilla, Durbin, Whitehouse, Colleagues Sound Alarm on Trump Administration Use of Election Crimes Prosecutions to Interfere in Midterm Elections

Senators call out DOJ’s quiet removal of long-standing election prosecution manual ahead of 2026 midterms

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, led 21 Senate colleagues in demanding answers over the Trump Administration’s decision to remove the most recent version of the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) website without explanation.

In their letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Senators highlighted the alarming actions taken by the Administration regarding election interference, emphasizing that the removal of the manual from the DOJ website further prompts questions of President Trump’s election interference efforts. Of particular concern, the previous edition of the manual dating from 2017 stated that DOJ prosecutors should not seize voting materials until after an election had been certified.

“The manual published by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division has been easily publicly accessible on the Department’s Election Crimes Branch website in both Democratic and Republican Administrations,” wrote the Senators. “During President Trump’s first term, the manual was accompanied by a memorandum describing the Department’s longstanding election non-interference policy. While the manual underscores the importance of deterrence as the objective served by federal prosecutions of individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election, it also makes clear that ‘this deterrence is achieved by public awareness of the Department’s prosecutive interest in, and prosecution of, election fraud—not through interference with the process itself.’”

The Senators questioned Acting Attorney General Blanche on the Administration’s motivations for removing the manual from the DOJ website and any efforts to restore it. They further requested clarification from the Administration to understand any outside influences or partisan political motives. The oversight letter asked whether revisions will be included and if Trump’s allies will contribute to those revisions.

The removal of this DOJ guidance comes as the Administration has threatened election takeover efforts which will result in voter suppression across the country, especially in this year’s midterm elections. The Senators further warned that the removal of the manual paves the way for politically motivated legal actions by the Trump Administration in advance of the midterm elections.

“While the Department’s ongoing voter roll lawsuits are failing across the country, we are concerned that those efforts, which were calculated to compel states into inaccurately purging voters, may be the pretext for more meritless pre- and post-election challenges, including interfering with election certification,” continued the Senators. “Similarly, unsubstantiated claims by DOJ leadership of ‘tens of thousands noncitizens on voter rolls’ are reckless, as time and again, those claims have been refuted by findings that many individuals are falsely identified as noncitizens, and the extremely rare appearance of noncitizen registrants on the voter rolls or the even more extremely rare cases of noncitizen voters are often due to bureaucratic errors or misunderstandings about eligibility, as opposed to intentional fraud.”

In addition to Padilla, Durbin, and Whitehouse, the letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections, Padilla has consistently challenged the Trump Administration’s illegal election takeover efforts. Padilla introduced the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act, which would place restrictions on the Administration’s attempts to implement any unlawful voter restrictions. In February, Padilla held a spotlight forum on stopping Trump’s attempts to take over federal elections, the third in the series titled “Protecting the Future of American Democracy.”

The full letter is available here and below:

Dear Acting Attorney General Blanche:

We write regarding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ or Department) decision to remove the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual, now in its eighth edition, from the Department’s website without explanation.

In the context of other alarming actions taken by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice, including pursuing politically-motivated investigations at the direction of the White House; implementing drastic changes to the longstanding mission of the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section; suing 30 states for unrestricted access to their voter rolls; and making unprecedented demands for ballots, election equipment, and names of election workers, the removal of this manual continues to raise the alarm about DOJ’s involvement in the upcoming midterm elections for partisan political purposes. We urge you to confirm the Department’s adherence to the principles outlined in the manual and be transparent about what, if any, changes the Department is making to this longstanding policy to protect elections from political interference.

The manual published by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division has been easily publicly accessible on the Department’s Election Crimes Branch website in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. During President Trump’s first term, the manual was accompanied by a memorandum describing the Department’s longstanding election non-interference policy. While the manual underscores the importance of deterrence as the objective served by federal prosecutions of individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election, it also makes clear that “this deterrence is achieved by public awareness of the Department’s prosecutive interest in, and prosecution of, election fraud—not through interference with the process itself.” The Amundson Memo similarly provides clear directives reaffirming guidance provided under former Attorney General William Barr that prosecutors and investigators “may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”

The manual is also still cited in the Justice Manual, a critical reference guide for U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ prosecutors, which states:

Where a criminal or national security investigation during an election cycle is at issue, the Department must also be careful to adhere to longstanding policies regarding the timing of charges or taking overt investigative steps. See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 8-9, 84–85 (8th ed. 2017).

Recent reports have indicated that the number of attorneys in DOJ’s Public Integrity Section has been reduced from 36 to two. In addition, in early April, former Republican congressman Dan Bishop was appointed as the Department’s chief election fraud prosecutor with nationwide authority to pursue the President’s debunked claims of widespread voting fraud. Around that same time, you hired 2020 election conspiracist Joe DiGenova as Counsel to pursue politically motivated prosecutions, who has in turn apparently hired Kurt Olsen, a former White House election czar previously sanctioned for misleading courts in election cases.

Following these developments, we need to better understand the extent to which the Department’s investigations are being influenced by partisan political motives. Given Department leadership’s public enthusiasm for working with Republicans in Congress on issues related to elections, including agreeing to demands that DOJ bring legal action to force states to redraw congressional lines, even after citizens in their states have already voted, we expect complete answers to the following straightforward questions:

Why was the most recent edition of the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual taken down? Will you commit to restoring it to the DOJ website?

If withdrawn for revisions, what revisions are being contemplated? Who at the Department is leading that process? What is the estimated date of completion?

Has any DOJ employee, political appointee, or contractor involved in revising the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual met with, including in a “personal capacity,” White House political staff, former White House political staff, Republican party officials, or outside organizations that work on election policy? If so, which ones, for which purposes?

The Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual reaffirmed that “the federal prosecutor has no authority to send FBI Special Agents or Deputy U.S. Marshals to polling places,” and that “Department and FBI policy requires that any investigative action that involves intrusion by federal investigators into the area immediately surrounding an open polling place be approved by the Criminal Division’s Public Integrity Section.” Will the Public Integrity Section still have a role in reviewing any potential deployment of the FBI or U.S. Marshals to areas immediately surrounding polling locations in the upcoming midterm elections? If not, who at the Department will have a role in reviewing such deployments and under what standards?

While the Department’s ongoing voter roll lawsuits are failing across the country, we are concerned that those efforts, which were calculated to compel states into inaccurately purging voters, may be the pretext for more meritless pre- and post-election challenges, including interfering with election certification. Similarly, unsubstantiated claims by DOJ leadership of “tens of thousands” noncitizens on voter rolls” are reckless, as time and again, those claims have been refuted by findings that many individuals are falsely identified as noncitizens, and the extremely rare appearance of noncitizen registrants on the voter rolls or the even more extremely rare cases of noncitizen voters are often due to bureaucratic errors or misunderstandings about eligibility, as opposed to intentional fraud.

To be clear, any attempts by DOJ to file lawsuits to stop eligible voters from voting, their votes from being counted, or elections from being certified, will fail, but any attempts are still corrosive to public trust and confidence in our election administration and invite threats against nonpartisan election workers.

Against this backdrop, the absence of guidance from the Public Integrity Section on election noninterference appears to clear the way for politically-motivated legal actions by DOJ itself in the lead-up to and aftermath of the midterm elections. Accordingly, we request that you immediately confirm the Department’s adherence to longstanding, bipartisan policy of noninterference and comply with this request no later than June 22, 2026.

Sincerely,

###


Padilla, Schiff Introduce Bill to Create Permanent Specialty Crop Disaster Assistance Program

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) introduced the Ensuring Disaster Recovery and Resilience for Specialty Crops Act, which would establish a permanent relief program to provide support for farmers who lost specialty crops due to natural disasters, economic crises, and market disruptions. As Congress routinely provides relief for farmers impacted by natural disasters, the lack of a permanent program has resulted in bureaucratic hurdles that make access to funding difficult for specialty crop growers.

“California’s farming communities are disproportionately impacted by natural disasters,” said Senator Padilla. “After a disaster strikes, our growers, producers, and consumers need and deserve relief quickly. Our bill would strengthen the safety net for America’s food producers to help them get back on their feet in the wake of a disaster.”

“California continues to lead the way in specialty crops, growing nearly half of the nation’s vegetables and over three-quarters of the country’s fruits and nuts,” said Senator Schiff. “As California’s first senator to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee in over 30 years, I’m fighting to address the needs of specialty crop farmers, which are very different than those of the commodity crops of the Midwest and the South. I’m proud to introduce this bill to expand federal funding and bolster programs to better serve farmers in the Golden State.”

The Ensuring Disaster Recovery and Resilience for Specialty Crops Act would establish a permanent disaster program tailored to specialty crops. USDA and Congress have repeatedly had to provide disaster relief to growers on an ad hoc basis. A permanent program would allow growers to receive relief through a consistent application process. Farmers and ranchers across the country have long had access to a plethora of disaster programs, but specialty crop farmers deserve a dedicated program that works well for them as well.

California is the fifth largest supplier of food in the world — home to a $61 billion agriculture industry producing over 400 commodities, growing more than a third of the nation’s vegetables and three-quarters of its fruit and nut crops. Last month, Padilla condemned the House-passed Farm Bill and stressed the urgency for a farm bill that supports farmers, growers, ranchers, and consumers across the nation. In August 2023, Padilla, alongside the late Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04) and Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif.-01), introduced the Agriculture Emergency Relief Act to create a permanent structure at the Department of Agriculture to provide relief for farmers who lost crops due to natural disasters.

The bill text is availablehere.

###


Peters, Slotkin Statement on Nomination of Michael Martin to the Eastern District of Michigan

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, U.S. Senators Gary Peters and Elissa Slotkin released the following statements after returning their blue slips for Michael Martin, a nominee for the Eastern District of Michigan. The nominee was chosen as part of Michigan's longstanding judicial nominations process, with the bipartisan Judicial Nominations Advisory Committee carefully vetting, interviewing, and providing feedback on applicants for this vacancy.

“After years working as both a federal prosecutor and criminal attorney helping to defend our national security, Michael Martin has the experience and integrity necessary to serve on the federal bench,” said Senator Peters. “During the entire nomination process and throughout our in-depth conversations, Mr. Martin has made it clear that he will exercise independent, forward thinking judgment. I believe he has the temperament and character necessary to impartially serve Michiganders and the American people.”

“I take this responsibility very seriously,” said Senator Slotkin. “I met with Mr. Martin, a 20-year career prosecutor who has worked through both Democratic and Republican Administrations and asked him direct questions that speak directly to whether he will uphold our democratic process, regardless of external pressure. From making clear Joe Biden won the 2020 election, to the attack on the Capitol on January 6th, to being clear that President Trump can’t run for a third term, these answers were important factors for me, and fundamentally different from President Trump’s judicial nominees to date. I look forward to Mr. Martin conveying the same during his confirmation hearing, and to his service on the federal bench if confirmed.”

Background on Martin:

Mr. Martin has served as a career federal prosecutor for over two decades, including in roles as Criminal Chief, Chief of the National Security Unit, Deputy Criminal Chief, and Executive Assistant US Attorney. He has led the prosecution of a wide range of complex cases, including terrorism, espionage, export control violations, and violent crime. Before joining the U.S. Attorney’s Office, Martin served as a trial attorney in the Counterespionage Section of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division. Earlier in his career, he clerked for the Honorable Hugh H. Bownes of the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit and the Honorable Edward F. Harrington of the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, and was an analyst with the Central Intelligence Agency.

###


Reed & Colleagues Press Trump on Legal Basis for Justifying Claim that Hostilities in Iran Have ‘Terminated’

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and 34 Senate Democrats are refuting the Trump Administration’s claim in a May 1 letter to Congress that the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026 in Iran have “terminated” and requesting President Donald Trump release the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion supporting this claim.

The Senators emphasize that the already unconstitutional war in Iran has violated its statutory deadline set by the War Powers Act and argue that the ongoing naval operations, bombings, blockades, and strike campaigns that have been ongoing since February 28 continue to constitute

hostilities.

“Furthermore, the United States and Iran, and their associated partners and proxies, have continued to use lethal force in contravention of the ceasefire, which also constitute hostilities. Finally, U.S. forces remain postured for, and you have regularly threatened, the swift return of major combat operations,” the 38 U.S. Senators wrote.

The Senators point out that the continued deployment of troops, ongoing strikes, and an active naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz rebut the claim that hostilities have terminated after the April 7 ceasefire. Senate Democrats have forced numerous votes in the Senate on the War Powers Resolution, including asserting the 60-day statutory clock, triggered by a notification to Congress, had run out on the president’s ongoing use of military force, in addition to being unconstitutional from the start.

For the first time, a similar effort passed the U.S. House of Representatives last week, by a vote of 215 to 208 – leading to President Trump lashing out.

“Your administration has not explained to the Congress or the American people why you believe the Constitution permits launching a war of this magnitude – including the loss of U.S. service members’ lives, scores of civilians killed in Iran and the broader region, and staggering economic and geopolitical costs – without authorization from Congress as Article I requires...It is imperative that you publish the OLC legal theory underlying your interpretation to the contrary in a timely manner,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Schiff, Kaine, Reed, and Schumer the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

The full text of the letter follows:

Dear Mr. President,

We write to express our strong disagreement with the legal justification presented in your May 1, 2026, notification to Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, regarding the authority to conduct war against Iran. The notification stands in sharp contrast with the text of the War Powers Resolution, the relevant legislative history, domestic and international law, and past interpretations made by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the State Department under Administrations of both parties. We also request that you make public the OLC opinion justifying the administration’s claim that U.S.-Iran hostilities were determined to be “terminated” for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, and any OLC opinion justifying the use of military force against Iran without congressional authorization.

Your May 1 notification falsely stated that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” This statement was repeated by Secretary Hegseth in his April 30 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee when he asserted that after the April 7 ceasefire announcement, the administration’s “understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.” This argument fails to account for the facts and actions of the parties to the conflict. The ongoing naval operations and related efforts to conduct a blockade against Iran constitute hostilities. Furthermore, the United States and Iran, and their associated partners and proxies, have continued to use lethal force in contravention of the ceasefire, which also constitute hostilities. Finally, U.S. forces remain postured for, and you have regularly threatened, the swift return of major combat operations.

At that time, the President is compelled to promptly remove forces from the situation without Congressional intervention or a physical,

domestic attack.

Furthermore, legislative history demonstrates Congress’ clear intent for these terms (“hostilities” and “imminent involvement in hostilities”), which are to be understood broadly, to establish a low threshold for both the reporting and withdrawal provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Resolution explains that “the word hostilities was substituted for the phrase armed conflict during the subcommittee drafting process because it was considered to be somewhat broader in scope...hostilities encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is clear and present danger of armed conflict.” That describes the Iran War starting on February 28, 2026, and continuing to today regardless of a declaration of ceasefire.

Given the discrepancy between the requirements of the War Powers Resolution and the continued use of American forces in the Strait of Hormuz and throughout the CENTCOM area of responsibility, it is critical for Congress to understand the Executive Branch’s legal basis for its exceedingly narrow interpretation of “hostilities,” and “any use of armed forces.” Since February 28, 2026, your administration has maintained a force presence of thousands of U.S. servicemembers in the region, blockaded Iranian ports (including using military force to seize vessels), and continued to interrupt global supply chains and increase the cost of living on all Americans. On May 8, 2026, Central Command publicly confirmed that over 15,000 troops are forward deployed, and over 200 aircraft and 20 warships are enforcing an active naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. Even after your notification to Congress indicating that hostilities had “terminated” on May 1, 2026, you accurately referred on May 4, 2026, to the war with Iran in the present tense, saying “we have a war right now.”

We have established that the United States and Iran’s continued posture of a state of military confrontation is itself sufficient to constitute ongoing hostilities under the text and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual affirms that a declared ceasefire alone does not mean an end to war and hostilities, the current ceasefire “is not a partial or temporary peace; it is only the suspension of military operations to the extent agreed upon by the parties to the conflict. War as a legal state of hostilities between parties may continue, despite the conclusion of an armistice agreement.”

Moreover, despite the stated ceasefire, both sides have continued to exchange fire on several occasions since April 7. And even if they had not exchanged fire, the naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz in itself further constitutes hostilities. The Supreme Court, the Department of Defense, and OLC all have published opinions confirming that they unequivocally consider a blockade to be a belligerent act and an act of war. As the Supreme Court held in the Prize Cases in 1862, the “proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war exist[s].” The Commander of U.S. Central Command himself recently acknowledged in his May 14 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that an international armed conflict continued to exist due to the ongoing blockade.

Congress has a recent and directly applicable legal opinion from your administration on how to interpret what it means for hostilities to cease. On April 21, 2026, the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser published a statement that notes that, “any assessment of whether an armed conflict has ended must be fact-based, taking into account both the intentions and the actions of the parties to the conflict.” The Legal Adviser argued that the fact of ongoing ceasefire or peace negotiations did not in itself constitute the termination of hostilities. Instead, he stated that a credible intention to end hostilities, and an absence of parties planning or threatening further military engagements should diplomacy fail, is required to indicate an end to hostilities. Given that Secretary Hegseth has consistently argued that U.S. forces are “locked and loaded” and are “ready to go at the command of our President and at the push of a button,” it cannot be credibly argued that the current ceasefire meets the test set forward by the State Department’s Legal Adviser for constituting an end to hostilities.

We would not need to discuss the War Powers Resolution if this were a war authorized by Congress, but it is not. Our view, supported by law and history and consistent with even past Executive Branch practice taking a far broader view of the President’s authority, is that the current war violates our Constitution’s separation of powers. Your administration has not explained to the Congress or the American people why you believe the Constitution permits launching a war of this magnitude – including the loss of U.S. service members’ lives, scores of civilians killed in Iran and the broader region, and staggering economic and geopolitical costs – without authorization from Congress as Article I requires.

The facts, history, and law affirm that the hostilities that began on February 28 are active and ongoing, in violation of international law and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. There is no justification to interpret military actions that would “restart,” “unpause,” or begin a new 60-day clock. Rather, hostilities have continued since February 28 and never terminated; the 60-day clock specified in the War Powers Resolution does not have a pause button. It is imperative that you publish the OLC legal theory underlying your interpretation to the contrary in a timely manner.

Sincerely,


Risch Launches 7th Annual Support Local Gems Initiative

Invites Idahoans to Support Local Small Businesses on Friday, June 12, 2026

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Jim Risch (R-Idaho) and the Idaho Department of Commerce launched the seventh annual Support Local Gemsinitiative, encouraging Idahoans to show their appreciation for small businesses in their community.

On Friday, June 12, 2026, Idahoans are invited to Support Local Gems by shopping at Main Street retailers, dining at their favorite restaurants, purchasing gift cards, writing online reviews, or saying “thank you” to an Idaho small business they love.

“Small businesses and the people behind them are the lifeblood of the Gem State,” said Risch. “They not only employ our neighbors and friends, but reflect our shared Idaho values of hard work and ingenuity. On Friday, June 12, I invite all Idahoans to join me in supporting the small businesses that keep our economy and state strong.”

As we celebrate the seventh annual Support Local Gems initiative, Idahoans are encouraged to once again give their full support to the small businesses that make Idaho a special place to live and work.

Background:

Senator Risch and the Idaho Department of Commerce launched the Support Local Gems initiative in 2020 to help small businesses facing unprecedented hardships during the pandemic. As supply chain disruptions and other challenges continue, support for Idaho’s small businesses through Support Local Gems remains essential.

If your organization or small business would like to get involved in the Support Local Gems initiative, visit www.risch.senate.gov


Rosen, Ricketts Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Strengthen Visa Processing Capacity, Support International Tourism

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Pete Ricketts (R-NE) introduced a bill to strengthen the State Department’s visa processing capacity. The bipartisan Expanded Consular Fellow Act would authorize the State Department to hire Consular Fellows in limited non-career appointments for eight years – an increase from the current maximum of five years. The Consular Fellows Program recruits personnel to process visa applications for people to come to the United States for tourism, to study, or to work. Fellows also assist U.S. citizens traveling or living abroad and support efforts to address consular fraud. Extending the program’s duration would allow the State Department to retain an experienced and highly trained workforce while reducing recruitment and training costs.

“The consular workforce plays a key role in sustaining America’s travel economy by processing visa applications and making it easier for tourists to visit. With the FIFA World Cup just a week away, the Olympics in 2028, and several other major events coming to the U.S. in the coming years, it is critical that the State Department has the workforce necessary to match increasing tourism demands,” said Senator Rosen. “I am proud to introduce my bipartisan Expanded Consular Fellows Act to expand this capacity, and I’ll continue doing everything I can to support the country’s tourism industry.”

“Consular Fellows are a vital, first line of defense for America’s national and economic security. They ensure the State Department can vigorously screen foreign travelers and stop fraud before it reaches our shores, while keeping our economy moving by enabling legitimate travel to the United States,” said Senator Ricketts. “This bill would allow the State Department to extend limited non-career appointments that are essential for international travel, supporting Americans abroad, and ensuring those entering our country are doing it legally.”

“International travel is a critical driver of the U.S. economy, and a strong consular workforce is essential to meeting global demand for travel to the United States,” said Erik Hansen, Senior Vice President, Government Relations, U.S. Travel Association. “This proposal provides the State Department with a practical, cost-effective tool to retain experienced Consular Fellows who help reduce visa wait times, facilitate legitimate travel, strengthen national security and support U.S. citizens abroad. A more stable and experienced consular workforce will strengthen America’s ability to welcome legitimate visitors, support economic growth and uphold the integrity of the visa process. We thank Senators Rosen and Ricketts for their leadership in advancing this important legislation.”

“This bill puts forward a practical solution using existing resources to a challenge that is becoming more dire by the day for international exchange programs. This summer, BridgeUSA programs like Camp Counselor and Summer Work Travel have seen significant challenges in getting interviews due to bandwidth constraints and heavier workloads in Consular offices worldwide,” said Mark Overmann, Executive Director, Alliance for International Exchange. “These programs bring significant economic boost to communities where participants are and also fill gaps in the U.S. labor market that would otherwise go unfilled. This bill provides a workable way to give consular offices the support they need to ensure J-visa applicants get timely appointments.”

Senator Rosen has fought to protect America’s tourism industry. She recently led Senate Democrats in demanding that the Trump Administration reverse a rule authorizing the State Department to conduct social media screenings of visitors because of concerns that it will harm international tourism. This year, Senator Rosen also called for a Senate hearing to examine the state of the American tourism industry following a year of Trump’s reckless economic and immigration policies. Additionally, Senator Rosen introduced the bipartisan American Decade of Sports Act, which aims to boost tourism to the U.S. through major sporting events, such as the World Cup.


Rosen Successfully Helps Block Taxpayer Funding for Trump’s Ballroom

WASHINGTON, DC – U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and her Democratic Senate colleagues successfully stopped Senate Republicans from funneling $1 billion in taxpayer money to Donald Trump’s White House ballroom. Despite Donald Trump’s assurances that his gold-plated ballroom will be entirely privately funded, Senate Republicans attempted to attach $1 billion in taxpayer dollars to the first version of their ICE funding bill – and only backed down under pressure from Democrats, which included Senator Rosen’s proposed amendments that would have redirected the ballroom funding to critical public safety programs. The final version of Republicans’ bill, which passed the Senate early Friday morning, included zero taxpayer dollars for Trump’s ballroom.

“Washington Republicans helped Donald Trump kick Americans off Medicaid and take away food stamps from millions of families in order to give billionaires more tax breaks. Then, they tried to use $1 billion of taxpayer dollars for Trump’s ballroom – while they’ve still done nothing to help American families afford the rising cost of living,” said Senator Rosen. “Senate Democrats said ‘hell no’ to that plan, and we successfully forced Washington Republicans to strip all taxpayer funding for Trump’s ballroom out of their budget bill. Nevadans work hard for their money, and I’m proud to have stood up against a terrible misuse of their tax dollars.”

Senator Rosen has been outspoken against Donald Trump and Washington Republicans’ attempts to misuse taxpayer money on wasteful vanity projects. After outlining better uses of $1 billion than Trump’s ballroom – including funding programs that help local law enforcement hire and retain police officers and helping Nevadans afford everyday essentials like groceries, housing, and health care – she announced two amendments that would have redirected that money to fund public safety programs. As Trump and his Justice Department attempted to create a $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out Trump’s political allies and January 6 rioters who brutalized police officers, Senator Rosen announced three forthcoming bills to redirect the funding to Medicaid, SNAP, and programs to support law enforcement.

###


Following Reports Of Tribal Citizens Being Questioned And Detained, Schatz, Durbin Demand Answers From Trump Administration On Immigration Enforcement, Targeting Of Native People

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), Vice Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today demanded answers from the Trump administration on concerning reports that some immigration enforcement personnel have refused to recognize Tribal IDs and unnecessarily questioned and detained Tribal citizens.

“It is well-established law that Tribal citizens born within the United States are U.S. citizens, yet many Tribal citizens have met resistance from DHS personnel when attempting to establish their citizenship using their Tribal IDs,” the senators wrote in their letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum. “We urge DHS promptly to adopt formal guidance that recognizes Tribal IDs as acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, ensure immigration personnel are trained on such guidance, and share such guidance externally with Tribes.”

“Tribes have a trust and treaty relationship with the United States rooted in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and court decisions. Federal agencies are obligated to establish clear policies and engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation whenever federal decision-making affects Tribes. Despite this obligation, DHS has not engaged in meaningful consultation with Tribes on the use of Tribal IDs as proof of citizenship, nor, as DHS carries out expanded immigration enforcement efforts, how the agency will work with Tribes to respect Tribal inherent sovereignty over their lands and communities. We urge DHS to consult with Tribes on the use of Tribal IDs and expanded immigration enforcement activities, and to integrate Tribal feedback into agency guidance, training, and policies affecting Tribes,” the senators continued.

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

Dear Secretary Mullin and Secretary Burgum:

We write to advise you of our deep concerns over reports that immigration enforcement personnel have detained, or attempted to detain, enrolled Tribal citizens. During these encounters with Tribal citizens, Tribal government-issued identification (Tribal ID) was not consistently treated as valid proof of U.S. citizenship, despite a Dear Tribal Leader letter issued by Secretary Noem indicating a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) position to the contrary. This raises questions regarding whether DHS personnel are properly trained to process Tribal IDs as proof of U.S. citizenship in light of the aforementioned agency policy on Tribal IDs. We are also concerned that efforts by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to delegate its civil immigration enforcement responsibilities to non-federal law enforcement agencies raise the potential for the inappropriate exercise of federal civil authorities on Tribal lands. Recent actions by the agency exemplify DHS’s lack of Tribal consultation on federal actions that affect Tribes and their citizens, which has created confusion and implementation concerns. We urge you to direct DHS and ICE to promptly engage in meaningful and robust Tribal consultation on these policies and any other new federal actions that have Tribal implications.

There is no requirement in law for U.S. citizens to carry identification to avoid arbitrary arrest and detention. The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) gives immigration officials limited authority to question individuals whom an official has reason to believe are noncitizens as to their right to be or remain in the United States. This authority allows such officials to briefly stop and question an individual and inquire about immigration status. If the person establishes that they are a U.S. citizen, they must be free to go after a brief encounter. It is well-established law that Tribal citizens born within the United States are U.S. citizens, yet many Tribal citizens have met resistance from DHS personnel when attempting to establish their citizenship using their Tribal IDs. ICE’s responses to congressional and Tribal inquiries on these matters have been vague and, as a result, it is unclear whether ICE is making any efforts to develop guidance on Tribal IDs as proof of citizenship for immigration enforcement purposes. DHS appears to lack a clear policy on Tribal IDs as proof of citizenship other than the aforementioned unsigned Dear Tribal Leader letter from former Secretary Noem. Accordingly, we urge DHS promptly to adopt formal guidance that recognizes Tribal IDs as acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship, ensure immigration personnel are trained on such guidance, and share such guidance externally with Tribes.

Tribes have a trust and treaty relationship with the United States rooted in the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and court decisions. Federal agencies are obligated to establish clear policies and engage in meaningful government-to-government consultation whenever federal decision-making affects Tribes. Despite this obligation, DHS has not engaged in meaningful consultation with Tribes on the use of Tribal IDs as proof of citizenship, nor, as DHS carries out expanded immigration enforcement efforts, how the agency will work with Tribes to respect Tribal inherent sovereignty over their lands and communities. We urge DHS to consult with Tribes on the use of Tribal IDs and expanded immigration enforcement activities, and to integrate Tribal feedback into agency guidance, training, and policies affecting Tribes.

We are also concerned that ICE has reportedly attempted to enter into agreements with Tribal entities to engage in civil immigration enforcement activities. To date, we are unaware of any Tribe or Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) law enforcement agency that has entered into an INA section 287(g) or 25 U.S.C. 2804(e) law enforcement agreement; nor is any such entity listed on ICE’s website as participating in such agreements. Nonetheless, Tribes have reported pressure from ICE to sign such agreements, particularly as states and counties are increasingly party to section 287(g) agreements across the country in regions with Tribal lands and in major cities where Tribal citizens live. We are deeply concerned that these agreements may allow for the inappropriate exercise of civil immigration authorities on Tribal lands. We seek additional transparency on agreements between DHS, ICE, and Tribes to ensure the laws that protect Tribal sovereignty and Tribal citizens are upheld.

Accordingly, we request that DHS, ICE, and the BIA provide written responses to the following questions. Please provide a complete written response to each question no later than 30 days.

Please describe the guidance and training provided to DHS (both ICE and U.S. Customs and Border Protection) agents and officers regarding Tribal citizenship and Tribal IDs.

What guidance does DHS provide to agents and officers regarding Tribal IDs as acceptable proof of U.S. citizenship?

Did DHS consult or work with Tribal entities to develop this guidance?

Is DHS, any component of DHS, and/or the BIA actively encouraging Tribes to enter into INA section 287(g) agreements? If so, please identify the legal basis for that position, including by providing any legal opinions, memorandums, or interpretive guidance.

Are DHS and/or the BIA encouraging Tribes or local BIA law enforcement agencies to enter into agreements to conduct immigration enforcement for the purpose of enforcing federal immigration law on Tribal lands? If so, please identify the number of BIA law enforcement agencies and/or Tribes party to such agreements and the authority for such agreement.

Has DHS directed or otherwise informed state and/or local authorities operating under section 287(g) agreements that they are not authorized to exercise federal immigration authority on Tribal lands without being separately cross-deputized or authorized by the relevant Tribe?

Please describe the training DHS provides to state or local authorities operating under agreements to conduct civil immigration enforcement, including in P.L. 280 states, including regarding their authority to conduct such enforcement on Tribal lands.

Secretary Mullin committed during the nomination process that, once confirmed, he would ensure Tribal citizenship status is verified quickly and accurately with clear guidance and oversight. Please describe ICE’s policies, training, and operational safeguards designed to quickly and accurately verify the U.S. citizenship of enrolled Tribal citizens with valid Tribal identification under Secretary Mullin’s leadership.

Has DHS or ICE housed, detained, or transported arrested individuals to facilities on Tribal lands, or provided funding for construction of such facilities on Tribal lands, pursuant to authority and funding enacted as part of the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”?

Has DHS and/or ICE allocated any of these funds for pending Tribal agreements under section 287(g), Title 25, or any other authority? If so, how much? Please disaggregate funding amounts by agreement.

Has DHS or ICE allocated any of these funds to reimburse states, localities, or Tribes for immigration enforcement expenses on Tribal lands? If so, how much? Please disaggregate funding amounts by agreement.

Will DHS commit to engage in Tribal consultation before the Department deploys border infrastructure on Tribal or adjacent federal lands?

Please describe the Tribal consultations that DHS and BIA have conducted (or plan to conduct) regarding DHS and/or ICE efforts to expand civil immigration enforcement on or near Indian Country (including section 287(g) agreements) and how it is incorporating Tribal feedback on its efforts.

Will DHS and ICE require full consent from the applicable Tribal government(s) before conducting immigration enforcement activities or building and operating immigration detention facilities on Tribal lands?

What is the BIA protocol —

For working with DHS when Tribal members are detained, arrested, or questioned;

For coordinating with DHS to notify relevant Tribes when Tribal members are detained, arrested, or questioned;

For advocating for the proper processing of Tribal IDs as proof of citizenship by DHS; and

For encouraging DHS to conduct Tribal consultations on its immigration enforcement efforts and policies?

We look forward to your prompt response.

Sincerely,

###


NEWS: Schiff Introduces Comprehensive Legislation to Enact Commonsense Guardrails for Defense Department’s Use of AI

Washington, D.C. – Today, Senator Schiff introduced new legislation to codify commonsense and necessary guardrails to protect against the risks of, and create accountability for, autonomous and semi-autonomous lethal strikes and domestic mass surveillance that use artificial intelligence ahead of consideration of the National Defense Authorization Act. This legislation is the result of extensive consultation with industry stakeholders, defense experts, and international humanitarian organizations.

The Human Authority in Lethal Operations (HALO) Act of 2026 would codify key safety requirements into statute, including mandating a clear chain of command with a designated human commander responsible for exercising ultimate discretion regarding use of force with autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems, instituting a clear review structure before the development and fielding of a covered weapon system, and establishing critical, ongoing testing and evaluation requirements.

“The past few months have shown us that there is an urgent need for commonsense guardrails to ensure the Defense Department’s use of AI is in line with Americans’ national security and privacy priorities,” said Senator Adam Schiff. “There are good reasons to use AI technology to advance our national security, however – just as with any tool, we cannot depend on technology alone to guide to us, particularly when the risks of harm can be fatal. My legislation would protect Americans from unlawful domestic surveillance, ensure that humans in the chain of command exercise responsibility for the use of any lethal technology, and maintain strong ethical protections in the deployment of autonomous and semi-autonomous weapons.”

Specifically, Schiff’s HALO Act would:

Establish and expand existing core Defense Department safety and ethical requirements, including mandating a clear chain of command where a designated commander maintains ultimate discretion over the use of force through any autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon systems that utilize AI capabilities; and Require that the Department maintain detailed records of decision logic and target selection for post-engagement review.

Ensure a full review structure before development and fielding of a lethal autonomous and semi-autonomous weapon system, and an updated review if AI capabilities within covered systems are materially modified.

Prohibit uses of AI drawn from the Defense Department’s National Security Memorandum (NSM) on AI, such as using AI to profile or monitor individuals based solely on their exercise of constitutional rights, removing a human from the decision-making chain for initiating or terminating nuclear weapons employment, and purchasing personal data from third-parties if the acquisition would violate the Act. The bill also extends these prohibitions to DoD logistics, intel, and operational support to other federal agencies.

Establish whistleblower protections drawn from the NSM on AI, ensuring personnel can report AI misuse, civil liberties concerns, and safety violations without fear of reprisal, with anonymous and confidential reporting procedures.

The full text of the bill can be viewed HERE.

###


NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Kaine, Schumer Lead 35 Senate Democrats in Pressing Trump on Legal Basis for Justifying Claim that Hostilities in Iran Have Terminated

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and 35 Senate Democrats are refuting the Trump administration’s claim in a May 1 letter to Congress that the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026 in Iran have “terminated” and requesting President Donald Trump release the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion supporting this claim.

The Senators emphasize that the already unconstitutional war in Iran has violated its statutory deadline set by the War Powers Act and argue that the ongoing naval operations, bombings, blockades, and strike campaigns that have been ongoing since February 28 continue to constitute hostilities.

“Furthermore, the United States and Iran, and their associated partners and proxies, have continued to use lethal force in contravention of the ceasefire, which also constitute hostilities. Finally, U.S. forces remain postured for, and you have regularly threatened, the swift return of major combat operations,” the Senators wrote.

The Senators point out that the continued deployment of troops, ongoing strikes, and an active naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz rebut the claim that hostilities have terminated after the April 7 ceasefire. Senators Schiff and Kaine, joined by several of their colleagues, have forced numerous votes in the Senate on the War Powers Resolution, including asserting the 60-day statutory clock, triggered by a notification to Congress, had run out on the president’s ongoing use of military force, in addition to being unconstitutional from the start.

“Your administration has not explained to the Congress or the American people why you believe the Constitution permits launching a war of this magnitude – including the loss of U.S. service members’ lives, scores of civilians killed in Iran and the broader region, and staggering economic and geopolitical costs – without authorization from Congress as Article I requires…It is imperative that you publish the OLC legal theory underlying your interpretation to the contrary in a timely manner,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Schiff, Kaine, and Schumer the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), 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.).

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

Dear Mr. President,

We write to express our strong disagreement with the legal justification presented in your May 1, 2026, notification to Congress pursuant to the War Powers Resolution of 1973, regarding the authority to conduct war against Iran. The notification stands in sharp contrast with the text of the War Powers Resolution, the relevant legislative history, domestic and international law, and past interpretations made by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) and the State Department under Administrations of both parties. We also request that you make public the OLC opinion justifying the administration’s claim that U.S.-Iran hostilities were determined to be “terminated” for the purposes of the War Powers Resolution, and any OLC opinion justifying the use of military force against Iran without congressional authorization.

Your May 1 notification falsely stated that “the hostilities that began on February 28, 2026, have terminated.” This statement was repeated by Secretary Hegseth in his April 30 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee when he asserted that after the April 7 ceasefire announcement, the administration’s “understanding means the 60-day clock pauses or stops in a ceasefire.” This argument fails to account for the facts and actions of the parties to the conflict. The ongoing naval operations and related efforts to conduct a blockade against Iran constitute hostilities. Furthermore, the United States and Iran, and their associated partners and proxies, have continued to use lethal force in contravention of the ceasefire, which also constitute hostilities. Finally, U.S. forces remain postured for, and you have regularly threatened, the swift return of major combat operations.

At that time, the President is compelled to promptly remove forces from the situation without Congressional intervention or a physical, domestic attack.

Furthermore, legislative history demonstrates Congress’ clear intent for these terms (“hostilities” and “imminent involvement in hostilities”), which are to be understood broadly, to establish a low threshold for both the reporting and withdrawal provisions of the War Powers Resolution. The House Foreign Affairs Committee’s report on the Resolution explains that “the word hostilities was substituted for the phrase armed conflict during the subcommittee drafting process because it was considered to be somewhat broader in scope…hostilities encompasses a state of confrontation in which no shots have been fired but where there is clear and present danger of armed conflict.” That describes the Iran War starting on February 28, 2026, and continuing to today regardless of a declaration of ceasefire.

Given the discrepancy between the requirements of the War Powers Resolution and the continued use of American forces in the Strait of Hormuz and throughout the CENTCOM area of responsibility, it is critical for Congress to understand the Executive Branch’s legal basis for its exceedingly narrow interpretation of “hostilities,” and “any use of armed forces.” Since February 28, 2026, your administration has maintained a force presence of thousands of U.S. servicemembers in the region, blockaded Iranian ports (including using military force to seize vessels), and continued to interrupt global supply chains and increase the cost of living on all Americans. On May 8, 2026, Central Command publicly confirmed that over 15,000 troops are forward deployed, and over 200 aircraft and 20 warships are enforcing an active naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz. Even after your notification to Congress indicating that hostilities had “terminated” on May 1, 2026, you accurately referred on May 4, 2026, to the war with Iran in the present tense, saying “we have a war right now.”

We have established that the United States and Iran’s continued posture of a state of military confrontation is itself sufficient to constitute ongoing hostilities under the text and legislative history of the War Powers Resolution. The Department of Defense’s Law of War Manual affirms that a declared ceasefire alone does not mean an end to war and hostilities, the current ceasefire “is not a partial or temporary peace; it is only the suspension of military operations to the extent agreed upon by the parties to the conflict. War as a legal state of hostilities between parties may continue, despite the conclusion of an armistice agreement.”

Moreover, despite the stated ceasefire, both sides have continued to exchange fire on several occasions since April 7. And even if they had not exchanged fire, the naval blockade in the Strait of Hormuz in itself further constitutes hostilities. The Supreme Court, the Department of Defense, and OLC all have published opinions confirming that they unequivocally consider a blockade to be a belligerent act and an act of war. As the Supreme Court held in the Prize Cases in 1862, the “proclamation of blockade is itself official and conclusive evidence to the Court that a state of war exist[s].” The Commander of U.S. Central Command himself recently acknowledged in his May 14 testimony to the Senate Armed Services Committee that an international armed conflict continued to exist due to the ongoing blockade.

Congress has a recent and directly applicable legal opinion from your administration on how to interpret what it means for hostilities to cease. On April 21, 2026, the State Department’s Office of the Legal Adviser published a statement that notes that, “any assessment of whether an armed conflict has ended must be fact-based, taking into account both the intentions and the actions of the parties to the conflict.” The Legal Adviser argued that the fact of ongoing ceasefire or peace negotiations did not in itself constitute the termination of hostilities. Instead, he stated that a credible intention to end hostilities, and an absence of parties planning or threatening further military engagements should diplomacy fail, is required to indicate an end to hostilities. Given that Secretary Hegseth has consistently argued that U.S. forces are “locked and loaded” and are “ready to go at the command of our President and at the push of a button,” it cannot be credibly argued that the current ceasefire meets the test set forward by the State Department’s Legal Adviser for constituting an end to hostilities.

We would not need to discuss the War Powers Resolution if this were a war authorized by Congress, but it is not. Our view, supported by law and history and consistent with even past Executive Branch practice taking a far broader view of the President’s authority, is that the current war violates our Constitution’s separation of powers. Your administration has not explained to the Congress or the American people why you believe the Constitution permits launching a war of this magnitude – including the loss of U.S. service members’ lives, scores of civilians killed in Iran and the broader region, and staggering economic and geopolitical costs – without authorization from Congress as Article I requires.

The facts, history, and law affirm that the hostilities that began on February 28 are active and ongoing, in violation of international law and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. There is no justification to interpret military actions that would “restart,” “unpause,” or begin a new 60-day clock. Rather, hostilities have continued since February 28 and never terminated; the 60-day clock specified in the War Powers Resolution does not have a pause button. It is imperative that you publish the OLC legal theory underlying your interpretation to the contrary in a timely manner.

###


NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla Join Representatives DeSaulnier and Lofgren to Voice Opposition to Any Reopening of Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) joined U.S. Representatives Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.-10) and Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18) to announce that they led a public comment letter to the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) highlighting significant environmental and safety concerns at FCI Dublin in Dublin, California and voicing strong opposition to the reopening of FCI Dublin to detain noncitizens. This public comment comes after BOP released its Environmental Assessment (EA) of FCI Dublin as part of efforts to permanently deactivate and close the facility.

“We support the decision to permanently close FCI Dublin and recognize the EA’s findings that the property is unsafe, environmentally compromised, and would require substantial public investment to restore it to habitable condition. At the same time, although the EA evaluates the impacts of BOP ceasing operations at the facility, identifying numerous significant environmental hazards and unresolved contamination concerns, it does not sufficiently assess what is reasonably foreseeable to occur after closure, including continued vacancy, transfer, redevelopment, demolition, or repurposing of the site. Nor does it adequately address the environmental and public health implications associated with those potential outcomes,” the lawmakerswrote.

Given the substantial evidence of contamination, environmental degradation, and unresolved data gaps identified throughout the EA, it would be irresponsible and scientifically unsound for BOP to proceed to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) without additional environmental review and mitigation planning. Instead, due to previously stated reasons, as well as the long history of staff sexual misconduct at the facility, we support demolishing FCI Dublin. We also strongly oppose any efforts to transfer ownership of the facility to an entity that will utilize it for immigration detention.”

In addition to requesting that the BOP address deficiencies in the report, the lawmakersurged that, “[t]o ensure that the proposed action complies with NEPA and adequately protects public health and environmental safety, we respectfully urge BOP to:

Pause the current timeline for issuance of any Finding of No Significant Impact pending additional environmental review;

Conduct further environmental investigation regarding unresolved contamination concerns, including unexploded ordnance, radiological hazards, underground storage tanks, and sewer system contamination;

Prepare a comprehensive Mitigation Action Plan addressing demolition, remediation, containment, and long-term environmental monitoring;

Fully analyze reasonably foreseeable post-closure outcomes, including prolonged vacancy, transfer, redevelopment, demolition, or repurposing of the facility;

Evaluate the potential environmental and community impacts associated with future reuse of the site, including potential conversion to another detention facility or immigration detention center; and

Evaluate demolition of the facility and full remediation of the property as a reasonable alternative under NEPA.”

The letter was also signed by Representatives Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.-13), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.-37), Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.-16), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Eleanor Holmes Norton (Washington, D.C.-At Large), Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.-07), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.-30), and Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12).

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

Dear Facilities Management Officials:

As elected members of the United States House of Representatives and Senate, we are charged with conducting oversight over the Federal Bureau of Prisons (BOP) and federal properties and facilities. As such, we write to submit formal public comment regarding the BOP Environmental Assessment (EA) concerning the proposed permanent deactivation and closure of Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) Dublin in Dublin, California.

We support the decision to permanently close FCI Dublin and recognize the EA’s findings that the property is unsafe, environmentally compromised, and would require substantial public investment to restore it to habitable condition. At the same time, although the EA evaluates the impacts of BOP ceasing operations at the facility, identifying numerous significant environmental hazards and unresolved contamination concerns, it does not sufficiently assess what is reasonably foreseeable to occur after closure, including continued vacancy, transfer, redevelopment, demolition, or repurposing of the site. Nor does it adequately address the environmental and public health implications associated with those potential outcomes.

Given the substantial evidence of contamination, environmental degradation, and unresolved data gaps identified throughout the EA, it would be irresponsible and scientifically unsound for BOP to proceed to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) without additional environmental review and mitigation planning. Instead, due to previously stated reasons, as well as the long history of staff sexual misconduct at the facility, we support demolishing FCI Dublin. We also strongly oppose any efforts to transfer ownership of the facility to an entity that will utilize it for immigration detention.

We respectfully urge BOP to address the following deficiencies.

The EA Does Not Adequately Address Recognized Environmental Conditions in the Sanitary Sewer System

The EA references a 2002 Sanitary Sewer System Evaluation identifying contaminants within the sewer system and deteriorated piping conditions constituting a Recognized Environmental Condition (REC)1 . However, while the EA states that contaminants will be removed, it does not explain how BOP intends to identify, remediate, contain, or monitor contamination within the sewer infrastructure.

The absence of a remediation plan is particularly concerning given the deteriorated condition of the underlying piping system and the potential for continued environmental release during closure, transfer, or future redevelopment activities. BOP should provide a detailed assessment of the sewer system contamination, including proposed remediation measures, monitoring protocols, and timelines for implementation.

The EA Fails to Address Ongoing Environmental Risks Associated with Recognized Environmental Conditions at Camp Parks

The EA acknowledges that Camp Parks contains multiple Controlled Recognized Environmental Conditions (CRECs) associated with decades of military activity, including radiological laboratory operations, fire training areas, underground storage tanks, landfills, fuel spill sites, wash racks, and arsenic disposal areas. However, despite identifying these active contamination concerns and land-use restrictions, the EA does not meaningfully analyze how these environmental hazards will be managed following closure of the facility. Instead, the proposed action discussion appears limited to the handling and removal of routine maintenance materials from FCI Dublin’s prison use, such as janitorial supplies, paint, detergents, and similar substances.

The EA’s conclusion that closure “is not expected to result in the release of contaminants into the environment” is insufficiently supported given the acknowledged presence of ongoing contamination concerns across the broader Camp Parks property. The EA should include a comprehensive analysis of how BOP will prevent the release, migration, or disturbance of contaminants during closure, vacancy, or any future transfer of the site.

Given the extensive contamination history identified in the EA, BOP should also evaluate demolition and comprehensive remediation of the property as a reasonable alternative.

Significant Data Gaps Remain Unresolved

The EA repeatedly acknowledges significant environmental data gaps associated with the historical military use of the property from the 1940s through the 1970s. These unresolved uncertainties raise serious concerns regarding whether the environmental conditions of the site have been adequately characterized. For example, the Environmental Data Report identifies adjoining areas within an unexploded ordnance (UXO) zone associated with Camp Parks. The EA concedes that it remains unclear whether UXO may also be present on the FCI Dublin property itself. However, the EA does not identify any plan for additional investigation, testing, or remediation related to potential UXO hazards.

Similarly, the EA references historical radiation experiments conducted at Camp Parks between 1958 and 1980, including at least one experiment conducted on land now incorporated into the FCI Dublin property5 . The record states that “thorough substantiation that adequate testing was conducted must be verified to assure that no radiation hazard exists,” including coordination with the U.S. Army and Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Yet the EA does not document whether any such follow-up investigation or verification occurred.

The EA also identifies two underground storage tanks (USTs) on the property — including a 20,000-gallon diesel UST and a 4,000-gallon diesel UST — while simultaneously acknowledging that the locations and conditions of these tanks remain unknown6 . These unresolved uncertainties present clear contamination and public health concerns, particularly if future redevelopment activities disturb compromised tanks.

BOP should conduct additional environmental investigation sufficient to resolve these data gaps before proceeding with closure and should publicly disclose the results of those investigations. Given the extensive contamination history identified in the EA, BOP should also evaluate demolition and comprehensive remediation of the facility as a reasonable alternative.

The EA Does Not Adequately Address Business Environmental Risks Associated with Future Site Use

The EA identifies numerous Business Environmental Risks (BERs), including confirmed asbestos, lead-based paint, mold, roof deterioration, and radioactive concerns. The EA further acknowledges that these conditions may create “potential environmental liabilities for future site use and redevelopment.” Despite identifying these substantial hazards, the EA does not sufficiently analyze how closure alone mitigates these risks, nor does it provide a remediation framework for future site conditions. Closure without demolition, remediation, or enforceable long-term management measures risks leaving future occupants, workers, and surrounding communities exposed to hazardous conditions.

At minimum, BOP should evaluate demolition and comprehensive remediation as a reasonable alternative within the NEPA process.

Recommendations

To ensure that the proposed action complies with NEPA and adequately protects public health and environmental safety, we respectfully urge BOP to:

Pause the current timeline for issuance of any Finding of No Significant Impact pending additional environmental review;

Conduct further environmental investigation regarding unresolved contamination concerns, including unexploded ordnance, radiological hazards, underground storage tanks, and sewer system contamination;

Prepare a comprehensive Mitigation Action Plan addressing demolition, remediation, containment, and long-term environmental monitoring;

Fully analyze reasonably foreseeable post-closure outcomes, including prolonged vacancy, transfer, redevelopment, demolition, or repurposing of the facility;

Evaluate the potential environmental and community impacts associated with future reuse of the site, including potential conversion to another detention facility or immigration detention center; and

Evaluate demolition of the facility and full remediation of the property as a reasonable alternative under NEPA.

Thank you for considering these comments. We urge BOP to ensure that any final environmental review meaningfully addresses the substantial contamination concerns and unresolved environmental risks identified throughout the EA before proceeding with closure of the facility, and reiterate our continued opposition to reopening FCI Dublin for any purpose, including to incarcerate people in ICE custody.

###


STATEMENT: Sen. Schiff on President Trump’s Nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, released the following statement on President Donald Trump’s nomination of Todd Blanche as Attorney General:

“At every turn, Todd Blanche has been unable to put aside his role as Donald Trump’s criminal defense lawyer and represent the American people instead.

“He has allowed the President to abuse the Department of Justice to go after his political enemies with absurd seashells cases, engaged in the most blatant self-dealing by representing both Trump and his government in an IRS scam, and blessed a corrupt slush fund for cop beaters.

“This is hardly the stuff of Attorney Generals.

“The Senate must vigorously oppose his confirmation.”

###


Shaheen Announces 4 New Cosponsors of Bipartisan Bill to Cap Monthly Insulin Costs at $35, Bringing Total to 22 Bipartisan Senators

**Eleven Senators from each party now cosponsor the Shaheen-led bill to lower insulin costs for Americans with and without insurance**

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) today announced four new cosponsors of the bipartisan INSULIN Act that would make life more affordable for Americans living with diabetes, bringing the total to 22 bipartisan Senators and representing over 1/5 of the Senate. U.S. Senators Joni Ernst (R-IA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Kevin Cramer (R-ND) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) are backing the bipartisan bill led by Diabetes Caucus Co-Chairs Senators Shaheen and Susan Collins (R-ME), as well as Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and John Kennedy (R-LA).

The Improving Needed Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act would cap the monthly out-of-pocket cost of insulin at $35 for Americans on private and employer-sponsored insurance and create a pilot program to provide insulin at the same cost to Americans without insurance. In addition to Shaheen, Collins, Warnock, Kennedy, Ernst, Hickenlooper, Cramer and Alsobrooks, the legislation is supported by U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), Angus King (I-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) and Katie Britt (R-AL), Chris Coons (D-DE), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Shelly Moore Capito (R-WV), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jim Justice (R-WV) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE).

The push to cap the monthly cost of insulin comes as the cost of health care continues to top Americans’ affordability concerns.

The INSULIN Act would directly address the root problems in the insulin market causing high list prices, while simultaneously extending vital patient protections, fostering competition and broadening access to needed insulin products. Specifically, the INSULIN Act:

Limits out-of-pocket costs for patients with diabetes by ensuring that group and individual market health plans must waive any deductible and limit cost-sharing to no more than $35 per month for at least one insulin of each type and dosage form.

Mandates pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) pass through 100% of insulin rebates and other discounts received from manufacturers to plan sponsors, reducing perverse incentives in the insulin market that encourage high list prices and help patients in the form of reduced premiums.

Promotes generic and biosimilar competition to lower costs for patients.

Creates a pilot grant program for 10 states to implement programs to identify uninsured diabetes patients and provide them with insulin at $35 a month.

Establishes an insulin resource center and hotline for uninsured diabetes patients to connect them with resources about diabetes and programs to help them secure insulin.

The bipartisan legislation is supported by the American Diabetes Association, Breakthrough T1D, the Endocrine Society, the National Kidney Foundation and others.

###


Shaheen, McCormick Urge HUD to Speed Up Waiver Process Delaying Affordable Housing Construction

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and Dave McCormick (R-PA) are sending a bipartisan letter urging U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Secretary Scott Turner to make commonsense reforms to the Build America, Buy America (BABA) process that will support the new construction and preservation of affordable housing across America. The Senators note that the current BABA waiver system for products that are not produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. has created huge delays and, in some cases, insurmountable barriers to the construction of new affordable housing in communities. With housing costs continuing to be a top concern for Americans, the bipartisan duo calls for HUD to Improve communication around the BABA waiver process, act faster on completed waiver requests and assess the availability of BABA-compliant housing products.

The Senators wrote, in part: “We write regarding a persistent challenge regarding the Build America, Buy America (BABA) process at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). We strongly support the goals of BABA, which was included in the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) in 2021 to ensure that federally funded projects, including construction, support domestic production of iron and steel, construction materials, and manufactured products. As you know, BABA requirements include the option for HUD and other agencies to grant waivers if certain products are not produced in sufficient quantities in the U.S. and in other specified circumstances. Unfortunately, for years dating back through the previous Administration, HUD has not fully developed its process for reviewing waiver requests, nor has it properly worked to assess housing components where there are persistent shortages or insufficient domestic production capacity. As a result, we have heard of requests for waivers that take months or even more than a year to process.”

They continued: “Buy America requirements have played a valuable role in supporting domestic production and jobs in certain infrastructure projects for decades and support American supply chain resilience and good paying jobs [...] Unfortunately, we have heard concerns from affordable housing developers that they are facing long and uncertain delays in getting waiver determinations […] We urge you to accelerate timelines for processing, publishing, and making a determination on waiver requests for specific projects to ensure development of much needed housing units is not held up, and to clearly communicate expectations with housing finance agencies, public housing authorities and other developers ahead of time. Doing so will not only reduce delays and costs in housing construction, it will also provide more clear information to American manufacturers of products that are currently unavailable.”

They concluded: “As we work in a bipartisan fashion in Congress to advance housing reforms which will support new construction and preservation of affordable housing, we believe this is a step HUD can implement quickly to make continued progress on expanding housing supply. We recognize that these steps should have been taken years ago, but request that HUD improve communication around the BABA waiver process, act faster on completed waiver requests, and begin assessing the availability of BABA-compliant housing products. We also know you have heard from housing and labor stakeholders with suggestions and hope you will work with them to address this challenge. We believe swift action can lead to meaningful progress in supporting homeownership and underscore the bipartisan commitment to supporting housing that is affordable and attainable for all Americans.”

A copy of the full letter can be read HERE.

Senator Shaheen is leading efforts in the Senate to lower housing costs and increase the supply of affordable units for families struggling to find a place to call home. Earlier this year, Shaheen secured three commonsense provisions—the Strategy and Investment in Rural Housing Preservation Act, Streamlining Rural Housing Act and the Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative in Community Enhancement (PRICE) Act in the landmark 21st Century Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act to expand supply of affordable housing, streamline construction and lower costs in the Granite State and across the country. Recently, Shaheen also reintroduced her Manufactured Housing Community Sustainability Act to incentivize manufactured home park owners to sell the park to community residents or nonprofits, rather than another developer or landlord. In the bipartisan Fiscal Year 2026 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, Shaheen secured upwards of $9 million in federal funding for affordable housing in New Hampshire. Recently, as part of her Affordability Action Tour, Senator Shaheen visited both West Lebanon and Laconia to discuss policy solutions to lower housing costs for communities across the state.

###