Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche on independence from Trump during confirmation hearing

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) questioned Todd Blanche, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General of the United States, at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing today, where he pressed Blanche on whether he would stand up to the president and highlighted Blanche’s past support for President Trump’s mass pardons for January 6 rioters who attacked Capitol Police officers.

President Trump fired former Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, barely a year after taking office, amid reports that he had grown frustrated that the DOJ was not doing enough to prosecute his political opponents. Blanche, President Trump’s former personal attorney and Bondi’s deputy, took over as acting attorney general and is now seeking Senate confirmation to lead the department permanently.

“You’re in charge of a Department of Justice I don’t recognize: prosecuting the president’s political enemies, firing rank-and-file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to, slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety,” said Senator Coons.

Senator Coons also pushed Blanche on the proposed $1.8 billion “weaponization fund” he has tried to create for President Trump to reward political allies and President Trump’s blanket pardons of individuals charged in connection with the January 6 attack, including rioters who were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers. Blanche struggled to answer questions about the pardons after Senator Coons confronted him with his own remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Blanche “trumpeted [the pardons] as an achievement.”

A video and full transcript of Senator Coons’ comments are available below.

WATCH HERE.

Senator Coons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Acting Attorney General Blanche, thank you for your service and for appearing here. And thank you to your family and to the men and women of the Department of Justice who work tirelessly to fight crime and to make our nation secure, I’m grateful for their service.

I’m sorry that your schedule apparently didn’t permit us to meet before this confirmation hearing, but I hope and expect we’ll find time to meet soon after today.

Blanche: Absolutely.

Senator Coons: Thank you. As I consider your nomination, like all other nominations to similar cabinet positions, I need to know you’re qualified to serve. You demonstrably are. That you have the policy views to serve well. We will discuss that today. And, most importantly in this role, that you have the independence to serve as the attorney general for the American people.

And that last question has troubled me the most. You’re in charge of a Department of Justice I don’t recognize: prosecuting the president’s political enemies, firing rank-and-file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to, slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety.

These are some actions that, in your previous confirmation hearing before us, you said you would not take. Now, I appreciate your statement walking back the $1.8 billion “weaponization fund” that you created, but I question how it got that far, and we’ll get into that.

You sat in an appropriations hearing earlier this year before me and defended it at that time. In fact, if I remember correctly, you told me I was wrong for criticizing it. But following questions by Senators Durbin and Cornyn, I’m concerned it’s not dead yet, and I think we should talk that through.

Overall, this is not what I believe the American people expect or deserve from the Department of Justice.

Having spent critical parts of January 6 in this room taking shelter from the mob, I just wanted to open with some questions. How many people were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6?

Blanche: I believe around 120, approximately, but I could be off a few more.

Senator Coons: You are. The answer is more than 200. And how many of those individuals had their sentences commuted or were pardoned by President Trump?

Blanche: President Trump either commuted or pardoned every defendant from the January 6 events.

Senator Coons: That’s correct. And in this room right now, and outside this room, are Capitol Police officers protecting us in this hearing room. How many of them do you think might have friends or colleagues who were attacked by supporters of the president on January 6?

Blanche: I don’t know the numbers, but I’m sure many of the Capitol Police officers who are here today worked, either were working on January 6th, or knew people who were.

Senator Coons: I’ll just say that I consider a shameful slap in the face of the men and women of law enforcement for those convicted of assaulting police officers to have been pardoned.

I know you were not serving as deputy attorney general when President Trump pardoned those folks, but you said just a few moments ago that you were not celebrating this decision by the president. He was exercising his constitutional power.

But earlier this year, in front of CPAC, a conservative event, I would say, from the transcript, you actually trumpeted it as an achievement. And I quote, saying, “If you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6, by 5 p.m. on January 20, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted by President Trump. So, when folks say you’ve done nothing, I say you have a very short memory.”

Would you say that you’re proud of President Trump’s decision to pardon individuals who assaulted law enforcement?

Blanche: No, that’s not what I was saying there at all, Senator. So, I was responding to inquiries around why more hadn’t been done by the Department of Justice with respect to January 6 defendants. And so, my answer was that the January 6 defendants and some of their lawyers had a short memory because a lot had already been done. Indeed, by the end of the day on January 20, they had all been pardoned or commuted. So, I wasn’t celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6 defendants did receive a very generous pardon or commutation from President Trump. Every one of them on January 6.

Senator Coons: A generous – and in my view, for those who had assaulted police officers – unwarranted, unjustified, ahistorical, and a terrible precedent.

Let me move on to questions I’ve asked in previous hearings. Is President Trump, just as a simple matter of constitutional law, eligible to run for another term as president in 2028?

Blanche: I don’t believe he is. No.

Senator Coons: That is correct, in my view, reading of the plain language of the 22nd Amendment. Why do you think several of the judicial nominees of this administration have refused repeatedly to answer that question simply and clearly, as you just did, when I put it to them?

Blanche: I have no idea why they answer questions.

Senator Coons: Me neither. It was confounding.

Blanche: You are asking me to speculate about something I don’t know.

Senator Coons: Is the Department of Justice that you are running independent from the White House?

Blanche: The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive, is part of the executive. I mean, Article II of the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump.

So, we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in the single mindset to serve the American people and do the right thing.

But I am a member, if confirmed, I will be a member of the cabinet. I’m serving in the acting capacity that way now, just like the other cabinet members. And President Trump can fire me whenever he wants, so…

Senator Coons: Do you have a sense why he fired your predecessor?

Blanche: I have no idea. President Trump, we all serve with the pleasure of President Trump in this administration.

Senator Coons: Did President Trump ever post on Truth Social directing your predecessor to get at it, to prosecute his perceived political enemies?

Blanche: I don’t think those were his exact words, but no.

Senator Coons: Those were not his exact words, but I thought it was the intention.

It is my impression, sir, that you are here rather than your predecessor because the president was unhappy with her failures to actually secure convictions of folks like Attorney General Tish James or former FBI Director Jim Comey.

If you’re confirmed and you’re asked to take an action you believe to be illegal or unethical, would you resign?

Blanche: That will never happen. But yes, if it were to happen, I’m not going to violate my oath to the Constitution.

Senator Coons: I appreciate that answer.

You did answer a question by a colleague about input that you gave to the president. Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti-weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this?

Blanche: I am not, will not, talk about communications I have with the president. I served as his lawyer for a couple years before he was elected. I’m the deputy attorney general and the acting attorney general, so I’m not going to talk about communications that I have with him.

But, Senator, I will say that President Trump trusts me to give him counsel. Counsel does not mean a recognized man, and so that’s, and that’s true in my case, like it should be in any attorney general’s case.

Senator Coons: Let me just, for a minute, bear down on the anti-weaponization fund.

You’ve testified to the House: “We are not moving forward with that fund, period.” But you’ve repeatedly refused to put that commitment in writing or to submit a declaration to the court.

You’re an officer of the court, a member of the bar. You should be able to make that assertion in a court filing or even in a letter submitted to this body.

On May 19, you testified before the Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, “Since the case had been dismissed, there was no judge and no mechanism for judicial review.”

But in an opinion this week, a federal judge wrote, and I’m quoting, that your testimony was “at best misleading and at worst disingenuous,” explaining the court remained available to review this agreement had you sought relief.

Why not seek review of the settlement agreement or submit some record, some writing, given that the president continues to publicly champion this weaponization fund, and given your previous answer to me in another hearing that you wouldn’t say whether or not those who assaulted cops on January 6 would be eligible for multimillion-dollar payouts?

Blanche: So, there’s a lot of questions there.

First of all, we have put it in writing. It’s in repeated court filings in EDVA and D.C. So, this narrative that you won’t put it in writing happens not to be true.

The reason why neither myself nor Secretary Bessent agreed to put a declaration in is because there’s long-standing precedent that judges cannot ask cabinet secretaries or people like me to put in declarations. It has nothing to do with whether the fund is alive. I’m under oath today, and I’ve said it’s dead repeatedly. I said it to the House Oversight Committee, and I am happy to say as many times as necessary.

As far as what the judge said in Florida, just the last question you asked about Florida, that judge disagreed with what I said. I still believe that 11th Circuit precedent, which I’ve studied, I am right. So, we’ll see.

Senator Coons: You did say earlier, “This is the most transparent Department of Justice in American history. We have nothing to hide.” And you started by saying, “We’re here to rebuild trust.”

Two decisions, or two OLC opinions, I’m very interested in. I’m the senior Democrat on defense and intelligence appropes. I’m the most senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee on my side who’s currently serving on this committee.

I’m curious as to why the most transparent department has refused to release the OLC opinion that justifies the 66 strikes the military has conducted on boats in the Caribbean, which have killed more than 220 people, either a redacted version or in a classified setting to me and others who are in relevant decision-making positions.

Blanche: Well, Senator, we made the head of OLC available on multiple occasions to explain that to you and other members of the committee, and that is extraordinarily transparent and unprecedented that we’ve done that. Whether an OLC opinion is released, there’s a lot of process that goes into that. But the idea that we were not transparent about our legal basis there is absolutely not true.

Senator Coons: Okay, another chance to be transparent: The FISA court in March certified your Section 702 proceedings but found compliance deficiencies. This is an important power of the federal government that will soon be up again for vote, and you have not declassified that opinion.

Senators Cotton and Warner, Republican and Democratic leads on Intelligence, in April wrote the administration saying that they expected declassification of this March opinion within two weeks. Yet it remains classified. You have a bipartisan request from the leadership of Intel. Will you declassify it or make it available to us?

Blanche: We’ll continue to look at that. I agree with you that that’s a very important issue, and we need 702 reauthorized.

Senator Coons: Thank you. Last question, if I could.

The Safer Supervision Act is co-sponsored by Senators Lee, Cornyn, Tillis, and Lankford, and it gives a path forward to making sure that federal probation and parole is more effective. We’ve discussed it before. Will you meet with me to talk about ways that this important criminal justice reform, supported by federal law enforcement, could move forward?

Blanche: I think it’s, yes, absolutely. I very much agree with what you’re trying to do there, Senator.


Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, colleagues send letter to Trump administration calling for answers on green card application changes

In a letter to USCIS, senators and representatives question the new requirements for green card applicants to apply abroad and demonstrate their presence is in the ill-defined “national interest”

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), U.S. Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and dozens of their colleagues demanded an explanation from the Trump administration on the recent changes to the green card application process.

In a letter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow, the lawmakers cited a recent USCIS memorandum that requires noncitizens seeking a green card to apply abroad, as well as – for the first time – establish their presence in the United States as “in the national interest.”

The lawmakers wrote: “We write to object to your new policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. Adjustment of status is the statutory process by which immigrants may apply for lawful permanent residence, often called a ‘green card,’ from within the United States. On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum (PM-602-0199) with guidance claiming that adjustment of status is an ‘extraordinary form of relief.’ Without any basis in the law and in a departure from decades of precedent, this guidance creates a policy preference for consular processing abroad over adjustment of status in the United States, requiring applicants to meet new, undefined discretionary criteria to be processed domestically. We urge you to reverse this new policy and restore adjudications of adjustment of status applications in a manner consistent with the law, longstanding practice, and congressional intent.”

The lawmakers continued: “PM-602-0199 states that adjustment of status ‘is a matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.’ This is simply incorrect. There is no statutory preference for consular processing, and legislative history shows that Congress has long maintained a strong preference in favor of allowing eligible noncitizens to adjust status in the United States. Adjustment of status was first introduced into law over 70 years ago, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The practice was introduced and later expanded in recognition of the significant number of eligible individuals seeking green cards who resided in the United States. In the limited circumstances in which Congress intended to restrict adjustment of status, statutory text has been amended to prevent certain classes of noncitizens from using the process. When individuals are in the United States and eligible for adjustment of status, legislative history shows that Congress has a strong preference that such individuals have an opportunity to adjust their status while remaining in the U.S.”

The lawmakers concluded, before making a series of requests for information: “By directing adjudicators to treat adjustment of status as an ‘extraordinary form of relief’ and by creating a policy preference for consular processing, the memorandum undermines the very purposes Congress sought to advance when enacting and amending section 245 of the INA. Congress established adjustment of status as a cornerstone of the modern immigration system to promote family unity, administrative efficiency, and economic stability. Any effort to dismantle that statutory framework through internal agency policy is unacceptable.”

In addition to Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, Durbin, and Padilla, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)

In addition to Raskin and Jayapal, the letter is also signed by U.S. Representatives Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Donald Beyer (D-Va.), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Gilbert Ray Cisneros Jr. (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (D-Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), Timothy Kennedy (D-N.Y.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Christian Menefee (D-Texas), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Analilia Mejia (D-N.J.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Derek Tran (D-Calif.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.).

Read the full letter below:

Dear Director Edlow:

We write to object to your new policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. Adjustment of status is the statutory process by which immigrants may apply for lawful permanent residence, often called a “green card,” from within the United States. On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum (PM-602-0199) with guidance claiming that adjustment of status is an “extraordinary form of relief.”1 Without any basis in the law and in a departure from decades of precedent, this guidance creates a policy preference for consular processing abroad over adjustment of status in the United States, requiring applicants to meet new, undefined discretionary criteria to be processed domestically. We urge you to reverse this new policy and restore adjudications of adjustment of status applications in a manner consistent with the law, longstanding practice, and congressional intent.

PM-602-0199 states that adjustment of status “is a matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.” This is simply incorrect. There is no statutory preference for consular processing, and legislative history shows that Congress has long maintained a strong preference in favor of allowing eligible noncitizens to adjust status in the United States. Adjustment of status was first introduced into law over 70 years ago, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.2 The practice was introduced and later expanded in recognition of the significant number of eligible individuals seeking green cards who resided in the United States.3 In the limited circumstances in which Congress intended to restrict adjustment of status, statutory text has been amended to prevent certain classes of noncitizens from using the process.

When individuals are in the United States and eligible for adjustment of status, legislative history shows that Congress has a strong preference that such individuals have an opportunity to adjust their status while remaining in the U.S. When expanding adjustment of status, Congress has often raised concerns with forcing noncitizens in the United States to use consular processing.5 A 1960 House Report accompanying legislation expanding adjustment of status expressed congressional dissatisfaction with “the fallacious procedure known as ‘preexamination’ . . . consisting of round trips to Canada for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigrant visa.”6 In the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, Congress enacted into law transitional protection for individuals stuck in the employment-based green card backlog.7 The accompanying Senate report noted that the provision “enables these individuals to remain in H-1B status until they are able to receive an immigrant visa and adjust their status within the United States, thus limiting the disruption to American businesses.”

PM-602-0199 would also create new criteria that do not exist in law—and are not supported by the law—for individuals to be processed for a green card from within the United States. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently noted: “This policy will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law. These aliens benefit the national interest and provide economic benefits to the United States and will continue to merit the favorable exercise of discretion.”9 However, for decades, adjustment of status has ordinarily been granted to eligible individuals unless there are adverse factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion.10 This is consistent with the law—if noncitizens are otherwise eligible for a favorable exercise of discretion that would result in a grant of adjustment of status, there is no legal or statutory basis to make an additional discretionary determination of “national interest” to allow them to be processed within the United States. Thus, the policy memorandum imposes what amounts to a new substantive standard—requiring applicants to affirmatively demonstrate that their adjustment serves the national interest or provides economic benefit—without any congressional authorization for such a test. Worse still, it does so without any effective date, explanation of how pending applications will be adjudicated, transition period, or clear guidance as to which categories of applicants would be affected.

This is a major policy shift. USCIS has long recognized Congress’s preference for allowing eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status in the United States.11 For decades, USCIS and its predecessor agencies have adjudicated millions of adjustment applications pursuant to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Since 1980, more than half of all individuals granted lawful permanent residence have obtained that status through adjustment of status in the U.S. rather than consular processing abroad.12 If individuals are forced to pursue immigrant visas through consular processing abroad, many will face months or years of separation from spouses, children, parents, and other family members due to extensive visa appointment backlogs at U.S. consulates worldwide.13 And as discussed above, Congress has expressly weighed in against processes that would push individuals from within the United States to consular processing abroad.

For individuals who have built lives in the United States—including those who have children who are U.S. citizens, have stable employment, pay taxes, and participate in their communities—this forced separation will impose significant hardships on their U.S.-citizen family members and communities.15 The policy also threatens substantial economic disruption. Skilled workers, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, researchers, students transitioning to permanent residence, and employees sponsored by U.S. businesses may be forced to depart the country for extended periods while awaiting immigrant visa processing abroad.16 Such disruptions would impose significant costs not only on affected individuals and families, but also on American employers and the broader U.S. economy.

By directing adjudicators to treat adjustment of status as an “extraordinary form of relief” and by creating a policy preference for consular processing, the memorandum undermines the very purposes Congress sought to advance when enacting and amending section 245 of the INA. Congress established adjustment of status as a cornerstone of the modern immigration system to promote family unity, administrative efficiency, and economic stability. Any effort to dismantle that statutory framework through internal agency policy is unacceptable. As such, please provide responses to the following questions:

What is the effective date of this policy? Is USCIS applying this policy to adjustment of status applications that were filed and pending before the memorandum’s release date of May 21, 2026?

To which categories of adjustment of status applicants does the policy apply?

To how many applicants does USCIS estimate this will apply?

Has USCIS issued any formal written guidance or training to adjudicators regarding implementation of this policy? If so, please provide those materials.

What standards or criteria are adjudicators being instructed to apply when exercising discretion under this policy? What supervisory review mechanisms are in place to ensure consistency in adjudication? Please provide any related materials.

The memorandum appears to establish a new standard requiring applicants to demonstrate that their adjustment of status serves the “national interest,” and DHS spokespersons have suggested this may include persons who provide an “economic benefit.” What are the criteria for “national interest” and “economic benefit” that would merit a favorable exercise of discretion to permit processing domestically?

Given that this policy will substantially increase demand for immigrant visa processing at U.S. consulates abroad, did USCIS consult with the Department of State in developing this policy?

How does USCIS intend to provide a viable pathway to lawful permanent residence for individuals who are subject to the immigrant visa consular processing pause, travel bans, or who cannot access consular processing due to the absence of a functioning U.S. consulate in their country of nationality?

The memorandum makes reference to noncitizens with “dual intent” as an exception, but includes a footnote stating that “maintaining lawful status in a dual intent nonimmigrant category is not sufficient, on its own, to warrant a favorable exercise of discretion.” How will this new policy be applied to individuals with dual intent seeking to adjust status within the United States?

We look forward to your prompt response to our inquiries.


Cornyn: Texas to Receive $16M to Improve Public Safety, Reduce Recidivism

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) announced today that the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has awarded $16,117,963 in federal grant funding to the Governor’s Public Safety Office to fight crime, protect communities across Texas, and reduce recidivism. The funding comes from the DOJ’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) Program, which Sen. Cornyn voted to fund as part of last year’s Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, and will support local and statewide initiatives, including law enforcement personnel, training, and equipment, criminal justice programs, mental and behavioral health, and drug treatment and enforcement.

“The Byrne JAG Program has a proven record of improving public safety by targeting risk factors correlated with violent crime and repeated offense,” said Sen. Cornyn. “This funding will reduce recidivism, fight crime, and empower law enforcement to better protect communities across Texas.”


Cornyn, Tillis Urge Blanche to Protect Life, Counter Dangerous Mail-Order Abortion Drugs

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators John Cornyn (R-TX) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) sent a letter to Acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche ahead of his nomination hearing today in the Senate Judiciary Committee urging him to resolve the mail-order abortion lawsuit, Louisiana v. FDA, by agreeing to a court-ordered consent decree, which would end the unlawful Biden-era policy that removed in-person dispensing requirements for the dangerous chemical abortion drug, mifepristone, while FDA conducts its safety review.

Excerpts from the letter are below, and the full text of letter can be viewed here.

The lawmakers wrote: “We write to express our growing concern that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not acted to stop the abortion industry’s unlawful and unsafe mail-order abortion drug practice.”

“It is well within the power of the Department of Justice, under your leadership, to resolve the Louisiana v. FDA litigation, which is now back before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. By agreeing to a consent decree under the supervision of the court, you can swiftly end this illegal, Biden-era policy and restore in-person dispensing requirements while we await FDA’s safety review,” they continued.

“On June 24, we celebrated four years since the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson. But the sad truth is that the number of abortions has actually increased in that time. This is in large part because of the abortion industry’s efforts to expand the use of unsafe mail-order abortions. With every day that passes, more lives are at risk and are lost because of this harmful policy. DOJ can and must act,” they concluded.


Cornyn Touts Lifesaving Success of Bipartisan Safer Communities Act

WASHINGTON – Earlier this week on the floor, U.S. Senator John Cornyn (R-TX) highlighted the lifesaving success of his Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was signed into law four years ago last month, and held a colloquy with Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) to address some of the misconceptions about the legislation. Excerpts of Sen. Cornyn’s remarks are below, and video can be found here.

On Investments in Mental Health and School Hardening:

“What [the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act] did do is made an historic investment in mental health and school safety and commonsense measures to prevent dangerous individuals from being a harm to themselves and others.”

“Texas, like all the states, has received significant amounts of money, in the case of Texas, hundreds of millions of dollars, from this law – more than $312 million to date – to strengthen our mental health care and school hardening, to make it more difficult for violent individuals to attack soft targets like schools typically have been.”

On Investments in Community Behavioral Health Clinics:

“The BSCA, as it’s called, also expanded certified community behavioral health clinics around the country, which has allowed mental health clinics to expand their coverage to include not only mental health but substance abuse disorders.”

“There are now more than 500 community-based mental health centers operating in 46 states.”

On Red Flag Laws:

“One of the things I heard most in the recent campaign I ran in was that we had passed a red flag law, which would make it possible for an aggrieved partner or spouse or family member or maybe even a neighbor to basically turn in somebody and have their firearms confiscated without due process of law.”

“The truth is, the BSCA actually makes it harder to implement red flag laws because you can’t do so and access this money unless you enhance the due process protections that are necessary to protect what is a constitutional right.”

“We wanted to make sure that the funding that was available was available for crisis intervention programs, veterans courts, mental health courts, just to use a couple of examples, that did not have those red flag laws, while making sure those states that did could not gain access to this money unless they provided an enhanced due process procedure.”

“It’s false to argue that the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act created an incentive for more states to pass new red flag laws, and the statistics bear it out. Only 4% of the total money appropriated were obligated to red flag-related activities.”

On Mandatory Wait Periods:

“Another misconception I heard on the campaign trail or saw on social media was that somehow, we created a mandatory waiting period before somebody could access a firearm if they were going into a store to purchase it for those under 21. Once again, this is false.”

“If a person’s record includes disqualifying criminal convictions or mental health adjudications, it shouldn’t matter whether it occurred a day before their 18th birthday, and what the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act allowed law enforcement officials to do is to go back and look at those juvenile records.”

On Straw Purchases and Firearm Trafficking:

“This leads me to another important provision in the BSCA, which gives the Department of Justice tools to prosecute individuals for straw purchases.”

“Straw purchases are the primary way that criminals and illegal aliens arm themselves, and the Trump administration has used these new criminal provisions enacted in the BSC[A] to target cartel members.”

“Before BSCA, the only penalty a criminal faced for a straw purchase was lying on their firearms transaction of minor offense, which many prosecutors would not bother to pursue.”

“Now, because of this law, the Department of Justice has a tool to combat cartel violence and prosecute individuals who engage in firearms trafficking.”

On His Legacy of Bipartisanship:

“Working together with Senator Tillis, Senator Sinema, and Senator Murphy, we made sure we passed a law which actually would invest in mental health resources to identify individuals who were suffering before they became a danger to themselves and others.

“We literally made the single largest investment when we passed this law four years ago in community-based mental health care and made our schools safer for all of our children, so they can focus on why they are in school in the first place – to learn – and parents don’t have to worry at home about, ‘Is my son or my daughter going to be safe?’ all the while protecting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens.”

“As I reflect back on my time here in the United States Senate, there are a few legislative accomplishments I’ve made that have helped the people of Texas and our country at large – at least I hope that’s the case – but out of all of these, the BSCA was one of the most critical in tangibly making the country safer for families and children.”


Everything’s Bigger in Texas – Including the 2026 World Cup

When most Texans think of football, we think of Texas teams like the Dallas Cowboys, Houston Texans, Texas Longhorns, Fightin’ Texas Aggies, or even the local high school teams we root for under the Friday night lights. But to the rest of the world, football isn’t played on a 100-yard field – it’s played on a pitch and known as “fútbol.” The most anticipated event for billions of soccer fans across the globe is the quadrennial FIFA World Cup, and this summer, Texas became part of that story again as a host state for the 2026 World Cup.

In 1904, FIFA, short for the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, was founded in Paris by representatives from seven national football associations: Belgium, Denmark, France, Netherlands, Spain, Sweden, and Switzerland. The federation wanted to showcase the sport outside of the Olympic Games, as it was growing in popularity across the world. It wasn’t until 1930 that the first World Cup was played in Montevideo, Uruguay. Unlike today’s 48-team roster, only 13 nations competed in the inaugural game, including the United States. Ninety thousand fans witnessed history in the making when Uruguay beat Argentina 4-2 with the U.S. finishing third.

Nowadays, the FIFA World Cup is one of the largest events in the world, and the United States, Mexico, and Canada co-hosted this year’s events. Texas was one of 11 states to host the games. Dallas hosted nine matches, the most of any other host city, and Houston was home to seven. The 16 Texas-based matches are estimated to have generated more than $3 billion for the Texas economy.

While tens of millions of Americans have tuned in to watch the games on TV, North Texas hosted a total of 631,843 fans, while Houston’s seven matches garnered 480,184 attendees. I was proud to have helped secure $625 million in the Working Families Tax Cuts Act to help local law enforcement ensure the safety of players, teams, and fans. Houston was awarded more than $64 million and Dallas was awarded more than $51 million of this funding to bolster security for attendees, infrastructure, and venues.

As we look back on FIFA’s time in Texas, I want to take a moment to reflect on the cultural and economic impacts the matches have had outside the stadiums stretched across the Lone Star State.

Cities investing in stadium upgrades, transportation, and fan zones have helped boost tourism throughout the Lone Star State. Let’s take the viral Germany fan, Freddy, for example. Freddy stopped at one of Texas’ most iconic places, Buc-ee’s, and was shocked at what the beaver-themed gas station had to offer, sharing his experience for all to see on social media. His cross-country journey introduced many of his nearly 755,000 followers to Texas culture and will inspire others to see what the buzz is about in the Lone Star State.

In Houston, we also saw thousands of Netherlands fans flooding the streets in orange for their Oranje Fan Walk. And in North Texas, World Cup fans from Australia, Croatia, England, and Netherlands made their way to the Fort Worth Stockyards to purchase a cowboy hat and head down Exchange Avenue to see the cattle drive, followed by a rodeo and some world-famous Texas barbeque, and finishing the night at Billy Bob’s to line dance – a true Texas experience.

As millions of highly enthusiastic fans poured into Texas, many businesses felt the positive impact of the games. Fans took to the roads and traveled across the state to see what we had to offer, stopping at local spots along the way. Restaurants and bars had a hard time keeping up with the intake of customers, some even running out of food after they increased their inventory for the matches. But they wouldn’t change it for the world, as the World Cup helped to boost their businesses, gave the fans a memorable experience, and helped Americans see our nation through the eyes of someone discovering all our country has to offer.

As a lifelong Texan, I was excited to see fans from around the world travel to our state and embrace our culture. I was also glad to see our communities come together and give a big Texas welcome to those visiting. Long after the final whistle, the victory for Texas will be measured not only by the outcome of the World Cup, but also by the lasting friendships, memorable experiences, and global recognition of welcoming others to the Lone Star State.

Everything is bigger in Texas, and during the 2026 World Cup, the Texas hospitality and the camaraderie between Texans and our guests from around the world were bigger than the game itself.


Cortez Masto, Douglas County Manager Push for the Passage of the Douglas County Lands Bill in Key Senate Hearing

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Jenifer Davidson, Douglas County Manager, pushed for the passage of the Douglas County lands bill in a Senate hearing. The Douglas County Economic Development and Conservation Act would improve land management in the Carson Valley, increase local economic and outdoor recreation opportunities, protect public lands, and preserve important Tribal cultural sites within Douglas County.

Senator Cortez Masto is the Ranking Member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee’s Subcommittee on Public Lands, Forests, and Mining. County Manager Davidson served as a witness for the committee and discussed the urgent need to pass Cortez Masto’s Douglas County Lands Bill.

“The [Douglas County Lands] Bill is the culmination of extensive collaboration between local officials stretching back to 2009, with the earliest bill being introduced in 2013. […] It also represents the ‘Nevada style’ of legislating our local land management needs – bringing people together, identifying land-use needs, and making compromises. It includes support from local government, the local business community, conservationists, including Friends of Nevada Wilderness, and the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California,” said Senator Cortez Masto in her opening remarks.

“Members of the Subcommittee, [the Douglas County Lands Bill] solves problems that grow more urgent with every year. Douglas County has done the work. We have built the consensus. Now we need Congress to finish the job,” said County Manager Davidson in her opening remarks.

The full text of the Douglas County Lands Bill can be found here, and a map of the proposal can be found here.

Senator Cortez Masto has worked across the board to strengthen and diversify Nevada’s economy, protect Nevada’s public lands, and plan for responsible growth. She helped pass vital legislation to create thousands of new jobs in Las Vegas at the Apex Industrial Park. Cortez Masto has secured funding for large-scale water recycling projects in Nevada. She has fought against misguided proposals to allow the indiscriminate sale of public lands to pay for tax cuts for billionaires. Cortez Masto has consistently pushed for the passage of her Southern Nevada Lands bill.

###


EPW Committee Unanimously Passes the Water Resources Development Act

***Click herefor audio. Click here for video.***

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee unanimously passed its Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2026 today. Enacted every two years, WRDA authorizes essential U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) projects. WRDA has a long history of bipartisan passage under regular order. This year’s bill includes authorization of the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking water and wastewater infrastructure programs.

U.S. Senator Kevin Cramer (R-ND) is the chairman of the Senate EPW Subcommittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which has jurisdiction over USACE and EPA water infrastructure programs. He highlighted the cooperative spirit necessary to pass WRDA, saying, “Passing the Water Resources Development Act out of our committee unanimously every two years—for over a decade—really is evidence that collaborative legislating still exists in the United States Senate. We should all be optimistic about that. Our bill supports projects across North Dakota like the Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water Supply Project that folks in Fargo and up and down the Red River Valley are very familiar with, and the Williston Levee, while also authorizing water infrastructure programs North Dakota, our tribes, and rural townships rely on. Our WRDA really does some wonderful things besides authorizing spending, it also cuts red tape within the Corps itself and for the states and communities coordinating with them. I’m really grateful and pleased our committee has kept WRDA a priority and delivered a bipartisan product to the Senate for final passage.”

Click here for video

Supporting North Dakota Projects

Authorized USACE projects across North Dakota are supported in the 2026 WRDA. It extends the authority of the Secretary of the Army to provide operation and maintenance assistance for the Devils Lake Flood Risk Reduction Project. To support water supply from the McClusky Canal, including the Eastern North Dakota Alternate Water Supply Project, this WRDA expresses the Sense of Congress the Secretary should ensure updates to the water control manual for Snake Creek Embankment and Lake Audubon Reservoir maintain the water levels necessary to support authorized purposes, including municipal and industrial water supplies.

Additionally, it directs the Secretary to coordinate with federal, state, and local agencies when carrying out activities related to the Williston Levee, as well as expedite any activities to address risks associated with the levee. The bill also addresses hurdles private landowners face when their property is adjacent or surrounded by USACE land, encouraging the Corps to facilitate better access for property owners.

Reforming USACE Review Processes

The USACE Section 408 program allows companies, individuals, and state governments to modify a USACE project, however, the application process is cumbersome. The 2026 WRDA alleviates these challenges by making the Corps set clear metrics and deliverable timelines for applicants, providing greater certainty and transparency. Similarly, it also directs the USACE to establish a categorical exclusion within 180 days for those Continuing Authorities Programs and Environmental Infrastructure, substantially streamlining projects with a federal cost share of $50 million or less.

Allowing Aquifer Exemption for Class VI Wells

This year’s WRDA includes language directing the EPA to update regulations regarding Class VI aquifer exemptions. Current EPA regulations allow for exemptions other than Class VI when the criteria does not meet an underground source of drinking water. The language will eliminate a barrier contributing to delays for the widespread adoption of carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies important to the future of coal and oil operations across the state.

Strengthening Water Infrastructure Programs

In a boost to rural water systems, this year’s WRDA authorizes and strengthens three key water infrastructure programs through Fiscal Year (FY) 2030 beginning with the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund, authorized at $3.75 billion and increasing by $500 million each year through FY 2030. Similarly, the Clean Water State Revolving Fund is authorized at $3.5 billion, an increase of $250 million annually. Since 2022, North Dakota has received over $386 million.

WRDA also authorizes $26 million annually for Technical Assistance to Small Public Water Systems, which is critically important to help rural water systems across North Dakota comply with EPA regulations. It further assists North Dakotan communities by continuing an EPA grant program to assist publicly owned water systems and treatment works in rural areas, or areas experiencing critical water supply needs to design, construct, or maintain digital infrastructure technology.

Supporting Recreation

WRDA 2026 supports recreation areas in North Dakota by making the terrestrial noxious weeds program permanent and authorizing $75 million through 2031 to combat invasive species. It also requires the secretary of the Army to brief Congress on the implementation status of a 2024 WRDA provision directing up to 80% of recreation fees to the USACE sites at which they are collected for operations and maintenance.

Ensuring Dam and Levee Safety

North Dakota is home to hundreds of dams and levees, and this year’s WRDA authorizes important safety programs. Specifically, it extends the authorization of appropriations through FY 2031 for the Levee Safety Initiative assistance to states, tribes, and other entities to establish a levee safety program. It authorizes $60 million for the High Hazard Potential Dam Rehabilitation Program through FY 2031 and amends section 14 of the National Dam Safety Program Act to clarify the funding allocation requirements.


Crapo Joins Cortez Masto, Cramer to Honor Journeyman Lineworkers Recognition Day

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Mike Crapo (R-Idaho), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nevada) and Kevin Cramer (R-North Dakota) led the passage of a bipartisan resolution to designate July 10, 2026, as Journeyman Lineworkers Recognition Day. The resolution recognizes the essential contributions of journeyman lineworkers in maintaining the nation's electric grid and restoring power following severe weather, natural disasters and other emergencies.

“Journeyman lineworkers play a critical role in keeping our communities powered, connected and safe,” said Crapo. “These highly skilled professionals work under challenging and often dangerous conditions, and this resolution appropriately honors their dedication, expertise and service to Idahoans and Americans across the nation.”

“Every year on July 10, we recognize the tireless dedication of journeyman lineworkers,” said Cortez Masto. “These men and women not only perform routine maintenance to our power grids, but they also restore electricity when our communities are struck by disasters, from wildfires to hurricanes. I am proud to stand behind our lineworkers and to introduce this bipartisan resolution honoring their steadfast commitment to our communities.”

“Despite the freezing winter cold and sweltering summer heat, lineworkers across North Dakota ensure the power stays on when we need it the most,” said Cramer. “Growing up, my dad was a rural electric lineman, and I saw firsthand his hard work and commitment to keeping electrons flowing for our neighbors. Our resolution honors the thousands of journeymen lineworkers in America for their selfless dedication.”

The Resolution is endorsed by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), the National Electrical Contractors Association (NECA) and Edison Electric Institute (EEI).

Also co-sponsoring the Resolution are U.S. Senators Jim Risch (R-Idaho), Alan Armstrong (R-Oklahoma), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Delaware), Richard Blumenthal (D-Connecticut), Tammy Duckworth (D-Illinois), Martin Heinrich (D-New Mexico), John Hickenlooper (D-Colorado), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), John Hoeven (R-North Dakota), Ashley Moody (R-Florida), Jerry Moran (R-Kansas), Rick Scott (R-Florida), Alex Padilla (D-California), Adam Schiff (D-California), Jacky Rosen (D-Nevada), Elissa Slotkin (D-Michigan), Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland), Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska) and Roger Wicker (R-Mississippi).

The full text of the resolution can be foundhere.

###


Crapo, Risch Applaud Move to Return Grizzly Bear Management to States

Washington, D.C.--U.S. Senators Mike Crapo and Jim Risch (both R-Idaho) applauded the U.S. Department of the Interior proposal to provide new flexibility for western states in managing grizzly bears.

“The recovery of the grizzly bear in the West is a conservation success story made possible by decades of work from state, tribal, federal and local conservation partners,” said Crapo. “For years, I have advocated for returning grizzly bear management to the states as recovery objectives and benchmarks have been achieved. Secretary Burgum’s announcement moves us one step closer to allowing Idaho wildlife professionals to manage a recovered grizzly population in a way that protects both the species and Idaho communities.”

“It’s abundantly clear Idaho’s grizzly bear populations have widely exceeded recovery goals,” said Risch. “Increasing state authority to manage grizzly bears ensures our own local wildlife agencies, who understand Idaho’s environment best, can follow the science and make commonsense conservation decisions without bureaucratic inefficiencies.”

The announcement, made by Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Brian Nesvik, proposes a revised rule to increase management flexibility for grizzly bears in areas where the species has met, and in many cases exceeded, federal recovery benchmarks. The updated proposal ensures the Endangered Species Act is being used as Congress intended while continuing to support the species' long-term conservation.

###


Curtis Secures Committee Approval of Water Projects for Utah Amid Intense Drought

Video of the Senator’s Committee remarks can be found here, and a transcript is below.

Utah is in a record drought. Everywhere I go, it’s “water, water, water, water.” And I think in many cases, as [there are] many pressing problems we have as a country and as a state, water still rises to the top.

So, I’m very pleased, particularly for the communities of Ephraim and Centerville, who will benefit from this in their ability to bring clean water to the residents and otherwise would not be able to do it without this bill.

So, I’d like to thank the Committee, the staff, [and] the Ranking Member yourself for making this possible.

I’d also like to point out the Great Salt Lake and the impending needs there, and I look forward to furthering discussions with this Committee and other members to see how we can save a very, very important asset in the West.

It’s an environmental issue. It’s a standard of living issue. On many, many levels this is important and a very important role.

And what I’m pleased with the Great Salt Lake is that my state’s not just waiting for the federal government. I have philanthropic help. I have local community help. I have state government help. Everybody is leaning into this, and I’m grateful the federal government is willing to lean in as well.


Daines, Hassan, Goodlander, Miller Introduce Bill to Bolster Made-In-America Hydropower

Standardizes Review Procedures for Hydropower Licenses

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Steve Daines (R-Mont.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), as well as Representatives Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.-2) and Carol Miller (R-W.V.-01) today introduced bipartisan legislation to standardize the process for hydropower licenses at Army Corps of Engineers dams under Section 408 to ensure a uniform and consistent application and review process across districts.

“Hydropower is an increasingly important source of electricity in the U.S., and provides Montana’s second-largest source of electricity generation. As we prepare to meet the expected surge in demand for energy in the coming decades, we need to ensure the licensing process is fair and efficient. I’m proud to work with my bipartisan colleagues to increase Made-In-America hydropower and enact much-needed reforms,” said Daines.

“As electricity demand continues to grow, we need to make it easier to bring more affordable, reliable energy online. This bipartisan legislation will help create a more consistent and efficient process for adding hydropower generation at existing dams, support American energy production, and lower costs for families and businesses. I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense bill,” said Hassan.

“The people of New Hampshire are paying some of the highest energy costs in the country, and hydropower is at the heart of lowering energy costs and making America the world’s clean energy superpower. Our bipartisan bill is simple: it cuts red tape and makes the rules of the road clear so that we can get reliable hydropower solutions built faster and bring prices down. From day one, I have worked across the aisle to cut energy costs, and I will keep leading the fight to build the affordable, reliable, and clean energy future New Hampshire families deserve,” said Goodlander.

“I have long advocated for an all-of-the-above approach to energy production. To ensure the United States remains the leading energy producer and we have the ability to meet rising demands, it is essential that our existing infrastructure and federal processes are streamlined and efficient. I am happy to join my colleagues in introducing this common-sense legislation to benefit the Army Corps of Engineers and our hydropower industry,” said Miller.

Read the bill text HERE.

Background:

The Section 408 licensing process for Army Corps of Engineers dams can vary from district to district with different standards and timelines for producers. Standardizing the process and timeline will ensure that much-needed generation will be added to existing non-powered dams. According to a recent Army Corps assessment, approximately three gigawatts of power could be produced at existing Army Corps non-powered dams.

Statement of Support:

“Thank you Senators Daines and Hassan for this legislation that will help create much-needed clarity on an important aspect of permitting hydropower facilities – Clean Water Act reviews. With bipartisan support, this legislation is an important showcase that clean, affordable, and reliable hydropower should be a nonpartisan issue. Hydropower makes up nearly 23 percent of our generation portfolio at NorthWestern Energy, allowing our company to meet customer demand with affordable, reliable, and carbon-free power. Legislation like these will help ensure our hydro assets can remain a significant part of our portfolio for years to come.” – Brian Bird, President and Chief Executive Officer, NorthWestern Energy

“Section 408 reform is essential to unlocking more reliable, affordable, American hydropower. For too long, developers seeking to add clean generation to existing U.S. Army Corps infrastructure have faced an unpredictable and duplicative review process that slows projects when we need all the new generation we can get. By bringing greater clarity, consistency, and accountability to Section 408 reviews, this bill will help move responsible hydropower development forward while preserving the Corps’ core mission. NHA thanks the bill’s sponsors, Sen. Steve Daines (R-MT), Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Rep. Carol Miller (R-WV) for advancing this commonsense fix and recognizing the role existing federal infrastructure can play in meeting America’s growing energy needs.” – Matthew Allen, Director of Legislative Affairs, National Hydropower Association

###


ICYMI: The Times of Central Asia: Daines’ Tour Signals an Emerging U.S. Caspian Corridor Strategy

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Steve Daines traveled to Central Asia last week- read reporting by the Times of Central Asia below.

Daines’s Tour Signals an Emerging U.S. Caspian Corridor Strategy

The Times of Central Asia

July 14, 2026

Senator Steve Daines’s July 7–9 visit to Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan brought three bilateral relationships into a single, compressed Caspian itinerary. In Baku, he met President Ilham Aliyev and senior economic and foreign-policy officials; in Astana, President Kassym-Jomart Tokayev and representatives of government and business; and in Ashgabat, President Serdar Berdimuhamedov, Foreign Minister Rashid Meredov, and Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedov. Although official accounts treated each stop separately, the sequence suggests a regional pattern whose significance exceeds any single announcement…

…Daines’s itinerary marks an emerging corridor-centered effort aligned with the Trump administration’s broader Caspian engagement, even without a formal declaration of purpose…

…Daines’s tour gave visible momentum to an emerging U.S. strategy for connecting Central Asia and the South Caucasus, consistent with the Trump administration’s emphasis on commercially grounded partnerships. Its institutional and financial architecture remains incomplete, but the direction is increasingly clear…

…There is no single three-country framework. The relationships are advancing through bilateral charters, dialogues, commercial agreements, and high-level visits. For now, the common direction appears in the sequence and convergence of U.S. initiatives rather than in a unifying institution. Project selection, financing, and delivery remain the proper tests of Washington’s effort. A durable regional structure will emerge from those results rather than from a declaration alone.

Read the full story in the Times of Central Asia HERE.

###


Duckworth, Blackburn Reintroduce Bipartisan Legislation to Improve Emergency Communication Technology That Could Help Saves Lives

[WASHINGTON, D.C.] – U.S. Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) and Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, reintroduced legislation to improve emergency communication technology that could help save lives. The ITS Codification Act would codify the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences (ITS), which currently serves as the research and engineering laboratory at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) and require ITS to develop emergency communication and tracking technologies to help locate trapped individuals in confined spaces where conventional radio communication is limited.

“When people are in crisis and find themselves trapped in confined spaces, how quickly our first responders are able to conduct search and rescue often depends on these workers’ access to modern, reliable technology to save precious time,” said Duckworth. “Our bipartisan legislation would codify the Institute for Telecommunication Sciences at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration and require ITS to develop emergency communication and tracking technology to help save lives.”

“First responders in Tennessee need access to reliable technology that will help them locate trapped individuals in confined spaces where radio signals fail,” said Blackburn. “Our bipartisan ITS Codification Act would drive the development of advanced communication technologies to help first responders save more lives when every second counts.”

This legislation comes at a time when Illinois leads the United States in the most tornado reports so far in 2026. The bill would help expedite recovery efforts for those impacted by events such as tornadoes, who may get trapped in rubble left from fallen buildings. The technology provided by the ITS Codification Act would help locate tornado victims, along with other victims of natural disasters, or crises.

-30-


Durbin Delivers Opening Statement In Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing On President Trump’s Nominee To Be Attorney General, Todd Blanche

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today delivered an opening statement during the Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing for Todd Blanche, President Trump’s pick to be Attorney General of the United States.

Before turning to his opening statement, Durbin addressed Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley’s (R-IA) comments about special prosecutor Jack Smith. Durbin again called for Committee Republicans to accept Mr. Smith’s offer to testify publicly under oath before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Instead of allowing Mr. Smith to testify, Senate Judiciary Republicans continue to hold wasteful hearings to relitigate the 2020 presidential election, despite numerous other issues worth examining within the Committee’s jurisdiction.

Key Quotes:

“We are here because there is a vacancy in the office [of the Attorney General]. The President decided to fire [Mr. Blanche’s] predecessor after just 14 months on the job, after courts and grand juries blocked her from prosecuting the President’s political opponents. Seemingly, President Trump believes you, Mr. Blanche, will be more successful.”

“When you were first nominated to be Deputy Attorney General, Democrats raised concerns about the President’s personal attorney serving as the top attorney of the Justice Department. The Attorney General is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States of America.”

“Since you were confirmed, DOJ has literally violated dozens of court orders to advance Trump’s agenda. Last year, you declared that the Justice Department was ‘at war’ with the federal judiciary… I believe all of us on both sides of the table need to be more careful with our rhetoric when it comes to the judiciary.”

“One of your first official actions as Acting Attorney General was establishing a nearly $2 billion weaponization or slush fund to benefit January 6 cop-beaters while immunizing President Trump from IRS liability. You defended the slush fund by claiming, ‘People that hurt police get money all the time.’ Despite resounding bipartisan criticism and admitting this was a mistake, you have refused to rescind the order creating this fund, [which] can still be found on DOJ’s website today.”

“Earlier this week, a federal judge characterized your explanation of the settlement that led to this fund ‘at best, misleading and, at worst, disingenuous.’ You told me yesterday that the opinion was ‘a hit piece’ on you, another troubling attack on a judge for doing her job.”

“Then there’s the cover-up of the Epstein files, which former Attorney General Bondi herself said you were ‘in charge of.’ Under your leadership, more than 1,000 FBI personnel were pulled off other priorities and directed to flag Epstein records [mentioning] President Trump.”

“When scrutiny of the cover-up intensified, you participated in meetings in the White House Situation Room to strategize about how to protect President Trump, not Epstein’s survivors.”

“When Congress forced the Administration to release the files, hundreds of survivors’ personal information was unredacted—victimizing them again. Meanwhile, the names of powerful Epstein allies remain protected, in clear violation of the Epstein Files Transparency Act. Your explanation? ‘It isn’t a crime to party with Mr. Epstein.’”

“Mr. Blanche, these survivors deserve much better. I want to recognize many of the survivors who are in the audience today. I thank them for their courage in speaking out. Tomorrow, we will hear from one of them during the outside witness panel.”

“I’m asking you, Mr. Blanche, before you leave this room, to agree to meet with these Epstein survivors personally and bring with you professionals from the Department of Justice to hear them out.”

“You told me yesterday you want to be Attorney General because you love DOJ and you love prosecutors. But you have removed from the Department some of the most effective prosecutors that have ever served our government [for the President’s personal benefit]—purging career law-enforcement officials who won’t prioritize President Trump’s interests over their oath to the Constitution.”

“More than 1,200 former career DOJ employees, who worked for both Republican and Democratic Administrations, sent the Committee a letter opposing your nomination because you have purged DOJ of thousands of experienced law-enforcement officials, putting our nation’s security at risk.”

“You testified under oath last year that as Deputy Attorney General, you would consult with career ethics officials to avoid conflicts of interest, a significant concern since you received nearly $10 million as the President’s personal attorney. But you have gutted the DOJ offices that handle ethics and professional responsibility.”

“Shortly after you were confirmed as Deputy Attorney General, you issued an order dismantling DOJ’s crypto enforcement team and shutting down ongoing criminal investigations of the crypto industry. At the time, you owned at least $159,000 worth of crypto-related assets. While you eventually divested, those assets didn’t go far. You simply transferred them to your children and grandchild. With the cryptocurrency enforcement unit out of the way, President Trump brought in $1.4 billion from his family’s cryptocurrency businesses in 2025 alone.”

“You recently claimed that ‘there’s a ton of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged’ … You have also baselessly indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center, a civil rights organization that has worked tirelessly to expose violent extremists like the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers—the same people who you gave a clean slate for their role in attacking our Capitol.”

“And, despite my repeated requests, you have yet to produce the DOJ memorandum concluding it was ‘legally permissible’ for the President of the United States to accept the gift of a luxury airliner from the royal family of Qatar despite constitutional and statutory foreign gift prohibitions. Earlier this month, that jet was launched as Air Force One, despite credible reports of security vulnerabilities. Last weekend, DOJ responded not by addressing these security concerns, but by sending federal agents with subpoenas to the homes of the reporters who exposed these lapses.”

“In less than 18 months at the Department of Justice, you have shown you are still President Trump’s personal attorney. Your tenure can be summed up in just four words: ‘I love you, sir.’ This was your response when asked what you would say to [President Trump].”

“This nation deserves an Attorney General who loves the Constitution more than any single president—an Attorney General who is focused on keeping Americans safe and combatting corruption, not satisfying the President’s personal grievances.”

Video of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.

Audio of Durbin’s opening statement is available here.

Footage of Durbin’s opening statement is available here for TV Stations.

-30-


In Front Of Epstein Survivors, Durbin Presses Attorney General Nominee, Todd Blanche, To Meet With Survivors Within The Next 30 Days

During Blanche’s nomination hearing, Durbin asked for confirmation under oath that Blanche would meet with survivors of Epstein’s abuse; Durbin also demanded answers regarding the IRS settlement & January 6 pardons

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, today questioned President Trump’s pick to be Attorney General of the United States, Todd Blanche, during his Senate Judiciary Committee nomination hearing. Durbin pressed Mr. Blanche on whether he would personally meet with survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s abuse within the next 30 days. Following Durbin’s repeated questions, Mr. Blanche would not commit to doing so.

“[There are] 10 individuals who were exploited and abused by Mr. Epstein [and they] are here today. None of them have had a chance to speak to anyone in the Department or FBI though they have asked repeatedly. Can I get your word under oath that within the next 30 days, you will personally sit down with these 10 victims and hear their case in terms of what needs to be done by the Department of Justice?” Durbin pressed.

Mr. Blanche dodged Durbin’s question about meeting directly with the survivors and replied, “I have somebody from my office who spent her entire career working on cases like Mr. Epstein’s… She’s available to talk to them.”

“She can sit right next to you when you meet with these survivors… Will you meet with these 10 survivors?” Durbin asked.

Mr. Blanche repeatedly dodged Durbin’s multiple requests for him to meet directly with the survivors and attempted to claim that “[i]f they have lawyers, I am prohibited from meeting directly with them.” Nothing prohibits a Department attorney, including the Attorney General, from meeting with represented parties if their counsel is present or gives explicit consent, and Durbin continued to press Mr. Blanche to meet with survivors within 30 days, and that Mr. Blanche must be in the room—not just his counsel.

“You are dancing on the head of a pin here… We have these survivors who have the courage to come before this Committee and tell their terrible stories of how they were exploited,” Durbin noted.

Durbin added, “If you are truly committed to extraordinary transparency, and you are willing to meet with these victims, I hope you will do it immediately or we’re going to hold you to it.”

The Trump Administration has repeatedly mishandled the Epstein files. Former Attorney General Bondi told the House Oversight Committee in May that Mr. Blanche was “in charge of the process and the entire release of the Epstein files.” Last year, FBI personnel reviewing the Epstein files were ordered to flag records that mentioned Donald Trump.

Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act (EFTA), which set a December 19, 2025, deadline for DOJ to provide a full, public production of the Epstein files. DOJ did not comply with this deadline. On December 31, DOJ sent an email seeking Assistant U.S. Attorney volunteers to review these records, and the review of the overwhelming majority of these files did not even begin until January 5, 2026—weeks after the statutory deadline.

Durbin then asked Mr. Blanche about President Trump’s “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and its accompanying immunity provision. As part of the settlement agreement in President Trump’s lawsuit against the IRS, Mr. Blanche signed a document in which he attempted to provide President Trump, his family, and his businesses with immunity for any potential federal tax law violations committed prior to May 19.

“Would you like to explain how we can give the President and his family and his businesses exemptions from complying with tax laws of the United States?” Durbin asked.

Mr. Blanche responded, “It is not an exemption to comply with the tax laws of the United States, it was part of a settlement… it was an agreement [that] any past audits would end.”

The settlement, which Mr. Blanche signed, stated the United States “releases, waives, acquits, and forever discharges each of the plaintiffs” when it comes to tax liability.

“That’s how it reads. It’s pretty sweeping. You don’t believe that is a discharge forever from liability?” Durbin asked.

Mr. Blanche responded, “of any past filings, yes.”

“How do you explain that to the American people? Everyone in this room, all of us, we have to follow the tax laws of the United States and if we don’t, we can be held responsible for it, to the point of criminal prosecution. Why did you decide that President Trump and his family and their businesses should be exempt from that same responsibility?” Durbin asked.

Mr. Blanche continued to defend the Trump family and the IRS settlement.

“No matter what their liability [and] no matter what their violation of tax law, you signed a document that forever discharged them from any legal responsibility… How often do you think that has been done in the history of the United States?” Durbin asked, to which Mr. Blanche stated that he wasn’t sure if such a settlement has “ever been done with the President of the United States.”

“It’s hard to explain to the American people that no one is above the law when that type of document was signed by you, forever discharging that family and that president from any liability for violating tax laws,” Durbin said.

Mr. Blanche responded that “nobody is above the law,” despite the fact that the settlement attempts to place President Trump above the law.

Durbin then shifted to the January 6 rioters’ pardons. Many of the January 6 rioters pardoned by the President violently assaulted law enforcement officers, have shown no remorse for their actions, and have continued to commit crimes and endanger public safety.

“Do you think a blanket pardon by the President of the January 6 rioters was the right thing to do?” Durbin asked.

Mr. Blanche deflected and responded that the “the Constitution gives the president the full power to pardon anybody for any reason he wants.”

“Some of them physically assaulted policemen in the Capitol, [and] some of them are guilty of serious crimes before that day. For the President to give a blanket pardon to these individuals is something you cannot explain to the American people. You certainly cannot explain it to the policemen who almost lost their lives because of the attackers,” Durbin concluded.

Video of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here.

Audio of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here.

Footage of Durbin’s questions in Committee is available here for TV Stations.

-30-


Ernst: Senate Committee Lears about Fraud from Nick Shirley

WASHINGTON – Today during a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) highlighted independent journalist Nick Shirley's investigation that exposed how Minnesota's notorious Quality Learing Center received $10 million tax dollars to provide child care despite having no children in attendance.

Ernst also blasted the failed leadership of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and California Governor Gavin Newsom for allowing fraud to flourish in their states, underscoring that the federal government loses up to $521 billion in fraud every year.

Watch Ernst’s questioning here.

Background:

After an estimated $9 billion or more was exposed in Minnesota fraud, Ernst worked to put safeguards in place to stop scams early and claw back any money ripped off from taxpayers with her Putting an N to Learing about Fraud Act that would tie funding to actual attendance, requiring reimbursement after services are provided, mandating long-term recordkeeping, and allowing audits by federal authorities.

Ernst kept up the drum beat and gave her January 2026 Squeal Award to Minnesota Governor Walz, calling out swindlers in Minnesota and everywhere that in the era of DOGE, crime no longer pays.

In February, Ernst challenged Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison to explain how fraud was allowed to flourish and go unpunished in his state, calling him out for funds being “funneled away into fraudulent schemes” and reminding him of his own false claim that his state had “done enough” while Minnesota’s fraud schemes had already wasted more than $9 billion in tax dollars.

After Ernst revealed that the infamous Quality Learing Center in Minnesota and questionable personal care companies in Ohio received financial support from the Small Business Administration, she directed the SBA’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) to investigate each for potential fraud and to recover every cent that may have been stolen.

###


Fischer Wildfire Disaster Assistance Bill Becomes Law

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) issued the following statement after her bill, the Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act, became law:

“Nebraska farmers and ranchers will directly benefit from this law, and I am proud to have gotten it across the finish line,” Fischer said. “I will be urging USDA to quickly issue new guidance to FSA so producers can begin receiving this improved assistance.”

Fischer reintroduced this legislation on February 19, 2025. After returning from Nebraska to assess the Morrill fire damage with U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, Fischer successfully passed the bill with a unanimous vote on the Senate floor. The bill passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 23, 2026.

The legislation is supported by the Nebraska Cattlemen and the Nebraska Farm Bureau Federation.

Background

The Emergency Conservation Program (ECP) and Emergency Forest Restoration Program (EFRP) were created to help to reduce the burden of natural disasters by providing producers with financial and technical assistance to repair and restore their land.

These programs, however, are often slow to respond to wildfires, floods, and other disasters. This means producers face significant delays and red tape when trying to access financial assistance.

For many producers, that significant time delay forces them to put off needed repair work, or risk beginning the recovery process without a guarantee of federal help.

The Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act addresses these issues by reforming the programs. The bill specifically gives producers impacted by disasters the option to receive an advance on cost-sharing relief that is based on existing USDA estimates.

This expedited option ensures family farmers and ranchers in dire need of help can begin the critical work of restoring their property to productive levels.

The Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act also reframes eligibility for relief from wildfire damage to include any wildfire caused or spread due to natural causes, as well as wildfires caused by the federal government.

###


Gallego, Colleagues Reintroduce Legislation to Strengthen Supports for Airport Service Workers

WASHINGTON – Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) joined his colleagues in reintroducing the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act, legislation that would improve wages and working conditions for airport service workers. The legislation would also support working families and help stabilize the air travel industry as airlines pocket record profits while airport service workers remain stuck at minimum wage.

“Every Arizonan deserves to be fairly compensated for their hard work, including the men and women who keep our airports running smoothly,” said Senator Gallego. “The Good Jobs for Good Airports Act invests in airports that invest in their workers, ensuring airports are economic hubs not just for travelers, but for the communities they’re located in. I’m proud to help reintroduce this legislation.”

The legislation is led in the Senate by Senator Ed Markey (D-MA) and in the House by Representatives Chuy García (IL-04) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01).

Full text of the legislation is available HERE.

“I’ve given years of my life to this airport, keeping planes clean and passengers safe — and I still can’t afford to take my kids to the doctor,” said Nicole Ray, a wheelchair agent at Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport. “Something is deeply wrong when the airlines I serve are posting record profits while I’m choosing between groceries and medicine. It’s time for Congress to decide whose side they’re on and pass the Good Jobs for Good Airports Act.”

The Good Jobs for Good Airports Act is endorsed by SEIU, UNITE HERE and CWA.

“Every day, airport service workers keep our country moving. They do the essential work that keeps our airports safe, our aviation system running, and millions of travelers connected. Airport service workers deserve more than our thanks, they deserve good jobs that provide dignity, security, and the opportunity to build a better life,” said April Verrett, President of SEIU. “The Good Jobs for Good Airports Act is about recognizing the value of that work. Congress should stand with the workers who keep our airports running and pass this legislation. When we invest in working people, we build a stronger economy and a stronger nation.”

“Our tax dollars continue to be invested in the expansion and improvement of the nation’s airports. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act committed billions for airports, with the final $2.9 billion invested this year. However, airports are not just buildings with tarmacs and airplanes: a successful airport depends on its workers. Despite this, there are UNITE HERE members working in airport concessions and airline catering who are struggling to make ends meet. Some of them work multiple jobs and with no healthcare. Our investments must support a healthy workforce and offer wages that lift workers out of poverty — the Good Jobs for Good Airports Actwould set a fair national standard for wages and benefits for airport workers across the United States,” said Gwen Mills, President of UNITE HERE.


At Intel Hearing, Gillibrand Pushes Clayton On Election Security And His Subpoenas Of New York Times Journalists

Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, pressed director of national intelligence nominee Jay Clayton on the subpoenas he issued to multiple New York Times journalists who reported on security concerns involving President Trump’s Qatari-donated Air Force One.

In addition, Gillibrand pressed Clayton about election security and his refusal to state plainly that Joe Biden won the 2020 election.

Footage of Senator Gillibrand’s questioning can be found here.

Transcripts of key moments can be found below:

ON INTRUSIVE SUBPOENAS ATTACKING NEW YORK TIMES REPORTERS:

Sen. Gillibrand: I want to just continue the line of questioning that Senator Bennet had about the New York Times subpoenas. You said you don’t want to get into it. I understand that, but the reason why we’re asking these questions is because the subpoenas were issued so closely after a very long meeting at the White House. There seemed to be an unnecessary urgency behind it, and I’d like you to maybe comment on why there was this urgency. But more than that, they were served at the reporters’ homes, and that is fairly unusual. That is not the least—what term of art did you use?—the least…

Hon. Jay Clayton: Least intrusive.

Sen. Gillibrand: Intrusive means—serving at their homes. Normally, a subpoena would be issued at their place of business, a corporate office, but again, delivering it to a private home seems quite aggressive. So, can you address the urgency and the home service?

Hon. Jay Clayton: What I said before is, I’m not going to get into the specifics and the circumstances of the matters being investigated—

Sen. Gillibrand: Understood. So, I just want to talk about the process because I get you don’t want to talk about the substance.

Hon. Jay Clayton: Yeah, and then on the process, how quickly you would do something following the process depends on those facts and circumstances of the investigation, including the potential spoliation, you know, of information and the timeliness of the threat. I think I’m going to leave it at that, but I…these are, this is not a… this was a judgment, and it should always be a judgment that’s made collectively. That’s the way I look at these things.

Sen. Gillibrand: Well, I would just, I would just urge that this doesn’t sound like the proper independent legal process that we would normally expect for issuance of a subpoena. The characteristics surrounding it seem rushed, aggressive, with an unnecessary urgency. And I would just caution you: in your role, you are going to have many times when you may be influenced to engage in investigation because the White House is unhappy with a report. The thing about this particular issue is that the plane was reported on months ago, months and months ago, about the concerns that because it was built by Qatar, that it wouldn’t have the same security aspects that one would need to protect a president, and so this just doesn’t ring true that your process was a thoughtful, deliberative, and normal oversight process, and that is why this committee is deeply concerned. Do you understand that?

Hon. Jay Clayton: I understand your concerns.

ON ELECTION SECURITY:

Sen. Gillibrand: The second thing that this committee is concerned about [is] this issue of election security. Senator King tried to get you to say: did he win or not win the election? President Trump has an issue with whether he wins or doesn’t win elections, and it’s affected your office, and I need you to understand how it’s affected your office. After the 2016 election, there [were] allegations that there was foreign interference by Russia, and President Trump was very concerned that somehow his election was not on the up and up. And so, what he did in response when he became president, was he eliminated every aspect of your office’s oversight of the election process from cyberthreats. You had personnel that were very knowledgeable about cyberthreats, especially foreign influence—there were personnel at CISA, there were personnel at the FBI—and they were all fired. And then President Trump now wants to make sure that the 2020 election, that nobody says Biden won the election. So you can understand why this committee is concerned that you won’t say “Biden won the election,” because it just reeks of this insecurity by the Trump administration about election security. So when you say election security is important to you, I want to make sure that you understand the ODNI has a responsibility towards cybersecurity, towards election security, that’s not about voter fraud, but about the influence of foreign countries on our election security. Do you understand that?

Hon. Jay Clayton: Absolutely, and it is a significant concern of mine. One of the things that I did not get an opportunity to talk about before, cybersecurity has been part of my private sector and public sector practice for well over a decade, going on close to two decades.

Sen. Gillibrand: So, will you add that back to ODNI because it was taken out by Gabbard?

Hon. Jay Clayton: When I was talking—yes—when I was talking about processes and integrity of our election, cybersecurity is front of mind.

Sen. Gillibrand: So, will you restore the cybersecurity complement to your job, as well as the biosecurity threats, and as well as the Foreign Malign Influence Center?

Hon. Jay Clayton: I can commit to making an assessment, and to the extent that more resources are needed, or more focus is needed, or more coordination is needed…

Sen. Gillibrand: Well, we would urge there are more resources and focus needed in those three areas.

Hon. Jay Clayton: And I look forward to dialoguing with you on that.

###


Gillibrand Applauds Senate Passage Of The Older Americans Act Reauthorization Act

The Older Americans Act (OAA) has provided vital nutrition, social, and health services to millions of seniors since its passage in 1965

Today, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), the top Democrat on the Senate Aging Committee, released the following statement following unanimous Senate passage of the Older Americans Act (OAA) Reauthorization Act, which she reintroduced in 2025:

“The OAA has been a lifeline for American seniors since its passage over half a century ago, and I am proud to have successfully led the charge for its reauthorization in the Senate. This lifesaving legislation will help our nation’s older adults age with dignity by supporting programs that provide nutrition assistance, meal deliveries, transportation services, caregiver support, long-term care, and more. We owe it to seniors to strengthen and continue funding these programs, and I am proud to see this legislation pass the Senate with unanimous support. The House must take up and pass this legislation immediately.”

The OAA Reauthorization Act renews funding for the OAA and strengthens services for American seniors. The OAA has provided vital nutrition, social, and health services to millions of seniors since its passage in 1965. Last reauthorized in 2020, the OAA expired in the 118th Congress.

Specifically, this year’s OAA Reauthorization Act reauthorizes the following programs through fiscal year 2030:

the national eldercare locator service;

regional aging and disability resource centers;

grants to support counseling and assistance on pensions and other retirement benefits;

grants to support home-delivered nutrition services like Meals on Wheels;

programs to facilitate the delivery of supportive services to tribal organizations; and

programs to prevent elder abuse, neglect, and exploitation.

The bill also modifies existing programs for older individuals to promote innovation and flexibility, strengthen program integrity, and better support family caregivers and direct care workers.

The full text of the bill can be found here.

###