Murray, Kaptur Call on OMB to Rescind Proposed Rule That Would Politicize DOE Grants, Scare Off Private Investment

Washington, D.C. — Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, and Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur (D-OH-09), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development, sent a letter to White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought calling on him to rescind OMB’s proposed rule governing all federal grants and financial assistance.

In the letter, the top Democratic energy appropriators underscore how OMB’s proposed rule would politicize grants and loans made by the Department of Energy (DOE) and enable political appointees to terminate grants for virtually any reason they please, which will put critical energy projects on the chopping block and scare private investment away from projects that lower Americans’ costs. Moody’s recently warned that the proposed rule would be “credit negative for entities with high dependence on competitive federal funding because it would materially weaken the reliability of multi-year discretionary funding commitments.”

“We write to express our unequivocal and strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s proposed changes to the rules governing the Federal grants system,” write Murray and Kaptur. “We urge immediate withdrawal of this proposed rule. This proposal represents dangerous executive overreach designed to usurp Congress’s constitutional power of the purse and replace objective, merit-based grantmaking with a system highly vulnerable to government corruption and political cronyism.”

“By allowing an Administration to arbitrarily terminate or withhold awarded grant funds based on shifting political whims, this proposed rule would freeze critical energy and water investments needed to lower everyday costs for Americans and improve affordability for working families,” they continue. “Furthermore, turning grant funding meant to support reliable Federal partnerships into a political ‘slush fund’ will drive away private capital, stifle domestic innovation, and severely undermine America’s global competitiveness—ceding our Nation’s technological leadership to foreign adversaries at the worst possible time.”

Murray and Kaptur underscore that the proposed changes will significantly impact DOE programs and undermine congressional intent.

“These concerns are particularly acute at the Department of Energy, which administers billions of dollars in grants, cooperative agreements, and formula funding enacted through annual appropriations acts and major energy-related statutes,” they write. “DOE award recipients often make long-term hiring, contracting, and investment decisions based on Federal awards. If recipients cannot rely on those awards being administered according to congressional intent, participation in DOE programs will decline and Congress’s objectives will be frustrated.”

The full letter is available HERE and below:

Dear Director Vought:

We write to express our unequivocal and strong opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed changes to the rules governing the Federal grants system as printed in the Federal Register on May 29, 2026 (91 FR 32198; “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance”). We urge immediate withdrawal of this proposed rule. This proposal represents dangerous executive overreach designed to usurp Congress’s constitutional power of the purse and replace objective, merit-based grantmaking with a system highly vulnerable to government corruption and political cronyism.

By allowing an Administration to arbitrarily terminate or withhold awarded grant funds based on shifting political whims, this proposed rule would freeze critical energy and water investments needed to lower everyday costs for Americans and improve affordability for working families. Furthermore, turning grant funding meant to support reliable Federal partnerships into a political “slush fund” will drive away private capital, stifle domestic innovation, and severely undermine America’s global competitiveness – ceding our Nation’s technological leadership to foreign adversaries at the worst possible time.

Under our constitutional system of government, Congress appropriates funds for specific purposes and directs agencies to carry out those programs consistent with statute. Appropriations laws are deliberately written to provide clear direction regarding how taxpayer funds are to be used and are intended to be administered according to law, not according to the political preferences of any particular Administration. The Federal grant process works because applicants can rely on the expectation that once Congress has enacted funding and established eligibility requirements, awards will be made and administered by the Executive Branch based on those statutory criteria as a matter of public law rather than shifting political considerations. For the system to work well and Federal grants to have the maximum impact possible, recipients must be able to trust that they will receive funds based on fair and transparent criteria and that their grants will not be ripped up suddenly because an Administration has a political disagreement.

The proposed rule would dismantle this system and breaks faith with the American people. It would provide agencies broad discretion to terminate, condition, or otherwise withhold grants and cooperative agreements based on ever-changing Executive Branch priorities rather than Congressional direction. The practical effect of this change would be to create uncertainty for States, local governments, universities, nonprofits, utilities, and private-sector entities considering whether to apply for Federal assistance. Organizations are far less likely to invest the time and resources required to pursue Federal funding if they believe an award can be terminated at any time for reasons unrelated to organizational integrity, program performance, or statutory requirements, and without required justification.

These concerns are particularly acute at the Department of Energy (DOE), which administers billions of dollars in grants, cooperative agreements, and formula funding enacted through annual appropriations acts and major energy-related statutes. DOE award recipients often make long-term hiring, contracting, and investment decisions based on Federal awards. If recipients cannot rely on those awards being administered according to congressional intent, participation in DOE programs will decline and Congress’s objectives will be frustrated.

The proposal raises serious concerns that agencies would violate the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Congress enacted the ICA to prevent the Executive Branch from unilaterally withholding appropriated funds. Yet OMB’s proposal appears designed to expand agencies’ ability to accomplish indirectly what they cannot do directly: prevent congressionally appropriated funds from reaching recipients through broad termination authorities and subjective policy-based conditions. Agencies should not be given tools that effectively allow them to substitute presidential priorities for enacted spending laws. DOE has previously been found to have withheld congressionally appropriated funds in violation of the ICA, as determined by a US Government Accountability Office legal decision issued in July 2025.

We are particularly concerned by OMB’s proposed revisions to Federal regulations codified in Section 200.340 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (2 C.F.R. §200.340), which significantly expand agencies’ ability to terminate Federal awards for just about any reason they like. OMB, under the current Administration, has repeatedly pointed to this provision to justify widespread politically motivated grant cancellations and funding freezes across the Federal Government. The proposed changes would further broaden this authority and make it easier for agencies to terminate awards based on vague and subjective policy considerations rather than clear statutory requirements. Such an approach undermines funding certainty, discourages participation in Federal programs, and weakens Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Several courts have ruled DOE’s prior attempt to terminate projects on political grounds by targeting “blue” States, Cities, and Congressional Districts to be illegal and ordered Federal funding to be reinstated.

The proposed rule raises additional concerns about due process and fair competition in Federal funding allocation. Under current rules, DOE discretionary grants must be awarded through a merit-based competitive selection process unless a formal Determination for Noncompetitive Financial Assistance (DNFA) is provided. The proposed 2 C.F.R. §200.204 revision would carve out a “national interest” exception to public posting of funding opportunities on Grants.gov, effectively removing the requirement of formal justification for non-competitive award selections. Additionally, OMB’s proposed revisions to 2 C.F.R. §200.205 would require pre-issuance review of all discretionary awards by senior political appointees to ensure that awards advance the President’s policy priorities in line with Executive Order 14332. The insertion of such a political filter compromises the merit-based foundation of award selection.

The proposed rule would also drive-up costs for the businesses, investors, and startups that help build America’s energy future. These companies rely on Federal awards to secure financing, bring in private investment, and commit to projects that take years to complete. When the government can pull an award at any moment for political reasons, lenders and investors have no choice but to treat every dollar as if it could disappear. That makes capital more expensive, discourages private partners, and can leave high-quality, strategic energy projects unbuilt. The Federal award recipients that do move forward will have to track and comply with vague, shifting conditions – a burden that lands hardest on the small firms and new companies least able to afford it. The result is less private money behind every Federal dollar and fewer energy projects coming online, which ultimately means higher energy costs for American families.

Federal grants should not be transformed from effective vehicles for implementing laws enacted by Congress into mechanisms for advancing or withholding funding based on political preferences and priorities. The certainty, predictability, and technical, merit-based governance of Federal assistance programs is essential to ensuring that qualified applicants continue to seek Federal funding and carry out activities consistent with the laws enacted by Congress.

For these reasons, we urge OMB to withdraw the proposal.

Sincerely,

###


Sen. Ossoff Pushing USDA to Support Georgia Farmers Impacted by High Winds from Hurricane Helene

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff is pushing to support Georgia farmers impacted by high winds from Hurricane Helene.

Sen. Ossoff is urging the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Risk Management Agency (RMA) to ensure Georgia farmers and growers still struggling to recover from damage from high winds during Hurricane Helene receive the support they deserve.

Despite experiencing crop and production damages due to Hurricane Helene, producers who purchased Hurricane Insurance Protection – Wind Index (HIP-WI) coverage through USDA in Screven, Effingham, Chatham, Bryan, Evans, Liberty, Long, McIntosh, Wayne, Glynn, and Camden Counties did not receive indemnity payments, which are payments made to farmers after they face qualified losses like from natural disasters.

These indemnity payments are made if the National Hurricane Center (NHC) determines that a county (or adjacent county) was impacted by sustained hurricane-force winds. According to a new report published by the NHC in February 2026, “wind gusts in the 70-79 knots (kt) range were measured by weather stations in Towns, Chatham, and Echols Counties,” meaning more farmers in these counties should be eligible for indemnity payments.

Sen. Ossoff is urging USDA to evaluate all available NHC data and take “all possible actions within your authorities to ensure that growers who purchased HIP-WI crop insurance policies from the Federal Crop Insurance Program receive the maximum support possible from USDA.”

“In September 2024, Hurricane Helene caused devastation to rural Georgia, including $5.5 billion in agricultural and timber losses. That is why I worked with congressional colleagues to pass disaster funding for Georgia farmers less than 90 days after Hurricane Helene devastated Georgia. However, some Georgia farmers have yet to be made whole,” Sen. Ossoff wrote to USDA Risk Management Agency Administrator Pat Swanson. “I ask for your commitment that RMA will re-evaluate the available data produced by the NHC during and since Hurricane Helene to reconsider the HIP-WI eligibility determinations for Screven, Effingham, Chatham, Bryan, Evans, Liberty, Long, Mclntosh, Wayne, Glynn, and Camden counties. Ensuring that our farmers receive the support they planned for and invested in is the very least USDA can do.”

Sen. Ossoff continues working to help Georgia agriculture recover from Hurricane Helene.

Sen. Ossoff introduced the Farm Disaster Tax Cut Act to provide farmers with a temporary tax cut on crop insurance payments in the event their crop yields or revenues fall below their guaranteed level due to natural disasters such as droughts, floods, and diseases.

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

Click here to read Sen. Ossoff’s full letter.

# # #


Padilla, Schiff Announce Over $53 Million to Repair Highways, Roads Across California

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) announced that four road and highway repair projects in Amador, Kern, Riverside, and Orange counties were awarded a combined $53.8 million from the Department of Transportation (DOT). The funding comes through the DOT’s Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program, which provides grants for locally and regionally significant surface transportation infrastructure projects.

This federal investment in California was made possible through Padilla and Schiff’s championing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

“For millions of Californians, a safer road can mean a shorter commute, a faster emergency response, or a more reliable evacuation route,” said Senator Padilla. “These federal investments will make a real difference for communities across our state, and I’m proud to have helped deliver this funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

“These grants will fund critical projects that help construct and improve bridges, roadways, off-ramps, bikeways, pedestrian crossings and other transportation infrastructure,” said Senator Schiff. “This federal investment will also support local economic growth and construction jobs, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact on communities in Amador, Kern, Riverside, and Orange counties.”

The four projects receiving funding are:

Riverside County’s I-15/SR 74 (Central Avenue) Interchange Improvement Project — $25 million: This project will improve the I-15/SR-74 interchange in the City of Lake Elsinore, California in Riverside County including upgrades to on and off-ramps, new traffic signals and freeway signage, ADA-compliant pedestrian and bicycle facilities, drainage improvements, and reconfiguration of the interchange.

Riverside County’s State Route 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project — $25 million: This project will add an operational eastbound lane on State Route 91 from the State Route 241 general purpose connector to the State Route 71 connector lane in Riverside County. It will also widen bridges, construct retaining walls, replace overhead signs, among other improvements.

Amador County’s Fiddletown Road Rural Resilience and Safety Rehabilitation Project — $2.5 million: This project will rebuild approximately 3.12 miles of a structurally deficient roadway that serves as an evacuation route in Amador County.

Kern County’s I-40 Corridor Extension Project — $1.37 million: This project will invest in studying the feasibility, safety and economic benefits of a potential extension of the I-40 corridor along State Route 58 in Kern County.

Since voting to pass the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law in 2021, Senator Padilla has secured billions for California infrastructure improvements. Last year, Padilla announced over $258 million for nine transportation infrastructure projects across California through the DOT’s Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity (RAISE) Grant Program, the Reconnecting Communities Pilot (RCP) Grant Program, and the Rural Surface Transportation Grant (Rural) Program.

###


Reed & Whitehouse Strongly Oppose Trump-OMB’s Plan to Politicize Federal Grantmaking

WASHINGTON, DC -- The Trump Administration’s latest attack on America’s scientific and educational research as well as health, transportation, and education programs could be its most damaging yet: injecting hyper-partisanship into how federal agencies assess, select, and oversee federal grants and cooperative agreements. If enacted, a merit-based, largely independent, peer review process for grantmaking decisions would be tossed out and political appointees at federal agencies would effectively get to decide who gets grant funding and whose grants may be cancelled mid-project without justification.

As the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities notes: “Federal grantmaking processes are designed to be open, fair, reliable, and free of political influence, favoritism, or retaliation. But since the first days following President Trump’s inauguration, his Administration has upended every stage of the federal grantmaking process. That effort began with an unprecedented (albeit short-lived) government-wide grant freeze, followed by a set of presidential directives, ad hoc cancellations, and delays seeking to politicize the grantmaking process.

“Then on May 29, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) released a proposed rule that seeks to modify government-wide grants guidance to operationalize and enforce the Administration’s approach to grantmaking across federal agencies. The proposed rule would radically transform how grant award decisions are made, allowing them to be based on purely political calculations — including who receives funds, what is required of grantees, and when grants can be cancelled — introducing an enormous risk of capriciousness, abuse, and corruption.”

U.S. Senators Jack Reed and Sheldon Whitehouse issued a joint statement of opposition: “We strongly oppose the Trump Administration’s attempt to circumvent Constitutional checks and balances in order to seize more power for President Trump and use federal grants as a hyper-partisan tool to reward supporters and punish critics. That is illegal and immoral and puts American innovation, research, patients, and infrastructure at risk. We will continue working to prevent the abuse of power and hold the president and his administration accountable.”

Reed and Whitehouse say the stakes for Rhode Island are massive: In 2024, the federal government sent $1.1 trillion in federal grants to state and local governments nationwide to support a wide range of programs, including healthcare, infrastructure, education, nutrition assistance, and housing and economic development, according to data from the Congressional Research Service.

Given that the Trump Administration’s proposed rule could stunt scientific progress and weaken America’s global competitiveness and national security, Reed and Whitehouse teamed up with their Democratic colleagues in demanding that Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought immediately rescind OMB’s proposed regulation on federal financial assistance.

The U.S. Senators warned the Trump Administration’s misguided proposal exceeds OMB’s statutory authority, undermines Congress’s constitutional power of the purse, and would allow President Trump and all future presidents to weaponize federal grants for political purposes.

“Your proposal exceeds OMB’s authority, will make it impossible for grant recipients to faithfully carry out the funding priorities that Congress establishes in statute, and would turn federal grants into a new cudgel for the President to unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals,” the 47 U.S. Senators wrote. “Ultimately, these changes will make it harder for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to address rising costs.”

The proposed rule would dramatically expand agencies’ authority to terminate federal grants at any time and without notice. It would also require political appointees to make funding decisions without deferring to expert peer review. The Senators warn this would inject partisan politics into grantmaking, threaten America’s leadership in scientific and medical innovation and create chaos for communities and organizations that rely on federal funding to deliver critical services.

“Rather than focusing on fulfilling the statutory purposes of a grant program, applicants and recipients will be forced to play an endless guessing game, trying to determine which of their activities may or may not run afoul of OMB’s ambiguous regulations or the president’s whims,” the Senators wrote.

The Senators also argue that OMB’s proposal would force grant recipients to comply with vague, undefined and political grant conditions that conflict with existing statutes. At the same time, it would weaken transparency and accountability requirements intended to safeguard taxpayer dollars. These changes could discourage qualified organizations from applying for federal grants and increase the risk of waste, fraud and abuse.

The Senators concluded: “Article I of the Constitution vests the power of the purse in Congress, which Congress has historically exercised by appropriating taxpayer dollars through federal grants to fund critical programs, including to protect public safety, advance scientific research, and support health and nutrition initiatives. OMB’s proposal unlawfully seeks to substitute Congress’s role in directing federal spending with the President’s preferred priorities, and in doing so, makes it harder for every community and organization in the United States to fairly access federal funding. We call on you to rescind this proposal.”

Along with Reed and Whitehouse, the letter was co-signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Rhode Islanders who wish to submit comments to OMB on their proposed rule must do so before the public comment closes on Monday, July 13, 2026, at 11:59 PM EDT.

Full text of the letter follows:

Dear Director Vought:

We write to express our strong opposition to your proposed regulation on federal financial assistance (Fed. Reg. Vol. 91, No. 103, Friday May 29, 2026) and to insist you rescind it immediately. Your proposal exceeds OMB’s authority, will make it impossible for grant recipients to faithfully carry out the funding priorities that Congress establishes in statute, and would turn federal grants into a new cudgel for the President to unilaterally advance his partisan agenda and punish political rivals. Ultimately, these changes will make it harder for grant recipients to apply for and manage federal funds – undermining public safety, public health, economic competitiveness, and the government’s ability to address rising costs. And contrary to the regulation’s justification of fiscal transparency, the changes also weaken the oversight and effective stewardship of taxpayer funds.

The proposed rule undermines federal agencies’ and grant recipients’ ability to faithfully carry out the programs enacted by Congress. When Congress authorizes and appropriates money for federal grants, it does so with the understanding that all Administrations will distribute those grants consistent with Congressional intent and the funding instructions articulated in law. The type of discretion the President intends to bestow upon himself through this proposed rule is counter to all past precedent and ignores the reality of how appropriations and authorizing laws are drafted.

This proposal dramatically expands agencies' authority to the point where the President could terminate or suspend any grant at any time for any reason and without any notice. The Trump administration’s actions over the last year and a half have already shown how these types of arbitrary cancellations create chaos and new costs, making it harder for grant recipients to provide the intended public benefit. In one instance, the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Agency cancelled over $2 billion of grants to mental health and addiction programs without notice, only to reinstate those grants within 24 hours.

In another instance, the Federal Emergency Management Agency unilaterally cancelled nearly $4.5 billion of natural disaster mitigation funding without notice, only to claim in court that they had never really cancelled those grants at all.

This boundless power to terminate federal funding creates whiplash and erodes grant recipients’ trust in the grant agreements they sign. Ultimately, it makes it less likely that deserving and capable organizations and communities would apply for federal grants and risk tying their work to grants that could be upended with no rhyme, reason, or even advance notice.

The proposed rule would also require and empower political appointees to decide which grants do and do not get funded, explicitly directing them to not defer to expert peer review. This would have far reaching consequences, including but not limited to scientific research. For example, over decades the United States has built a biomedical research enterprise, led by investments in the National Institutes of Health (NIH), that is the envy of the world and makes us the world leader in medical innovation. It has led to new cures and treatments for devastating diseases that decades ago would have been considered miracles. This was built on the foundation that investments in biomedical research would be allocated based on a strictly non-partisan, rigorous, scientific review process to determine which specific research projects to fund. This proposed rule would fundamentally undermine that, and direct political appointees to substitute their own independent opinions over those of panels of experts.

OMB’s proposal also transforms federal grants from policy tools that Congress uses to promote the public good into a political cudgel that the President plans to use to punish his perceived political foes while rewarding himself and his friends. President Trump’s administration has already begun to do this. Although multiple requests for information have gone unanswered, we estimate that at the Department of Transportation alone, at least 45 grants totaling $5.3 billion have been terminated, withdrawn, or cancelled by the Trump Administration. This includes nearly $109 million in five grants slated for Colorado, $679 million in 12 port related grants, and $54 million in transportation research conducted by universities. Meanwhile grantees in California, Colorado, Illinois, and Minnesota continue to wait in limbo as OMB instructed DOT to cancel more than $943 million in grants in early February. With the threat of termination hanging over every grant recipient, presidents will be able to substitute their personal and partisan policy positions for federal spending directives, undermining Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.

The proposal also injects vague, burdensome, and potentially unlawful terms and conditions that give the president pretext to pick winners and losers among grant recipients. Contrary to OMB claims that the proposal will bring “regulatory clarity” to the administration of federal grants, the proposal would create limits on funding based on undefined terms, making it impossible for grant recipients to comply. In the proposal OMB explains that these undefined terms will ensure that federal funds are “not diverted to . . . radical political ideologies,” without further elaboration. Grant recipients must instead “demonstrably advance the President’s policy priorities,” whatever they happen to be. Terms like “anti-American values,” “gold-standard science,” and “diversity, equity, and inclusion” are not defined and, in some cases, are the subject of ongoing litigation. Further, Congress has passed specific statutes requiring agencies like the NIH to conduct health disparities research, including research on maternal mortality, cardiovascular disease in minority populations, and cancer screening equity. This rule’s prohibition on “diversity, equity, and inclusion” research would complicate compliance with those statutes. Rather than focusing on fulfilling the statutory purposes of a grant program, applicants and recipients will be forced to play an endless guessing game, trying to determine which of their activities may or may not run afoul of OMB’s ambiguous regulations or the president’s whims. Ultimately, many grant recipients will decide it is too costly and confusing to try to keep up with shifting priorities of each new administration and give up on seeking federal grants altogether, frustrating Congress’s purpose to help the intended beneficiaries of the program.

As OMB seeks to consolidate power over federal funds, it also seeks to undermine transparency and accountability of the use of taxpayer dollars. The proposal removes the requirement that grant recipients follow financial internal control standards established by the Government Accountability Office (GAO). However, Congress required that GAO issue standards for financial internal controls and that agencies follow these standards in the Federal Managers’ Financial Integrity Act of 1982.Allowing recipients to disregard independent financial risk management standards required by statute jeopardizes the faithful stewardship of taxpayer dollars and increases the risk of fraud or abuse.

OMB’s grantmaking power grab is not only bad policy; it is also unlawful. OMB lacks the legal authority to issue binding regulations about how to cancel federal grants for each agency. In its proposal, OMB points to the Chief Financial Officers Act (CFO Act) for its sweeping assertion of power.15 However, the CFO Act in no way delegates to OMB the power to tell federal agencies that they can cancel grants at any time for any reason. Courts in Rhode Island and the District of Columbia have already rejected OMB’s claim that it can indiscriminately pause or terminate grants, holding that the CFO Act does not give OMB “the power to halt all finances, full-stop, on a moment's notice.”16 By dictating policy for grant recipients, OMB is attempting to supplant Congress’s primary role in appropriating funds and directing their purpose.

Article I of the Constitution vests the power of the purse in Congress, which Congress has historically exercised by appropriating taxpayer dollars through federal grants to fund critical programs, including to protect public safety, advance scientific research, and support health and nutrition initiatives. OMB’s proposal unlawfully seeks to substitute Congress’s role in directing federal spending with the President’s preferred priorities, and in doing so, makes it harder for every community and organization in the United States to fairly access federal funding. We call on you to rescind this proposal.

Sincerely,


Sen. Rick Scott in the Washington Examiner: NATO is Stronger Because Trump Demanded More

WASHINGTON, D.C.- Today, Senator Rick Scott published an op-ed in the Washington Examiner highlighting how NATO has grown stronger because President Trump leaned on alliance members to make good on their defense commitments.

As NATO meets in Turkey for an alliance-wide summit, Senator Scott argues that, because member nations are now seriously investing in their own defense, the alliance is stronger than the sum of its parts.

Senator Scott wrote, “Here’s the deal: For many years, NATO was about charity. The United States and a select few European countries provided for the alliance. However, NATO can and should be a hard-nosed security arrangement that advances American and the other members’ interests, and it only works when every ally carries its fair share of the burden.

…

“Trump did what his predecessors could not. He made it clear that every NATO ally must live up to its commitments, including Article 3 of the North Atlantic Treaty, which requires every member to build and maintain its own capacity to defend itself first.

…

“NATO remains the strongest military alliance in history, bringing together 32 countries committed to defending themselves and one another. At a time when communist China is expanding its military and Putin’s Russia continues its aggression in Europe, projecting decisive strength matters more than ever.”

Read the full op-ed HERE.

###


Senators Rosen, Cortez Masto Celebrate $1 Million in Federal Funding for Las Vegas Metro Police Department’s Air Unit

NORTH LAS VEGAS, NV – Today, U.S. Senators Jacky Rosen (D-NV) and Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) visited the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s (LVMPD) Air Support Unit to celebrate the $1 million in federal funding they secured. The federal funding is part of the Community Project Funding both senators secured in the Fiscal Year 2026 government funding law. LVMPD is the only agency in Southern Nevada with a full-scale manned helicopter unit, which assists with routine patrols, search & rescue operations, and security for big events.

“The Las Vegas Metro Police Department works overtime to keep Clark County safe – protecting major events and the tourists that come to visit Southern Nevada,” said Senator Rosen. “The Air Support Unit is the only one of its kind in Southern Nevada, and is one of LVMPD’s critical tools for patrolling the skies. I am proud we were able to secure this federal funding for our law enforcement, and I promise to continue prioritizing safety across Nevada.

“The men and women of LVMPD put their lives on the line to protect our families – it’s my job to deliver for them at the federal level,” said Senator Cortez Masto. “That’s why I’m proud to have secured $1 million to help Metro secure our skies, protect large-scale events, and continue search-and-rescue operations. I’ll never stop fighting to provide Nevada’s law enforcement officers with the tools, resources, and funding they need to keep our communities safe.”

Senators Rosen and Cortez Masto have worked across party lines to ensure Nevada gets its fair share of funding. They recently secured more than $35.6 million for essential services in rural counties in Nevada and have in recent years secured millions of dollars for law enforcement throughout the state.

###


NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla Announce Over $53 Million to Repair Highways, Roads Across

Schiff and Padilla secured these critical infrastructure investments in California through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) announced that four road and highway repair projects in Amador, Kern, Riverside, and Orange counties were awarded a combined $53.8 million from the Department of Transportation (DOT). The funding comes through the DOT’s Better Utilizing Investments to Leverage Development (BUILD) grant program, which provides grants for locally and regionally significant surface transportation infrastructure projects.

This federal investment in California was made possible through Senator Schiff and Padilla’s championing of the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act of 2021, also known as the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.

“These grants will fund critical projects that help construct and improve bridges, roadways, off-ramps, bikeways, pedestrian crossings and other transportation infrastructure,” said Senator Schiff. “This federal investment will also support local economic growth and construction jobs, and I look forward to seeing the positive impact on communities in Amador, Kern, Riverside, and Orange counties.”

“For millions of Californians, a safer road can mean a shorter commute, a faster emergency response, or a more reliable evacuation route,” said Senator Padilla. “These federal investments will make a real difference for communities across our state, and I’m proud to have helped deliver this funding through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.”

The four projects receiving funding are:

Amador County’s Fiddletown Road Rural Resilience and Safety Rehabilitation Project — $2.5 million: This project will rebuild approximately 3.12 miles of a structurally deficient roadway that serves as an evacuation route in Amador County.

Kern County’s I-40 Corridor Extension Project — $1.37 million: This project will invest in studying the feasibility, safety and economic benefits of a potential extension of the I-40 corridor along State Route 58 in Kern County.

Riverside County’s I-15/SR 74 (Central Avenue) Interchange Improvement Project — $25 million: This project will improve the I-15/SR-74 interchange in the City of Lake Elsinore, California in Riverside County including upgrades to on and off-ramps, new traffic signals and freeway signage, ADA-compliant pedestrian and bicycle facilities, drainage improvements, and reconfiguration of the interchange.

Riverside County’s State Route 91 Eastbound Corridor Operations Project — $25 million: This project will add an operational eastbound lane on State Route 91 from the State Route 241 general purpose connector to the State Route 71 connector lane in Riverside County. It will also widen bridges, construct retaining walls, replace overhead signs, among other improvements.

###


Senator Schmitt Highlights Massive Federal Investment in Missouri Transportation Infrastructure

Following His Advocacy on Behalf of Missourians, Schmitt Celebrates New Funds for State and Local Transportation Projects

U.S. SENATE — Today U.S. Senator Eric Schmitt (R-MO) highlighted funds awarded to Missouri as part of the Department of Transportation’s (DOT) 2026 BUILD Awards, which are providing $61 million in funding to key transportation infrastructure projects across the state. These grants are a result of Schmitt’s push for DOT to deliver critical funds to support Missouri communities.

“Missourians depend on strong and reliable transportation infrastructure to go to work, provide for their families, and grow their businesses. This funding will help connect Missouri to more major roadways across the nation, reduce traffic delays, and promote economic development and tourism. Additionally, this year’s BUILD Awards are doing exactly what federal funding is meant to do: help Americans and strengthen our communities. Instead of funding fraud and illegal scams, Missourians’ tax dollars are actually being reinvested into their own state and communities. This is an enormous win for the people of Missouri, and I’m thankful for the Trump Administration’s continued support for the Show Me State,” said Senator Schmitt.

$1,200,000 for Poplar Bluff South Connector in Butler County

$18,000,000 for Belton to America in Cass County

$9,055,200 for I-29 Corridor Improvement Project in Clay County

$23,500,000 for Phase II of Route MM Widening from I-44 to Haile St in Greene County

$9,369,473 for Multimodal Transportation, Connectivity Restoration, and Stormwater Mitigation in Sullivan County

DOT’s 2026 BUILD Awards will provide cities and counties across Missouri with $61 million in funding for a variety of projects, including expanding roadways, connecting key infrastructure and major roadways, and making safety and quality-of-life improvements.

###


SCHUMER, AFTER DELIVERING $800,000+ IN FED FUNDING, VISITS NEW BROOME-TIOGA BOCES SATELLITE CAMPUS FOR WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT TRAINING IN OWEGO

Thanks To Schumer-Secured Funding, New BOCES Satellite Campus In Owego Will Help Local Workforce Prepare For Jobs In Manufacturing, Hospitality, Agriculture, And More

Tioga Regional Career And Technical Education Center Can Provide Training To 150 High School Students During The Day And 50 Adult Community Members At Night

Schumer: New Facility Is A Win-Win For Workforce Development And Tioga County Economy

After delivering $811,000 in federal funding for Broome-Tioga BOCES to expand onto a campus in Tioga County, U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer last week visited the new satellite campus in Owego. The Schumer-secured funding will help meet Tioga County’s need for preparing more local workers to address the demand from local employers in priority industries, including emerging technologies in energy storage, and hospitality. The new Tioga Regional Career and Technical Education Center will provide career and technical training to 150 high school students during the day and 50 adult community members at night.

“New Yorkers in the Southern Tier deserve access to the training programs they need to get a good-paying job. I was proud to deliver $811,000 in federal funding so New Yorkers in Tioga County can secure in-demand skills closer to home,” said Senator Schumer. “The new education center will help hundreds of students of all ages gain the hands-on training they need without having to commute hours every day to Binghamton. Boosting our local workforce is essential to creating a pipeline of skilled workers in important industries like manufacturing, energy, hospitality, agriculture, and more. This federal investment is a win-win for workforce development and the Tioga County economy. I will never stop fighting to boost workforce development programs in the Southern Tier and across Upstate New York so young people can land good-paying jobs close to home and local businesses can grow and hire local workers.”

Broome-Tioga BOCES helps public school districts in Broome and Tioga Counties provide workforce development training to students and members of the local community. Currently, students traveling to Broome-Tioga BOCES in Binghamton lose up to 2 hours of learning time per day due to commute time, compete with larger school districts for class slots, and complete class projects outside their home communities. As a result, Broome-Tioga BOCES has prioritized businesses closer to its facilities in Broome County, and there have been fewer opportunities for students and local businesses in Tioga County.

Schumer explained that, currently, career and technical education programs in electricity, agriculture science, and heavy equipment repairs are offered at the Owego Apalachin Central School District. With the federal funding that Schumer secured, the Owego Apalachin Central School District will convert a building currently used as a maintenance facility into a BOCES satellite campus that meets New York State standards for educational facilities and expands its program offerings in emerging technologies in energy storage, hospitality, and healthcare. The new regional education and training center will provide career and technical training to 150 high school students from three Tioga County school districts during the day and 50 adult community members at night. Community members will develop new skills for in-demand industries identified by local economic development organizations, including Advanced Manufacturing, Hospitality, and Agriculture.

Schumer secured this federal funding in the FY2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration budget bill that was signed into law earlier this year.

Dr. Corey Green, Superintendent of the Owego Apalachin Central School District said, "We are incredibly thankful to Senator Schumer for his advocacy and support of our district and the Southern Tier. This investment, combined with our strong partnership with Broome-Tioga BOCES, allows us to expand opportunities for both our students and adult learners. These federal resources will fuel continued innovation and growth within our Career Technical Education Center, ensuring learners have access to the cutting-edge training needed for today's workforce. This funding is a tremendous win for our region, strengthening our ability to build a skilled local talent pipeline and support the long-term growth of Tioga County and the Southern Tier."

###


Shaheen Demands Trump Administration, OMB Director Vought Release Affordable Housing Construction Funds

(Washington, DC) – U.S. Senator Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) and a number of her Senate colleagues are pressing the Trump Administration and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought to unlock community development tools and promptly release $750 million in federal housing construction funds. This effort is particularly important as President Trump continues his refusal to sign the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, which Congress passed last month to help build more housing, lower costs, streamline construction regulations and curb private equity’s ability to buy single-family homes and drive up housing prices.

The Trump Administration is sitting on approximately $750 million in housing construction funds available under the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), Housing Trust Fund (HTF) and Housing Production-Financial Assistance Awards (HP-FA) programs. These federal funds can be leveraged by state and local organizations to develop, preserve, rehabilitate and increase the supply of affordable housing. Together, these programs strengthen communities, revitalize neighborhoods, create jobs and ensure more Americans can afford a high-quality home at a decent price that fits their budget. Senator Shaheen and 22 of her colleagues demanded OMB Director Vought release these housing construction funds without further delay.

The Senators wrote, in part: “We write to urge you to immediately direct the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of the Treasury to release approximately $750 million in housing construction funds available under the Capital Magnet Fund (CMF), Housing Trust Fund (HTF), and Housing Production-Financial Assistance Awards (HP-FA) programs.”

They continued: “These funds, which are derived from the profits of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and revenue from the Emergency Capital Investment Program, could pay to build or rehabilitate over 63,000 homes at no cost to American taxpayers.”

The Senators concluded: “Today, Americans are suffering through a housing affordability crisis. Single-family home prices and the average age of first-time homebuyers hit record highs last year, while more households are paying unsustainable amounts of rent than ever before. This crisis is nationwide: home prices have surged 40% in Texas, 43% in Iowa, 54% in Georgia, and 65% in Maine over the past six years – far outpacing wages and overall inflation. You have the ability to increase our nation’s housing supply and help address this crisis. With that in mind, we urge you to direct the release of these funds without any further delay.”

A full copy of the letter can be found HERE.

In addition to Shaheen, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Jack Reed (D-RI), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Tina Smith (D-MN), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Mark Warner (D-VA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Angus S. King, Jr. (I-ME), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Patty Murray (D-WA), Raphael Warnock (D-GA) and Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE).

Shaheen is leading efforts in the Senate to lower housing costs and increase the supply of affordable units in the Granite State. Earlier this year, Senator Shaheen secured three commonsense provisions—the Strategy and Investment in Rural Housing Preservation Act, Streamlining Rural Housing Act and the Preservation and Reinvestment Initiative in Community Enhancement (PRICE) Act in the landmark 21st Century Renewing Opportunity in the American Dream (ROAD) to Housing Act to expand supply of affordable housing, streamline construction and lower costs in the Granite State and across the country. In the bipartisan Fiscal Year 2026 Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations bill, Shaheen secured upwards of $9 million in federal funding for affordable housing in New Hampshire. Recently, Senator Shaheen visited Franconia, West Lebanon and Laconia to discuss policy solutions to lower housing costs for communities across the state.

###


Slotkin, Ossoff Demand Answers After Hegseth Denied Military Officers’ Promotions for Political Reasons

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA), and colleagues are demanding answers after reports that Secretary Hegseth denied military officers’ promotions for political reasons.

Secretary Hegseth reportedly blocked the promotion of eight Navy captains to be one-star admirals –– including the promotions of two female officers and two Black officers.

“We write concerning reports of your unprecedented decision to personally remove qualified Officers from consideration for promotion to Brigadier General, Major General and Flag Officer. These actions raise concerns regarding the criteria, process, and authorities utilized to make changes to promotion recommendations after completion of the highly regulated military promotion board process,” the Senators wrote to Secretary Hegseth.

“We recognize the importance of having the most qualified Officers serving in these positions of great responsibility. While there are valid reasons to remove Officers from consideration for promotion for reasons that often involve sensitive or adverse information; public reports indicate your actions may be politically motivated, disregards the many achievements of these Officers, and shirks the idea of an apolitical military. Additionally, there are reports that your decisions are affecting morale among all ranks of Officers,”the Senators continued.

Slotkin and Ossoff are joined by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Richard Durbin (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Jeffrey Merkley (D-OR).

Click here to read the full letter.

###


Trump’s Luxury Jet Corruption: Van Hollen Joins Murphy, Senate Democrats in Demanding Answers on Misuse of Federal Resources After Rushed, Costly Retrofit Job

Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), both members of the U.S. Senate Committee on Appropriations, and eleven of their Senate colleagues in sending a letter to Troy E. Meink, Secretary of the U.S. Air Force, and Christopher Kubasik, CEO of L3Harris, demanding transparency into the taxpayer-funded modification of the $400-million luxury jet gifted to President Trump by the government of Qatar. Since Trump announced the gift in May 2025, the Trump administration has refused to provide Congress with basic details about the costs to taxpayers, national security risks, diversion of federal resources, and questionable decision-making process associated with sprinting to upgrade President Trump’s new luxury plane.

In the letter, Van Hollen and Murphy, along with U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), note that available public reporting indicates the Trump administration dedicated as much as $1 billion dollars to rushing the sensitive Air Force One modification process, with hundreds working around the clock to condense a yearslong process into just ten months. The Senators’ letter demands answers on this irresponsible use of federal resources.

“Americans deserve answers on how the administration has decided to spend their taxpayer dollars and assume new national security risks with the VC-25B Bridge aircraft and the rushed retrofit program contracted to L3Harris – all in service to President Trump’s interest in having a pretty, luxurious plane for himself,” the Senators wrote.

The Senators called out the Trump administration for withholding information from Congress, preventing oversight of the luxury jet and its upgrade program: “For over a year, the administration has stonewalled congressional requests for information about Qatar’s luxury jet gift to President Trump. Congress and the American public have expressed due outrage about this corrupt, illegal exchange, but Pentagon officials have mostly deflected questions or claimed inability to share classified details about the luxury jet, the memorandum of understanding with Qatar, and the program to modify it for use by the President. The Trump administration has refused to share the information Congress needs to conduct oversight of this foreign gift and the estimated $1 billion in taxpayer dollars spent to upgrade and outfit the luxury jet for President Trump’s use during – and reportedly after – his term in office.”

They highlighted new reporting that indicates the luxury jet project has been another hotbed for corruption and misuse of taxpayer dollars: “After months of limited public information about the jet, new reporting has deepened concerns about the administration’s irresponsible management of U.S. national security funding to prioritize President Trump’s personal interest in this jet. In a Breaking Defense interview on June 23, L3Harris executive Jason Lambert reported that the company was contracted by the Air Force to oversee the jet’s modifications, with a deadline of July 4, 2026, from the White House. This timeline drove L3Harris to scale back the usual Air Force One upgrade package while committing 400 employees to working around the clock to complete in ten months a process that would normally take years. This accelerated luxury jet upgrade required other large expenses, including building a 3D mockup of the plane’s interior and the leasing and purchase of additional 747 aircraft for pilot and crew training.”

The Senators objected strongly to the Trump administration decision to shift resources away from national security priorities just so President Trump could enjoy luxury flying as soon as possible: “The Air Force seems to have committed to a rushed, expensive aircraft modification program in order to meet President Trump’s demand to fly on ‘the world’s most luxurious plane,’ with his favored paint job, during Independence Day festivities. Trump’s own statements – including his celebration of ‘a level of luxury that nobody’s ever seen before’ – make it clear that these decisions prioritized Trump’s personal comfort and tastes over U.S. national security.”

The Senators concluded by calling for a congressional briefing and demanding full transparency from the Secretary of the Air Force and the Pentagon contractor responsible for the project: “Congress needs full information about program costs, the diversion of resources away from other Pentagon priorities, and the national security and funding implications of upgrades skipped during the rush. The American public deserves transparency into this costly and questionable modification work – conducted with their taxpayer dollars on a luxury jet that President Trump reportedly plans to take with him after he leaves office.”

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

Dear Secretary Meink and Mr. Kubasik:

We write to ask the U.S. Air Force and L3Harris to provide Congress full information on the modification work recently completed on the $400-million Boeing 747-8 luxury jumbo jet gifted by the Government of Qatar to President Donald Trump. Americans deserve answers on how the administration has decided to spend their taxpayer dollars and assume new national security risks with the VC-25B Bridge aircraft and the rushed retrofit program contracted to L3Harris – all in service to President Trump’s interest in having a pretty, luxurious plane for himself.

For over a year, the administration has stonewalled congressional requests for information about Qatar’s luxury jet gift to President Trump. Congress and the American public have expressed due outrage about this corrupt, illegal exchange, but Pentagon officials have mostly deflected questions or claimed inability to share classified details about the luxury jet, the memorandum of understanding with Qatar, and the program to modify it for use by the President. The Trump administration has refused to share the information Congress needs to conduct oversight of this foreign gift and the estimated $1 billion in taxpayer dollars spent to upgrade and outfit the luxury jet for President Trump’s use during – and reportedly after – his term in office.

After months of limited public information about the jet, new reporting has deepened concerns about the administration’s irresponsible management of U.S. national security funding to prioritize President Trump’s personal interest in this jet. In a Breaking Defense interview on June 23, L3Harris executive Jason Lambert reported that the company was contracted by the Air Force to oversee the jet’s modifications, with a deadline of July 4, 2026, from the White House. This timeline drove L3Harris to scale back the usual Air Force One upgrade package while committing 400 employees to working around the clock to complete in ten months a process that would normally take years. This accelerated luxury jet upgrade required other large expenses, including building a 3D mockup of the plane’s interior and the leasing and purchase of additional 747 aircraft for pilot and crew training.

The Air Force seems to have committed to a rushed, expensive aircraft modification program in order to meet President Trump’s demand to fly on “the world’s most luxurious plane,” with his favored paint job, during Independence Day festivities. Trump’s own statements – including his celebration of “a level of luxury that nobody’s ever seen before” – make it clear that these decisions prioritized Trump’s personal comfort and tastes over U.S. national security.

Congress needs full information about program costs, the diversion of resources away from other Pentagon priorities, and the national security and funding implications of upgrades skipped during the rush. The American public deserves transparency into this costly and questionable modification work – conducted with their taxpayer dollars on a luxury jet that President Trump reportedly plans to take with him after he leaves office.

To this end, we request that the Air Force and L3Harris coordinate to provide written answers to the following questions no later than July 27, 2026. Recognizing that some of this information is classified, we also request a joint classified briefing for all U.S. Senators no later than August 6, 2026, to discuss your answers and the upgrade program in greater detail.

What was the total cost of preparing the VC-25B Bridge aircraft for delivery? Provide a comprehensive breakout of costs of L3Harris’s upgrade work, as well as associated expenses by the Air Force (including new equipment, mockups, and training).

How were the work schedule and timeframe for this aircraft modification program developed? What were the Air Force’s stated priorities for this program? Who, formally or informally, played a role in setting requirements and finalizing the contract? Describe the contract negotiations in detail and release the contract text for review.

How did the surge of Air Force and L3Harris personnel and resources to support the program’s accelerated schedule impact overall cost?

How did the surge of Air Force and L3Harris personnel and resources to support the program’s accelerated schedule impact other Air Force efforts or other Pentagon work being conducted at L3Harris? How were resources diverted from other programs?

How would the Air Force and L3Harris have adjusted the program’s schedule and cost structure have changed without a July 4, 2026, deadline?

How did the program’s accelerated schedule impact the scope of the Air Force One upgrade package? Detail capabilities that were not added to the VC-25B Bridge aircraft and describe the national security implications.

What additional resources, personnel, and equipment will be necessary to make up for the neglected upgrades when operating the aircraft as Air Force One? What will the cost be?

How did the aircraft modification program account for President Trump’s stated plan to transfer the VC-25B Bridge aircraft to his Presidential library upon leaving office?

We urge you to answer these questions and arrange the briefing as soon as possible to shed much-needed light on Trump’s luxury jet upgrade program. We look forward to the opportunity to finally deliver answers to the American people about Trump’s foreign-gifted luxury jet and the federal resources poured into upgrading and delivering it in time for his July 4 celebrations.

Sincerely,


Van Hollen Joins Hickenlooper, Colleagues in Urging White House to Rescind Political Rule That Hurts American Science, Research

Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen joined Senator John Hickenlooper and 9 of thier Senate colleagues in submitting public comment to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought to demand OMB rescind a proposed rule, broadly titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” that could alter how nearly all federal agencies administer grants and financial agreements. The proposed change would give more political control over these awards by the White House, which could enable corruption, undermine U.S. scientific investments and competitiveness, and block funding for critical life-saving research and collaboration.

“The proposed changes solidify federal grant-making as an unprecedented partisan power-grab that eliminates transparency of how taxpayer dollars are spent. This rule would derail American innovation and competitiveness at the local and national levels, kill good-paying American jobs, drive up costs for families, and halt essential projects in local communities,” wrote the senators. “Instead of supporting data-driven investments that pay dividends for the American people, this guidance facilitates partisan ideals and cronyism, leaving Americans in the dark.”

The senators continued: “We share the goals of improved transparency, accountability, and oversight; clarification of regulatory structure; and reducing recipient burden–all in pursuit of continuing America’s global leadership in science and innovation. However, these regulations would act in opposition to these goals. They would undermine our country’s competitiveness, erode our scientific ecosystem, increase unwanted bureaucracy, enable corruption, and perpetuate uncertainty across our local communities. We strongly urge you to withdraw this proposed rule.”

OMB has proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing how federal agencies award and administer grants and cooperative agreements. These are the primary mechanisms through which the country funds basic research, applied science, and scientific workforce development. These agencies also fund a wide array of grants for local projects including but not limited to infrastructure, public health, resource conservation, and rural development. The proposed rules formalize an August 7, 2025, Executive Order that directed OMB to expand political oversight over all federal awards.

Also joining the public comment were Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Angus King (I-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).


Van Hollen, Warren, Wyden, Lofgren Lead New Probe Into Cantor Fitzgerald, USAR After $1.6 Billion Trump Administration Deal

U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ranking Member on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member on the Senate Finance Committee, and Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology, pressed Cantor Fitzgerald (Cantor) — led by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick’s sons — and USA Rare Earth (USAR) on ethics concerns following their recent $1.6 billion agreement with the U.S. Department of Commerce (Commerce).

USAR’s reported engagement with Secretary Lutnick and financial arrangement with Cantor in conjunction with the Commerce deal — an agreement that potentially resulted in a multi-million-dollar payout to a firm led by the Secretary’s sons — raises glaring red flags.

“It is imperative your compan(ies) provide complete transparency about the substantive conflict of interest concerns raised by the circumstances of this investment,” wrote the lawmakers.

In January 2026, USAR and Commerce announced a tentative $1.6 billion deal in which the federal government agreed to take a 10% stake in USAR. To close the deal, USAR raised $1.5 billion in a private offering for the company’s stock and selected Cantor, Secretary Lutnick’s former financial firm, as the deal’s placement agent. Cantor is currently led by Secretary Lutnick’s son, Brandon Lutnick.

Secretary Lutnick appears to have played a key role in securing the lucrative deal. USAR’s CEO attested to Secretary Lutnick’s decisive and personal involvement after a meeting in November, describing how he opened doors to influential agency staff that manage billions in CHIPS Act funding and officials at other federal agencies. The lawmakers sounded the alarm on potential bribery concerns surrounding the deal, both in relation to Secretary Lutnick and company officials.

“The circumstances around how this deal came together raise serious questions about Secretary Lutnick’s exposure to federal conflicts of interest and bribery laws,” wrote the lawmakers.

“If USAR selected Cantor as its broker as a way to induce, reward, or otherwise curry favor with the Department of Commerce, Secretary Lutnick, or other government officials, it would raise serious questions about USAR’s exposure to federal anti-bribery or gratuity laws,” continued the lawmakers.

Senator Van Hollen has previously joined Senator Warren and members of Congress in raising concerns over the Commerce Department’s investment in USAR. In response, USAR’s CEO said: “(o)ur best move was to go with the team who knew us.” Following Secretary Lutnick's refusal to provide answers, the lawmakers expanded their investigation to press Cantor and USAR directly.

The lawmakers pushed Cantor Fitzgerald and USA Rare Earth to provide answers regarding the circumstances around this deal and transaction documents by July 23, 2026.

The full text of the letter to Cantor Fitzgerlad is available here. The full text of the letter to USA Rare Earth is available here. The full text of both letters are available below.

Letter to Cantor Fitzergerald

Mr. Lutnick:

We write regarding ongoing ethics and corruption concerns in light of the June 3, 2026 announcement that the U.S Department of Commerce (Commerce) has finalized a $1.6 billion definitive agreement with USA Rare Earth (USAR). Given the massive investment by the American public in USAR, and USAR’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders as a publicly traded company, it is imperative your company provide complete transparency about the substantive conflict of interest concerns raised by the circumstances of this investment.

In February of this year, we wrote to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in regard to our concerns about the January 2026 announcement that USAR and Commerce had reached a tentative $1.6 billion deal in which the federal government tentatively agreed to take a 10% stake in USAR. To close the deal, USAR set a $1.5 billion-dollar private offering for the company’s stock and selected Secretary Lutnick’s former financial firm, Cantor Fitzgerald (Cantor), as the deal’s placement agent. The deal likely benefited two of Secretary Lutnick’s adult sons, who now operate the firm. Secretary Lutnick has refused to provide answers, and we are expanding our investigation to seek information regarding any knowledge you may have involving Secretary Lutnick’s role or the role of Cantor Fitzgerald.

Under the terms of the January 2026 deal, Commerce would offer “up to $277 million in direct funding and up to $1.3 billion in loans” to USAR. In conjunction with this investment agreement, the US government also took a direct 10% stake in USAR, tentatively agreeing to purchase 16.1 million shares.

Commerce’s $1.6 billion investment in USAR was predicated on a capital matching requirement that mandated USAR raise its own private funds. To meet Commerce’s conditions, USAR raised $1.5 billion in a “private investment in public equity” (PIPE) transaction, in which the company sold 69.8 million USAR shares—offering around one-third of its outstanding stock—at a discounted price to private investors through a financial broker. USAR chose Cantor as “lead placement agent,” alongside Moelis, and the two were ultimately successful in securing the requisite investors, including several prominent donors to President Trump.

Secretary Lutnick appears to have played a part in facilitating USAR’s deal with Commerce. USAR’s CEO Barbara Humpton attested to Secretary Lutnick’s decisive and personal involvement after meeting with him in November, describing how he opened doors to influential agency staff that manage billions in CHIPS Act funding and officials at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DoD). The USAR CEO claimed that Secretary Lutnick was especially interested in USAR, and recounted that Secretary Lutnick asked: “[w]hat would it take to go faster and scale further?”

Ultimately, the deal was likely lucrative for the Lutnick family. Secretary Lutnick led Cantor for decades, before transferring his stake in the company to his sons last year. Though no estimate of the fee Cantor collected has been released publicly, previous SEC disclosures and industry estimates indicate that fees for placement agents in PIPE transactions can range between 2.5-10%. USAR’s public filings indicate that the company incurred approximately $50 million in PIPE financing costs. Even a conservative estimate, therefore, indicates that USAR may have paid Cantor millions—if not tens of millions—in its quest to secure a $1.6 billion government contract from a government agency led by Cantor’s former CEO. The circumstances around how this deal came together raise serious questions about Secretary Lutnick’s exposure to federal conflicts of interest and bribery laws.

Secretary Lutnick’s Ethics Commitments & Exposure to Federal Conflict of Interest Laws

We and other members of Congress previously raised concerns about the conflicts of interest posed by this deal. In response, USAR’s CEO explained USAR’s selection of Cantor by saying: “[o]ur best move was to go with the team who knew us.”

Indeed, USAR and Cantor’s relationship appears to date back to when Secretary Lutnick was still CEO and Chairman of Cantor. In August 2024, USAR announced that it would become a publicly traded company via a business combination with Inflection Point Acquisition Corp II, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) with ties to Cantor dating back to May 2023 when Cantor served as the representatives of the underwriters for the SPAC’s initial public offering. Since then, Mr. Lutnick became Secretary of Commerce but the relationship between Cantor and USAR continued. USAR’s CEO confirmed that Cantor helped USAR go public in March, and Cantor led USAR’s first post-merger PIPE in the following months.

This history raises questions about the degree to which Secretary Lutnick was aware of the preexisting business relationship and connection between USAR and Cantor when USAR’s CEO met with him November and strengthens the arguments that Secretary Lutnick should have recused himself from any particular involvement in the USAR deal. Notably, Secretary Lutnick agreed in his federal ethics agreement that pursuant to the impartiality regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, he would “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., or its subsidiaries, is a party or represents a party” for a period of one year following his resignation from the company. If Lutnick was personally involved in negotiating or approving Commerce’s side of the deal— which included the capital matching requirement that ultimately involved and benefitted Cantor —Lutnick’s involvement would likely be a textbook conflict of interest.

Accordingly, we seek clarity as to Lutnick’s direct involvement in the USAR-Cantor deal, including whether and to what degree USAR or Cantor representatives met with Secretary Lutnick with regards to the Department of Commerce’s negotiations or tentative investment agreement with USAR.

USAR’s Exposure to Federal Anti-Bribery Laws

Even if Secretary Lutnick was not aware of USAR’s relationship to Cantor, the deal may implicate federal bribery and gratuity laws and regulations concerning use of public office for private gain.

Federal laws forbid bribing or rewarding federal public officials. Anyone who “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official” with the intent to influence any official act or decision may be in violation of bribery laws. Even without a direct quid pro quo, federal law also prohibits anyone who “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official . . . for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” If USAR selected Cantor as its broker as a way to induce, reward, or otherwise curry favor with the Department of Commerce, Secretary Lutnick, or other government officials, it would raise serious questions about USAR’s exposure to federal anti-bribery or gratuity laws. USAR’s reported personal engagement with Secretary Lutnick and financial arrangement with Cantor in the pursuit of the Commerce deal— an agreement that potentially resulted in a multi-million-dollar payout to a firm led by the Secretary’s sons—raises glaring red flags.

Though Secretary Lutnick may no longer hold a direct stake in Cantor, the direct financial interest of his family members is a central legal consideration in this matter. Legal experts and federal courts have determined that a “thing of value need not go to the public official himself” for an action to be considered germane under bribery law. The multi-million dollar fundraising fee Cantor may have collected on USAR’s requisite private stock transaction, which was needed to secure the Commerce investment, could reasonably be considered a tangible “thing of value.” USAR should disclose at what point it notified US government officials that Cantor would be acting on its behalf in this transaction.

Your actions and the involvement of Cantor may also expose Secretary Lutnick to federal antibribery laws. Federal law applies equal scrutiny to those soliciting bribes as to those offering them. Any government official who “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value” in order to be influenced in the performance of an official act, such as approving a government contract, may also be subject to federal anti-bribery laws.

Likewise, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 prohibits federal employees from using public office for their own private gain or for the private gain of relatives. Specifically, employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person . . . to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee or to . . . relatives.” The extent of Lutnick’s involvement in the USAR-Commerce deal, therefore, could raise additional red flags.

Cantor should immediately report if any US government representatives, including Secretary Lutnick, Commerce employees, or other Trump administration officials, suggested that Cantor be involved or chosen as the broker in USAR’s private fundraising round.

Questions

In order to better inform our legislative responsibilities as they relate to rooting out corruption and securing critical minerals supply chains, we ask that you answer the following questions by July 20, 2026:

1. Have any employees or representatives of Cantor Fitzgerald met with any members of the Department of Commerce regarding critical mining investments or CHIPS and Science Act funding? If so, please provide a log with the date of any meeting, list of meeting attendees, meeting notes, and any correspondence between Commerce officials and Cantor.

a. Have any employees or representatives of Cantor Fitzgerald met with Secretary Lutnick, or any other representative from the Office of the Secretary regarding USAR?

b. Have Cantor Fitzgerald employees or representatives met with the CHIPS and Science team?

c. Have Cantor Fitzgerald employees or representatives met with Commerce officials regarding the Department’s potential investment in USAR?

d. Have Cantor Fitzgerald employees or representatives met with Commerce officials with regards to Cantor’s role as the lead placement agent in USAR’s PIPE transaction?

2. How was Cantor chosen as the lead placement agency in the USAR PIPE?

a. When and how did Cantor become aware of the PIPE?

b. With whom at USAR did Cantor negotiate with over its role as lead placement agency?

c. When did these negotiations begin, and when were they finalized?

d. When and how did Cantor inform Commerce Department officials of its role?

e. How was Cantor compensated for its role as the lead placement agent in the USAR PIPE?

f. Did Cantor collect a placement agent fee for its role in the PIPE? If so, what was the rate it charged USAR?

g. How much was Cantor compensated for its services in the PIPE transaction?

3. What internal policies, trainings, and procedures, does Cantor have, if any, as they relate to engagement with federal employees and compliance with federal bribery and ethics laws?

a. What processes does USAR have in place to address potential breaches of such ethics policies?

Sincerely,

Letter to USA Rare Earth

Ms. Humpton: We write regarding ongoing ethics and corruption concerns in light of the June 3, 2026 announcement that the U.S Department of Commerce (Commerce) has finalized a $1.6 billion definitive agreement with USA Rare Earth (USAR). Given the massive investment by the American public in USAR, and USAR’s fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders as a publicly traded company, it is imperative your company provide complete transparency about the substantive conflict of interest concerns raised by the circumstances of this investment.

In February of this year, we wrote to Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick in regard to our concerns about the January 2026 announcement that USAR and Commerce had reached a tentative $1.6 billion deal in which the federal government tentatively agreed to take a 10% stake in USAR. To close the deal, USAR set a $1.5 billion-dollar private offering for the company’s stock and selected Secretary Lutnick’s former financial firm, Cantor Fitzgerald (Cantor), as the deal’s placement agent. The deal likely benefited two of Secretary Lutnick’s adult sons, who now operate the firm. Secretary Lutnick has refused to provide answers, and we are expanding our investigation to seek information regarding any knowledge you may have involving Secretary Lutnick’s role or the role of Cantor Fitzgerald.

Under the terms of the January 2026 deal, Commerce would offer “up to $277 million in direct funding and up to $1.3 billion in loans” to USAR. In conjunction with this investment agreement, the US government also took a direct 10% stake in USAR, tentatively agreeing to purchase 16.1 million shares.

Commerce’s $1.6 billion investment in USAR was predicated on a capital matching requirement that mandated USAR raise its own private funds. To meet Commerce’s conditions, USAR raised $1.5 billion in a “private investment in public equity” (PIPE) transaction, in which the company sold 69.8 million USAR shares—offering around one-third of its outstanding stock—at a discounted price to private investors through a financial broker. USAR chose Cantor as “lead placement agent,” alongside Moelis, and the two were ultimately successful in securing the requisite investors, including several prominent donors to President Trump.

Secretary Lutnick appears to have played a part in facilitating USAR’s deal with Commerce. You attested to Secretary Lutnick’s decisive and personal involvement after meeting with him in November, describing how he opened doors to influential agency staff that manage billions in CHIPS Act funding and officials at the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and Department of Defense (DoD). You claimed that Secretary Lutnick was especially interested in USAR, and recounted that Secretary Lutnick asked: “[w]hat would it take to go faster and scale further?”

Ultimately, the deal was likely lucrative for the Lutnick family. Secretary Lutnick led Cantor for decades, before transferring his stake in the company to his sons last year. Though no estimate of the fee Cantor collected has been released publicly, previous SEC disclosures and industry estimates indicate that fees for placement agents in PIPE transactions can range between 2.5-10%. USAR’s public filings indicate that the company incurred approximately $50 million in PIPE financing costs. Even a conservative estimate, therefore, indicates that USAR may have paid Cantor millions—if not tens of millions—in its quest to secure a $1.6 billion government contract from a government agency led by Cantor’s former CEO.

The circumstances around how this deal came together raise serious questions about Secretary Lutnick’s exposure to federal conflicts of interest and bribery laws.

Secretary Lutnick’s Ethics Commitments & Exposure to Federal Conflict of Interest Laws

We and other members of Congress previously raised concerns about the conflicts of interest posed by this deal. In response, you have explained USAR’s selection of Cantor by saying: “[o]ur best move was to go with the team who knew us.”

Indeed, USAR and Cantor’s relationship appears to date back to when Secretary Lutnick was still CEO and Chairman of Cantor. In August 2024, USAR announced that it would become a publicly traded company via a business combination with Inflection Point Acquisition Corp II, a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) with ties to Cantor dating back to May 2023 when Cantor served as the representatives of the underwriters for the SPAC’s initial public offering. Since then, Mr. Lutnick became Secretary of Commerce but the relationship between Cantor and USAR continued. You confirmed that Cantor helped USAR go public in March, and Cantor led USAR’s first post-merger PIPE in the following months.

This history raises questions about the degree to which Secretary Lutnick was aware of the preexisting business relationship and connection between USAR and Cantor when you met in November and strengthens the arguments that Secretary Lutnick should have recused himself from any particular involvement in the USAR deal. Notably, Secretary Lutnick agreed in his federal ethics agreement that pursuant to the impartiality regulation at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.502, he would “not participate personally and substantially in any particular matter involving specific parties in which I know Cantor Fitzgerald L.P., or its subsidiaries, is a party or represents a party” for a period of one year following his resignation from the company. If Secretary Lutnick was personally involved in negotiating or approving Commerce’s side of the deal— which included the capital matching requirement that ultimately involved and benefited Cantor —Lutnick’s involvement would likely be a textbook conflict of interest.

Accordingly, we seek clarity as to Lutnick’s direct involvement in the USAR-Cantor deal, including whether and to what degree USAR or Cantor representatives met with Secretary Lutnick with regards to the Department of Commerce’s negotiations or tentative investment agreement with USAR.

USAR’s Exposure to Federal Anti-Bribery Laws

Even if Secretary Lutnick was not aware of USAR’s relationship to Cantor, the deal may implicate federal bribery and gratuity laws and regulations concerning use of public office for private gain.

Federal laws forbid bribing or rewarding federal public officials. Anyone who “directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official” with the intent to influence any official act or decision may be in violation of bribery laws. Even without a direct quid pro quo, federal law also prohibits anyone who “directly or indirectly gives, offers, or promises anything of value to any public official . . . for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.” If USAR selected Cantor as its broker as a way to induce, reward, or otherwise curry favor with the Department of Commerce, Secretary Lutnick, or other government officials, it would raise serious questions about USAR’s exposure to federal anti-bribery or gratuity laws. USAR’s reported personal engagement with Secretary Lutnick and financial arrangement with Cantor in the pursuit of the Commerce deal — an agreement that potentially resulted in a multi-million-dollar payout to a firm led by the Secretary’s sons—raises glaring red flags.

Though Secretary Lutnick may no longer hold a direct stake in Cantor, the direct financial interest of his family members is a central legal consideration in this matter. Legal experts and federal courts have determined that a “thing of value need not go to the public official himself” for an action to be considered germane under bribery law. The multi-million dollar fundraising fee Cantor may have collected on USAR’s requisite private stock transaction, which was needed to secure the Commerce investment, could reasonably be considered a tangible “thing of value.” USAR should disclose at what point it notified US government officials that Cantor would be acting on its behalf in this transaction.

Your actions and the involvement of Cantor may also expose Secretary Lutnick to federal antibribery laws. Federal law applies equal scrutiny to those soliciting bribes as to those offering them. Any government official who “directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value” in order to be influenced in the performance of an official act, such as approving a government contract, may also be subject to federal anti-bribery laws.

Likewise, 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702 prohibits federal employees from using public office for their own private gain or for the private gain of relatives. Specifically, employees “may not use or permit the use of their Government position or title, or any authority associated with their public office, in a manner that is intended to coerce or induce another person . . . to provide any benefit, financial or otherwise, to the employee or to . . . relatives.” The extent of Lutnick’s involvement in the USAR-Commerce deal, therefore, could raise additional red flags.

USAR should immediately report if any US government representatives, including Secretary Lutnick, Commerce employees, or other Trump administration officials, suggested that Cantor be involved or chosen as the broker in USAR’s private fundraising round.

Questions

In order to better inform our legislative responsibilities as they relate to rooting out corruption and securing critical minerals supply chains, we ask that you answer the following questions by July 20, 2026:

1. Was Secretary Lutnick involved in USAR’s PIPE transaction in which Cantor acted as a placement agent?

a. What was the nature of your meeting with Secretary Lutnick in November, 2025? Please provide the date, list of attendees, and any transcripts, notes, or agendas, from your meeting with Secretary Lutnick and any correspondence between USAR and government officials related to the meeting.

i. Did you discuss any role for Cantor Fitzgerald in the USAR transaction at that meeting?

b. Have you met or spoken with Secretary Lutnick since November, 2025?

c. Was USAR in any way pressured or solicited to choose Cantor as its placement agent by officials at the Department of Commerce?

2. Did the Department of Commerce have any involvement in USAR’s PIPE transaction?

a. Did USAR notify the Department of Commerce about its intention to proceed with a PIPE transaction to raise matching funds during its negotiations with the Department?

b. Did USAR notify the Department of Commerce that Cantor Fitzgerald would represent USAR as its lead placement agent in the PIPE transaction? If so, when? Please provide all correspondence between USAR and Commerce officials related to the PIPE transaction.

c. Did representatives of Cantor meet with Commerce officials in relation to the PIPE transaction?

3. What was the nature of the interagency meeting between USAR and the Departments of Defense, Commerce, and Energy at the Pentagon?

a. Please provide the date, list of attendees, and any transcripts, notes, or agendas, from the meeting and any correspondence between USAR and government officials related to the meeting.

4. Please provide a copy of USAR’s negotiated agreement with the Department of Commerce, including any negotiated milestones, cost-sharing agreements, and reporting requirements for the duration of the contract.

a. Please provide a copy of the negotiated agreement between USAR and the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Energy Technology Laboratory.

5. Please describe the history between USAR and Cantor Fitzgerald.

a. Identify the date on which USAR first engaged, retained, or otherwise entered into any business relationship with Cantor Fitzgerald & Co. or any Cantor Fitzgerald affiliate, including any relationship or role in connection with the August 2024 business combination agreement with Inflection Point & Acquisition Corp. II.

b. Describe the process by which USAR selected Cantor as lead placement agent for both the April-May 2025 $75 million PIPE and the January 2026 $1.5 billion PIPE, including whether competing proposals from other entities were solicited, reviewed, or considered for the transactions.

6. Have you or anyone else at USAR communicated with Brandon Lutnick or Kyle Lutnick regarding the $1.5 billion PIPE anchored by Cantor?

a. Please provide a copy of any and all correspondence between Brandon and Kyle Lutnick, and USAR with regards to the January 2026 PIPE transaction.

7. USAR’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2026 states that the financing costs for the January 2026 PIPE reached approximately $50 million. Please provide a breakdown of that $50 million.

a. How did USAR compensate Cantor for its role as the lead placement agent in the $1.5 billion PIPE transaction? What was the negotiated fee between Cantor and USAR for Cantor’s role in the PIPE transaction? i. How much was Cantor compensated for its services in the PIPE transaction?

b. How much did USAR pay—in fees, commissions or other compensation—to other agents involved in the USAR-Commerce deal and PIPE, including Moelis & Company.

8. What internal policies, trainings, and procedures, does USAR have, if any, as they relate to engagement with federal employees and compliance with federal bribery laws?

a. What processes does USAR have in place to address potential breaches of such ethics policies?

Sincerely,


Warner, Hickenlooper, Colleagues Urge White House to Rescind Political Rule That Hurts American Science, Research

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), and 9 of their Senate colleagues submitted public comment to the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought demanding OMB rescind a proposed rule, broadly titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance” that could alter how nearly all federal agencies administer grants and financial agreements. The proposed change would give more political control over these awards by the White House, which could enable corruption, undermine U.S. scientific investments and competitiveness, and block funding for critical life-saving research and collaboration.

“The proposed changes solidify federal grant-making as an unprecedented partisan power-grab that eliminates transparency of how taxpayer dollars are spent. This rule would derail American innovation and competitiveness at the local and national levels, kill good-paying American jobs, drive up costs for families, and halt essential projects in local communities,” wrote the senators. “Instead of supporting data-driven investments that pay dividends for the American people, this guidance facilitates partisan ideals and cronyism, leaving Americans in the dark.”

The senators continued, “We share the goals of improved transparency, accountability, and oversight; clarification of regulatory structure; and reducing recipient burden–all in pursuit of continuing America’s global leadership in science and innovation. However, these regulations would act in opposition to these goals. They would undermine our country’s competitiveness, erode our scientific ecosystem, increase unwanted bureaucracy, enable corruption, and perpetuate uncertainty across our local communities. We strongly urge you to withdraw this proposed rule.”

OMB has proposed sweeping changes to the rules governing how federal agencies award and administer grants and cooperative agreements. These are the primary mechanisms through which the country funds basic research, applied science, and scientific workforce development. These agencies also fund a wide array of grants for local projects including but not limited to infrastructure, public health, resource conservation, and rural development. The proposed rules formalize an August 7, 2025, Executive Order that directed OMB to expand political oversight over all federal awards.

In addition to Sen. Warner, the public comment was submitted by U.S. Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Peter Welch (D-VT), Angus King (I-ME), Chris Coons (D-MD), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), and Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY).

###