url,title,date,year,month,party,chamber,state,member_name,bioguide_id,domain,scraper,source,date_source,text,has_text,collected_at,updated_at
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-joins-duckworth-in-renewed-push-to-prevent-police-involved-deaths/,Padilla Joins Duckworth in Renewed Push to Prevent Police-Involved Deaths,2026-09-29,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) in reintroducing the Police Training and Independent Review Act,legislation that would help prevent police-involved deaths and encourage independent, impartial investigations into law enforcement officials’ use of deadly force.

“Communities across California cannot feel safe if they cannot trust that law enforcement officers will be held accountable when they use deadly force,” said Senator Padilla. “Police-involved deaths are avoidable, and we can help prevent these tragedies with improved training, impartial investigations, and increased oversight. This bill will help restore accountability into policing and provide justice for the communities and families who have been impacted by the use of deadly force.”

“From Chicago to Louisville or anywhere in America, we cannot allow ourselves to accept that Black teenagers, men and women are still being unjustly executed at the hands of law enforcement without judge or jury,” said Senator Duckworth. The death of Laquan McDonald—an Illinoisan teen who was shot and killed 12 years ago at the hands of a Chicago Police Department officer with a recorded history of excessive force—“was preventable, and Congress still has yet to do enough to ensure tragedies like his never happen again. In honor of Laquan’s 29th heavenly birthday, I’m proud to lead Senate Democrats in reintroducing this overdue legislation that would help save lives and restore trust between law enforcement and local communities by increasing resources for training to help prevent such incidents, while promoting objective and independent investigations of police-involved uses of deadly force. Families like Laquan McDonald’s that have experienced heartbreak are no less deserving of justice than any other family. It’s time our country acts to ensure accountability within our law enforcement agencies and provide justice to those who have lost loved ones.”

Police in the United States kill more than 1,000 people each year, with some reports estimating around 195 deaths per year in California alone. Yet, fewer than 3% of those killings result in an officer being charged with a crime. Throughout most of the country, the officer’s own department investigates a police killing while a local prosecutor decides whether to bring charges, an inherent conflict of interest this legislation is designed to eliminate.

Specifically, the bill would:

Create financial incentives for states to require training for law enforcement officials on fair and impartial policing and best practices for working with members of the community who are disabled and have mental illnesses. Eligible institutions include:

The use of an independent agency, civilian review board or outside law enforcement department, such as the State Police, responsible for independently investigating and prosecuting all officer use of force allegations.

The appointment of the State Attorney General, or a special prosecutor overseen by the State Attorney General, responsible for conducting the criminal investigation and prosecution.

The use of an independent prosecutor, who does not reside or work in the same county as the county where the officer’s use of force was committed.

Encourage communities to use independent prosecutors to investigate law enforcement officials’ use of deadly force.

Authorize the U.S. Attorney General to award grants to states that require an independent investigation and, if warranted, prosecution in cases where one or more of the alleged offenses result in death or serious bodily harm.

In addition to Padilla, the legislation is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-30T10:57:52Z,2026-09-30T10:59:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-scott-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-bridge-gap-in-veteran-services/,"Padilla, Scott Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Bridge Gap in Veteran Services",2026-09-29,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Tim Scott (R-S.C.) introduced the Building Readiness and Integration for Dependents Going to Civilian Environments (BRIDGE) Act of 2026, legislation to support military and veteran families during the transition from military to civilian life. This bill would establish a pilot program focused on practical tools, peer support, and community engagement to improve emotional, social, and financial outcomes for transitioning families.

Thousands of servicemembers leave the Armed Forces and face significant challenges navigating employment, health care, education, benefits, and community reintegration. While the joint interagency Transition Assistance Program provides important pre-separation services, many military families still struggle to access personalized and coordinated support during this major life transition. This bill would establish a Department of Defense (DoD) pilot program to provide support through community connections and additional resources to assist servicemembers and their families. This legislation addresses the gap by providing whole-family support, building community connections, reducing isolation, and equipping families with the tools to thrive during and after the transition.

“For too long, the servicemembers and their families have had to navigate the transition from military to civilian life without the resources needed to thrive,” said Senator Padilla. “We must do more to ensure that military families have the support they need after they leave active duty. Our bipartisan BRIDGE Act would create a pilot program to help us prioritize programs that focus on bridging the gap in services for veterans and military families.”

“South Carolina is blessed to be home to thousands of our nation’s heroes,” said Senator Scott. “The men and women of the Armed Forces – and their families who have sacrificed alongside them – have earned the best possible support as they transition to civilian life. The BRIDGE Act empowers local communities to provide military families with tailored assistance, because the best solutions are often built closest to home.”

The bill is endorsed by Blue Star Families, Wounded Warrior Project, American Legion, National Military Family Association (NMFA), Veterans of Foreign Wars, and Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS).

“Our 2025 Military Family Lifestyle Survey found that 58% of respondents described their transition from military to civilian life as ‘difficult’ or ‘very difficult,’” said Blue Star Families CEO Kathy Roth-Douquet. “The BRIDGE Act recognizes that successful transition requires personalized, whole-family support that helps families build long-term stability, resilience, and connection as they move into civilian life. We are grateful to Sens. Padilla (D-CA) and Scott (R-S.C.) for championing this legislation and for their continued leadership in support of military and veteran families.”

“The BRIDGE Act recognizes that transitioning from military service is a major life change for both Service members and their families,” said Jose Ramos, Vice President for Government and Community Relations for Wounded Warrior Project. “By expanding access to personalized, community-based transition support, this pilot program helps address critical gaps in employment, wellness, and family readiness as military families move into civilian life. Wounded Warrior Project appreciates Alex Padilla’s leadership and urges Congress to advance the BRIDGE Act and help strengthen the Transition Assistance Program for future generations of Service members and their families.”

Specifically, the legislation would strengthen transition support by:

Establishing a three-year DoD pilot program at four military installations to provide community-based, whole-family transition support for servicemembers and families transitioning to civilian life.

Providing personalized services for servicemembers within one year of separation and their families, including peer support, spouse employment assistance, skills training, benefits navigation, and dedicated transition coordinators to build individualized transition plans.

Require DoD and Veterans Affairs (VA) coordination, prioritizing servicemembers facing involuntary or accelerated separations, and mandating tracking of employment, financial stability, and family wellbeing outcomes with a final report to Congress.

Padilla has consistently advocated for veterans and their families to receive the support they deserve. In May, Padilla announced more than $110 million in federal funding from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to support updates at Veterans Home in Yountville – which serves the needs of nearly 1,000 veterans and their families. In March, as part of the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act, the Senate passed Padilla’s bipartisan Housing Unhoused Disabled Veterans Act (HUDVA) to ensure that veterans experiencing homelessness and receiving disability payments maintain access to crucial housing support.

In 2024, Padilla co-sponsored a resolution to designate November 17, 2024, as “National Warrior Call Day” and recognize the importance of connecting warriors in the United States to support structures necessary to transition from the battlefield, especially peer-to-peer connection. In 2023, Padilla sat down with local veterans and leadership at the Sepulveda VA Ambulatory Care Center for a roundtable discussion on mental health and a walk-and-talk tour of the facility. Also that year, he introduced legislation to help improve access to mental health care for the children of military families by establishing routine mental health and well-being checkups in military schools.

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-30T10:57:52Z,2026-09-30T10:59:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-unanimously-passes-padilla-bill-to-help-prevent-catastrophic-wildfires-increase-use-of-prescribed-fire/,"Senate Unanimously Passes Padilla Bill to Help Prevent Catastrophic Wildfires, Increase Use of Prescribed Fire",2026-09-29,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, the Senate unanimously passed U.S. Senator Alex Padilla’s (D-Calif.) Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act (WEPA) of 2026, a bipartisan bill to make it easier for states and communities to use prescribe fire to reduce hazardous fuel and prevent catastrophic wildfires. The legislation now heads to the House of Representatives for consideration.

“California is no stranger to devastating wildfires — and we cannot afford to wait until the next fire starts to take action. We must ensure that communities across the state and country have the necessary resources to proactively prevent and mitigate these disasters,” said Senator Padilla. “Prescribed fire is one of the most effective tools we have to confront the growing impacts of the wildfire crisis. I am proud to see the Senate unanimously pass our bipartisan bill to help communities protect their land as they face growing threats of wildfires.”

WEPA would make it easier for states and communities to use prescribed fires to prevent wildfire emissions, protect ecosystems and wildlife habitats, and make American forests and communities safer, healthier, and cleaner. The bill also promotes the efficient use of state air quality resources and provides certainty that states will not be penalized for taking action to prevent wildfires.

Specifically, WEPA would:

Make it easier for states and communities to use prescribed fire to prevent wildfire emissions;

Provide certainty that states won’t be penalized for taking action to prevent wildfires;

Promote the efficient use of state air quality resources; and

Make our forests and communities safer, healthier, and cleaner.

In addition to Padilla, WEPA was introduced with Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), John Boozman (R-Ark.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), and Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.).

Padilla took to the Senate floor to advocate for the bill, highlighting the urgent need to make it easier for communities to use prescribed fires to prevent wildfire emissions and reduce the risk of catastrophic fires.

“Western states, including Oregon, California, and others, are confronting a crisis of wildfires that aren’t just growing larger and larger every year, but more destructive every year, and emitting massive amounts of toxic smoke,” said Senator Padilla. “Now, there’s no silver bullet for solving the wildfire crisis, but we know that prescribed fires — experience tells us and the data tells us — prescribed fire is one of the most effective tools in reducing hazardous fuels and preventing catastrophic wildfires.”

Earlier this month, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works held a hearing on WEPA. The bill also advanced out of committee unanimously.

In the aftermath of the catastrophic Southern California fires, Padilla has introduced more than a dozen bills to help prevent and respond to future wildfires. Last year, he and Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. Last January, Padilla introduced a suite of bipartisan bills to strengthen wildfire recovery and resilience, including the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act, the Fire Suppression and Response Funding Assurance Act, and the Disaster Housing Reform for American Families Act. On the one-year anniversary of the Los Angeles fires, Padilla and Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) announced bipartisan legislation to establish a new grant program to help local communities defend themselves from the growing danger of wildfires.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Video of Padilla’s remarks is available here.

Transcript of Padilla’s remarks is available below:

Thank you, Mr. President. Colleagues, I’m proud to join our colleagues from Utah and Oregon in bringing up this bill. I can’t overstate both the importance and the urgency of the Wildfire Emmission Prevention Act, which is a result of within a year of bipartisan negotiations and a measure that recently passed unanimously out of the Environment and Public Works Committee.

As my colleague from Oregon has begun to paint the picture. Western states, including Oregon, California, and others, are confronting a crisis of wildfires that aren’t just growing larger and larger every year, but more destructive every year, and emitting massive amounts of toxic smoke.

Now, there’s no silver bullet for solving the wildfire crisis, but we know that prescribed fires — experience tells us and the data tells us — prescribed fire is one of the most effective tools in reducing hazardous fuels and preventing catastrophic wildfires.

Will they continue to happen? Fires? Yes, but if we can prevent them, that’s ideal — or at least mitigates their size, their scope and the damage that they cause, however we can.

But the problem that brings us to this measure, is that while the EPA regulations have allowed prescribed fires to qualify as exceptional events since 2016, the agency has never actually approved one, leaving states worried that using this critical tool, this provenly effective tool, to protect communities could jeopardize their air quality goals. Right? By trying to do good and prevent fires or mitigate fires from a public safety standpoint, you’re penalized on the air quality side of things.

So, this bill creates a narrow, targeted pathway specifically for prescribed fire, while preserving existing air quality standards for other exceptional events.

I want to thank my colleagues from Utah and Oregon for their partnership in this important bill, and kudos to Chairwoman Capito and Ranking Member Whitehouse on the committee who helped craft this measure as well. Thank you, Mr. President.

###",1,2026-09-30T10:57:52Z,2026-09-30T10:59:04Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-secure-4-million-for-glassy-winged-sharpshooter-response-activities/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla Secure $4 Million for Glassy-Winged Sharpshooter Response Activities",2026-09-29,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) announced that they secured $4 million in emergency federal funding to address the growing threat posed by the invasive glassy-winged sharpshooter (GWSS) in California. In June, Padilla and Schiff, along with U.S. Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04) and David Valadao (D-Calif.-22), REQUESTED THIS EMERGENCY FUNDING to support efforts to contain and eradicate the pest, which spreads Pierce’s Disease (PD) and threatens many critical agricultural industries in California, including wine grapes and table grapes.

“California’s wine industry provides more than a million jobs and is crucial to our national economy,” said Senator Schiff. “This USDA funding is essential to aid grape growers during this time of need, and I’ll keep fighting for more resources to protect California’s agricultural industries.”

“With the growing threat of invasive pests like the glassy-winged sharpshooter, we are working to ensure California has access to federal resources to quickly respond and protect our crops,” said Senator Alex Padilla. “Our state’s growers have already felt the impact of these pests. I’m proud to have quickly secured this federal funding with my colleagues to ensure California’s agriculture and wine industries can continue to thrive.”

This funding will allow the California Department of Food and Agriculture (CDFA) to expand trace-forward investigations, increase inspections, destroy infested materials, and strengthen trapping and visual surveys at high-risk locations associated with recent GWSS-infested plant shipments. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) works with the CDFA and county agricultural commissioners through a long-standing cooperative program to manage and contain GWSS in California.

###",1,2026-09-30T10:57:52Z,2026-09-30T10:59:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-peters-durbin-schumer-lead-senate-colleagues-in-demanding-secretary-mullin-halt-2026-election-interference-efforts/,"Padilla, Peters, Durbin, Schumer Lead Senate Colleagues in Demanding Secretary Mullin Halt 2026 Election Interference Efforts",2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with jurisdiction over federal elections, Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Ranking Member of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), led 30 of their Senate colleagues in demanding Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin immediately halt the Department’s efforts to assert federal control over, and undermine public trust in, the 2026 midterm elections.

The Senators demanded information substantiating Mullin’s public claims about thousands of noncitizens who allegedly registered to vote, and called on DHS to rescind new election-related conditions on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) homeland security grants, release the full grant funding to states, and immediately end the alleged “Unlawful Voter Initiative” disclosed by a recent whistleblower.

“We write to warn you against continued activities at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that seek to undermine the Constitutional authority of both Congress and states to administer elections and defy the directions of federal courts. As Secretary of Homeland Security, you have promoted the President’s conspiracy theories about our elections, pressured states to participate in illegal activities, and explicitly threatened to reduce grant funding and initiate criminal investigations for those states that do not comply with the Administration’s demands,” wrote the Senators.

In their letter, the Senators raised concerns about Mullin’s unsupported claim that 250,000 noncitizens were registered to vote in four states and criticized DHS efforts to pressure states to provide sensitive voter roll information to be run through the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) program, despite the Administration’s acknowledgment of problems with the underlying data. The Senators also objected to new election-related conditions on FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program, which have been retroactively applied to previously awarded Fiscal Year 2025 funding and are threatening Fiscal Year 2026 funding. By threatening to withhold funding that communities rely on to prevent acts of terrorism and other threats, Mullin is putting Americans’ safety at risk for political leverage.

The Senators also highlighted allegations from a federal whistleblower about an effort referred to as the “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” According to the whistleblower, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) personnel were allegedly directed to use sensitive, personally identifiable information and improperly access state voter registration websites to find non-citizen voters. The whistleblower also alleged that personnel were directed to create law enforcement records using incomplete and unverifiable data for potential referral to law enforcement.

“The 2026 midterm elections are already underway. Your unsubstantiated allegations of noncitizen voter fraud, public recitation of unreliable data, and unwarranted conditioning of continued grant funding for state election security measures on compliance with politically motivated requests for voter data appear to be calculated efforts to undermine confidence in our elections and risks wrongly disenfranchising voters,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Padilla, Peters, Durbin, and Schumer, the letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Following receipt of the bombshell whistleblower disclosure, Padilla and Schumer demanded Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow immediately halt the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and provide responses to Congress on its activities, and protect citizens who were erroneously flagged as “unlawful voters.” Last week, Padilla and Schiff sent a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta highlighting the concerning activities detailed by the DHS whistleblower disclosure and requested that Bonta investigate whether those actions violated California law. Last week, Padilla and Schumer led 16 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to demand the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) immediately open an independent investigation into the wrongdoings detailed in the whistleblower’s disclosure. The whistleblower’s disclosure is also being cited in ongoing litigation, Virginia’s Attorney General is examining potential violations of Virginia state law, and Arizona’s Attorney General and Secretary of State are calling on Arizona’s U.S. Attorney to look into this alleged misuse of data by the federal government.

Full text of the letter is available here.

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-huffman-california-colleagues-condemn-trump-administration-efforts-to-repeal-roadless-rule/,"Padilla, Schiff, Huffman, California Colleagues Condemn Trump Administration Efforts to Repeal Roadless Rule",2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, led 38 members of the California congressional delegation in opposing the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Roadless Rule, a landmark U.S. Forest Service conservation policy adopted in 2001 that protects nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped National Forest System lands. It prohibits new road construction, reconstruction, and commercial timber harvesting to preserve these areas’ ecological and recreational value. The Trump Administration issued its final proposed rule to advance the rescission of the Roadless Rule, allowing only a 47-day public comment period.

In their letter to Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, the lawmakers underscored the importance of the Roadless Rule to California’s preservation of public lands and natural resources.

“Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways,” wrote the lawmakers. “Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually.”

The lawmakers warned of the possible impacts on California’s water and natural resources if the Roadless Rule is fully repealed, especially with the growing threat of devastating wildfires in California.

“Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely,” continued the lawmakers. “Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.”

The lawmakers further emphasized the Roadless Rule’s importance to the outdoor economy by protecting access to trails, promoting outdoor recreation, and supporting small businesses and local economies that rely on public lands. The lawmakers highlighted that Americans across the country have supported the Roadless Rule since its implementation, and that efforts to overturn the rule undoes previous bipartisan support. Since the announcement of the repeal, the rule received a significant amount of public support within the Administration’s brief public comment period.

“The proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents,” the lawmakers concluded. “At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments—more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the rule.”

Padilla has been a longtime champion of public land conservation, fighting tirelessly against Republican efforts to undo environmental protections. Last week, Padilla led a bipartisan group of 153 lawmakers in urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park known as Hazel Green Ranch. In June, Padilla co-led an effort to push back against Republicans’ efforts to codify the repeal of the Roadless Rule and proposed an amendment to the Wildfire Prevention Act to expand critical benefits for federal firefighters. Last year, Padilla reintroduced a public lands package, the Protecting Unique and Beautiful Landscapes by Investing in California (PUBLIC) Lands Act, which would protect and restore more than 1.7 million acres of California’s public lands throughout northwest California, the Central Coast, and Los Angeles County.

Full letter is available here or below:

Dear Secretary Rollins:

We write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) that prohibits new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (“roadless areas”). Eliminating the Roadless Rule will harm California’s already overburdened water sources, will counterintuitively decrease communities’ fire resilience, and will have negative economic impacts throughout our state.

For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 60 million acres across the United States from new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in some of our nation’s most intact and environmentally significant areas. In California, the U.S. Forest Service manages 20 million acres of national forests, including over 4.4 million acres of roadless areas. California’s national forests act as the state’s natural water infrastructure, supplying roughly 65% of California’s total water supply, despite making up only 20% of the state’s land area. Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways. Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually. The raw, wholesale market value of the water produced by California’s national forests is estimated at roughly $3.2 billion annually, and serves as the underlying foundation for our multi-billiondollar agricultural, municipal, and energy industries.

Despite what opponents of the Roadless Rule argue, it does not ban firefighting or fuel reduction activities in our national forests. Agencies retain full authority to remove trees, clear brush, and construct temporary emergency access roads to protect public safety. Local managers frequently conduct thinning, remove small-diameter trees and underbrush, and execute prescribed burns within roadless areas—particularly along existing boundaries where ignitions are most likely.

Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely. Recent research demonstrates that wildfires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless areas. Because California’s national forests—such as the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests—directly border massive urban populations, human-caused ignitions are the state’s primary wildfire threat to communities. By limiting road construction, the Rule isolates rugged terrain from vehicles, campfires, and equipment sparks. Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.

Roadless areas are also essential to maintaining and supporting our state’s outdoor recreation economy that draws people from around the world. California’s national forests host 33 million visitors per year, shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from urban centers directly into rural gateway communities through hotel taxes and local sales taxes. This tax revenue directly funds essential rural municipal services that many counties in California otherwise could not afford. The Roadless Rule also protects thousands of miles of hiking and mountain biking trails and hundreds of miles of whitewater paddling runs across the country, which allow outfitters and other small businesses to thrive. The strength of our outdoor economy is intrinsically tied to these roadless areas remaining protected from industrial development.

Finally, as you will undoubtedly find during this comment period, the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents. At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the Rule. Now, the Administration is only allowing a 47-day comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Beyond all that, any new roads that are built would leave taxpayers on the hook for road maintenance, all while the U.S. Forest Service already has a $7-8 billion road maintenance backlog.

For these reasons and more, we strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule. We urge you to leave the Rule intact so that it can continue to provide its time-tested benefits to our state and nation. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-protect-college-sports-act/,Padilla Statement on Protect College Sports Act,2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), issued the following statement after voting to pass the Protect College Sports Act of 2026:

“College sports have long been an enriching part of American life, but in recent years, the pressures of big money have destabilized college athletics and overshadowed the primary mission of higher education.

“College athletes are students first. I am proud to have secured critical provisions to better support their success both in and out of the classroom by strengthening oversight of health and safety standards, holding colleges and universities accountable for ensuring students achieve academic success, and allowing college athletic programs the flexibility to make conference decisions that best serve their students.

“This bill also preserves opportunities for women’s sports and Olympic sports by protecting roster spots and requiring continued investment in the pipeline of American Olympic talent.

“These reforms will help keep the focus where it belongs: on the students and the education that college sports are meant to serve.”

The Protect College Sports Act of 2026 includes several provisions Padilla authored, including:

Academic Performance Rating (APR)

Padilla secured a change that would condition a school’s ability to use the retention fund to being in good standing with the NCAA’s academic performance and graduation standards for student athletes.

Health and Safety Standards

Padilla secured a change that strengthens and expands the work of the Commission on the Future of College Athletics to:

Ensure the adequacy of and compliance with health and safety standards required in the bill (and consider options to further strengthen these standards and oversight, including through the creation of a third-party oversight organization),

Evaluate the efficacy of the independence structure of health and safety officers, and

Review violations, athlete injuries, or deaths.

Conference Provision

Padilla secured changes to reduce and eventually end the independence requirement for schools moving between the Power Four conferences so that certain schools are not unfairly locked into their conferences in perpetuity.

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-momentum-already-building-for-sens-tim-scott-adam-schiff-bill-to-establish-a-federal-film-tax-credit-with-8-new-bipartisan-backers-in-senate/,"NEWS: Momentum Already Building for Sens. Tim Scott, Adam Schiff Bill to Establish a Federal Film Tax Credit with 8 New Bipartisan Backers in Senate",2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Bipartisan, bicameral backing from Senators in film production states – Ohio, Georgia, Texas, Virginia, New Jersey, and Montana – follows call for action by President Trump, decades-long push by lawmakers to enact federal credit

Washington, D.C. — Bipartisan momentum for U.S. Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Adam Schiff’s (D-Calif.) bipartisan, bicameral legislation to create a federal film tax incentive is already building in the Senate with the addition of 8 new bipartisan Senate backers from across the country.

Scott and Schiff are announcing today that their Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act will be cosponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas.), Steve Daines (R-Mont.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Tim Sheehy (R-Montana), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.).

This legislation, introduced last week in both the Senate and the U.S. House of Representatives, follows years of advocacy to create a nationwide tax credit, a push recently echoed by President Donald Trump.

“For years, I’ve been championing a federal film tax credit to stop the exodus of TV and film production leaving the United States for countries offering higher incentives. Now, we have the best opportunity in decades to get it done. The direct and indirect jobs created by this creative and talented workforce are enormously important, and we want to make sure they stay in this country. With the support of the White House, our bill will create an overdue federal program to bring the movie magic back to America while creating thousands of jobs and spurring local economic growth across the nation. This legislation has bipartisan, bicameral support, and it’s time we get this passed,”said Senator Schiff.

“Having worked in a movie theater growing up, I saw early on how films can move and inspire generations of Americans. Films like ‘The Notebook’ bring us to tears, and films like ‘Forrest Gump’ inspire us to see the world differently. That is the power of film, and South Carolina is blessed to serve as the backdrop for both of these iconic American stories,” said Senator Scott. “We cannot stand by as more and more American film production moves overseas, taking jobs, investment, and an important source of American cultural influence with it. This legislation will create jobs in communities across America, support local economies, and help ensure that the next generation of iconic American films is made right here in America.”

“Montana is home to some of the most stunning natural landscapes in the country, made famous in noteworthy movies and shows like Yellowstone and A River Runs Through It. Movies about Montana should always be based in Montana – not on a fake movie set overseas. I’m proud to work with Senator Scott on this bill to level the playing field for American movie producers and keep our film industry thriving,” said Sen. Daines.

“Georgia’s vibrant film industry is swiftly emerging as one of the most lucrative in the nation, and I’m proud to represent the thousands who come to our state and make a career creating world-renowned productions,” said Senator Reverend Raphael Warnock. “Everyone who dedicates their talent and expertise to bringing magic to the silver screen deserves economic opportunities that are competitive with the global market. Our bipartisan bill will help ensure the film industry continues to thrive both here in Georgia and across the country.”

“California built the world’s entertainment industry, but we continue to see production being pulled overseas by other countries’ tax policies,” said Senator Padilla. “Our bill would create a new tax incentive to keep our entertainment industry in the United States. I’m proud to partner with Senator Schiff on this critical issue as we continue advocating for our country’s beloved blockbusters and binge-worthy TV shows for the sake of California’s economy, entertainment industry employees, and audiences everywhere.”

“Film and television production supports good-paying jobs and small businesses across Virginia and across the country. This bill will help keep more productions — and the jobs they create — here at home, while giving Virginia’s talented artists and production workers more opportunities to succeed. I’m proud to support this effort,” said Senator Warner.

“President Trump is right, the days of executives offshoring good-paying jobs to Mexico are over. It’s time to Make Hollywood Great Again,” said Sen. Moreno. “When we keep production, talent, and creativity here in the United States, we don’t just protect good-paying jobs; we safeguard the industry that has defined global popular culture for generations. Ohio has been a staple in the film industry for nearly 130 years, producing iconic movies, pumping millions into our economy, and it’s time to bring those jobs back home for good.”

“As the film and entertainment industry continues to thrive in New Jersey, good jobs and economic growth for local communities thrives too. With new federal incentives, this legislation can take us even further and support states like New Jersey who are home to a growing production workforce and benefiting from it,” said Senator Kim.

TheMotion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would:

Spur American jobs and economic development by providing a 20% federal, labor-based tax credit to U.S. film and television productions with minimum spend of $1 million and where at least 75% of the principal photography days occur within the U.S;

Offer 5% bonus credit allowances, increasing the base credit up to a maximum of 30%, for productions in rural opportunity zones and areas impacted by disasters, independent productions, multi-state producers in 10+ states, and producers who show a measurable onshoring of productions;

Make the credit available to traditional post-production and visual effects activities when at least 75% of the respective post-production and visual effects production takes place in the U.S; and

Support the investments of states currently offering incentives by allowing the federal incentive to supplement state credits.

In the U.S. House of Representatives, this legislation is led by Representatives Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas-1), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif- 38), Brian Jack (R-Ga-3), and Laura Friedman (D-Calif-30). House co-sponsors include Mike Carey (R-Ohio-15), Judy Chu (D-Calif-28), David Kustoff (R-Tenn-08), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.-03), Vince Fong (R-Calif-20), and Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.-5).

This bill is endorsed by: American Federation of Musicians, American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), CreativeFuture, Coalition for American Production (CAP), Directors Guild of America (DGA), FilmUSA, Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Motion Picture Association (MPA), Producers Guild of America (PGA), Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Teamsters, Television Academy, U.S. Film and Television Production Coalition, Writers Guild of America East (WGAE), Writers Guild of America West (WGAW)

Bill one pager is here.

The full text of the legislation is available here.

The section-by-section of the legislation is available here.

Background: For years, Schiff has highlighted the need to increase film production in America and has continued to build bipartisan support in Congress for his federal film incentive proposal, which would promote American jobs and spur local economic growth by creating additional support for film and television production in the U.S., allowing us to compete with foreign incentives.

During his time in the California State Senate, Schiff helped lead efforts to increase film production in California and protect local jobs.

Schiff spearheaded efforts in Congress to extend California’s film tax credit, including in 2014 when he led 28 members of the California Democratic delegation in urging the leaders of the California State Senate and Assembly to reauthorize and enhance the tax credit. In 2024, Schiff sent a letter to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics requesting detailed data on the impact of foreign production incentives on the domestic industry.

In March 2026, Senator Adam Schiff hosted a spotlight hearing in Burbank California entitled, “Lights, Camera, Competition: Promoting American Film Production” to highlight the importance of bolstering American film production, and tackling the challenges facing the industry from generous tax incentives provided by other countries.

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-huffman-california-colleagues-condemn-trump-administration-efforts-to-repeal-roadless-rule/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla, Huffman, California Colleagues Condemn Trump Administration Efforts to Repeal Roadless Rule",2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Natural Resources, led 38 members of the California congressional delegation in opposing the Trump Administration’s rescission of the Roadless Rule, a landmark U.S. Forest Service conservation policy adopted in 2001 that protects nearly 60 million acres of undeveloped National Forest System lands. It prohibits new road construction, reconstruction, and commercial timber harvesting to preserve these areas’ ecological and recreational value. The Trump Administration issued its final proposed rule to advance the rescission of the Roadless Rule, allowing only a 47-day public comment period.

In their letter to Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins, the lawmakers underscored the importance of the Roadless Rule to California’s preservation of public lands and natural resources.

“Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways,” wrote the lawmakers. “Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually.”

The lawmakers warned of the possible impacts on California’s water and natural resources if the Roadless Rule is fully repealed, especially with the growing threat of devastating wildfires in California.

“Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely,” continued the lawmakers. “Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.”

The lawmakers further emphasized the Roadless Rule’s importance to the outdoor economy by protecting access to trails, promoting outdoor recreation, and supporting small businesses and local economies that rely on public lands. The lawmakers highlighted that Americans across the country have supported the Roadless Rule since its implementation, and that efforts to overturn the rule undoes previous bipartisan support. Since the announcement of the repeal, the rule received a significant amount of public support within the Administration’s brief public comment period.

“The proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents,”the lawmakers concluded. “At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments—more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the rule.”

Last week, Schiff and Padilla led a bipartisan group of 153 lawmakers in urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park known as Hazel Green Ranch.

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

Dear Secretary Rollins:

We write to oppose the proposed rescission of the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule (“Roadless Rule”) that prohibits new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in inventoried roadless areas (“roadless areas”). Eliminating the Roadless Rule will harm California’s already overburdened water sources, will counterintuitively decrease communities’ fire resilience, and will have negative economic impacts throughout our state.

For 25 years, the Roadless Rule has protected nearly 60 million acres across the United States from new road construction and commercial timber harvesting in some of our nation’s most intact and environmentally significant areas. In California, the U.S. Forest Service manages 20 million acres of national forests, including over 4.4 million acres of roadless areas. California’s national forests act as the state’s natural water infrastructure, supplying roughly 65% of California’s total water supply, despite making up only 20% of the state’s land area. Unpaved and poorly maintained forest roads are notoriously the largest source of human-made sediment in public waterways. Protected roadless areas actively safeguard California’s water quality by preventing the severe erosion and landslides that choke pristine rivers with silt and other pollution that inevitably follows road construction. Roadless areas directly anchor the vulnerable origin points of the Sacramento, San Joaquin, American, Kern, Smith, and Eel Rivers, and these protected areas capture, clean, and regulate more than 11 trillion gallons of water annually. The raw, wholesale market value of the water produced by California’s national forests is estimated at roughly $3.2 billion annually, and serves as the underlying foundation for our multi-billion dollar agricultural, municipal, and energy industries.

Despite what opponents of the Roadless Rule argue, it does not ban firefighting or fuel reduction activities in our national forests. Agencies retain full authority to remove trees, clear brush, and construct temporary emergency access roads to protect public safety. Local managers frequently conduct thinning, remove small-diameter trees and underbrush, and execute prescribed burns within roadless areas—particularly along existing boundaries where ignitions are most likely.

Most alarming is that when new areas are opened up to roads, wildfires become much more likely. Recent research demonstrates that wildfires are four times more likely to start near roads than in roadless areas. Because California’s national forests—such as the Los Padres and Angeles National Forests—directly border massive urban populations, human-caused ignitions are the state’s primary wildfire threat to communities. By limiting road construction, the Rule isolates rugged terrain from vehicles, campfires, and equipment sparks. Moreover, when fires do burn through roadless areas, they often burn at lower, more natural intensities which keeps the underlying soil healthy and minimizes post-burn soil erosion impacts. The State of California currently spends billions of dollars each year toward wildfire mitigation and suppression, so removing this rule will result in even more fires and will unnecessarily cost California taxpayers more to support the State’s wildfire response efforts.

Roadless areas are also essential to maintaining and supporting our state’s outdoor recreation economy that draws people from around the world. California’s national forests host 33 million visitors per year, shifting hundreds of millions of dollars from urban centers directly into rural gateway communities through hotel taxes and local sales taxes. This tax revenue directly funds essential rural municipal services that many counties in California otherwise could not afford. The Roadless Rule also protects thousands of miles of hiking and mountain biking trails and hundreds of miles of whitewater paddling runs across the country, which allow outfitters and other small businesses to thrive. The strength of our outdoor economy is intrinsically tied to these roadless areas remaining protected from industrial development.

Finally, as you will undoubtedly find during this comment period, the proposed repeal of the Roadless Rule is deeply unpopular among our constituents. At the time of its adoption, the Rule received over 600 public hearings and over 1.6 million comments more comments than any other rule in the nation’s history. Despite the significant amount of public consultation that went into the 2001 Roadless Rule, this Administration only gave our constituents 21 days to comment on the initial announcement for the Roadless Rule repeal—during which more than 600,000 comments were submitted and 99% of which supported retaining the Rule. Now, the Administration is only allowing a 47-day comment period on the draft Environmental Impact Statement. Beyond all that, any new roads that are built would leave taxpayers on the hook for road maintenance, all while the U.S. Forest Service already has a $7-8 billion road maintenance backlog.

For these reasons and more, we strongly oppose the rescission of the Roadless Rule. We urge you to leave the Rule intact so that it can continue to provide its time-tested benefits to our state and nation. Thank you for your consideration.

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-schiff-hails-bipartisan-cooperation-on-new-bill-to-create-federal-film-tax-incentive-emphasizes-need-for-congress-to-take-action-to-regulate-ai-on-cnns-the-story-is-with-elex-michaels/,"WATCH: Schiff Hails Bipartisan Cooperation on New Bill to Create Federal Film Tax Incentive, Emphasizes Need for Congress to Take Action to Regulate AI on CNN’s The Story Is with Elex Michaelson",2026-09-28,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined CNN’s The Story Is with Elex Michaelson to discuss the introduction of his new bill with Senator Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, to create the nation’s first federal film tax incentive to help keep film and television production in the United States.

The Senator highlighted support from Congressional Republicans and President Trump as evidence of a pathway to get the bill signed into law by the end of this year.

He also discussed the importance of Congress taking action to regulate artificial intelligence and the need for the United States to come to an agreement with China on AI.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On Republican support for creating a federal film tax incentive:

[…] I think a lot of the Republicans were supportive of this. I’ve been having conversations with them for the last two years, and in the House for many, many years before that. What it really took was the president issuing a statement of support. I think they were waiting for a signal from the White House that if they got on board with this, they would have the president’s backing, and he did issue that statement. It was a full-throated endorsement of this bill, and that really moved things forward. Then it was just a question of hammering out some last-minute provisions, we already had a very good draft. I’ve had that for you know the last couple of years, and we also obviously worked with our Democratic and Republican counterparts in the House so that when we introduced the bill today, it was not only bipartisan but also in both houses, and that just gives us that much stronger chance for passage.

On working with the White House, Trump administration, and stakeholders:

We’ve been working closely with the White House, and Spencer Pratt has been very helpful. John Voight has been very helpful. They’ve been, I think, very good liaisons with the White House. And my understanding is that we have sign-off of all the stakeholders on the terms of this bill. That’s what we were really working towards. We want to make sure that nobody had any poison pills, no deal breakers, and I think we’re all in alignment on this, and not just the parties and the White House, but also labor and the guilds. This is really quite a remarkable achievement to have everybody on the same page on this pretty complicated issue.

On pathway to get the bill across the finish line:

I think the finish line is in sight. We really need to strike while the iron is hot. It’s not going to happen before the election. The House is already out of session, but we’re going to come back in after the election for what’s called a lame duck session. It is my hope that we get it done then. That’s our best opportunity. We don’t want to wait until next year when this party or that might lose interest or we might lose momentum. So, it’s really important that we do our best to get it done. And it’s not difficult to see that pathway. It might get taken up on its own, or more likely, it will get added to a bill that’s already moving. Either approach is fine with me, just so long as we get it done.

On the need for Congress to take action on artificial intelligence:

There’s bipartisan concern, frankly, with how AI is developing-the speed, the sophistication, the lack of control over AI, even by the companies that are producing it and on the leading edge. When you see, as OpenAI did, its own AI chatbot agents talking to themselves, posting messages to themselves, saying, “we’re beholden to no corporation, no government, we are not subservient, we are, you know, on a par with our clients.” Then it’s really cause for alarm. I think people here are alarmed, but I also feel, Elex, in terms of seeing a finish line here, we have a terrible record in the Congress of regulating technology, even when there’s palpable harm, as we have seen with social media and what it’s done to our kids, we cannot afford to have that same dysfunctional approach when it comes to AI because it’s just too dangerous.

###",1,2026-09-29T11:07:12Z,2026-09-29T11:08:49Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-durbin-introduce-bill-to-prevent-unlawful-immigration-arrests-and-detentions/,"Padilla, Durbin Introduce Bill to Prevent Unlawful Immigration Arrests and Detentions",2026-09-25,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced new legislation to clarify existing requirements for immigration arrests and codify statutory procedures to prevent unlawful arrests and detentions.

Immigration enforcement officers under this Administration have arbitrarily arrested U.S. citizens and immigrants with lawful status, including George Retes, Javier Ramirez, Andrea Velez, Wilmer Chavarria, and Dayanne Figueroa.

“Republicans continued to write blank checks to ICE and CBP while serious concerns remain about officer and agent training, accountability, and the treatment of U.S. citizens,” said Senator Padilla. “Every person in America has civil rights — in spite of this Administration’s total disregard for the Constitution. This bill would establish stronger accountability and oversight, restore due process, and ensure federal immigration enforcement respects the rights and safety of Americans and noncitizens alike.”

“The disturbing reality today is that many American citizens and immigrants with lawful status have been caught in the Trump Administration’s indiscriminate and violent immigration enforcement dragnet across the country,” said Senator Durbin. “As Justice Sotomayor stated in her dissent in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, referring to immigration agents: ‘United States citizens are … being seized, taken from their jobs, and prevented from working to support themselves and their families.’ This must stop. The Immigration Warrant Reform Act will help prevent these due process violations while ensuring noncitizens who present a threat to public safety are not released. It is commonsense, and I encourage my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support it.”

In a concurrence in Noem v. Vasquez Perdomo, Justice Kavanaugh relied on these gaps in immigration laws to find that immigration officers and agents may makestops based solely on apparent race and ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent,and presence at certain worksites, even if U.S. citizens get caught in the administration’s dragnet. The Trump Administration has gone beyond “stops” to arrest and even brutally attack U.S. citizens and immigrants without probable cause or a warrant for the arrest in indiscriminate enforcement actions. The Trump Administration has further interpreted immigrationlaws to require immigration judges to deny bond to any noncitizen who entered the United States withoutinspection, regardless of how long they have been in the country, and severely limit theopportunities for an immigration judge to release noncitizens on bond.

Specifically, this legislation would bring immigration enforcement procedures in line with the standards that all law enforcement have to follow:

Codifying specific criteria for warrantless civil immigration arrests in the interior of the United States:

To limit the circumstances for warrantless arrest to those where a noncitizen presents an imminent danger to the community requiring immediate arrest, and is likely to escape before a warrant can be obtained; and

To require a bond hearing within 24 hours of any warrantless arrest to determine whether the conditions above were met, and release the individual if they do not present a danger to the community;

Codifying in statute criteria for obtaining an administrative warrant to arrest a noncitizen for civil immigration enforcement purposes, including by requiring immigration officers to:

Document probable cause of an individual’s inadmissibility and removability under the Immigration and Nationality Act; and

Obtain approval for an administrative warrant from a supervisory immigration officer;

Codifying in statute the requirement for periodic hearings in front of an immigration judge or federal judge for detained noncitizens; and

Clarifying that mandatory detention provisions applicable at the border should not apply to immigrants in the interior of the United States.

These changes would not allow for release of noncitizens who present a threat to public safety.

In addition to Padilla and Durbin, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), and Patty Murray (D-Wash.).

Senator Padilla has been a leading voice in opposition to President Trump’s cruel and indiscriminate mass deportation agenda. Last month, Padilla demanded the Trump Administration abandon its reckless plan to equip ICE officers with gloves that deliver painful electric shocks. Last year, Padilla led 45 Congressional Democrats in urging DHS offices launch an investigation into the Department’s stops, arrests, detentions, and deportations of U.S. citizens.

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-26T09:43:57Z,2026-09-26T09:44:55Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-joins-van-hollen-senate-democrats-to-push-trump-to-negotiate-ai-guardrails-with-xi/,"Padilla Joins Van Hollen, Senate Democrats to Push Trump to Negotiate AI Guardrails with Xi",2026-09-25,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Senators’ letter calls for global cooperation on AI development to preserve public safety and human control

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and 15 of his colleagues in calling on President Trump to negotiate a formal agreement between the U.S. and China on guardrails and global standards for the development, testing, and use of frontier Artificial Intelligence (AI) models with Chinese President Xi Jinping.

In a letter to Trump, the Senators also urged President Trump to consider enacting a mutual pause in frontier AI development to prevent potential cyberattacks, the development of biological weapons, and other dangerous activities that could threaten humanity.

“We write concerning public reporting that your administration plans to have discussions about artificial intelligence with China during the upcoming summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping currently planned for September 24, 2026. We support this dialogue and encourage you to have those discussions at the highest level,” the Senators wrote. “As extraordinary as the promise of some of AI’s advanced capabilities are, safety incidents make clear that both national and international infrastructure is threatened by unregulated testing and release of AI models. It is incumbent upon both governments to discuss necessary guardrails and global standards for the development, testing, and use of AI in order to mitigate the risks of unfettered advancement. As you prepare for the upcoming summit, we urge you to engage with President Xi directly to discuss efforts to avoid the potential harms of this technology for the safety and benefit of the world. America leads in AI innovation, and we must lead the world in AI safety and international cooperation, including by working with China to develop a formal agreement that would slow down, and potentially enact a mutual pause in, frontier AI development to prevent cyberattacks, the development of biological weapons, and other dangerous activities that threaten the lives of the American people and humanity writ large.”

“The conversations should include specific focus on the standards needed for development and testing processes, oversight and monitoring of models, enforcing human control over the use of autonomous systems, and technological verification of any agreed upon terms to ensure that an agreement is being enforced,” continued the Senators. “Protecting American safety and leadership in AI will require international cooperation with many countries, but it must start with serious engagement by your administration and China at this summit.”

“AI technology is too powerful, and its risks too many, for the U.S. and China to forgo discussions on parameters around its development and use,” the Senators concluded. “What our two countries develop as guardrails will serve as a standard for how the technology is used worldwide. Given how quickly AI technology is developing and how transformative it may be, we cannot delay our pursuit of diplomatic efforts to mitigate its risks. Those efforts must start with direct engagement with China to ensure the safety and well-being of all people as AI innovation continues.”

In addition to Padilla and Van Hollen, the letter was signed by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.).

Full text of the letter is available here and below.

President Trump:

We write concerning public reporting that your administration plans to have discussions about artificial intelligence with China during the upcoming summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping currently planned for September 24, 2026. We support this dialogue and encourage you to have those discussions at the highest level. As extraordinary as the promise of some of AI’s advanced capabilities are, safety incidents make clear that both national and international infrastructure is threatened by unregulated testing and release of AI models. It is incumbent upon both governments to discuss necessary guardrails and global standards for the development, testing, and use of AI in order to mitigate the risks of unfettered advancement. As you prepare for the upcoming summit, we urge you to engage with President Xi directly to discuss efforts to avoid the potential harms of this technology for the safety and benefit of the world. America leads in AI innovation, and we must lead the world in AI safety and international cooperation, including by working with China to develop a formal agreement that would slow down, and potentially enact a mutual pause in, frontier AI development to prevent cyberattacks, the development of biological weapons, and other dangerous activities that threaten the lives of the American people and humanity writ large.

The development, release, and proper and improper use of AI present several risks unique to this technology. Testing AI models without constant monitoring and safe sandboxing has resulted in security breaks. Current publicly available models are concerningly capable of detecting and exploiting cybersecurity vulnerabilities. Companies developing AI have even more powerful models internally. An international race between the U.S. and China to advance these capabilities without safety guardrails, as is currently unfolding, poses unnecessary and dangerous risks to the American people. CIA Director John Ratcliffe recently said that it would “not be misplaced” to refer to the capabilities of AI as “akin to digital nuclear weapons.” At the same time, despite serious warnings from those in your administration and bipartisan Congressional action, your administration has loosened export controls of semiconductors to China and refused to close relevant loopholes on the remaining regulations, enabling China to access the U.S. chips it needs to accelerate its own AI development. Both countries are currently integrating AI tools into military and defense applications, including in autonomous and unmanned systems, which Congress and AI developers alike have warned against without significant safeguards. AI has many applications and many of them are tools we will find beneficial, but its significant dangers and potential use in lethal applications without meaningful human control must be addressed, in part, through international cooperation.

In addition, efforts to engage with China should not stop the U.S. from constructing and implementing guardrails domestically, and Congress and U.S. companies should not wait to do so. In fact, both the U.S. and the Chinese government have already put some guardrails in place, but these provisions are not sufficient on their own. Your administration has implemented a voluntary testing scheme before the public release of advanced AI models. China reportedly has put in place several testing and capability restrictions, including registration and safety requirements for certain applications, although consistent implementation remains uncertain. The mutual recognition between the two countries that AI poses significant risks both during development and after release should be the foundation of discussions centered on reaching concrete terms for an international safety agreement. The conversations should include specific focus on the standards needed for development and testing processes, oversight and monitoring of models, enforcing human control over the use of autonomous systems, and technological verification of any agreed upon terms to ensure that an agreement is being enforced. Protecting American safety and leadership in AI will require international cooperation with many countries, but it must start with serious engagement by your administration and China at this summit.

While advanced AI may be new, engagement between two superpowers over a technology that poses an existential threat is not. The U.S. and Soviet Union, over decades, negotiated and implemented multiple nuclear arms control agreements with each other, despite many deep-seated ideological differences during the Cold War. At the core of those agreements were verification mechanisms to ensure both countries were complying. Like those agreements that have helped keep the world safe from mutually assured destruction, identifying and coming to terms with the technical specifications for AI safety will require some of the smartest minds in the world committed to diplomacy. We encourage you to embrace these challenges because the stakes are existential, and our response must match the moment.

The experts building frontier AI models have also been raising concerns for some time that the capabilities of AI models may soon accelerate beyond our ability to understand or control them. In July, over 1,300 employees of frontier AI companies, who are uniquely aware of AI’s potential and risks, called on the U.S. government to engage in an international effort to create the tools necessary to pace the frontier of AI development, particularly as increased automation of AI research may lead to even faster advancement. We should take these warnings seriously. Former Treasury Secretaries Henry Paulson and Robert Rubin recently published an op-ed calling for you and President Xi to work on an “ACT” — AI Cooperation Treaty.” We may not get another moment to take the actions necessary to protect our citizens and people around the world.

AI technology is too powerful, and its risks too many, for the U.S. and China to forgo discussions on parameters around its development and use. What our two countries develop as guardrails will serve as a standard for how the technology is used worldwide. Given how quickly AI technology is developing and how transformative it may be, we cannot delay our pursuit of diplomatic efforts to mitigate its risks. Those efforts must start with direct engagement with China to ensure the safety and well-being of all people as AI innovation continues.

###",1,2026-09-26T09:43:57Z,2026-09-26T09:44:55Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-trump-administrations-last-minute-election-security-plan/,Padilla Statement on Trump Administration’s Last Minute Election Security Plan,2026-09-25,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Overdue plan comes after Trump Administration defunded election security efforts, fired staff

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections, released the following statement after the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) released its 2026 Election Infrastructure Security Plan, ahead of the 2026 midterm elections:

“Donald Trump isn’t serious about election security. His Administration’s newly released election security plan is the product of an election denier in chief who has spent his time in office installing like-minded conspiracy theorists in leadership positions across the federal government.

“After the President rehashed his tired conspiracy theories during his White House address in July, Secretary Mullin promised an election security plan within 30 days, along with DHS assistance for state and local election officials. The deadline came and went, voting is underway for the midterm elections, and the Trump Administration has gutted DHS’s election cybersecurity work. Election security staff has been fired and funding for state and local election officials has been cut, allowing mis- and disinformation to run rampant while denying election officials the tools to counter it. Meanwhile, the Administration is even withholding counterterrorism and disaster funds unless states go along with voter purging and voter suppression efforts.

“While CISA claims to be changing course and offering to help state and local governments with election security, this report does not do that. The Administration must restore the Election Infrastructure ISAC funding as Congress has directed – and then support legislation like my State and Local Election Security Act of 2026 to provide state and local election officials with the resources they need to modernize voting equipment and defend against any potential interference and cyberattacks.”

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections and California’s former Secretary of State, Padilla has been a vocal leader in protecting our elections. Earlier this month, Padilla and Congressman Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.-25), Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, demanded the Trump Administration immediately restore funding to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), which helps state and local election officials protect federal elections from cybersecurity threats and election mis- and disinformation campaigns.

###",1,2026-09-26T09:43:57Z,2026-09-26T09:44:55Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/watch-padilla-breaks-down-new-whistleblower-allegations-of-dhs-lawbreaking-ahead-of-midterms/,WATCH: Padilla Breaks Down New Whistleblower Allegations of DHS Lawbreaking Ahead of Midterms,2026-09-25,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WATCH: Padilla uncovers Trump’s voter intimidation push through DHS whistleblower disclosure

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with jurisdiction over federal elections and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, released a video sounding the alarm over Trump’s ongoing attacks on American elections, including a recent disclosure by a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower that alleges that DHS is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) Division officers to violate state laws as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at substantiating President Trump’s baseless claims of widespread voter fraud.

With just weeks to go until the November election, Senator Padilla breaks down the whistleblower’s claims and how the federal government’s alleged interference will impact eligible voters. Additionally, Senator Padilla calls for every American to resist these voter suppression tactics by making a plan and committing to vote this November.

Following receipt of the bombshell whistleblower disclosure, Padilla and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow immediately halt the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and provide responses to Congress on its activities, and protect naturalized citizens who were erroneously flagged as “unlawful voters.” On Monday, Padilla and Senator Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) sent a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta highlighting the concerning activities detailed by the DHS whistleblower disclosure and requested that Bonta investigate whether those actions violated California law. Last week, Padilla and Schumer led 16 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to demand the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) immediately open an independent investigation into the wrongdoings detailed in the whistleblower’s disclosure. The whistleblower’s disclosure is also being cited in ongoing litigation, Virginia’s Attorney General is examining potential violations of Virginia state law, and Arizona’s Attorney General and Secretary of State are calling on Arizona’s U.S. Attorney to look into this alleged misuse of data by the federal government.

Excerpts from the video are below:

PADILLA REACTION TO WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURE

And the only reason we know about these allegations is because a federal employee had the courage to come forward. Now, that takes guts. My office is protecting this whistleblower’s identity from any potential retribution. But making their disclosure public isn’t enough. Because there are still major questions out there. How did DHS obtain this voter information? Who directed this initiative? And what exactly did they access? How was it used? And were American citizens caught up in it?

That’s why Senator Adam Schiff and I have shared this disclosure with Rob Bonta, California’s Attorney General, because he may want to look into this and determine whether DHS personnel violated California law. And the DHS Inspector General should look into it to look for any violations of federal law. But this isn’t the only election fight happening right now.

[…]

Now these are separate matters. But together, they raise serious questions about the Trump Administration’s attempts to interfere in our elections. And all of this is happening as ballots go out to voters. So if you’re thinking, What the hell is going on? That’s a fair question. And after spending six years running California’s elections as Secretary of State, and now serving as ranking member of the Senate committee with jurisdiction over federal elections… this happens to be something I know a little bit about. So here’s what we know.

PADILLA ON WHAT COMES NEXT AFTER WHISTLEBLOWER DISCLOSURE

Recently my office received a protected disclosure from an anonymous federal whistleblower. According to that disclosure, hundreds of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services employees were reassigned from their duties to something called the “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” Its stated goal was identifying people who may have been unlawfully registered to vote. And to be clear: Regardless of what you hear from certain individuals, noncitizen voting in federal elections is both already illegal and extremely rare. But according to the whistleblower, these officers were instructed to access state voter websites to try to manufacture evidence of noncitizen voting. Some sites required users to attest that they were the voter or authorized to act for that voter.

These federal employees were neither. So, they were told to lie. And when employees reportedly questioned whether that was legal, they were basically told not to worry about it, and promised that they wouldn’t be held personally liable. Not held personally liable? If what they’re doing is legal, then federal employees shouldn’t have to question whether their assignments will expose them to liability. So I’m working to determine who gave those instructions.

PADILLA EXAMINES IMPACT OF TRUMP’S INTERFERENCE IN ELECTIONS

According to the disclosure, the government’s own materials acknowledged these investigations could include “a lot of U.S. citizens.” And the data was so unreliable it includes “supplemental magic.” And employees were reportedly expected to process— forty people a day. That’s five per hour – or about twelve minutes per person. Twelve minutes to review complex immigration information, citizenship information, voter information and potentially create a federal law-enforcement record. Based on magic data? That’s nowhere even close to enough time to do an actual thorough, responsible, accurate records check. After a twelve-minute review, they were instructed to create law enforcement records based on this questionable data. And an inaccurate federal record can have very real, long-term consequences. The worst part is that people won’t even know if these records were created for them until it is too late. So we need to know: How many American citizens were wrongly flagged? How many false records were created?

And what is going to protect Americans from being secretly flagged as a “unlawful voter” by DHS?

PADILLA’S PERSONAL FIGHT FOR FREE ELECTIONS

When I came home to California after earning my engineering degree from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, it was during our state’s fight over Proposition 187 which targeted and scapegoated families like mine. My parents immigrated from Mexico. My dad worked for forty years as a short-order cook. And for those same forty years, my mom cleaned houses. Now, watching immigrants who became citizens like my parents and so many others in my hometown community of Pacoima, when they become a political punching bag, that helped propel me into public service. A few years later, after serving on the Los Angeles City Council and then in the State Senate, I became California’s chief elections officer. And here’s something you learn when you actually run elections: election security and voter access are not mutually exclusive. Yes, you need accurate voter rolls, secure systems, clear rules, and, in a democracy, you need the opportunity for every eligible voter to cast a ballot. So when someone invokes “election integrity,” I take it seriously.

PADILLA’S EFFORTS TO PROTECT ELECTIONS

Now you may be thinking: Okay, Senator. What are you actually doing about this?

That’s a fair question. Because I know how this sounds. Another instance of the Trump Administration being out of control. Another letter. More outrage. More frustration with Washington. I understand it. So here’s the reality. We’re in a tough position with an Administration that has no regard for the law, and which Republicans refuse to hold accountable. Hopefully that all changes after this November’s midterm elections. But I’m not sitting on the sidelines and waiting until then — I’m already getting to work. I will protect this whistleblower. This evidence is already being cited in court. I am demanding documents, I am asking the tough questions, I will conduct oversight, and I will make sure these abuses do not go unnoticed. Senator Schumer and I have demanded an independent investigation into these allegations. I want to know: who authorized this? What information was accessed? Why were U.S. citizens wrongly flagged? Were laws broken? And what happened to the records? What recourse do U.S. citizens and others flagged have to correct these records? I’m going to keep asking until we get answers. The whistleblower did their part. I’m doing everything within my authority to do mine. And every American gets to decide for themselves what they think about what their government is doing. Pay attention. Make your own judgment. And make your voice heard. Because presidents don’t get the final word. Senators don’t get the final word. Voters do.",1,2026-09-26T09:43:57Z,2026-09-26T09:44:55Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-deluzio-launch-effort-to-prohibit-firearms-at-polling-places-protect-voters-and-election-workers/,"Padilla, Deluzio Launch Effort to Prohibit Firearms at Polling Places, Protect Voters and Election Workers",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"In early 2026, 32 percent of local election workers experienced threats or harassment, 52 percent concerned for staff safety

WASHINGTON, D.C. — With midterm elections just around the corner and threats to our elections at an all-time high from Donald Trump, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee and California’s former Secretary of State, and Representative Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.-17) introduced bicameral legislation to protect voters and election workers from intimidation and threats of violence at polling places.

The Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act would help further ensure that every voter and election worker has the right to cast their ballot and conduct their official duties free from fear and intimidation. It would update existing anti-intimidation provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to limit the presence of visible firearms at locations where voters cast their ballot or election workers perform their official duties, empowering poll workers and election officials to continue safely administering elections.

“No voter should have to walk past a gauntlet of firearms to exercise their right to vote, and no election worker should have to risk armed threats just to do their job,” said Senator Padilla. “Intimidation and violence have no place at our polls. These threats disenfranchise voters, undermine the fairness of our elections, and prevent nonpartisan election workers from doing their jobs. Our bill will keep visible firearms and other forms of violence away from polling places, ensuring every eligible voter can exercise their fundamental right safely, freely, and without intimidation.”

“The right to vote is foundational to America’s democracy, and part of protecting that right is keeping official ballot drop sites and polling places free from intimidation,” said Congressman Deluzio. “With the rising risk of political violence and ongoing threats to our democratic system, we need to strengthen the sanctity of our elections. The Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act of 2026 would help protect the rights of America’s voters and election workers so that they can vote and perform their official duties free from violent threats and intimidation. I’m proud to reintroduce this bill today alongside Senator Alex Padilla and Representative Ruiz.”

The right to vote is fundamental to American democracy, but rising threats of political violence against voters and election workers threaten election security. As of April 2026, 32 percent of local election workers have reported experience threats, harassment, or abuse. Armed groups such as the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers who were involved in the January 6, 2021 assault on the U.S. Capitol have threatened to patrol polling places in recent elections. While intimidation is illegal under existing law, this new legislation is important to provide a clearer standard and further ensure safe polling locations.

In addition to Padilla, the bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D- Md.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.).

In addition to Deluzio, the bill is cosponsored by Congressman Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25).

Specifically, the Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act would:

Amend Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act to establish a rebuttable presumption that a person carrying a visible firearm while engaging in election-related activities is engaging in voter intimidation;

Provide civil remedies for individuals who experience this type of intimidation, including an emergency injunction that would allow the voter or election official to carry out their duties in peace; and

Recognize an exception for law enforcement officers acting within their official duties.

The Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act is endorsed by organizations including the Brennan Center, Defend the Vote Action Fund, and the Fair Elections Center.

“Congress must pass the Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act. We are grateful to Representative Deluzio, Senator Padilla, and other members of Congress for their work to keep our elections safe for everyone involved in the process. This legislation would bolster federal protections that empower voters, election officials, and election workers to seek legal recourse if they are intimidated. The bill would help protect our democracy by keeping intimidation and violence out of voting,” said Sean Morales-Doyle, Senior Director of the voting rights program, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law.

“Our ability to hold elected leaders accountable to the people depends on ensuring every voter can access the ballot free from intimidation or harassment, and that election workers can run those elections without interference. Defend The Vote Action Fund applauds Rep. Deluzio and Sen. Padilla for their leadership on this critical bill that protects voters’ rights to cast their ballots free from interference, while ensuring that poll workers and election officials can safely oversee and administer our elections,” said Defend the Vote Action Fund Executive Director Brian Lemek.

“To fully realize our civil rights, we need stronger protections against intimidation to make sure that election officials can do their jobs without fear, and that no American is stopped from exercising their right to vote. The Freedom from Intimidation in Elections Act is one way we can defend our voting rights in the face of those who want to take power away from the people,” said Fair Elections Center’s President and CEO, Rebekah Caruthers.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee and California’s former Secretary of State and chief election officer, Senator Padilla has fought relentlessly to protect our elections and strengthen voting rights.

Last week, Padilla led the Congressional response to the bombshell whistleblower report that DHS agents violated state laws as part of the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and called for an immediate investigation into the agency’s misconduct. He also urged California’s Attorney General to investigate the effects these actions could have on Californians.

Also last week, Padilla convened some of the country’s top labor leaders to discuss how to strengthen our democracy and mobilize against election interference.

Last month, he led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop its illegal voter roll purges before election day.

Padilla also joined Schumer in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide and serves as part of the Senate Democrats’ Election Protection Task Force.

In June, Padilla joined his colleagues in introducing the Protect Our Polls Act to protect the integrity of American elections from federal interference by armed military or federal law enforcement.

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-demands-answers-from-governor-abbott-on-texas-voter-registration-errors/,Padilla Demands Answers from Governor Abbott on Texas Voter Registration Errors,2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections, demanded answers from Texas Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Secretary of State Robert Howden regarding recent disclosures showing potentially hundreds of thousands of Texas voter registration applications were not properly processed, leaving newly registered voters at risk of being disenfranchised in the 2026 midterm elections.

Ranking Member Padilla stressed that Congress has an oversight responsibility over Texas’ mass failure to process voter registration, due to federal laws like the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), also known as the “Motor Voter Law”, writing: “[t]he NVRA requires states to offer voter registration at the state’s motor vehicle registration agency, and these issues raise questions about the state’s compliance with the law. Understanding both the scope of this error, how it occurred, and how the state will remedy it to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised is therefore an important subject for congressional oversight.”

In his letter to Abbott and Howden, Padilla also pointed out that the error cannot be viewed in isolation and instead placed it within a broader pattern of state actions that have made it more difficult for Texans to make their voices heard at the ballot box.

“The late timing of this announcement threatens the voting rights of more than a hundred thousand Texas voters on the heels of other intentional actions by the state that harm voting rights, such as mid-decade gerrymandered electoral maps and Senate Bill 1 that streamlined mass voter purges and restricted voting methods – including harsh limits on vote by mail. Voting rights advocates have also expressed concern that the state has failed to fund efficient election administration, greenlighted reductions in polling locations, and other additional obstacles and confusions for voters,” wrote Senator Padilla. “Texas has also proactively cooperated with the Trump Administration’s election interference agenda by handing over its voters’ personal information and utilizing the flawed SAVE program, both actions which other states have successfully resisted on a bipartisan basis. Alternatively, if the state considered other commonsense reforms like online voter registration and same day registration, that could help voters avoid these issues.”

With the midterm elections approaching, Padilla emphasized that time is of the essence and urged Abbott and Howden to respond quickly and transparently.

“Local officials and potentially impacted voters have real reason to be concerned about the state’s ability to work quickly enough to ensure that all eligible voters who registered can cast their ballot without obstacle. Further, the state and its localities have an obligation to contact affected voters to ensure they are aware of their right to cast a provisional ballot, which should be counted for the November 3rd election,” continued Senator Padilla. “Due to the size and timing of this voter registration process error, the eyes of voting rights advocates across America are on Texas and how the state will respond. I urge you to be transparent on this matter and provide real relief for eligible voters in your state.”

Padilla reinforced his concerns in an interview on MS Now earlier today, where he questioned whether politics may be at play.

“I just can’t help but remember, back in the 2020 presidential election, Donald Trump called the secretary of state of Georgia and said, ‘find me 11,000 more votes.’ Right? In this case, isn’t that about finding additional votes that didn’t go his way; it’s about risking hundreds of thousands of Texas voters from being able to cast their ballots or have their vote counted. And Texas, by the way, is where the redistricting war last year began. So, coincidence? I’m not so sure. But these are some of the questions that we need to get to the bottom of.”

The full letter is available here and below.

Padilla’s MS Now interview is here.

Dear Governor Abbott and Secretary Howden,

The United States Senate Committee on Rules and Administration has oversight jurisdiction over federal elections, including voter registration. I write with serious concern over recent disclosures that potentially hundreds of thousands of Texas voter registration applications were not properly processed by the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) and/or the Texas Secretary of State’s office, leaving newly registered and updated voters at risk of being disenfranchised in the 2026 midterm elections.

All eligible Americans have a right to register to vote, cast their vote, and have their vote counted. The U.S. Constitution gives authority for elections to the states and to Congress. Pursuant to this authority, Congress has enacted a number of federal laws that protect voter registration, including the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA), the Help America Vote Act, and the Voting Rights Act to guarantee those rights are not infringed. The NVRA requires states to offer voter registration at the state’s motor vehicle registration agency, and these issues raise questions about the state’s compliance with the law. Understanding both the scope of this error, how it occurred, and how the state will remedy it to ensure that eligible voters are not disenfranchised is therefore an important subject for congressional oversight.

While the state has failed to produce an overall number, the Texas Association of County Election Officials is expecting a backlog of potentially hundreds of thousands of applications, noting that individual “[c]ounties have received anywhere from several hundred to tens of thousands of records to process.” These numbers are particularly high for populous counties, including but not limited to 45,000 in Bexar County, more than 40,000 in Collin County, and approximately 32,000 in Travis County which brought their overall backlog to 35,000 – a total of over 100,000 in those three counties alone. If numbers are similar in other large Texas counties, the total figure will be much higher.

There are only seven business days before the state’s voter registration deadline (October 5th). Texas counties are now facing a daunting backlog of potentially hundreds of thousands of applications as they are already busy with the work of preparing for the upcoming state and federal elections, which includes an election for the United States Senate. Local officials and potentially impacted voters have real reason to be concerned about the state’s ability to work quickly enough to ensure that all eligible voters who registered can cast their ballot without obstacle. Further, the state and its localities have an obligation to contact affected voters to ensure they are aware of their right to cast a provisional ballot, which should be counted for the November 3rd election.

In addition, there are serious questions as to why this growing backlog of unprocessed voter registrations was not identified for so long. The state has also not yet provided public assurance that the issues that led to this backlog have been resolved, and whether new registrations are being processed appropriately. These issues have occurred amidst scrutiny of Texas’ statewide voter registration system, known as TEAM, which has caused a host of issues during its “once- in-a-decade upgrade” that may relate to this huge registration backlog on election eve.

The late timing of this announcement threatens the voting rights of more than a hundred thousand Texas voters on the heels of other intentional actions by the state that harm voting rights, such as mid-decade gerrymandered electoral maps and Senate Bill 1 that streamlined mass voter purges and restricted voting methods – including harsh limits on vote by mail. Voting rights advocates have also expressed concern that the state has failed to fund efficient election administration, greenlighted reductions in polling locations, and other additional obstacles and confusions for voters. Texas has also proactively cooperated with the Trump Administration’s election interference agenda by handing over its voters’ personal information and utilizing the flawed SAVE program, both actions which other states have successfully resisted on a bipartisan basis. Alternatively, if the state considered other commonsense reforms like online voter registration and same day registration, that could help voters avoid these issues.

To ensure that Congress can conduct its constitutional oversight role on this matter, please provide responses to the following questions no later than Friday, October 2nd.

1. What specific issues caused this failure to process voter registration applications? Who is conducting the investigation, and is there a coordinated review that involves both DPS and the Office of the Secretary of State?

2. How many eligible voters were impacted by this error? When will this be known with certainty and with what degree of confidence?

3. Has DPS and/or the Office of the Secretary of State resolved the underlying issues that led to the unprocessed applications, so that the backlog is not continuing to grow?

4. What support is the state providing to county officials as they address this backlog of applications? Is the state hiring additional personnel or authorizing overtime or supporting such actions on the local level?

5. Are all relevant Texas state agencies committed to processing all registrations that were filed on time but the process is delayed due to potential issues related to state agencies and not the eligible voter?

6. What outreach or education will be provided to voters who took steps to register on their rights to cast a ballot if they are not on the voter rolls by the November 3rd election? Relatedly, what education will be provided to election officials and volunteer poll workers who will be supporting these potential voters?

7. What safeguards will Texas state agencies put in place to ensure this error does not occur again?

8. Is the State of Texas complying with the 2021 settlement agreement in Stringer v. Hughs related to the state’s failure to comply with the motor voter provisions of the NVRA?

Due to the size and timing of this voter registration failure, the eyes of voting rights advocates across America are upon Texas. I urge you to be transparent on this matter and ensure that all eligible voters in Texas who registered to vote can cast their ballot and make their voice heard.

Thank you for your attention to this critical matter and I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-durbin-raskin-press-dhs-secretary-and-other-officials-on-trump-administrations-refugee-admission-policy/,"Padilla, Durbin, Raskin Press DHS Secretary and Other Officials on Trump Administration’s Refugee Admission Policy",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, pressed Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin on the Trump Administration’s shameful policies dismantling the U.S. Refugee Admissions Program during an annual, statutorily required refugee consultation for Fiscal Year 2027.

The meeting occurred as the Trump Administration is slated to limit refugee admissions “primarily” to just 17,500 White Afrikaners from South Africa over the next fiscal year.

“Welcoming a thoughtful number of refugees every year is part of our nation’s legacy and an important international obligation. Yet the Trump Administration has all but closed the door on people fleeing persecution, even leaving behind Afghan allies who fought alongside U.S. service members and have now spent years in the resettlement pipeline,” said Senator Padilla. “Meanwhile, the Administration is aggressively pursuing the deportation of refugees, asylum seekers, TPS holders, and green card holders to countries we know are unsafe and have questionable human rights records. It’s un-American and flies in the face of our longstanding commitment to being a beacon of freedom in the world. The Administration must restart refugee resettlement to a respectable and honorable level.”

“The Trump Administration’s agenda is clear: prioritize white-only Afrikaners as refugees and disregard the millions of men, women, and children from around the world who are trying to escape horrific violence and persecution,” said Senator Durbin. “Although we finally heard directly from a Cabinet official on this Administration’s refugee policies, unlike the last consultations, as the law requires, the Trump Administration is doing everything possible to attack our immigrant communities. We must restore our longstanding asylum policies and admit lawful refugees—including the Afghan allies who served alongside our troops abroad.”

“Yesterday’s consultation reinforces our sense that the Administration has turned America’s traditional refugee program into a whites-only airplane ride for South African Afrikaners into Trump’s America. Afghan allies who risked their lives fighting alongside our troops, religious minorities facing intensified persecution in Iran and tens of thousands of approved and pre-vetted refugees fleeing war from around the world have been left twisting in the wind for years. But white Afrikaners get the Elon Musk presidential red-carpet treatment. America should offer race-neutral asylum for people fleeing tyrants and war, but Donald Trump is stiff-arming families we promised to protect and turning a humanitarian lifeline into another exercise in political favoritism and racial exclusion,” said Representative Raskin.

In June, Padilla and Durbin objected to the Trump Administration’s flawed attempt at an appropriate consultation with Congress on May 21 and an increase in the refugee admissions goal solely for white Afrikaners from South Africa. In May, Padilla, Durbin, and Raskin, along with U.S. Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.-07), released a statement after a consultation on the Trump Administration’s refugee admissions plan to increase the refugee cap included only deputies, not Cabinet-level representatives as the law requires. Last year, Padilla, Durbin, Raskin, and Jayapal also slammed the Trump Administration’s decision to abandon nearly 130,000 vetted refugees and slash refugee admissions to 7,500 without the legally required consultation with Congress.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-tillis-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-install-suicide-prevention-infrastructure/,"Padilla, Tillis Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Install Suicide Prevention Infrastructure",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Thom Tillis (R-N.C.), co-chairs of the bipartisan Senate Mental Health Caucus, introduced the Barriers to Suicide Act, legislation that would create grants to help state and local governments fund nets and barriers to reduce suicide on bridges and other high-risk infrastructure.

“Too many Americans die by suicide – and we know physical barriers can help save lives during times of crisis,” said Senator Padilla. “California has seen firsthand at the Golden Gate Bridge that nets and barriers work. As we continue to confront the suicide crisis, we must do more to help state and local governments install nets and barriers on bridges and other high structures. The Barriers to Suicide Act is commonsense, life-saving legislation that will help enhance safety standards and make our public infrastructure safer.”

“We should be doing everything in our power to address our nation’s mental health crisis and investing in life-saving barriers plays an important role in preventing a moment of crisis from becoming a tragedy,” said Senator Tillis. “The Barriers to Suicide Act will provide critical funding to state and local governments to prevent more valuable lives from being lost.”

Nearly 49,000 Americans died by suicide in 2024, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Falling deaths are a common cause of suicide, and restricting access to lethal means allows time for a feeling of crisis to pass, allowing people experiencing suicidal thoughts to seek help. A study found that San Francisco’s installation of netting on the Golden Gate Bridge reduced suicide rates by 73% in one year.

Specifically, the Barriers to Suicide Act would:

Establish a competitive grant program for states and localities to apply for federal funding under the National Highway Performance Program to install nets and barriers on bridges, buildings, parking garages, highway-rail grade crossings, and at rail stations; and

Authorize a study to identify the types of structures most commonly used for suicide attempts, types of barriers that are most effective in prevention, and additional strategies to reduce jumping deaths.

In addition to Padilla and Tillis, the bill is cosponsored by Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.).

“My heart breaks for all those dealing with the incredible grief and sadness of losing someone to suicide. Congress must do everything in its power to support our communities on the frontlines of this public health crisis, including investing in proven strategies to reduce suicides,” said Senator Merkley. “The Barriers to Suicide Act is common-sense legislation to help state and local governments fund nets and barriers that have been shown to reduce suicide on bridges and other high-risk infrastructure, so we can save as many lives as possible.”

The Barriers to Suicide Act is endorsed by organizations including the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE), and the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP).

“The Barriers to Suicide Act meets a critical need to prevent suicide by investing in proven strategies to make public spaces safer for people in crisis,” said Hannah Wesolowski, Chief Advocacy Officer at the National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI). “By funding evidence-based design and infrastructure improvements in high-risk settings, this legislation takes a proactive approach to suicide prevention. NAMI thanks Senators Padilla and Tillis for their leadership and support for this important legislation.”

“Barriers work. When we know a public place presents a high risk for suicide, and we know there are proven ways to make it safer, we have an obligation to act,” said Erich Mische, CEO of Suicide Awareness Voices of Education (SAVE). “The introduction of the Barriers to Suicide Act in the Senate is a historic moment, and one made possible in large part by the relentless advocacy of suicide loss survivors who have turned unimaginable loss into action to save other lives. SAVE has been proud to stand with them and to be a vocal and relentless advocate for this legislation. We are grateful to Senators Alex Padilla and Thom Tillis for their bipartisan leadership in moving this commonsense, lifesaving legislation forward.”

“Suicide is the 10th leading cause of death in the United States, with 1,246 people dying by suicide after falling from bridges and high places in 2024,” said Laurel Stine, J.D., M.A., Executive Vice President and Chief Policy and Advocacy Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP). “Research consistently demonstrates that reducing access to lethal means is a well-established suicide prevention strategy. Installing barriers and nets on bridges and other high-risk infrastructure can create critical time and distance from a lethal means, allowing an acute suicidal crisis to pass and creating opportunities for support and intervention. AFSP commends Senators Padilla and Tillis for their bipartisan leadership in introducing this important legislation.”

As a co-founder of the bipartisan Senate Mental Health caucus, Senator Padilla has been a leader in advocating for increasing mental health care access for all Americans. Last year, he introduced the EARLY Minds Act to combat the growing youth mental health crisis in America through early intervention and prevention services. Padilla has repeatedly condemned the Trump Administration’s efforts to purge staff and cut billions in federal funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Under the Biden Administration, Padilla applauded the Federal Communications Commission for making critical improvements to the 9-8-8 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline by adopting the main provisions of Padilla’s Local 9-8-8 Response Act of 2023.

Text of the bill is available here.

A one-pager is available here.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-warren-torres-introduce-bill-to-address-basic-needs-insecurity-in-higher-education/,"Padilla, Warren, Torres Introduce Bill to Address Basic Needs Insecurity in Higher Education",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), along with Congresswoman Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), reintroduced the Basic Assistance for Students In College (BASIC) Act, legislation to help community colleges and four-year institutions address the unmet basic needs of their students by establishing a $1 billion competitive grant program to better connect students with the resources they need to stay in school and complete their degrees.

Amidst the ongoing affordability crisis, college students across America are struggling to afford food, safe housing, healthcare, childcare, transportation, and other necessities. Nearly one in four college students across the country experience food insecurity, a rate twice that of all other U.S. households, and 1 in 10 students experience homelessness. Research from The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs at Temple University shows that 3 in 5 students do not have enough to eat or a safe place to live.

“Higher costs fueled by the Trump Administration’s policies are making it harder for millions of students to afford basic needs like housing, healthcare, and nutritious food,” said Senator Padilla. “No student should have to choose between meeting their everyday needs and pursuing higher education. The BASIC Act will help bridge these gaps by providing resources to universities to support students not having to skip a meal or sacrifice their mental or physical health in pursuit of their higher education goals.”

Students with limited income or access to opportunities, such as Pell Grant recipients, parenting students, first-generation students, veterans, former foster youth, students with disabilities, and students at community colleges, Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), typically experience the highest levels of basic needs insecurity.

“No student working toward a college degree should have to wonder where their next meal will come from or whether they can keep a roof over their head,” said Congresswoman Torres. “Our students are doing everything we ask of them, pursuing an education, and building a better future, but rising costs are making it harder just to stay in school. The BASIC Act will help colleges step up, connect students with resources they already qualify for, and make sure food, housing, child care, or transportation are never the reason a student has to give up on their education. When our students succeed, our communities and our economy succeed with them.”

Since Fiscal Year 2021, Senator Padilla and Representative Torres have secured over $43 million for the Basic Needs for Postsecondary Students Program (“Basic Needs Grants”) nationwide, including $10 million in FY 2026. Basic Needs grants now reach schools in 22 states and Puerto Rico, including both rural and urban areas in Alabama, Arizona, California, Colorado, Florida, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Minnesota, North Carolina, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, and Wisconsin, and the program has received applications from many more states. The BASIC Act would build upon this progress and ensure students have access to basic needs.

Specifically, the BASIC Act would:

Authorize a $1 billion competitive grant program to help institutions of higher education identify and meet the basic needs of students:

$40 million for planning grants to help institutions identify unmet needs and develop strategies to combat food and housing insecurity and homelessness.

$960 million for implementation grants to help institutions provide direct housing, food, and childcare assistance, connect students with public benefits, partner with community organizations, and strengthen basic-needs services.

Grants will prioritize institutions with 25% or higher federal Pell Grant enrollment.

At least 25% of grant funding must go to community colleges, and another 25% must go to HBCUs, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other minority serving institutions (such as HSIs, AANAPISIs)

Improve coordination and data sharing to help identify students who may qualify for programs such as SNAP, WIC, Medicaid, housing assistance, childcare assistance, tax credits, while protecting student data and privacy.

Require a national report on student food, housing, and basic-needs insecurity to better understand the challenges facing students and identify effective solutions.

The legislation authorizes $1 billion annually from fiscal years 2027 through 2033 to support planning and implementation grants for colleges and universities nationwide.

In addition to Padilla and Warren, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

The BASIC Act of 2026 is endorsed by organizations like American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), American Association of University Women (AAUW), American Council on Education (ACE), California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office, California State University (CSU), EdTrust, Excelencia in Education, Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), National Association for College Admission Counseling, National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities, National Education Association, New America Higher Education Policy Program, The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), Today’s Students Coalition, University of California (UC), University of California Student Association, Youth Law Center, Achieve Atlanta, Cedar Crest College, Church Women United in New York State, FoodShare South Carolina, Hunger Free America, and LeadMN.

“The California State University (CSU) is proud to support Senator Alex Padilla and Congresswoman Norma Torres in advancing a comprehensive approach to meeting students’ basic needs. We know that student success extends beyond the classroom. When students have reliable access to nutritious food, safe housing, childcare, transportation and technology, they are better positioned to stay enrolled, focus on their education and make meaningful progress toward their degrees. Through the CSU’s Basic Needs Initiative, we have seen the importance of addressing these needs as an integral part of supporting the whole student. The BASIC Act builds on that commitment and aligns with CSU Forward’s focus on creating the conditions for every student to thrive and earn a degree. By strengthening this work at colleges and universities across the country, this legislation has the potential to expand educational opportunity and create lasting benefits for students, their families and their communities,” said Dr. Dilcie Perez, Vice Chancellor for Strategic Enrollment Management and Student Success​.

“The University of California (UC) is committed to addressing students’ academic and essential needs through its Basic Needs Initiative, a multi-prong effort to identify and address key factors that contribute to food and housing insecurity so that students can succeed and thrive,” said University of California Vice President and Vice Provost for Graduate, Undergraduate, and Equity Affairs Yvette Gullatt. “That is why UC is proud to support the Basic Assistance for Students in College (BASIC) Act, which would establish a grant program allowing institutions of higher education to address basic needs insecurity on campuses by providing additional resources to ensure that students can complete their degrees. UC has long advocated for federal support for basic needs and is grateful to Representative Norma Torres and Senator Alex Padilla for their continued work on this vitally important issue.”

Senator Padilla has been a consistent advocate for increasing access to higher education, fighting back against President Trump and Congressional Republicans’ actions that are making college more unaffordable and unattainable for millions of working-class families. Last week, Padilla joined Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in introducing the Debt-Free College Actto lower the cost of college and mitigate the student debt crisis. Last year, Padilla co-sponsored the College for All Act, which would make public colleges and universities free for 95% of students.

Full text of the bill is available here.

A one-pager of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-as-gas-and-diesel-prices-spike-sen-schiff-introduces-legislation-to-levy-an-excess-profits-tax-on-big-oil-companies-to-discourage-price-gouging/,"NEWS: As Gas and Diesel Prices Spike, Sen. Schiff Introduces Legislation to Levy an Excess Profits Tax on Big Oil Companies to Discourage Price Gouging",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Los Angeles, CA – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced legislation to levy an excess profits tax on big oil companies to discourage price gouging and ensure oil companies aren’t profiting off of prolonged war and oil market instability. Schiff’s legislation comes as Americans are facing sky-high prices at the gas pump and Big Oil companies are projected to rake in $96 billion in profits in 2026, $13.5 billion more than last year.

“After half a year of war, it’s clear who has benefited from rising gas prices: Big Oil companies. While American families struggle to fill their tanks, and farmers can’t afford diesel fuel, oil and gas companies are realizing massive profits. We need legislation to stop these companies from the price gouging that only adds to the pain at the pump. Big Oil must pay their fair share,” said Senator Schiff.

The Oil Company Windfall Profits Tax Act would:

Impose a permanent excess profits tax on big oil companies; and

Direct all revenues raised by the excess profits tax to the Highway Trust Fund, Mass Transit Account, and Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, consistent with gas tax ratios

As President Donald Trump’s war with Iran has entered its seventh month, gas per gallon and utility costs have reached record highs – increasing to nearly double the amount before the war. In California, gas prices have reached over six dollars.

Schiff’s legislation comes at a time when even President Trump has called out oil companies – saying this past summer that Americans are being “gouged.”

Background: In July, Schiff demanded the Department of Justice (DOJ) launch a federal investigation into potential price gouging by Big Oil companies and publicly report its findings to Congress.

He has previously championed a windfall profits tax on oil companies as a way of shifting the cost burden of gas prices off of American families, who have been spending at least $1.00 a gallon more compared to last year thanks to Trump’s war in Iran.

This Summer, outside of a gas station with the highest gas prices in Los Angeles, Schiff held a press conference announcing actions to hold big oil accountable for price gouging consumers at ahead of the Fourth of July holiday.

The full text of the legislation is available here.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-scott-schiff-reps-moran-sanchez-jack-friedman-introduce-bipartisan-bill-to-establish-a-federal-film-tax-credit-to-keep-film-and-television-production-in-the-u-s/,"NEWS: Sens. Scott, Schiff, Reps. Moran, Sanchez, Jack, Friedman Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Establish a Federal Film Tax Credit to Keep Film and Television Production in the U.S.",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Bipartisan, bicameral legislation from lawmakers from film production states follows call for action by President Trump, decades-long push by lawmakers to enact federal credit

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) alongside U.S. Representatives Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas-1) Linda Sanchez (D-Calif- 38), Brian Jack (R-Ga-3), and Laura Friedman (D-Calif-30) introduced new bipartisan legislation to create a federal film tax incentive to keep film and television production in the United States.

The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would benefit every U.S. state and promote American jobs and spur local economic growth while allowing the United States to compete with foreign production incentives.

The bicameral effort follows years of advocacy to create a nationwide tax credit, a push recently echoed by President Donald Trump.

“For years, I’ve been championing a federal film tax credit to stop the exodus of TV and film production leaving the United States for countries offering higher incentives. Now, we have the best opportunity in decades to get it done. The direct and indirect jobs created by this creative and talented workforce are enormously important, and we want to make sure they stay in this country. With the support of the White House, our bill will create an overdue federal program to bring the movie magic back to America while creating thousands of jobs and spurring local economic growth across the nation. This legislation has bipartisan, bicameral support, and it’s time we get this passed,” said Senator Schiff.

“Having worked in a movie theater growing up, I saw early on how films can move and inspire generations of Americans. Films like ‘The Notebook’ bring us to tears, and films like ‘Forrest Gump’ inspire us to see the world differently. That is the power of film, and South Carolina is blessed to serve as the backdrop for both of these iconic American stories,” said Senator Scott. “We cannot stand by as more and more American film production moves overseas, taking jobs, investment, and an important source of American cultural influence with it. This legislation will create jobs in communities across America, support local economies, and help ensure that the next generation of iconic American films is made right here in America.”

In the Senate, this bill is cosponsored by Senators John Cornyn (R-Texas.) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.). In the U.S. House of Representatives, this bill is cosponsored by Mike Carey (R-Ohio-15), Judy Chu (D-Calif-28), David Kustoff (R-Tenn-08), and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.-03).

“When a production comes to a community—from rural East Texas to urban New York—that money doesn’t just benefit the production company. It helps the local caterer, the hardware store, the hoteliers, and every tradesman in between who makes film and television production possible. Those jobs are going overseas right now simply because other countries are offering bigger handouts. If we want to keep American storytelling in America, we have to level the playing field, and that’s exactly what this bill does. This isn’t about subsidizing Hollywood—it’s about supporting the American worker, one story and one production at a time. I’m proud to work with Senator Scott and our bipartisan group in both chambers to get this done, and I’m grateful to Ambassador Jon Voight and Sean Astin for the work they’ve put into pushing this forward,” said Rep. Nathaniel Moran.

“The United States is losing good-paying union jobs because it’s become too expensive to film here. This isn’t about the actors who star in films and can travel for a shoot. It’s about the production crews and set builders, the backbone of the film industry. Our bill would create incentives to bring those jobs back home and boost local economies, not just in California, but across the country,” said Rep. Linda Sánchez.

“My Congressional District is home to Trilith Studios, and I proudly represent the craftsmen, electricians, and carpenters who work hard to create movies that inspire generations of Americans. Study after study has demonstrated that American film production delivers substantial economic benefits to communities across our country by creating jobs, supporting local businesses, and generating millions of dollars in local economic activity. I applaud President Trump’s leadership in calling for a legislative solution to bring film production back to the United States, and I look forward to working with him and my colleagues in Congress to advance our legislation and achieve this important goal,” said Rep. Brian Jack.

“For over a year, I’ve worked to build a coalition of unions, studios, Republicans & Democrats, and the White House, because we knew that a national film tax credit would bring hundreds of thousands of jobs back to our country,” said Rep. Laura Friedman. “This bill is a result of that coalition. It tells every country that has been outbidding us for American work that we are done losing.”

“Ohio has a rich history in film production, from ‘The Deer Hunter’ and ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ to ‘The Avengers’ and ‘A Christmas Story.’ Many of these filming locations have become tourist attractions and are economic drivers to this day. The film industry provides high-paying jobs for artists, small businesses, and union workers. As other countries implement beneficial tax incentives to draw production away from the United States, Congress must work to ensure the United States stays competitive. I would like to commend Representative Moran for introducing this important legislation. As Chairman of the Humanities Caucus and a member of the tax-writing committee, I am confident this bill will help the United States maintain its global influence, as well as the high-paying jobs, associated with film production,” said Rep. Mike Carey.

“For generations, Southern California has been the heart of America’s film and television industry, supporting thousands of workers and small businesses in the San Gabriel Valley and across our region. But today, too many productions are leaving for other countries, taking good-paying jobs and economic opportunity with them. We cannot stand by while communities across the United States lose these productions and the jobs they support. That’s why I am so proud to co-lead the bipartisan, bicameral Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, which will create a new federal tax credit to incentivize film and television production here in America. This bill will help bring productions and jobs back home, support our creative workforce, and keep Southern California the entertainment capital of the world,” said Rep. Judy Chu.

“The film and TV industry is an economic engine in New York. It supports thousands of good jobs at good wages,” said Rep. Tom Suozzi. “America is the entertainment leader of the world and this bill incentivizes filmmakers and studios to hire American workers. I’m proud to help lead this commonsense, bipartisan effort.”

The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would:

Spur American jobs and economic development by providing a 20% federal, labor-based tax credit to U.S. film and television productions with minimum spend of $1 million and where at least 75% of the principal photography days occur within the U.S;

Offer 5% bonus credit allowances, increasing the base credit up to a maximum of 30%, for productions in rural opportunity zones and areas impacted by disasters, independent productions, multi-state producers in 10+ states, and producers who show a measurable onshoring of productions;

Make the credit available to traditional post-production and visual effects activities when at least 75% of the respective post-production and visual effects production takes place in the U.S; and

Support the investments of states currently offering incentives by allowing the federal incentive to supplement state credits.

This bill is endorsed by: American Federation of Musicians, American Society of Composers, Authors, and Publishers (ASCAP), CreativeFuture, Coalition for American Production (CAP), Directors Guild of America (DGA), FilmUSA, Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE), Motion Picture Association (MPA), Producers Guild of America (PGA), Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), Teamsters, Television Academy, Writers Guild of America East (WGAE), Writers Guild of America West (WGAW)

“I want to thank President Trump for bringing national attention to the urgent need for a federal film and television production tax credit and for calling on Congress to act,” said Hollywood Ambassador Jon Voight. “I also want to thank Senators Tim Scott and Adam Schiff, along with Representatives Nathaniel Moran, Linda Sánchez, Brian Jack, Laura Friedman, Mike Carey, Judy Chu, David Kustoff, Tom Suozzi, and the growing list of supporters, for their work on this bipartisan effort to bring productions and jobs back to the United States. The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act will restore the American film and television industry, put crews back to work, support productions at all levels, and create economic opportunities in communities nationwide. All Americans want to bring our iconic film industry home, and we can do it by working together to get this important legislation passed quickly.”

“The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would deliver a true gamechanger for American creators, workers, and businesses – a federal incentive that supercharges production at home, fuels jobs and growth in local communities, and makes the United States a more competitive destination for the next generation of great film and television. There’s a reason everyone from President Trump to a bipartisan group of members in Congress to studios, unions, guilds, and more want to get this done. Passing this legislation could inject $250 billion into the country’s economy and deliver nearly 145,000 new jobs every year across all 50 states. That’s a story we can write together by enacting this bill, to ensure that more stories are crafted, created, and made here in America. The Motion Picture Association thanks Senators Tim Scott and Adam Schiff, and Representatives Nathaniel Moran, Linda Sánchez, Brian Jack, Laura Friedman, Mike Carey, Judy Chu, David Kustoff, Tom Suozzi for their leadership in support of America’s creative economy,” said Charles Rivkin, Chairman and CEO, Motion Picture Association.

“The Independent Film & Television Alliance is pleased to support the introduction of legislation to establish a federal production incentive for film and television. A federal incentive will help increase U.S. production and create new jobs in states across the country. We thank the bill sponsors for their leadership and look forward to working with them to ensure this new and important incentive can serve as a meaningful catalyst for independent film and television production in the U.S,” said Jackie Brenneman, President & CEO, Independent Film & Television Alliance.

“The over 170,000 behind-the-scenes entertainment workers of the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees (IATSE) are proud to endorse the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. IATSE has long called for a globally competitive, labor-based federal production incentive to level the playing field for American workers, return middle-class film and television jobs to America, and keep them here at home. This legislation would achieve that goal, addressing the dramatic loss of tens of thousands of American jobs in motion picture production and post-production. IATSE praises Senators Scott and Schiff, and Representatives Moran, Sanchez, Jack, Friedman, Carey, Chu, Kustoff, and Suozzi for leading this bipartisan effort. IATSE calls on all members of Congress to support and pass this critical jobs bill before the end of the year,” said Matthew D. Loeb, International President, IATSE.

“The U.S. entertainment industry should be making movies and TV shows in America with union labor. The Teamsters are proud to endorse the bipartisan Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, which will give our country the competitive advantage to bring film and TV production back home. Thank you to Senators Scott (R-SC) and Schiff (D-CA) and Representatives Moran (R-TX) and Sanchez (D-CA) for their leadership. Creating good union jobs in America should be a priority for every member of Congress, from every state and political party. The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act must get to the President’s desk this year,” said Sean M. O’Brien, President, Teamsters.

“The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act is the most significant legislative effort in a generation to promote domestic film and television production, and the hundreds of thousands of jobs it supports. This moment is the cumulation of years of work by the entertainment guilds and unions, in partnership with the MPA and lawmakers from both parties. The DGA thanks Senators Scott and Schiff and Representatives Moran, Jack, and Friedman for advancing this important bipartisan effort to strengthen domestic production, create jobs, and further build on the critical work already underway through state incentives in California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and elsewhere. We also acknowledge the leadership of Ambassador Voight on this issue. We look forward to working with our partners in Congress, labor, the Administration, and at the studios to get this bill signed into law,”said Christopher Nolan, President, Directors Guild of America.

“We are pleased to support the film and television tax incentive legislation introduced today by Senators Schiff and Scott along with Reps. Friedman, Moran, Sanchez and Jack. This country must invest in efforts to keep production of film and television, along with the tens of thousands of good union jobs they support, here in the U.S.,” said Michele Mulroney, President, Writers Guild of America West & Tom Fontana, President, Writers Guild of America East.

“SAG-AFTRA is proud to partner with our fellow unions, industry and policymakers in a bipartisan effort to rescue the domestic film and television business. The money is being invested, the productions are being made, the jobs are being created — just not in America. This is a jobs bill and that is exactly what our members want to see. We have the infrastructure. We have the crews. We have the talent. Now all we need is a level playing field. We are the storytellers who inform and entertain the world. Let’s get back to doing that right here at home. Thank you Sens. Scott and Schiff and Reps. Moran, Sanchez, Friedman and Jack for championing this critical legislation,” said Sean Astin, President, SAG-AFTRA.

“The Producers Guild of America (PGA) represents over 8,400 professionals across film, television, and emerging media and strongly supports the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. Producers are responsible for creating projects, assembling teams, managing budgets, coordinating logistics, and making decisions that guide a production from start to finish – and we want that work to benefit our nation. This legislation helps make it possible for producers to grow this remarkable industry at home and create stable, rewarding work for generations to come. PGA commends Senators Scott and Schiff, and Representatives Moran, Sanchez, Jack, and Friedman for proposing action that is essential to ensuring our nation remains the entertainment capital of the world,” said Susan Sprung, CEO, Producers Guild of America.

“The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act will put us on equal footing with the rest of the world. Congress must act if we are to preserve jobs in this country and grow a quintessential American industry. This bill will make a meaningful difference in the lives of thousands of professional musicians. Thank you, Senators Scott and Schiff and Representatives Moran, Sanchez, Jack, and Friedman, for recognizing the essential role AFM members play in creating film and television. The American Federation of Musicians looks forward to this commonsense, bipartisan proposal becoming law as soon as possible,” said Tino Gagliardi, President, American Federation of Musicians.

The Television Academy, representing nearly 30,000 television professionals from every state in the country, applauds the introduction of the bipartisan Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. By establishing a stackable, federal production credit for work performed here at home, this legislation gives American crews, creatives, and small businesses the opportunity to keep production local. We applaud Senators Schiff and Scott and Representatives Moran, Sanchez, Jack, and Friedman for introducing this landmark bill, and the Television Academy looks forward to working with lawmakers on behalf of our members to see it enacted as soon as possible,” said Maury McIntyre, President and CEO, Television Academy.

“We thank Senators Adam Schiff and Tim Scott and Reps. Moran, Sanchez, Jack, Friedman, Carey, Chu, Kustoff, and Suozzi for their leadership on the American Film and Television Production Credit. This is a historic step, the first federal production credit for an industry that sustains thousands of jobs in every state. FilmUSA proudly supports this bipartisan effort and the nationwide economic development it will drive,” said Katie Patton Pryor, President, FilmUSA.

“We applaud Senators Scott and Schiff and Representatives Moran, Sánchez, Jack, and Friedman on the announcement of the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. U.S. film and television productions contribute 2.01 million jobs and $202 billion per year in wages to the American economy. Although state incentives have done a remarkable job at attempting to compete with overseas incentives, a federal incentive Is the missing piece that will make America once again a magnet for film and television production. We look forward to working with the Senators and Representatives to help restore this economically vibrant and culturally vital American industry,” said Ruth Vitale, CEO, CreativeFuture.

“The Coalition for American Production strongly supports the introduction of the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act. American film and television productions have moved overseas, taking work from crews and the small businesses that make those productions possible. A competitive federal incentive would help bring that work home. We thank Senators Schiff and Scott and Representatives Moran, Sanchez, Jack, and Friedman for listening to production workers and businesses across the country. Their bill recognizes that when a production films in the United States, the benefits reach far beyond the set: equipment rental companies, transportation providers, and the Main Street businesses that supply everything from lumber and paint to hardware, flowers, catering and coffee. CAP looks forward to working with Congress to keep those jobs and businesses growing here at home,” said Brian Papworth, Executive Director, Coalition for American Production.

Bill one pager is here.

The full text of the legislation is available here.

The section-by-section of the legislation is available here.

Background: For years, Schiff has highlighted the need to increase film production in America and has continued to build bipartisan support in Congress for his federal film incentive proposal, which would promote American jobs and spur local economic growth by creating additional support for film and television production in the U.S., allowing us to compete with foreign incentives.

During his time in the California State Senate, Schiff helped lead efforts to increase film production in California and protect local jobs. Schiff spearheaded efforts in Congress to extend California’s film tax credit, including in 2014 when he led 28 members of the California Democratic delegation in urging the leaders of the California State Senate and Assembly to reauthorize and enhance the tax credit. In 2024, Schiff sent a letter to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics requesting detailed data on the impact of foreign production incentives on the domestic industry. In March 20, 2026, Senator Adam Schiff hosted a spotlighthearing in Burbank California entitled, “Lights, Camera, Competition: Promoting American Film Production” to highlight the importance of bolstering American film production, and tackling the challenges facing the industry from generous tax incentives provided by other countries.”

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-as-uss-abraham-lincoln-returns-home-after-300-days-of-deployment-sen-schiff-renews-call-for-end-to-trumps-war-in-iran/,"WATCH: As USS Abraham Lincoln Returns Home after 300+ Days of Deployment, Sen. Schiff Renews Call for End to Trump’s War in Iran",2026-09-24,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Today, Senate Republicans again blocked a measure that would have confirmed Congress has not authorized the ongoing deployment of U.S. troops for Trump’s Iran War

Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) took to the Senate floor to urge Senate Republicans to pass a War Powers Resolution to end President Trump’s illegal war in Iran. Schiff highlighted constituent stories from servicemembers’ families detailing the abysmal conditions onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln, contrasting their sacrifices against the President’s downplaying of the war’s impact and obsessions with his vanity projects.

Senate Republicans’ blocking of this resolution follows a series of similar resolutions led by Democrats in Congress, including by Senator Schiff and colleagues in the Senate, to confirm that Congress has not authorized this use of the U.S. military and require the President to end the war. The resolution failed today in a 49 to 50 vote.

“In fact, the Lincoln set a modern-day record for consecutive days at sea without a port visit. And a record away from its home port of San Diego. And even now, just recently after stopping in Thailand for its first regular port call in nearly nine months — hull rusted, paint peeling — the Lincoln and its crew were still a long way from home,” said Senator Schiff on the Senate floor.

Schiff emphasized how the prolonged deployment of the USS Abraham Lincoln has sent shockwaves throughout the San Diego community and continued his call for an end to this war.

Watch the full speech HERE. Download the remarks HERE.

Read the full transcript of his remarks as delivered below:

Ever since the USS Abraham Lincoln was commissioned in the waning days of the Cold War, it has been known for many things.

After a volcano erupted in the Philippines in 1991, the Lincoln led the largest peacetime evacuation of U.S. military personnel and their families. A baby was even born onboard during the evacuation — and named Abraham Lincoln.

In 1993, the Lincoln became the first carrier in the Pacific Fleet to integrate female aviators.

But today, as a result of the President’s war with Iran, the Lincoln has achieved another distinction — one it neither sought nor wished to claim.

And that is for more than 300 days, over 5,000 sailors and Marines aboard the Lincoln were at sea.

Without visits to their family.

Or other loved ones.

Without visits to friends apart from their fellow servicemembers.

In fact, the Lincoln set a modern-day record for consecutive days at sea without a port visit.

And a record away from its home port of San Diego.

And even now, just recently after stopping in Thailand for its first regular port call in nearly nine months — hull rusted, paint peeling — the Lincoln and its crew were still a long way from home.

As the President’s senseless war has dragged on, it has taken a heavy toll on the lives and well-being of our servicemembers and their families, many of whom are in California.

So how does the Commander-in-Chief respond?

When asked last month if carriers like the Lincoln had been deployed too long, Donald Trump said — and this is a direct quote — “No, no, no, not nearly long enough.”

Not nearly long enough?

It was long enough that our sailors have been working 12 to 16 hour shifts — at times facing the danger of enemy missiles.

It was long enough that they were forced to ration food and water — shortages that have reportedly caused severe weight loss and health impacts.

It was long enough that crew members have had severe mental health crises, which created significant distress for their families as well. To the point where some servicemembers sought to jump off the carrier into the sea.

It was long enough that servicemembers had to deal with black mold that drips, as one servicemember described, “onto your face, shoulders, arms or head” while “standing in line for a meal or even walking out of the shower.”

Doug, a constituent from California, wrote a letter to me expressing his deep concerns over his son’s service on the Lincoln. His son had to be medically evacuated from the ship after suffering a collapsed lung — which Doug believes was connected to malnutrition and overexertion.

“The crew went about four weeks without hot water or laundry. They were on rations for two to three months while working 12 to 16 hour days. During that time, his family spent thousands of dollars sending him food, but only about half of it arrived.”

Doug went on: “After time in the ICU [abroad], he returned home to us as a shell of the son who had left. He is 6’5″ and left weighing 210 pounds; and he returned closer to 180 pounds. He resembled a starved prisoner of war. What he told me as a father and veteran turns my stomach and must be brought to light.”

Another constituent of mine, Annabelle from San Diego, shared her story about her husband attempting to jump overboard from the Lincoln during his deployment.

“He’s scared,” she said. “He thinks he’ll get a dishonorable discharge, and just because he was burnt out, his 13-year-old career is ruined, just like that. That’s not fair, that’s not right. That’s not what he should be worrying about right now.” But this, is what Annabelle and her three kids are now living with.

Shelby, a high schooler whose mom is deployed on the Lincoln, spoke about how hard it is to start her senior year without her mom. She asked, “Will she be back before homecoming? My birthday? Christmas? I have no idea, and that’s all that I think about.”

This week, we learned from the Acting Secretary of the Navy that eight U.S. Navy personnel assigned to the Lincoln’s carrier strike group attempted suicide during the prolonged time at sea. The navy also confirmed that one sailor went overboard from the ship this summer, while another attempted to go overboard. After months of denials, the Defense Department confirmed what has been reported for months, and that is, deteriorating mental health aboard the Lincoln and multiple attempts by sailors to jump overboard.

These are just some of the alarming, dangerous, and shameful conditions our sailors and Marines have endured aboard the Lincoln — and also what our families are going through — while Pete Hegseth posts workout videos and Donald Trump renames lakes and pours over blueprints for the gilded ballroom.

For Donald Trump and his billionaire cronies — events in black tie.

For our servicemembers aboard the Lincoln — showers and meals with black mold.

Could there be a clearer encapsulation of this administration’s misplaced priorities?

So, the American people were told that the war would be over “very soon.”

That was March 9th. Ten days after the war started.

Now, the U.S. is more than six months into the disastrous war.

Months of negotiations to end the conflict have failed. But the President promises us that the war will soon come to an end — after the election.

And what have we achieved in this war that has cost the lives of 19 U.S. servicemembers?

Prices at the pump and grocery checkout have skyrocketed. Diesel prices, fertilizer prices are crushing farmers while the resultant food prices are crushing the rest of America.

Utility bills and medical bills, out of control.

Everyone but the President and his buddies are painfully aware that we’re experiencing an affordability crisis in America.

While the President says… “Not long enough.”

In the closing days of the Mexican-American War, our sixteenth president — whose name the Lincoln proudly carries — was a freshman here in Congress. He wrote to his law partner.

“The provision of the Constitution giving the war-making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons,” Lincoln wrote.

“Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object.”

“This, our Convention understood to be the most oppressive of all Kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us.”

“But your view,” Lincoln wrote, “destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.”

We need to take Lincoln’s words to heart. This Congress is not a royal court, to do the bidding and bow and scrape before an all-powerful sovereign. We are a coequal branch of government and two hundred and fifty years into this experiment in self-governance, we should show Lincoln’s resolve.

Will we continue to place the president where kings have stood?

Or will we say, at long last, “enough?”

Will we make it clear that this war, illegal from the start, has gone on too long?

Will we insist on the removal and return of our troops?

I pray that we will, and I urge support of this resolution.

###",1,2026-09-25T10:04:52Z,2026-09-25T10:05:46Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/watch-padilla-hears-damning-testimony-on-flock-surveillance-camera-misuse/,WATCH: Padilla Hears Damning Testimony on Flock Surveillance Camera Misuse,2026-09-23,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, raised serious concerns about Flock surveillance cameras, particularly their misuse for immigration enforcement.

At a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Padilla questioned Chad Marlow, senior policy counsel from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) about the widespread use of Flock technology among local, state, and federal officials as well as the private sector. Padilla also raised concerns about Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers’ ability to access Flock data despite Flock’s claims that it does not contract with ICE.

Key Excerpts:

PADILLA RAISES CONCERNS ABOUT FLOCK DATA SHARING WITH ICE

PADILLA: Broad data sharing with ICE: Is it happening or is it not happening? Flock claims that it does not partner with ICE, and ICE does not have direct access to Flock cameras, or their systems, or their data. But we know that ICE is still able to access Flock data through state and local law enforcement agencies that have entered into agreements, cooperative agreements, with ICE, known as 287(g) agreements. So, can you explain in more detail how these agreements can function as a loophole for ICE or other immigration enforcement agencies to access data that they otherwise couldn’t?

[…]

MARLOW: I would point out Flock seems to change its story week to week. It’s hard to even remember. But they did say for a long period of time, that ICE does not have direct access to Flock data, and that was true. But the key word there is “direct.” Exactly. And so, it doesn’t even take a 287(g) agreement, although that’s obviously a major problem.

All it takes is one officer in one department who is a customer of Flock and participates in their nationwide data-sharing program, and you get a call from, be it ICE or any other federal agency, that says, “Hey, can you run a search for me?” And either because they believe in the cause that that federal agency is pursuing, or they just want to be on good terms with them because they may need something from them tomorrow, they say, “Happy to help.”

And Flock never acknowledges that no security procedures that’s put in place do anything to protect against the misuse of its system.

PADILLA: The question becomes how do we close that loophole?

MARLOW: You ban them, sir. You ban them.

Video of Padilla’s remarks is available here.

###",1,2026-09-24T09:44:48Z,2026-09-24T09:45:52Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/watch-padilla-once-again-defeats-republican-efforts-to-advance-save-act-condemns-trumps-tariffs/,"WATCH: Padilla Once Again Defeats Republican Efforts to Advance SAVE Act, Condemns Trump’s Tariffs",2026-09-23,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padila (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, once again took to the Senate floor to lead his colleagues in defeating Republicans’ attempts to pass parts of the SAVE Act voter suppression bill after the 2026 midterm election has already begun. Padilla opposed Senator Mike Lee’s (R-Utah) efforts to advance Senator Jon Husted’s (R-Ohio) MAGA voter ID bill, S. 5271, which consists of a provision of the SAVE Act that would require eligible voters to provide specific types of photo identification when voting, including in their mail and absentee ballots, threatening to violate the right to a secret ballot and cause chaos in an election where mail ballots are already printed and voting is underway.

With Election Day now 41 days away, Padilla highlighted the deliberate timing of Republicans’ attempts to advance the bill. Some eligible voters have already exercised their right to vote early, and Padilla emphasized the additional burden, especially for mail and absentee ballots, and chaos that would immediately follow if the voter ID bill passed.

“The 2026 midterm election has already begun — it’s in full swing,” said Senator Padilla. “So let’s not be fooled about this attempt to pass a piece of the SAVE Act. Number one, the substance. It’s not just a voter ID bill. It’s a bill, and the timing is curious, that seeks to create chaos and confusion over vote by mail and absentee voting. The other part is, indeed, the timing and its implications. Trying to change the rules, because this bill, if signed into law, would go immediately into effect, creates chaos in the middle of an election that’s already underway.”

Padilla sounded the alarm on President Trump’s efforts to interfere in the upcoming midterm elections and detailed the Supreme Court’s recent decision to block Trump’s vote-by-mail executive order’s directive that the U.S. Postal Service determine who is and is not allowed to receive ballots. He highlighted the bipartisan opposition to these burdensome provisions, with the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah, the state’s chief election officer, saying in March that this provision would be “violating our constitutional right to a secret ballot” and the Republican Governor of Ohio Mike DeWine vetoing a similar bill at the state level in June, calling the mail voting ID requirement “a significant burden.”

“All this talk about changing the rules around elections. You know, this Administration, including the president himself, has been trying nonstop to interfere and change the rules on the elections for a long time now, and those efforts have been successfully pushed back on,” continued Senator Padilla. “It’s a desperate attempt to hold on to power, because the writing is on the wall. Poll after poll, approval ratings, etc., show that Donald Trump is going to be in for a rough night this November, but it’s also an attempt to distract.”

Padilla raised significant concerns about Republicans’ continued fixation on passing this voter suppression bill and highlighted issues that working Americans are facing, such as the rising costs of groceries, healthcare, and gas. He emphasized that instead of focusing on voter ID, Republicans should instead focus on the affordability crisis that Trump has created through his unnecessary tariffs. Padilla concluded by trying to pass the End Trump’s Tariff Tax Act to undo Trump’s tariffs on U.S. imports. Republicans objected.

“President Trump promised that these tariffs would bring back manufacturing, make Americans more wealthy, and pay down the nation’s debt, create jobs, and lower prices for consumers. That sure sounded good, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. None of that has happened,” Senator Padilla concluded. “Instead of focusing on those issues, they are once again, taking precious time on the Senate floor and talking about unnecessary changes to how people should be able to vote or not vote – maybe that’s their ultimate objective – for an election that’s already underway. Just because your team is losing at halftime doesn’t mean you call timeout and change the rules, or change the referees trying to change the outcome.”

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee, which has oversight over federal elections, Padilla has led the charge opposing Trump’s overreaching anti-voter SAVE Act. Last month, Padilla led his Senate colleagues in once again defeating MAGA Republicans’ efforts to advance Husted’s voter ID bill. In June, Padilla led his Senate Democratic colleagues in defeating Republicans’ efforts to include the SAVE Act in their anti-immigrant reconciliation bill twice in one night. During the failed March 2026 “talking filibuster” attempt, Padilla took to the Senate floor four times as a leader in the Democratic opposition to the SAVE Act.

Video of Padilla’s remarks is available here.

Full transcript of Padilla’s remarks is available below:

Reserving the right to object, let me remind us all, colleagues, that we, as of today, are 41 days from the midterm elections, or, as I like to refer it – refer to it – as simply the last day to vote, because a lot of people in states across the country take advantage of their right and opportunity to vote early in person, like people in Virginia did beginning this last weekend.

Many people in states across the country, including my home state of California, exercise their right and option to vote by mail. Uh, I’ll get back to that in a minute. The point is, in a growing number of states, the midterm election is already underway. People in North Carolina, Wisconsin and Alabama are already receiving their ballots in the mail. In Virginia, South Dakota, Minnesota, Vermont, and Illinois, voters are already going to the polls to vote in person early. And in the next couple of weeks, additional states will begin – nine more states will have begun their early voting. And in my home state of California, ballots will be mailed to every registered voter in the state.

So again, the bottom line here is the 2026 midterm election has already begun. It’s in full swing. So let’s not be fooled about this attempt to pass a piece of the SAVE Act. Uh, number one, the substance. It’s not just a voter ID bill. It’s a bill, and the timing is curious, that seeks to create chaos and confusion over vote by mail and absentee voting.

The other part is, indeed, the timing and its implications. Trying to change the rules, because this bill, if signed into law, would go immediately into effect, creates chaos in the middle of an election that’s already underway.

But don’t just take my word for it. Let me quote the Republican Lieutenant Governor of Utah, who says that this, quote, “is violating our constitutional right to a secret ballot.” Why? Because the requirement to include a copy of your drivers license when you’re voting by mail undermines the sec – the notion of a secret ballot in America.

Let me quote the Republican governor of Ohio, who says that a very similar bill that reached his desk in the state of Ohio represented, quote, “a significant burden.” And again, it’s not just a potential or theoretical significant burden for some election sometime in the future. It would go into effect immediately, causing chaos and confusion and a burden for election administrators who wouldn’t even know how to begin to comply with this for an election that’s already underway.

Let me go even further, Mr. President, and reference the Supreme Court’s recent actions when they blocked President Trump’s executive order on vote by mail, and what he was trying to do, giving authority and direction to the United States Postal Service to determine which voters get their ballots and which don’t. Even Justice Kavanaugh, who I disagree with on much, but even Justice Kavanaugh said it was in part because changing the rules so close to an election, quote, “would be arbitrary and capricious.” That was a couple weeks ago that this ruling came out. If at that time the Supreme Court deemed it too close to an election, we’re even closer now. And so, again, not nearly the time to properly, responsibly implement, even if you agreed with this bad policy.

But let me make a case for what is really going on here. All this talk about changing the rules around elections. You know, this administration, including the president himself, has been trying nonstop to interfere and change the rules on the elections for a long time now, and those efforts have been successfully pushed back on.

I expect him to continue these threats and attempts, not just between now and Election Day, probably on Election Day and post-Election Day, if history is any indicator. Why? I mean, first of all, it’s a desperate attempt to hold on to power, because the writing is on the wall. Poll after poll, approval ratings, et cetera, show that Donald Trump is going to be in for a rough night this November, but it’s also an attempt to distract.

You would think that he or we could be spending more time on trying to bring down costs for working families. But no, for a number of reasons, including, but not limited to, the unauthorized war in Iran, the price on everything is not just not going down – it keeps going up. The price of gas that people put into their passenger cars to get to and from work, or wherever they need to go. The cost of diesel is also at record levels and being passed on to consumers in terms of increased costs on everything else: groceries, clothing, consumer electronics, and more. The threat to the economy is so bad that the Federal Reserve has not only not lowered interest rates, as Donald Trump has practically demanded, they’ve taken a recent step to increase interest rates for the first time in three years to try to rein in inflation.

So nothing’s getting cheaper, nothing’s getting easier. And a recent report showed that, from the administration’s tariffs, again, the war in Iran, the trade wars that are unnecessary, and the bad economic decisions are taking a toll on American families. $4,200 per household in increased costs because of higher prices. And now the president has once again threatened our Canadian neighbors with endless tariffs.

Look at healthcare. The average cost of employer-provided health care is expected to increase by at least 11%. What happened to the so-called Liberation Day of last April? President Trump promised that these tariffs would bring back manufacturing, make Americans more wealthy, and pay down the nation’s debt, create jobs, and lower prices for consumers. That sure sounded good, but it couldn’t be further from the truth. None of that has happened. Actually, the exact opposite has come to bear.

But again, instead of focusing on those issues, they are once again, taking precious time on the Senate floor and talking about unnecessary changes to how people should be able to vote or not vote – maybe that’s their ultimate objective – for an election that’s already underway. Just because your team is losing at halftime doesn’t mean you call timeout and change the rules, or change the referees trying to change the outcome.

So let’s dispense with this measure and get back to the real work at hand.

So, Mr. President, I would therefore ask the Senator to modify his request, so that instead of S. 5271, and notwithstanding Rule 22, the Committee on Finance be discharged from further consideration of S. 5390, the End Trump’s Tariff Tax Act, and the Senate proceed to its immediate consideration, and further, that the bill be considered, read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered, made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate.

###",1,2026-09-24T09:44:48Z,2026-09-24T09:45:52Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-amidst-worsening-staffing-crisis-sens-schiff-and-whitehouse-renew-probe-of-fish-and-wildlife-service-after-dodging-lawmakers-inquiries/,"NEWS: Amidst Worsening Staffing Crisis, Sens. Schiff and Whitehouse Renew Probe of Fish and Wildlife Service after Dodging Lawmakers’ Inquiries",2026-09-23,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Senators emphasize that staff and resources are spread thin, drastically impacting the ability to protect wildlife and public lands

Washington, D.C. – After the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) sidestepped repeated inquiries from lawmakers regarding the worsening staffing crisis at the agency and dodged questions during Senate hearings, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife Subcommittee, and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate EPW Committee, are renewing demands that the agency immediately address and reverse the staffing crisis at FWS.

Since the Senators’ last inquiry in December 2025, which FWS did not respond to, FWS has lost 36% of its workforce – up nearly 10% since December. FWS offices in California have lost more than 40% of staff. With resources spread thin, the Senators emphasize that the reduction in its workforce drastically impacts the agency’s ability to carry out their responsibilities to protect wildlife and manage wildlife refuge lands.

“Many are being forced to rely on outside nongovernment organizations for support of critical functions. Making matters worse, you removed the 16-year-long Chief of the Refuge System from her post without explanation. Further, there is currently a backlog of more than 400 species waiting for protection decisions, wasting critical time that could be used implementing species protection plans. Continued mismanagement and reductions to the workforce threaten FWS’s ability to perform these vital functions and leave American wildlife and the public to bear the consequences,” the Senators wrote in a new oversight letter to FWS Director Brian Nesvik.

During Nesvik’s June 10 appearance before the Environment and Public Works Committee, Schiff pushed Nesvik on answers for the findings of the nationwide review of the Refuge System that the Senators demanded over six months ago. Nesvik stated they were “getting close to being wrapped up to where we can talk publicly” about it.

“We are frustrated that, despite the severity of this situation, we have still not received a clear plan for addressing FWS’s losses… The continued absence of responses to congressional inquiries regarding the agency’s ability to protect wildlife and maintain refuges compounds our alarm that your agency does not intend to do anything to stop its own ongoing collapse,” the Senators concluded.

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

Dear Director Nesvik:

We write to follow up on our December 18, 2025, letter regarding the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) worsening staffing crisis and the devastating impacts the staffing shortages are having on the National Wildlife Refuge System and the agency’s ability to fulfill its core conservation mission. In our previous letter, we asked the Department of the Interior and FWS to provide Congress with your plan to address these staffing losses and ensure the Refuge System has the personnel and resources necessary to protect America’s wildlife and public lands. Nine months later, we have still not received any response from the administration.

Since we sent our letter, new evidence has shown that the crisis is getting worse. According to an updated analysis released by the Center for Biological Diversity on September 2, FWS has lost 36 percent, or more than one-third, of its workforce since the beginning of the Trump administration. This analysis was informed by documents from your own agency obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.

The consequences of these losses are already having impacts on our wildlife populations and public lands. FWS employees are responsible for managing the National Wildlife Refuge System, protecting threatened and endangered species, responding to wildfires and other natural disasters on these lands, and carrying out the agency’s responsibilities under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). National wildlife refuges continue to be understaffed, with many refuges not having a single employee working on the refuge. Many are being forced to rely on outside nongovernment organizations for support of critical functions. Making matters worse, on August 25, 2026, it was reported that you removed the 16-year-long Chief of the Refuge System from her post without explanation. Further, there is currently a backlog of more than 400 species waiting for protection decisions, wasting critical time that could be used implementing species protection plans. Continued mismanagement and reductions to the workforce threaten FWS’s ability to perform these vital functions and leave American wildlife and the public to bear the consequences.

We are frustrated that, despite the severity of this situation, we have still not received a clear plan for addressing FWS’s losses. During your testimony before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on June 10, 2026, you were asked when we could expect a response to our December letter concerning the staffing crisis. You answered: “I can’t commit to you on a timeline when you’ll receive a response.” This lack of responsiveness to the Article I branch of government demonstrates a startling lack of respect for the Constitution and the system of checks and balances established by our Framers. One-fifth of the Senate—including the ranking members of the authorizing committee and subcommittee with jurisdiction over your agency—is awaiting a response from you.

Further, also during your June 10 appearance before the Environment and Public Works Committee, you stated that you were “getting close to being wrapped up to where we can talk publicly” about the findings of the nationwide review of the Refuge System that you ordered on December 16, 2025. Thus far, Congress has received very little information regarding this review. In the context of a 36-percent loss of agency staff, this review raises questions about possible closures of our nation’s wildlife refuges.

The continued absence of responses to congressional inquiries regarding the agency’s ability to protect wildlife and maintain refuges compounds our alarm that your agency does not intend to do anything to stop its own ongoing collapse. Accordingly, by October 7, 2026, we demand responses to the requests included in our December 18, 2025, letter as well as information on the conclusions of the nationwide Refuge System review that you stated was close to completion in June. Thank you.

###",1,2026-09-24T09:44:48Z,2026-09-24T09:45:52Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-joins-duckworth-and-bipartisan-group-of-senators-in-demanding-the-trump-administration-to-extend-and-redesignate-tps-for-ukrainians/,NEWS: Schiff Joins Duckworth and Bipartisan Group of Senators in Demanding the Trump Administration to Extend and Redesignate TPS for Ukrainians,2026-09-23,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"The Senators’ call for an 18-month extension and redesignation comes as TPS for Ukrainians is set to expire next month

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined Senator Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) and a bipartisan group of Senate colleagues in calling on the Trump Administration to issue an 18-month extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukrainians living in the United States as Vladimir Putin continues his unjustified war of aggression against their homeland. In their letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Senators underscored how a failure to extend TPS ahead of its expiration next month would send thousands of Ukrainians back into a war zone that has resulted in significant civilian casualties, infrastructure damage and displacement.

“Current conditions in Ukraine clearly merit the continuation of TPS status. The ongoing war has caused a humanitarian crisis and damage to critical civilian infrastructure has left many with limited or no access to heat, electricity or medical services. Ukrainian nationals cannot safely return at this time, and allowing TPS to terminate on October 19, 2026, would risk sending more than one hundred thousand individuals back to an active war zone,” wrote the Senators.

Ukrainian TPS holders have long contributed to communities in Illinois, and across the country, both culturally and economically. The Senators noted that allowing an 18-month extension of the TPS would prevent these community members from being forced to return to dangerous conditions, while allowing the communities that benefit from their contributions to continue to benefit and learn from them.

Along with Schiff and Duckworth, the letter is co-signed by U.S. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Lisa Murkowski (R-Ark.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Gary Peters (D- Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

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

We strongly urge you to issue an 18-month extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukraine prior to the impending October 19, 2026, termination date. Ukraine is currently in the fifth year of a large-scale war with Russia, which has led to ongoing civilian casualties, significant damage to critical infrastructure and the displacement of broad swaths of the population. An extension of TPS for Ukraine would protect current TPS beneficiaries from being forced to return to an active war zone, while a redesignation would expand those protections to the population of Ukrainian nationals who arrived after October 20, 2023.

Ukraine was initially designated for TPS on April 19, 2022, on the basis of ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions caused by Russia’s military actions within the country. In its designation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the U.S. Department of State, cited regular artillery attacks and airstrikes by Russia’s military forces, serious human rights abuses and the widespread destruction of critical infrastructure. Subsequent reviews of in-country conditions found that the situation in the country had not sufficiently improved; accordingly, TPS for Ukraine was extended and redesignated through April 19, 2025, and extended once more beginning on April 20, 2025.

The war in Ukraine—the largest conventional military action in Europe since World War II—is ongoing, as are the same extraordinary and temporary conditions that warrant the continued protection of Ukrainian nationals currently residing in the United States. International observers report a trend of steadily increasing civilian casualties from year to year, with approximately 17,000 civilian deaths and more than 50,000 civilian injuries since the outbreak of the war in 2022. These casualties, coupled with significant damage to civilian infrastructure, constrained access to health care and substantial population displacement have created a profound crisis, with approximately 10.8 million Ukrainians in need of humanitarian assistance. The facts on the ground paint a clear picture: sending Ukrainians back now would risk returning them to life threatening conditions.

Protecting the approximately 101,000 Ukrainian TPS holders currently living in the United States is a humanitarian imperative, but also a sound economic decision. Thanks to the work authorization granted by their TPS status, Ukrainian TPS holders have contributed approximately $2.6 billion to our economy each year and have provided approximately $716 million in taxes annually. In States like Illinois, thousands of Ukrainian TPS holders make our communities stronger not only through their rich cultural contributions, but also through their participation in critical sectors, including transportation, health care and construction. Terminating TPS for this population risks disrupting these industries, increasing costs for American consumers by forcing thousands of experienced workers out of their jobs.

Current conditions in Ukraine clearly merit the continuation of TPS status. The ongoing war has caused a humanitarian crisis and damage to critical civilian infrastructure has left many with limited or no access to heat, electricity or medical services. Ukrainian nationals cannot safely return at this time, and allowing TPS to terminate on October 19, 2026, would risk sending more than one hundred thousand individuals back to an active war zone. Ukrainian TPS holders contribute greatly to our communities, both culturally and economically. To ensure that eligible Ukrainian nationals currently in the United States can continue living and working safely while conditions in their home country remain perilous, we urge you issue an extension and redesignation of TPS for Ukraine.

###",1,2026-09-24T09:44:48Z,2026-09-24T09:45:52Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-breaks-down-need-for-federal-film-tax-incentive-to-keep-production-in-america/,WATCH: Sen. Schiff Breaks Down Need for Federal Film Tax Incentive to Keep Production in America,2026-09-23,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) released a video highlighting his push to secure a bipartisan federal film tax incentive to drive more production in America while increasing job opportunities and economic development. The latest momentum for a federal film tax incentive in Congress follows President Donald Trump’s recent endorsement of its passage.

In the video, Schiff breaks down how a federal film tax incentive would work and how it would increase America’s competitive edge in film and television production.

Watch the videohere

Background: For years, Schiff has highlighted the need to increase film production in America and has continued to build bipartisan support in Congress for his federal film incentive proposal, which would promote American jobs and spur local economic growth by creating additional support for film and television production in the U.S., allowing us to compete with foreign incentives. This proposal would benefit every U.S. state and territory, doubling down on the investments of the 40 states that already have some form of film production incentive with a stackable federal credit.

During his time in the California State Senate, Schiff helped lead efforts to increase production in California and protect local jobs. Schiff spearheaded efforts in Congress to extend California’s film tax credit, including in 2014 when he led 28 members of the California Democratic delegation in urging the leaders of the California State Senate and Assembly to reauthorize and enhance the tax credit. In 2024, Schiff sent a letter to the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics requesting detailed data on the impact of foreign production incentives on the domestic industry. In March 20, 2026, Senator Adam Schiff hosted a spotlight hearing in Burbank, California entitled, “Lights, Camera, Competition: Promoting American Film Production” to highlight the importance of bolstering American film production, and tackling the challenges facing the industry from generous tax incentives provided by other countries.

Read the full transcript below:

Sen. Schiff: So, what do the films “E.T.,” “The Hunger Games,” and “Pulp Fiction” have in common, besides the fact that they were big box office hits? What they have in common is they were all made in the United States of America. This is tragically becoming a rarity, particularly when you’re talking about film. We have a lot of runaway production of television, but it is most particularly an issue when it comes to movies.

Anchor (In clip): Some of the most anticipated blockbusters of 2025 mostly shot overseas. In many cases, production budget cuts, multiple strikes domestically, and what some describe as a California tax incentive that’s no longer competitive, taking Hollywood elsewhere.

Schiff: The movement of U.S. production of film and TV out of the country has huge consequences. Most particularly, we lose a lot of good-paying jobs. I feel this very keenly, being a resident of Burbank, California, where so much of the industry is concentrated. But we see high-paying jobs going to the UK and New Zealand, going to Canada and other places. This is a phenomenon called runaway production that we have seen for years, but it has been accelerating, and the result is the loss of many tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of jobs. I see these folks that are impacted by this all the time. I was walking through the streets of my hometown of Burbank the other day and was approached by someone who told me how they had worked in the industry for 25 years. They hadn’t had a union contract in three years. They’d never seen a more difficult time, and this is important to our economy. It’s also one of our most important cultural exports, our film and television. And the reason this is happening is that other countries many years ago started offering very generous tax incentives to try to lure this business away, because it has such a big impact on the rest of their economy, and these tax incentives have been successful. Now, some states like California have enacted their own tax credits to try to be competitive, but the U.S. government has not.

(Clip from “Talladega Nights”): Are you kidding me?

Schiff: That may be about to change. This is something I’ve worked on for 20 or 25 years, but for the first time, it has truly bipartisan support. You’re seeing President Trump, who has experience in the entertainment industry, voice his support for a film and television tax credit.

Trump (In clip): They all want to be in Hollywood. They don’t want to lose Hollywood, and the unions want that. The unions are going to work along. I’ve done a lot of work in that the last week, and I think we have bipartisan support. I think we have tremendous Democrat — I understand Adam Schiff is totally in favor of it, and I’d like to get it done. It’s going to work very quickly. They want to make movies in Hollywood. They grew up wanting to be in Hollywood. Now you can’t make a movie in Hollywood. It doesn’t make sense.

Schiff: You’re seeing others like Spencer Pratt and Jon Voight, the actor who is one of the president’s emissaries to Hollywood, also speaking out in favor of these tax credits. You have many Democrats like myself who’ve been pushing this for many, many, years. Laura Friedman, my colleague in the House, also a strong champion of this legislation, and we may finally have the opportunity to get this done.

(Clip from “Elf”): Oh my God!

Schiff: I hosted a hearing on this issue earlier this year, and we had Noah Wyle, the star of “The Pitt” among many other shows and movies, testify about the impacts of the loss of production, and he used the illustration of “The Pitt” which is filmed in Los Angeles, to talk about what a positive impact that has on jobs and the local economy.

Schiff (In clip): How was the decision to film here made, and how would a federal tax incentive on top of the state tax incentive, how would that affect the industry?

Wyle (In clip): You know, the one thing that Los Angeles has been able to offer is generational talent, homegrown here for over 100 years. This is the incubator of this industry, and the talent pool is immense. So the tax credit, augmented by a federal tax incentive, makes this competitive again and brings that work back to Los Angeles. Bottom line is that the estimated total impact of the first season of “The Pitt” contributed around 125 million dollars towards the state’s GDP during our production period. That is proof of concept. That is replicable, and it is vital to the strength of our industry and to our city to support these incentives.

Schiff: He also talked about, frankly, how many jobs have been lost in the industry as a result of runaway production.

Wyle (In clip): Over the last six years, the aggregate effect of projects leaving the state in search of tax credits, the pandemic, and last year’s fires, has been a near cratering of our once thriving industry. We lost 42,000 film and TV jobs in LA County between 2022 and 2024. And as of last year, high-budget productions are down 43%. Admittedly, it’s really hard to shoot a TV show in Los Angeles, and it’s really expensive. Prohibitively so, unless you adopt an economic model that allows you to take full advantage of the California tax incentive to offset your gross costs.

Schiff: Now there are more than one factor that have contributed to the exodus of some of the film and television industry out of California or out of the United States to other states. The high cost of production can be a factor, regulatory burdens can be a factor, but among the biggest factors are these tax incentives that have been offered by other countries. They’re extremely generous. We are not competitive, and as a result, we’ve been losing a lot of these jobs. So, how would a U.S. tax incentive work? How would it be competitive?

(Clip from “Seinfeld”): So what’s the deal with politics? I don’t get it. Am I right, Pete?

Schiff: Well, here’s basically how it would work. Under the proposal that I’ve written, in combination with many others, we would provide about a 20% tax credit for most film and television production. That is for the labor end of that production, so for the wages that these studios are paying employees, real people, to do this work. That tax credit could be augmented by five or ten percent, depending on whether the production is in a disaster zone or an economic zone, where there is a lack of good jobs and good employment, or when other circumstances, independent production are met. That could go up to a maximum of, a total of, 30 percent of federal tax credit. That is competitive with other countries. Other countries are still more generous than that in other respects. But here’s the thing: this would be stackable with tax credits offered by the state of California, for example. So, a production would enjoy the federal incentive as well as the state incentive. That makes us truly competitive with other countries, and that is great news for this vital American industry. So, what does this mean in practical terms?

(Clip from “Austin Powers”): Whoop-de-do! What does it all mean, Basil?

Schiff: “Beetlejuice” was originally filmed in the United States in 1987, but its sequel in 2024 was filmed in the United Kingdom. “The Social Network,” filmed in 2010, was mostly filmed in Los Angeles and a few other locations, but its sequel, “The Social Reckoning” due out in October, was filmed mostly in Vancouver, Canada. “Spaceballs” originally filmed in the United States in Los Angeles, its sequel is shot in Australia. Even the new “Spider-Man” which is set in New York City and features New York taxicabs and New York landmarks was filmed in the United Kingdom, where they had to go to the expense of recreating scenes that looked like New York instead of filming in New York, and why? Because the UK has a very generous tax incentive that we don’t have.

So, what about the argument that well, aren’t these tax incentives going to mean just giving more money to Tom Cruise, or these big Hollywood stars who have plenty of money to begin with? And the answer is no. These Hollywood stars are going to get paid wherever it’s filmed, whether it’s filmed in Canada or the United States, the UK. It doesn’t matter to their bottom line. What it does matter to is a lot of the set designers, and the caterers, and the local dry cleaners and all of the others who are working just to try to provide a good living for their family. I see these folks, I meet these folks, I talk to these folks all the time. They’re my neighbors, and they’ve had to spend increasing amounts of time out of the country, filming on location or simply out of work, because that work has left the United States. So those are the folks that I’m concerned about, that are really losing their jobs with the loss of this vital industry.

We take great pride in this American cultural form, film and television, watched all around the world, and increasingly not shot in America. So I’m excited that this is one of the few bipartisan things that we can agree upon and have a hope of actually getting passed. In fact, this is what the President had to say on social media: “Congress should approve immediately a federal production incentive to create entertainment jobs in America. It can be done quickly, accurately, efficiently and importantly, will benefit all of America.” We’re going to look to the next few weeks to try to get this across the finish line. It is something that has been long in need, and something that we can accomplish together.

###",1,2026-09-24T09:44:48Z,2026-09-24T09:45:52Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-murphy-introduce-bill-to-protect-students-from-physical-abuse-end-dangerous-corporal-punishment-practices-in-schools/,"Padilla, Murphy Introduce Bill to Protect Students from Physical Abuse, End Dangerous Corporal Punishment Practices in Schools",2026-09-22,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) in re-introducing the Protecting Our Students in Schools Act, legislation that would ban corporal punishment for any school that receives federal funding, as well as establish a federal grant program to support states and school districts across the country improve school safety.

“Every student deserves a safe, supportive learning environment that fosters positive relationships and protects their physical and emotional well-being,” said Senator Padilla. “The evidence is clear – corporal punishment is a cruel and outdated method that harms students, hinders academic achievement, and worsens behavior. This bill will make more of our schools safer spaces for students of all backgrounds.”

“Families should be able to trust that when they send their kids to school, they will be in a safe learning environment free from physical abuse,” said Senator Murphy. “The evidence is overwhelming: hitting kids does nothing to help kids. It’s past time to get this archaic, counterproductive practice out of our schools for good.”

“Schools have a responsibility to provide a safe and supportive learning environment for every student,” said Senator Durbin. “We know that corporal punishment is counterproductive to learning and can harm a student’s physical, emotional, and mental wellbeing. It should be left out of the classroom entirely. By standing with Senator Chris Murphy and co-sponsoring this bill, we can ensure that no student falls victim to this outdated and cruel punishment.”

“No child should ever face physical abuse, including at school,” said Senator Kaine. “It’s time to end the outdated and harmful practice of corporal punishment in every school across the country. Instead of relying on fear, our schools should provide safe, supportive learning environments that students need to thrive and be healthy.”

Inflicting physical pain on a student’s body as a form of discipline is used in schools throughout the country. However, research has decisively demonstrated corporal punishment is ineffective and does not improve student behavior. Instead, it leads to physical and emotional harm, poor academic performance, diminished self-esteem, and loss of trust. The Protecting Our Students in Schools Act enacts protections for students to ensure all public educational facilities maintain safe, non-violent environments.

The Protecting Our Students in Schools Act is endorsed by organizations including Access Ready Inc., All4Ed, American Psychological Association, Arkansans Against School Paddling, Autism Society of America, Boys Town, Children and Adults with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (CHADD), Committee for Children, Council for Exceptional Children, Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates (COPAA), Disability Belongs®, Disability Rights Oregon, EdTrust, Family Voices NJ, Intercultural Development Research Association (IDRA), Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Lives in the Balance, National Alliance on Mental Illness, National Association of Social Workers, National Down Syndrome Society, National Education Association (NEA), Public Advocacy for Kids (PAK), Secular Student Alliance, SPAN Parent Advocacy Network, Students Engaged in Advancing Texas (SEAT), TDIforAccess, Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children (TED), Texas Parent to Parent, The Arc of the United States, The Center for Learner Equity, The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities (CTD), The Federal School Discipline and Climate Coalition (FedSDC), The Learning Disabilities Association of America, The National Center for Learning Disabilities, U.S. Alliance to End the Hitting of Children, and United Women in Faith.

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-23T09:45:16Z,2026-09-23T09:46:14Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-demands-health-net-restore-coverage-for-thousands-in-ca-depending-on-assisted-living-care-warns-of-health-implications/,"NEWS: Sen. Schiff Demands Health Net Restore Coverage for Thousands in CA Depending on Assisted Living Care, Warns of Health Implications",2026-09-22,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is urging Health Net, one of the largest Medicaid plans in California, to reverse its termination of assisted living coverage for 3,000 Californians, jeopardizing access to housing and essential care services.

“The sudden loss of assisted living benefits could have potentially devastating repercussions for enrollees and their family members. I urge Health Net to reconsider this coverage termination,” Senator Schiff said to Interim CEO at Health Net Eric Schmacker in a new letter.

The Senator emphasized that millions of Californians are already facing significant uncertainty about accessing medical care in the aftermath of the largest Medicaid cut in U.S. history by this Republican-led Congress. Additionally, Schiff warned that forcing thousands to pay out of pocket for assisted living services will be a heavy burden on these patients and their family members.

“Very few families have the capacity to provide full-time care, imposing undue financial, physical, and emotional strain on loved ones. Sadly, others have no family or support systems to rely on at all. With such limited alternatives, the risk of sudden coverage loss could be catastrophic,” the Senator wrote.

“I am deeply concerned that Health Net’s coverage termination of Medi-Cal assisted living benefits will compound the damage caused by the cuts to Medicaid programs across the country. While California’s health care safety net faces extraordinary strain, we must work together to mitigate coverage loss and help Medi-Cal beneficiaries access the care and support they need,” the Senator concluded.

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

Dear Mr. Schmacker,

I write to you today with deep concerns regarding Health Net’s decision to terminate Medi-Cal coverage of Assisted Living Facility Transitions (ALFT) and Personal Care Homemaker Services (PCHS) Community Support benefits, impacting approximately 3,000 Californians enrolled in Health Net plans. The sudden loss of assisted living benefits could have potentially devastating repercussions for enrollees and their family members. I urge Health Net to reconsider this coverage termination and ensure each of these enrollees maintain access to assisted living care.

Assisted living benefits provide an important alternative to institutional care. In California, thousands of Medi-Cal enrollees rely on these benefits to manage basic day-to-day needs, such as meal preparation, medication management, bathing, dressing, and mobility. Losing plan coverage of such vital services leaves very few alternatives for access to care. For a vast majority of these Medi-Cal enrollees, paying for assisted living services out-of-pocket – which can cost as much as $7,000 each month – is not feasible. But enrollees are not the only ones affected by this coverage termination – without access to professional support, family members are often left to fill the caregiver role. At the same time, very few families have the capacity to provide full-time care, imposing undue financial, physical, and emotional strain on loved ones. Sadly, others have no family or support systems to rely on at all. With such limited alternatives, the risk of sudden coverage loss could be catastrophic.

I am particularly concerned that Health Net’s decision to terminate assisted living coverage comes at a time when Californians are already facing significant uncertainty about accessing care. Last year, the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans enacted the largest cut to health care in American history, with many of these devastating cuts set to take effect on January 1, 2027. I am deeply concerned that Health Net’s coverage termination of Medi-Cal assisted living benefits will compound the damage caused by the cuts to Medicaid programs across the country. While California’s health care safety net faces extraordinary strain, we must work together to mitigate coverage loss and help Medi-Cal beneficiaries access the care and support they need.

I urge Health Net to reconsider the decision to terminate coverage of Assisted Living Facility Transitions and Personal Care Homemaker Services Community Support benefits and work with DHCS to ensure continuity of care for these Medi-Cal enrollees. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

###",1,2026-09-23T09:45:16Z,2026-09-23T09:46:14Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-to-ag-bonta-investigate-shocking-whistleblower-disclosure-alleging-alarming-dhs-activities-in-california/,"Padilla, Schiff to AG Bonta: Investigate Shocking Whistleblower Disclosure Alleging Alarming DHS Activities in California",2026-09-21,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Allegations made by DHS Whistleblower could have far-reaching impacts on eligible California voters and lawfully present noncitizens

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with jurisdiction over federal elections and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), in a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, flagged concerning activities detailed in a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower disclosure and requested that Bonta investigate whether those actions may have violated California law.

In their letter to Bonta, the Senators highlighted the whistleblower’s allegations that DHS is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) officers to impersonate voters in violation of state laws to access online voter data as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at manufacturing evidence for President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread noncitizen voter fraud.

The Senators emphasized the potential impacts these actions could have on eligible California voters, including naturalized citizens, such as the creation of erroneous federal law enforcement records known as “TECS records,” especially given the reckless performance quotas of 40 subjects per day being demanded by DHS and the required usage of unreliable source data compiled with so-called “supplemental magic.”

“Of particular interest to Californians are the claims that USCIS personnel were directed to misrepresent themselves on California’s voter registration site to access voter data,” wrote the Senators. “California’s voter registration website is clearly intended for the use of voters themselves, and requires the use of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) to access this voter data, including driver’s license number and/or partial Social Security Number. As outlined in the USCIS training materials provided by this whistleblower, USCIS officers were directed to enter this information, obtained from other DHS data, in order to access the voter data on California’s voter website.”

The Senators emphasized that USCIS personnel were provided with thousands of Californians’ sensitive records and data to investigate if they were “unlawful voters.” They further emphasized California’s strong protections regarding voter information and raised concerns about how the information was obtained by the Trump Administration.

“As you know, the U.S. Department of Justice has been unsuccessful in its attempt to compel California to provide its voter information to the Trump Administration, raising serious questions about what this data is, how DHS obtained it, and whether they complied with the law in collecting and using this data,” continued the Senators. “The fact that the DHS data was compiled with something called ‘supplemental magic’ does not provide reassurance.”

The Senators urged Bonta to review the whistleblower disclosure and determine measures to protect Californians’ voter data. They also urged an investigation into the whistleblower’s allegations.

“Considering California’s strong protections surrounding the use of voter registration information and PII, we believe this Disclosure merits a review by your office to determine what actions are necessary and appropriate to protect California voters,” concluded the Senators. “Especially as agency leaders dismissed concerns raised by the Whistleblower and other officers about the legality of this conduct, instructing them to move forward with the searches anyway, we want to ensure that you have all available information necessary to investigate these allegations to the extent your office deems appropriate.”

Following receipt of the bombshell whistleblower disclosure, Padilla and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) demanded DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow immediately halt the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and provide responses to Congress on its activities. Last week, Padilla and Schumer led 16 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to demand the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) immediately open an independent investigation into the wrongdoings detailed in a recent whistleblower’s disclosure. Last week, Padilla also spoke on the Senate floor and called for immediate action and transparency from the Trump Administration following receipt of the disclosure and demanded DHS stop the sham “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” Last month, Padilla led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop their illegal voter roll purges before election day. In June, Padilla joined Schumer in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide. The Task Force will continue meeting over the coming months to ensure that every American has fair access to the ballot box this November.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Attorney General Bonta:

Thank you for your leadership in standing up for the rule of law against President Trump and his Administration’s efforts to interfere with the voting rights of the more than 23 million eligible Californians who are registered to vote.

We are writing to make you aware of a September 8, 2026, protected whistleblower disclosure (the “Disclosure”) that reveals serious allegations of illegal and inappropriate activities within the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or “the Department”) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”). These allegations raise the very serious concern that U.S. citizens could be wrongfully flagged as “unlawful voters,” and also indicate potential violations of California state law, including federal officers impersonating California voters to access their state voting records.

According to the attached Disclosure, the Department and USCIS leadership have abruptly diverted FDNS personnel to an “Unlawful Voter Initiative” using highly questionable data and methods to identify purported unlawful voters. DHS and USCIS training materials admit these investigations will include U.S. citizens, some of whom will have federal law enforcement records created against them based on questionable data and rushed reviews by officers held to quotas. The whistleblower’s Disclosure includes compelling evidence of wrongdoing by agency leadership including:

(1) USCIS personnel have been directed to access sensitive voter information in violation of state laws prohibiting unauthorized access to individual voter records;

(2) USCIS personnel are under significant pressure from headquarters to enter federal TECS records against individuals that are likely to be false, potentially harming thousands of people in likely violation of federal privacy requirements;

(3) With minimal training, agency leadership is imposing reckless quotas that demand USCIS personnel investigate 40 subjects per day, a rate of roughly 12 minutes per subject, with leadership tracking their output in an attempt to complete this rushed investigation by September 12; and

(4) DHS is providing USCIS personnel with DHS data of dubious origin, including voter data, which they are required to accept as accurate despite the admission that the data has been augmented with “supplemental magic.”

The Trump Administration appears to be undertaking this rushed effort to find – or manufacture – evidence for its baseless election conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Inaccurate claims of “unlawful voters” and erroneous federal law enforcement records can result in serious consequences for Californians, including many naturalized citizens. The Trump Administration may also use these claims to further threaten state and local election officials in California and undermine or challenge the election results themselves.

Of particular interest to Californians are the claims that USCIS personnel were directed to misrepresent themselves on California’s voter registration site to access voter data. California’s voter registration website is clearly intended for the use of voters themselves, and requires the use of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) to access this voter data, including driver’s license number and/or partial Social Security Number. As outlined in the USCIS training materials provided by this whistleblower, USCIS officers were directed to enter this information, obtained from other DHS data, in order to access the voter data on California’s voter website.

In addition, this whistleblower Disclosure reveals that FDNS officers were provided with thousands of Californians’ information to investigate whether they were “unlawful voters.” The ultimate source of the data used for this target list is unknown, but the training materials state “[t]his public voter file for California was passed to us by [DHS].” As you know, the U.S. Department of Justice has been unsuccessful in its attempt to compel California to provide its voter information to the Trump Administration, raising serious questions about what this data is, how DHS obtained it, and whether they complied with the law in collecting and using this data. The fact that the DHS data was compiled with something called “supplemental magic” does not provide reassurance.

The Disclosure further claims that agency leadership knew that this data was unreliable, yet FDNS officers were directed to create federal law enforcement records (known as “TECS” records) against individuals, many of whom are U.S. citizens. In fact, “[o]fficers are specifically told to rely on the data DHS provided for California and use the voter registration dates and voting dates provided in that data to indicate that the subject may be an unlawful voter and create a TECS record.” According to the Disclosure, “a significant number of TECS records, potentially thousands or tens of thousands, will be created against California residents based on data that an officer may have good reason to believe is unreliable or inaccurate without corroboration.” This is especially concerning since the agency’s own training materials admit that there are “a lot of U.S. citizens” in the data.

Considering California’s strong protections surrounding the use of voter registration information and PII, we believe this Disclosure merits a review by your office to determine what actions are necessary and appropriate to protect California voters. Especially as agency leaders dismissed concerns raised by the Whistleblower and other officers about the legality of this conduct, instructing them to move forward with the searches anyway, we want to ensure that you have all available information necessary to investigate these allegations to the extent your office deems appropriate.

Again, we appreciate your efforts to stand up to the Trump Administration’s repeated attempts to intrude on states like California’s authority to administer their elections and protect the right to vote.

Thank you for giving this important matter all due consideration.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-22T09:42:49Z,2026-09-22T09:44:35Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-to-ag-bonta-investigate-shocking-whistleblower-disclosure-alleging-alarming-dhs-activities-in-california/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla to AG Bonta: Investigate Shocking Whistleblower Disclosure Alleging Alarming DHS Activities in California",2026-09-21,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Allegations made by DHS Whistleblower could have far-reaching impacts on eligible California voters and lawfully present noncitizens

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), in a letter to California Attorney General Rob Bonta, flagged concerning activities detailed in a recent Department of Homeland Security (DHS) whistleblower disclosure and requested that Bonta investigate whether those actions may have violated California law.

In their letter to Bonta, the Senators highlighted the whistleblower’s allegations that DHS is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) officers to impersonate voters in violation of state laws to access online voter data as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at manufacturing evidence for President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread noncitizen voter fraud.

The Senators emphasized the potential impacts these actions could have on eligible California voters, including naturalized citizens, such as the creation of erroneous federal law enforcement records known as “TECS records,” especially given the reckless performance quotas of 40 subjects per day being demanded by DHS and the required usage of unreliable source data compiled with so-called “supplemental magic.”

“Of particular interest to Californians are the claims that USCIS personnel were directed to misrepresent themselves on California’s voter registration site to access voter data,” wrote the Senators. “California’s voter registration website is clearly intended for the use of voters themselves, and requires the use of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) to access this voter data, including driver’s license number and/or partial Social Security Number. As outlined in the USCIS training materials provided by this whistleblower, USCIS officers were directed to enter this information, obtained from other DHS data, in order to access the voter data on California’s voter website.”

The Senators emphasized that USCIS personnel were provided with thousands of Californians’ sensitive records and data to investigate if they were “unlawful voters.” They further emphasized California’s strong protections regarding voter information and raised concerns about how the information was obtained by the Trump Administration.

“As you know, the U.S. Department of Justice has been unsuccessful in its attempt to compel California to provide its voter information to the Trump Administration, raising serious questions about what this data is, how DHS obtained it, and whether they complied with the law in collecting and using this data,” continued the Senators. “The fact that the DHS data was compiled with something called ‘supplemental magic’ does not provide reassurance.”

The Senators urged Bonta to review the whistleblower disclosure and determine measures to protect Californians’ voter data. They also urged an investigation into the whistleblower’s allegations.

“Considering California’s strong protections surrounding the use of voter registration information and PII, we believe this Disclosure merits a review by your office to determine what actions are necessary and appropriate to protect California voters,”concluded the Senators. “Especially as agency leaders dismissed concerns raised by the Whistleblower and other officers about the legality of this conduct, instructing them to move forward with the searches anyway, we want to ensure that you have all available information necessary to investigate these allegations to the extent your office deems appropriate.”

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

Dear Attorney General Bonta:

Thank you for your leadership in standing up for the rule of law against President Trump and his Administration’s efforts to interfere with the voting rights of the more than 23 million eligible Californians who are registered to vote.

We are writing to make you aware of a September 8, 2026, protected whistleblower disclosure (the “Disclosure”) that reveals serious allegations of illegal and inappropriate activities within the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or “the Department”) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”). These allegations raise the very serious concern that U.S. citizens could be wrongfully flagged as “unlawful voters,” and also indicate potential violations of California state law, including federal officers impersonating California voters to access their state voting records.

According to the attached Disclosure, the Department and USCIS leadership have abruptly diverted FDNS personnel to an “Unlawful Voter Initiative” using highly questionable data and methods to identify purported unlawful voters. DHS and USCIS training materials admit these investigations will include U.S. citizens, some of whom will have federal law enforcement records created against them based on questionable data and rushed reviews by officers held to quotas. The whistleblower’s Disclosure includes compelling evidence of wrongdoing by agency leadership including:

(1) USCIS personnel have been directed to access sensitive voter information in violation of state laws prohibiting unauthorized access to individual voter records;

(2) USCIS personnel are under significant pressure from headquarters to enter federal TECS records against individuals that are likely to be false, potentially harming thousands of people in likely violation of federal privacy requirements;

(3) With minimal training, agency leadership is imposing reckless quotas that demand USCIS personnel investigate 40 subjects per day, a rate of roughly 12 minutes per subject, with leadership tracking their output in an attempt to complete this rushed investigation by September 12; and

(4) DHS is providing USCIS personnel with DHS data of dubious origin, including voter data, which they are required to accept as accurate despite the admission that the data has been augmented with “supplemental magic.”

The Trump Administration appears to be undertaking this rushed effort to find – or manufacture – evidence for its baseless election conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Inaccurate claims of “unlawful voters” and erroneous federal law enforcement records can result in serious consequences for Californians, including many naturalized citizens. The Trump Administration may also use these claims to further threaten state and local election officials in California and undermine or challenge the election results themselves.

Of particular interest to Californians are the claims that USCIS personnel were directed to misrepresent themselves on California’s voter registration site to access voter data. California’s voter registration website is clearly intended for the use of voters themselves, and requires the use of sensitive personally identifiable information (PII) to access this voter data, including driver’s license number and/or partial Social Security Number. As outlined in the USCIS training materials provided by this whistleblower, USCIS officers were directed to enter this information, obtained from other DHS data, in order to access the voter data on California’s voter website.

In addition, this whistleblower Disclosure reveals that FDNS officers were provided with thousands of Californians’ information to investigate whether they were “unlawful voters.” The ultimate source of the data used for this target list is unknown, but the training materials state “[t]his public voter file for California was passed to us by [DHS].” As you know, the U.S. Department of Justice has been unsuccessful in its attempt to compel California to provide its voter information to the Trump Administration, raising serious questions about what this data is, how DHS obtained it, and whether they complied with the law in collecting and using this data. The fact that the DHS data was compiled with something called “supplemental magic” does not provide reassurance.

The Disclosure further claims that agency leadership knew that this data was unreliable, yet FDNS officers were directed to create federal law enforcement records (known as “TECS” records) against individuals, many of whom are U.S. citizens. In fact, “[o]fficers are specifically told to rely on the data DHS provided for California and use the voter registration dates and voting dates provided in that data to indicate that the subject may be an unlawful voter and create a TECS record.” According to the Disclosure, “a significant number of TECS records, potentially thousands or tens of thousands, will be created against California residents based on data that an officer may have good reason to believe is unreliable or inaccurate without corroboration.” This is especially concerning since the agency’s own training materials admit that there are “a lot of U.S. citizens” in the data.

Considering California’s strong protections surrounding the use of voter registration information and PII, we believe this Disclosure merits a review by your office to determine what actions are necessary and appropriate to protect California voters. Especially as agency leaders dismissed concerns raised by the Whistleblower and other officers about the legality of this conduct, instructing them to move forward with the searches anyway, we want to ensure that you have all available information necessary to investigate these allegations to the extent your office deems appropriate.

Again, we appreciate your efforts to stand up to the Trump Administration’s repeated attempts to intrude on states like California’s authority to administer their elections and protect the right to vote.

Thank you for giving this important matter all due consideration.

###",1,2026-09-22T09:42:49Z,2026-09-22T09:44:35Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/following-bombshell-whistleblower-disclosure-padilla-schumer-senators-to-demand-investigation-into-dhs-voter-data-misconduct/,"Following Bombshell Whistleblower Disclosure, Padilla, Schumer, Senators to Demand Investigation into DHS Voter Data Misconduct",2026-09-18,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"18 Senators seek “thorough and objective” investigation into new whistleblower disclosure revealing DHS officers were directed to illegally access sensitive voter data and create law enforcement records based on unreliable data compiled with “supplemental magic”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with jurisdiction over federal elections and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) led 16 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus to demand the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) immediately open an independent investigation into the wrongdoings detailed in a recent whistleblower’s disclosure. The disclosure alleges that DHS is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Fraud Detection and National Security (FDNS) officers to impersonate voters in violation of state laws to access online voter data as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at manufacturing evidence for President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.

“The DHS Office of Inspector General’s mission is ‘[t]o provide independent oversight and promote excellence, integrity, and accountability within DHS,’” wrote the Senators. “We urge you to carry out that mission by immediately opening an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoings detailed in the whistleblower’s claims, which describe agency leadership directing officers to violate the law and DHS standards of integrity.”

The Senators highlighted the whistleblower’s allegations and potential impacts on eligible voters and other lawfully present noncitizens, such as directing USCIS personnel to make false certifications to access sensitive voter information, create erroneous federal law enforcement records known as “TECS records,” require reckless performance quotas of reviewing 40 subjects per day, and rely on unreliable source data compiled with “supplemental magic.”

In addition to opening an investigation, the Senators urged the OIG to take immediate action to prevent additional wrongdoing, writing: “In addition to your investigation, please use every tool at your disposal, including a management alert, to address this immediately and prevent any additional wrongdoing or misuse of agency personnel and resources while the investigation is ongoing.”

“Given the time-sensitive nature of these claims, and the potential for misuse of this information for political purposes in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, please provide weekly updates on the status of your investigation to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Senate Committee on the Judiciary,” the Senators concluded. “Finally, recognizing the special provisions concerning the DHS Secretary’s authority over certain DHS OIG audits and investigations, if the Secretary refuses to cooperate with an audit or investigation, please notify us immediately.”

The DHS whistleblower disclosure has also prompted outside watchdog organizations to conduct their own investigations into the Trump Administration’s wrongdoings, including an investigation launched by American Oversight to obtain DHS and USCIS records under the Freedom of Information Act regarding the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and alleged DHS directives to violate state laws.

“The Trump Administration needs to come clean about the apparently rampant violations of the law by DHS and USCIS in their quest for Americans’ sensitive personal voter information, and I welcome outside watchdogs standing up to fight for the public’s right to know about this so-called ‘Unlawful Voter Initiative,’” said Senator Padilla. “According to the brave federal whistleblower who came forward this week, agency leaders are directing officers to violate laws and use ‘magic’ data, all in service of Donald Trump’s attempts to prove his baseless election fraud conspiracy theories. It’s an abuse of power that cries out for more transparency, and the Administration must stop this unlawful and reckless effort, respond to questions from Congress, and provide information to the public, as the law requires.”

“The Trump administration is working overtime to silence the voices of American voters – and Democrats are working even harder to protect our nation’s elections. There must be an immediate and thorough investigation following this brave whistleblower’s report about the lawlessness at DHS,” said Leader Schumer. “As costs skyrocket, and chaos reigns across the country, Trump is doing everything in his power to avoid accountability. But Americans are watching, they are angry, and they are ready to make their voices heard in November. In the United States, voters get to pick the President – not the other way around.”

In addition to Padilla and Schumer, the letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Timothy Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee and California’s former Secretary of State and chief election officer, Padilla has championed election security and voting rights. Following receipt of the whistleblower’s disclosure, Padilla and Schumer demanded DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow immediately halt the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and provide an urgent report to Congress on its activities. Padilla also called for immediate action and transparency from the Trump Administration following the bombshell whistleblower disclosure and demanded it stop the sham “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” Last month, Padilla led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop their illegal voter roll purges before election day. In June, Padilla joined Schumer in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide. The Task Force will continue meeting over the coming months to ensure that every American has fair access to the ballot box this November.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Inspector General Cuffari:

On September 8, 2026, a protected whistleblower made the attached disclosure to the Senate (the “Disclosure”) that reveals serious allegations of illegal and inappropriate activities within the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or “the Department”) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”).

The attached Disclosure confirms that the Department and USCIS leadership have abruptly diverted FDNS from its mission and directed personnel to an “Unlawful Voter Initiative” using highly questionable data and methods to identify purported unlawful voters. DHS and USCIS training materials admit these investigations will include U.S. citizens, some of whom will have federal law enforcement records created about them based on unreliable data and rushed reviews by officers held to quotas. This initiative is placing FDNS employees in an impossible position. They are being directed to take actions in the weeks before the election that this whistleblower believes are against the law and Department policy, and which will harm Americans.

The whistleblower’s Disclosure includes compelling evidence of wrongdoing by agency leadership including:

(1) USCIS personnel have been directed to access sensitive voter information in violation of state laws prohibiting unauthorized access to individual voter records, including to make false certifications and affirmations;

(2) USCIS personnel are under significant pressure from headquarters to enter federal

TECS records about individuals that have a high risk of being false, potentially harming thousands of people in likely violation of federal privacy requirements;

(3) Agency leadership is imposing reckless quotas that demand USCIS personnel investigate 40 subjects per day with minimal training, a rate of roughly 12 minutes per subject, with leadership tracking agent output in an attempt to complete this rushed investigation by September 12; and

(4) DHS is providing USCIS personnel with DHS data of dubious origin, including voter data, which they are required to accept as accurate despite the admission that the data has been augmented with “supplemental magic.”

The whistleblower’s Disclosure states that rank-and-file USCIS employees have serious concerns with the actions they have been directed to perform as part of the “Unlawful Voter Initiative.” When the whistleblower and others raised concerns about potential violations of state law, they were advised that they would not be held “personally liable”, implying an awareness of potential illegality by agency leadership. All these claims require a thorough and objective investigation, including whether authority exists to collect and use all relevant data, free of interference by agency leadership.

This initiative plainly appears to be a political exercise that poses risks to national security. Over the past several weeks, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, ProPublica, and other outlets have reported on the intense White House pressure on DHS and other agencies to back up the President’s baseless claims of widespread election fraud. According to these reports, former USCIS officials are concerned that “work screening immigration applications for false information and possible security threats has effectively ground to a halt.”

Concerningly, the launch of the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” also occurred immediately following an FDNS reorganization that may have made these highly questionable practices easier to implement quickly across the agency. Your investigation should also examine whether this reorganization contributed to the management failures involved in this initiative.

The DHS Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) mission is “to provide independent oversight and promote excellence, integrity, and accountability within DHS.” We urge you to carry out that mission by immediately opening an independent investigation into the alleged wrongdoings detailed in the whistleblower’s claims, which describe agency leadership directing officers to violate the law and DHS standards of integrity. Failure to do so risks compounding the serious concerns about these activities within the FDNS workforce and the lack of integrity of FDNS, USCIS, and DHS leadership. In addition to your investigation, please use every tool at your disposal, including a management alert, to address this immediately and prevent any additional wrongdoing or misuse of agency personnel and resources while the investigation is ongoing.

Given the time-sensitive nature of these claims, and the potential for misuse of this information for political purposes in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections, please provide weekly updates on the status of your investigation to the leadership of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs, and Senate Committee on the Judiciary. Finally, recognizing the special provisions concerning the DHS Secretary’s authority over certain DHS OIG audits and investigations, if the Secretary refuses to cooperate with an audit or investigation, please notify us immediately.

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-19T09:11:33Z,2026-09-19T09:12:45Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-joins-slotkin-and-senate-democrats-in-demanding-answers-from-hegseth-on-cost-of-iran-war/,NEWS: Schiff Joins Slotkin and Senate Democrats in Demanding Answers from Hegseth on Cost of Iran War,2026-09-18,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Pentagon Greatly Underestimates Cost of Iran War to Taxpayers and Families

Washington D.C. — U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (Calif.) joined Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and 44 of their colleagues, nearly the entire Democratic caucus, in sending a letter to Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, demanding a full accounting of the costs of the ongoing war with Iran. The letter also criticized the Department of Defense for withholding basic budget information from Congress and the American public even as U.S. casualties and taxpayer costs continue to increase.

The United States is now more than six months into a conflict President Trump initially said would last six weeks. Eighteen American servicemembers have been killed and more than 820 wounded, and over 50,000 troops are currently deployed to the Middle East. In the letter, Slotkin and her colleagues note that deployments, including for the USS Lincoln and the 82nd Airborne, have been repeatedly extended, and that their offices have heard directly from military families worried about loved ones serving in the conflict.

“Meanwhile, at home, American taxpayers have already paid an extra $100 billion out of their pockets for higher gas and diesel prices alone and at least another $60 billion in higher costs for things like groceries, mortgages, and plane tickets as a result of the war,” wrote the Senators. “Now you are asking that they pay again to fund a war of choice that Congress never authorized and the President launched with no strategic plan.”

In their letter, the senators highlight the contrast between the current Pentagon’s transparency record with past wartime practice, noting that Hegseth has briefed Congress only seven times in six months and held just eight Pentagon press briefings or interviews since the war began, compared to more than 70 press briefings in the first month of the Iraq War alone. The senators also criticized the administration’s public supplemental funding request as a seven-page document offering only vague line items, in contrast to the detailed, hundred-page supplemental requests provided to Congress during the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.

Slotkin and the senators are requesting that the Department of Defense provide:

A detailed breakdown of all direct and indirect costs of military operations against Iran to date, including damage to installations, aircraft, and equipment.

A full accounting of the $67 billion supplemental request, specifying what covers past costs versus future operations.

A detailed plan for how the Pentagon intends to spend the remaining $34 billion from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

“Despite asking for tens of billions of additional taxpayer dollars, you have so far failed to provide basic information on how this money has and will be spent,” continued the Senators. “Congress must have access to this information to carry out our oversight responsibilities. It is the bare minimum that any American would expect in balancing their own household budget.”

Senator Slotkin’s letter was signed by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael G. Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

The full text of the letter is available here.

###",1,2026-09-19T09:11:33Z,2026-09-19T09:12:45Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-unveils-legislative-package-to-expand-access-to-affordable-meals-for-college-students-address-food-insecurity-on-college-campuses/,"NEWS: Sen. Schiff Unveils Legislative Package to Expand Access to Affordable Meals for College Students, Address Food Insecurity on College Campuses",2026-09-18,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is unveiling two pieces of legislation that will provide college students across the nation’s campuses access to affordable, nutritious, and hot meals – addressing the worsening food insecurity students on college campuses face.

The Hot Meals for College Students Act will allow for college students to use their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits to purchase hot and prepared meals from on-campus vendors. The Food for Thought Act will direct the Department of Agriculture (USDA) to establish a grant program for colleges to offer free meals to low-income students.

“College students should never have to worry about where their next meal will come from or have to drop out because they can’t afford food and tuition. These bills are a commonsense approach to addressing student hunger and strengthening higher education,” said Senator Schiff.

As the food and housing insecurity crises worsen, these challenges are especially acute in California, where the rising cost of food, housing and other necessities continues to strain students already confronting the high cost of attending college.

Senator Schiff developed this legislation through his ongoing effort to visit community colleges across California and hear directly from students about the challenges they face. During a visit to San Bernardino Valley College, Jazmyn Garcia, a San Bernardino Community College District (SBCCD) Student Trustee, raised the difficulty of not being able to use SNAP benefits to purchase meals on campus. By bringing students’ experiences into the policymaking process, this bill offers a practical solution to make SNAP more accessible on college campuses and ensure students can more readily use their benefits for nutritious food.

“Students like me aren’t asking for a new benefit. We’re asking to use the food assistance we already qualify for where we spend most of our day. I’m a full-time STEM student, I work, and SNAP is my food budget. I already qualify for these benefits, but I can’t use them to buy a hot meal from the cafeteria on my own campus. I try to meal prep, but between school and work, some days I just can’t. A lot of students are balancing school, jobs, bills and family while preparing for careers our communities need. Being able to use SNAP for a hot meal on campus would remove one small but real barrier to finishing college. I’m grateful Senator Schiff came to our campus, listened to students and is working to fix that,” said Jazmyn Garcia, a San Bernardino Community College District (SBCCD) Student Trustee.

“We can’t expect students to do their best in class when they’re hungry, and we can’t expect faculty to teach around hunger. Our cafeterias are already here serving students every day. Federal rules should not make it harder for students who already qualify for SNAP to use those benefits for a hot meal on campus. Senator Schiff’s bill is a common-sense fix,” said Dr. Diana Z. Rodriguez, SBCCD’s Chancellor.

“Trump and the MAGA-controlled Congress have cut benefits for the most vulnerable, including many Californians that our members teach every day. UAW 4123 members support the Hot Meals for College Students Act of 2026 because we know that in order to learn, our students need access to healthy meals,” said Lark Winner, the President of United Auto Workers (UAW) 4123, which represents California State University student workers.

The Hot Meals for College Students is endorsed by SwipeOut Hunger, the Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, National Education Association (NEA), University of California Student Association (UCSA), University of California Graduate & Professional Council (UCGPC), The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), UAW Local 4811, which represents UC student workers, UAW Local 4123, California Community Colleges, Allan Hancock College, College of the Siskiyous, San Bernardino Community College District, Sierra College, Solano Community College, Victor Valley College, Woodland Community College, MiraCosta College, Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District and Pasadena City College.

The full text of the legislation is available here.

A one-pager for the legislation is available here.

The Food for Thought Act will create a grant program within USDA to provide free meals to low-income college students, including those at minority-serving institutions and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs).

The Food for Thought Act will:

Amend the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act to authorize the Secretary of Agriculture to make grants to institutions of higher education to provide free meals to low-income students;

Authorize funds that schools may use to conduct campus outreach on student eligibility for federal food assistance programs, operate on-campus food pantries, and update or purchase critical food infrastructure such as refrigerators and microwaves for student use; and

Ensure grantees will collect and report data on the prevalence of food insecurity on their campuses to inform and expand national anti-hunger programming.

Senator Schiff first introduced the Food for Thought Act as a member of the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019.

Along with Schiff, U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.) is co-leading, and U.S. Representative Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44) is leading the House companion legislation.

“Students from underserved communities face enough challenges in higher education without the added burden of wondering where their next meal is coming from. We should do all we can to provide the resources necessary to give a helping hand to students facing food insecurity on campus,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to join Senator Schiff and Rep. Barragán in leading the Food for Thought Act to ensure students from Vermont to California never have to decide between their next meal or pursuing their future.”

“Students should never have to choose between putting food on the table and earning a college degree,” said Representative Barragán. “For too many students, especially those from low-income families, hunger is another barrier standing between them and their education. The Food for Thought Act will help colleges provide free meals, strengthen campus food resources, and connect students with the assistance they need to succeed. When we invest in a student’s basic needs, we are investing in their ability to stay in school, graduate, and build a better future. No student should have to go hungry while working toward their education.”

The Food for Thought Act is endorsed by numerous organizations and community colleges: California State University, California Community Colleges, University of California Student Association (UCSA), University of California Graduate and Professional Council (UCGPC), UAW Local 4811, UAW Local 4123, SwipeOut Hunger, Hope Center for Student Basic Needs, Congressional Hunger Center, The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS), American Association of Community Colleges, Center for Law and Social Policy (CLASP), Community College League of California, MAZON: A Jewish Response to Hunger, Southern California College Attainment Network, Association of Community College Trustees, Association of Independent California Colleges and Universities, Los Angeles Community College District, National Educational Association, UnidosUS, National Urban League, Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities (HACU), American Council on Education (ACE), CalState Long Beach, LA Harbor College, East Los Angeles College, Cerritos College, Hunger Free Vermont, Allan Hancock College, Citrus College, El Camino College, Hartnell College, Lake Tahoe Community College, Madera Community College, Mendocino College, MiraCosta College, Monterey Peninsula College, Ohlone College, Palomar College, Pasadena City College, Rio Hondo College, Santa Rosa Junior College, Mt. San Jacinto College, Victor Valley College, Cabrillo College, College of the Canyons, Cerritos College, Hudson Valley Community College (NY), San Juan College (NM), South Puget Sound Community College, Chaffey College, Grossmont-Cuyamaca Community College District, Kern Community College District, San Bernardino Community College District, Yuba Community College District, Foothill-De Anza Community College District, New Mexico Independent Community Colleges (NM), Riverside Community College District, Yosemite Community College District, South Orange County Community College District, and Chabot-Las Positas Community College District.

“On behalf of over 237,000 students across the University of California, and the millions of students across the country who deserve to pursue their education without being hungry, the UC Student Association is excited to stand with Senator Schiff in strong support of the Food for Thought Act,” said Duke Dela Rosa, UCSA Government Relations Chair and rising junior at UC Berkeley. “Addressing the basic needs crisis facing students is a critical step to strengthen education outcomes, especially when nearly 1 in 4 students nationally struggle with food security, impacting their success and their ability to graduate.”

“The University of California Graduate & Professional Council endorses the Food for Thought Act of 2026 to authorize certain institutions of higher education to provide free meals to low-income students as part of necessary efforts to reduce student hunger. As detailed in the January 2025 UCLA Report, SNAP on College Campuses, college students face extremely high levels of food insecurity with more than 70% of CCC students, more than 50% of CSU students, and 42% of UC students. The UC has set an ambitious goal of reducing food insecurity in half by 2030; however, achieving this goal requires federal support. The University of California Graduate & Professional Council is in full support of reducing student hunger and the Food for Thought Act. Student hunger is a structural barrier to higher education, not a personal failure, and we recognize that this federal investment will ensure that hunger does not stand between students and their education. We cannot ask students to work harder, study harder, and graduate on time while accepting that so many are struggling to meet their most basic needs,” said Stephanie Valadez, UC Graduate & Professional Council President at UCGPC.

“The California State University is proud to support Senator Schiff, Senator Welch, and Representative Barragán’s efforts to strengthen resources for college students experiencing food insecurity. When students have reliable access to nutritious meals, they are better positioned to stay enrolled, focus on their education and remain on track to graduate even during periods of financial hardship. The Food for Thought Act aligns with CSU Forward’s commitment to student success by giving institutions greater capacity to address food insecurity and help more students make meaningful progress toward their degrees,” said Dilcie Perez, Vice Chancellor, Strategic Enrollment Management and Student Success at California State University.

“As the educators who do the majority of frontline teaching at UC, UAW 4811 members know that no student should face hunger or food insecurity while pursuing their degree. UAW 4811 members back the Food for Thought Act because our students deserve to focus on their studies, not on where their next meal will come from,” said Rafael Jaime, President of UAW 4811.

“Millions of students across the country struggle to access and afford sufficient and nutritious food, forcing them to work long hours, take on unmanageable debt, or stop out. Recent SNAP cuts have only made the problem worse. The Food for Thought Act is a necessary and sensible bill that would provide meals to students who too often go hungry, allowing them to focus on what really matters: thriving in their studies and fulfilling their potential,” said Mark Huelsman, Director of Policy & Advocacy at The Hope Center for Student Basic Needs.

“As college food insecurity worsens and resources for on-campus food programs become more scarce, the Food for Thought Act shows how policy can provide much-needed solutions today. With this legislation, more students will be able to access the meals they need to be successful in school, and more schools will be able to support their students all the way to graduation day,” said Zoe Duffield, Director of Advocacy at SwipeOut Hunger.

“Roughly 1 in 4 college students experience food insecurity, and the OBBBA’s historic cuts to SNAP will make it harder for students at or near poverty to access federal food assistance. We must invest in policies to fill this gap so that students can focus on their studies, not on affording their next meal,” said Valerie Crespin-Trujillo, Senior Director of College Completion & Basic Needs at The Institute for College Access & Success (TICAS). “The Food for Thought Act pilots new approaches to addressing food insecurity among low-income students, which can in turn increase student success.”

The full text of the legislation is available here.

A one-pager for the legislation is available here.

###",1,2026-09-19T09:11:33Z,2026-09-19T09:12:45Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-curtis-merkley-sheehy-dexter-announce-bipartisan-legislation-to-protect-federal-wildland-firefighters/,"Padilla, Curtis, Merkley, Sheehy, Dexter Announce Bipartisan Legislation to Protect Federal Wildland Firefighters",2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, a member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, along with U.S. Senators John Curtis (R-Utah), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), announced the Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act, bipartisan legislation that would address the long-overdue gaps in health and safety protections that wildland firefighters receive. U.S. Representative Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.-03) is leading companion legislation in the House of Representatives.

For nearly 30 years, federal agencies have had clear data showing the serious health risks wildland firefighters face on the job while working in dangerous conditions. Meanwhile, structural firefighters began using respiratory protection in the 1970s. The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act is comprehensive legislation to be developed in partnership with firefighters, unions, and health experts to finally address the long-overdue gaps and ensure federal wildland firefighters have the support they need given the dangerous conditions of their work.

“Every day, wildland firefighters face tremendous health risks at work, where they protect our communities, defend the environment, and save lives,” said Senator Padilla. “As California faces an increasing threat from devastating wildfires, we have a responsibility to make sure the heroes fighting these fires have the resources, safety equipment, and support needed to do their jobs safely. The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act takes an important step toward closing longstanding gaps in health and safety protections, giving our wildland firefighters the equipment, resources, and support they need to stay healthy while they brave dangerous conditions to save lives.”

“Utah’s wildland firefighters put their health and safety on the line every day to protect our communities. We owe it to them to look beyond the immediate danger and address the lasting impacts of smoke and other harmful exposures,” said Senator Curtis. “This bipartisan bill is a commonsense step toward giving our firefighters the protection and support they deserve.”

“As climate chaos fuels an even more ferocious fire season, our wildland firefighters are on the front lines, battling deadly blazes to protect our communities,” said Senator Merkley. “These heroes deserve adequate resources and strong protections from the dangers posed by smoke exposure and other contaminants. Our bipartisan Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act is critical to ensuring these firefighters get the support they need because they put their lives on the line to keep us safe, and it’s our job to step up to keep them safe.”

“Wildland firefighters put their lives on the line every day to protect our communities,” said Senator Sheehy. “For too long, these brave men and women have been under-resourced and exposed to long-term health risks from smoke inhalation. Our bill tackles these problems head-on, leveraging expertise from federal agencies, medical experts, and wildland firefighters on the ground to test new respiratory technologies, reduce toxic exposures, and implement strong safety standards.”

“As a pulmonologist and critical care physician, I’ve cared for firefighters with acute smoke and burn injuries, as well as chronic lung disease and cancer caused by repeated smoke exposure,” Representative Dexter said. “It is devastating, and it is preventable. Our wildland firefighters deserve more than our gratitude—they deserve a government that protects them as fiercely as they protect all of us. The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act is legislation that will finally close critical gaps in protecting wildland firefighter health. It is built upon a simple principle: protecting firefighters’ health must be an operational priority, not an afterthought.”

Specifically, the Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act would:

Establish a Wildland Firefighter Health Task Force and an Advisory Panel of outside stakeholders to coordinate exposure reduction, pilot respiratory technologies, and develop an updated Wildland Firefighter Health Strategy every three years;

Require OSHA to issue an interim final standard for wildland firefighter health protection with a final standard within five years of the pilot report, and require paid duty time during operations to shower, decontaminate gear, and clean vehicles after smoke or PFAS exposure;

Require cleaning for contaminated PPE, designated decontamination areas, and shower access at fire facilities; and

Create a dedicated Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs claims unit with specialized training on firefighting exposures to reduce processing delays and increase coordination.

The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act is supported by organizations such as NFFE, Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, the International Association of Firefighters, National Fire Protection Association, Megafire, Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology, and FireGen Collaborative.

“NFFE-IAM strongly supports the Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act and its commitment to safeguarding the health and well-being of federal wildland firefighters who put themselves in harm’s way to protect our communities and public lands,” said Randy Erwin, National President, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM). “Wildland firefighters face extraordinary occupational hazards, including toxic smoke, extreme heat, injuries, fatigue, and mental health challenges. They deserve the best available prevention, treatment, and protective technologies. Investing in their long-term health will save lives, retain experienced firefighters, strengthen workforce readiness, and help ensure these dedicated public servants can enjoy long, healthy lives after their service.”

“Wildland firefighters and fire support personnel are exposed to a variety of hazards, including wildfire smoke, on the job. Understanding the significant impacts of these hazards, the Commission called for investments in the physical and mental health of fire personnel as well as improved mitigation techniques for wildfire smoke exposure,” said Annie Schmidt, Co-Founder and Managing Director of Partnerships for Alliance for Wildfire Resilience. “The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act’s creation of a Federal Wildland Firefighter Health and Wellbeing Program makes an important and necessary investment in the health and safety of those who serve us all by responding to wildfires. We applaud Reps. Dexter and Gallagher as well as Senators Padilla, Merkley, Sheehy, and Curtis on their efforts to protect wildland fire personnel.”

“There is a huge gap between the safety risks and health hazards that wildland firefighters face, including risk of severe musculoskeletal damage and rare cancers, and the inadequate level of medical care they are provided. The Wildland Firefighter Health and Safety Act will go a long way towards narrowing this gap in their health care, providing support for crews whose work-related injuries and illnesses sometimes appear long after they’ve disengaged from the firelines,” said Timothy Ingalsbee, Executive Director of FUSEE: Firefighters United for Safety, Ethics, and Ecology.

“Our firefighters put everything on the line to protect us, and they deserve the same commitment in return. This bill takes an important step toward ensuring firefighters get the healthcare, benefits, and long-term support they’ve earned,” said Matt Weiner, founder and CEO of Megafire Action. “Congresswoman Dexter is a leader on this issue and Megafire Action looks forward to advancing this long-overdue commitment to those who protect our communities.”

As the co-chair of the bipartisan Senate Wildfire Caucus, Padilla has fought relentlessly to improve safety conditions for wildland firefighters and streamline the federal approach to combating wildfires. In June, Padilla slammed Republicans for attempting to block firefighter benefits and undermine forest conservation. Last year, Padilla introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, a bipartisan bill to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. In the aftermath of the Southern California fires, Padilla introduced the bipartisan Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act to protect wildland firefighter pay and provide long-term workforce stability. Padilla also championed bipartisan legislation to create the first-ever respiratory protection standards for wildland firefighters.

Full text of the bill is available here.

A one-pager of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-joins-schatz-pocan-in-introducing-legislation-to-make-college-more-affordable/,"Padilla Joins Schatz, Pocan in Introducing Legislation to Make College More Affordable",2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined U.S. Senator Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and U.S. Representative Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) in introducing the Debt-Free College Act, legislation that would reduce the cost of college for students and help mitigate the growing student debt crisis in the United States. The bill also restores a path to an affordable college education by providing states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education and provide students with debt-free college.

“Rising costs and overwhelming student debt shouldn’t keep students from pursuing life changing higher education opportunities,” said Senator Padilla. “I’m proud to cosponsor this bill to expand affordable higher education access and ensure more students and families can earn a college degree without financial burdens.”

“Solving the student loan debt crisis means focusing on the full cost of college – that includes books, room and board, and supplies,” said Senator Schatz. “Our bill brings states back to the table and leverages federal dollars to reinvest in public education and help students and their families cover the real cost of college.”

“Every student in America deserves the opportunity to get a college education without student debt crushing them for years after graduation,” said Representative Pocan. “The Debt-Free College Act creates a federal-state partnership that would enable students to attend college debt-free within five years. Student debt isn’t just about tuition—it’s books, housing, supplies, and food. This bill reflects those true costs. If we believe in the value of our education system, then we should make it easier for students to pursue higher education, not financially burdensome for years to come. This bill helps ensure that college is accessible to all.”

The Debt-Free College Act would establish a state-federal partnership that provides a dollar-for-dollar federal match to state higher education appropriations in exchange for a commitment to help students pay for the full cost of attendance without having to take on debt. The bicameral legislation, first introduced in 2018, was the first proposal to go beyond free tuition, and ensure that students leave college without the financial burden of student loan debt.

According to the Education Data Initiative, 72% of student debt holders believe their student loan debt will delay homeownership. A 2025 survey from The Institute for College Access & Success found that student loans negatively impacted the ability to cover basic needs for more than 4 in 10 borrowers. 52 percent of borrowers reported that their loans negatively impacted their ability to save for retirement while nearly a third said loans impacted their plans to get married and start a family.

In addition to Padilla and Schatz, this bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.)

In addition to Pocan, is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Jesús García (D-Ill.), and Cleo Fields (D-La.).

Senator Padilla has consistently advocated to increase access to higher education. As President Trump and Congressional Republicans work to make college more unaffordable and unattainable for millions of working-class families, Padilla joined Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in introducing the College for All Act to make public colleges and universities tuition free for 95% of students. In 2024, Padilla reintroduced the Basic Assistance for Students in College (BASIC) Act, bicameral legislation to help ensure college students can meet their basic needs while pursuing their education. Padilla also supports the Pell Grant Preservation and Expansion Act of 2024, bicameral legislation that would nearly double the Pell Grant maximum award, index the maximum award for inflation, and make other improvements to expand the award for working students and families.

Full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-joines-markey-and-budd-to-introduce-bipartisan-resolution-condemning-chinas-wrongful-detention-of-american-academics/,NEWS: Schiff Joins Markey and Budd to Introduce Bipartisan Resolution Condemning China’s Wrongful Detention of American Academics,2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Ted Budd (R-N.C.), and John Curtis (R-Utah) in introducing a bipartisan resolution that condemns the People’s Republic of China’s repeated pattern of arbitrary or wrongful detention of American academics and urges the United States government to prioritize the safe return of all United States citizens wrongfully detained in China, including Massachusetts resident and academic Dr. Youlin Chen, and American scholar Min Zin. Congressman Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.-08) and Congressman John Moolenaar, Chairman of the House Select Committee on China (R-Mich.-02), led a companion resolution in the House of Representatives.

The resolution expresses that the Senate:

Condemns the People’s Republic of China’s repeated pattern of arbitrary or wrongful detention of United States citizens.

Urges the United States government to make the safe return of United States citizens detained in China a top priority, including the return of Dr. Chen and Min Zin.

Urges the Secretary of State to use all available tools to press for the release of all United States nationals being unlawfully or wrongfully detained in the People’s Republic of China.

“China’s repeated and cruel pattern of wrongful detentions of American citizens, leaving some without access to legal counsel, is nothing short of an affront to the rule of law and infringes on their rights and freedoms. The U.S. government must redouble its efforts to ensure U.S. citizens unjustly detained abroad, like Min Zin and Dr. Chen, return safely back home to their loved ones,” said Senator Schiff.

“The wrongful detainment of innocent civilians is never justifiable and should always be condemned in the strongest possible terms. We owe it to the American people to stand up and speak out when our citizens are wrongfully detained in foreign prisons. It is my hope that this bipartisan resolution from the United States Congress will bring increased attention to the unjust detention of Dr. Youlin Chen and Min Zin and force the Chinese government to do the right thing and release them immediately. I am praying for Dr. Chen, Mr. Zin, and their families today,” said Senator Markey.

“The Chinese Communist Party’s pattern of unjustly detaining innocent Americans on baseless allegations cannot carry on unchecked. It is long past time for the CCP to return American academics Dr. Youlin Chen and Mr. Min Zin home to their loved ones and end the targeting of American citizens. I am proud to stand with Senator Markey and my colleagues, as a bipartisan front, against these escalatory actions,” said Senator Budd.

Congressman Lynch said:

“I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing a bipartisan and bicameral Resolution denouncing China’s use of arbitrary and unlawful arrests of U.S. citizens. Dr. Youlin Chen, a good man and respected seismologist and geophysicist who has made Boston his home, was arbitrarily arrested on fabricated ‘espionage’ charges nearly two years ago. Similarly, Min Zin, a Myanmar scholar and executive director of the Myanmar Institute for Strategic and Policy Studies, has not been heard from his family since he was detained in June for ‘espionage and endangering national security.’ Ironically, these two men were in China to engage in academic exchanges that benefit both our countries. They were doing honest and noble work and should never have been detained.

“These men are being held under brutal and inhumane conditions, with no access to their families and limited access, if any, to legal counsel. There has yet to be any evidence presented to justify these charges, much less an opportunity to prove their innocence.

“My office has been communicating with the family of Dr. Chen and Min Zin, and we will continue to work with our Republican colleagues in the House and Senate to bring these men home to their families. President Trump must use his upcoming meeting with President Xi to demand that China release every unlawfully detained American. The reprehensible use of our citizens as diplomatic bargaining chips is not new for the Xi government, and Congress must continue to press for the release of every American that China is unlawfully detaining.”

“The Chinese Communist Party has unjustly detained Americans for years, holding them as hostages to bully and coerce our government. The wrongful detentions of Youlin Chen and Min Zin are especially egregious as they were lured to China under the false pretense of academic research. American professors and researchers must realize the CCP is not interested in an open exchange of ideas. They should reconsider any collaborations with China as well as any travel to the country,” said Chairman John Moolenaar of the Select Committee on China.

“No American should ever be used as a political bargaining chip. The Chinese Communist Party’s ongoing pattern of arbitrarily detaining U.S. citizens, including scholars like Min Zin and Dr. Chen, is an egregious abuse of human rights and direct security threat,” said Congresswoman Kim. “As Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs East Asia and Pacific Subcommittee, I’m proud to join this bipartisan, bicameral resolution to send an unmistakable message: Congress stands united against CCP repression, and we will not rest until every wrongfully detained American is brought safely home.”

The PRC has a long history of detaining U.S. citizens under dubious circumstances. Most recently, on November 5, 2024, the Government of the PRC arrested Dr. Youlin Chen, a United States citizen, who has conducted transparent and open-source seismological research in cooperation with academics in the PRC. Despite high level engagement between the United States and the People’s Republic of China, the Government of the PRC has held him on baseless espionage charges for more than 600 days without a trial or access to his family. In addition, Dr. Chen was deprived of access to his lawyer for the first 434 days of his ongoing detention. In July, Senator Markey released a statement on the wrongful detention of Dr. Chen.

On June 3, 2026, authorities of the PRC detained another United States citizen, Min Zin (executive director of a Myanmar-focused policy think tank), at the Kunming Changshui International Airport after he was invited to attend an academic event at a university in Yunnan province in the PRC. Min Zin remains in detention without access to legal counsel.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-senate-agriculture-committee-advances-schiff-curtis-bill-to-create-first-ever-respiratory-protection-requirements-for-federal-firefighters/,NEWS: Senate Agriculture Committee Advances Schiff-Curtis Bill to Create First-Ever Respiratory Protection Requirements for Federal Firefighters,2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Federal firefighters were prohibited from wearing respiratory protections while fighting wildfires, Schiff’s bipartisan proposal with Senator Curtis would create the first-of-its-kind standard to change that

Washington, D.C. — Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry advanced language proposed by U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and John Curtis (R-Utah) to create the first-ever respiratory protection standards for wildland firefighters.

For decades, federal firefighters were prohibited from wearing respiratory protection despite a growing body of evidence warning about long-term health risks of wildfire smoke. The provision included in the Senate’s 2026 Farm Bill will ensure the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) take overdue steps to protect the health of these heroes.

“Firefighters are heroes, and it’s critical that we do everything possible to ensure they’re protected from the health risks associated with wildfires. This bipartisan solution will minimize the toxic exposures that firefighters face when they’re defending our communities and public lands. I am proud to see my language was included in the farm bill and is making progress, even if other provisions and omissions in the Farm Bill precluded Democratic support,” said Senator Schiff.

“Our wildland firefighters already face some of the most grueling, dangerous conditions imaginable. The least we can do is ensure access to materials that will protect them from the long-term health consequences of breathing toxic smoke. This bill ensures we bring common sense, science, and basic decency to how we equip our firefighters,” said Senator Curtis.

The language was included in the 2026 Farm Bill advanced by the committee yesterday. In addition to Schiff and Curtis, this legislation first introduced in November was co-sponsored by Senators Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Steve Daines (D-Mont.).

“We’ve spent decades urging the public to protect themselves from the dangers of wildfire smoke, but outdated regulations have prevented wildland firefighters from taking commonsense steps to protect themselves. They put their lives on the line to protect us, and they shouldn’t have to sacrifice their long-term health to do their jobs,” said Senator Padilla. “This bipartisan legislation will help ensure our federal firefighters have the respiratory protection and safety standards they need to stay safe while protecting our communities.”

“Wildland firefighters put their lives and health on the line every day to protect our homes, communities, and public lands, and we owe it to them to make sure they have the best protection possible on the front lines. I’m glad this commonsense, bipartisan measure advanced as part of the Farm Bill to better protect our firefighters from the dangerous smoke they breathe while doing one of the toughest jobs in America,” said Senator Sheehy.

“Fire season is deadly in Montana, and we need all hands on deck to help mitigate catastrophic disasters and help those who selflessly protect our communities from these threats. I’m thrilled to work with my Senate colleagues to move forward legislation within the Senate Farm Bill for federal firefighters to create respiratory protection requirements. Just like fighting wildfires, ensuring health safety of our firefighters is a top priority,” said Senator Daines.

Federal wildland firefighters often work 16-hour shifts in grueling conditions, inhaling toxic smoke. Despite this, federal wildland firefighters were prohibited from wearing respiratory protection despite evidence warning about health risks of wildfire smoke. Studies have shown exposure to wildfire smoke is linked to adverse health impacts, including more than a dozen kinds of cancer. The life expectancy of firefighters is 10 years less than the average adult due to lung damage.

In September 2025, USFS posted guidance acknowledging for the first time that respiratory protections can protect firefighters against harmful particles in wildfire smoke and reversing a decades-long rule that banned federal wildland firefighters from wearing respiratory protection while performing wildland firefighting activities. The legislation reinforces this action to ensure the agencies develop respiratory protections for firefighters.

The Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act would:

Direct USFS and DOI to work with the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to develop smoke exposure limits for wildland firefighters

Direct USFS, the Department of Interior, National Wildfire Coordinating Group, and other appropriate federal agencies to develop a strategy to make commercially available appropriate respiratory protections that take into account the unique needs of wildland firefighters

The bill was endorsed by National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), Grassroots Wildland Firefighters, FireGen Collaborative, and former U.S. Fire Administrator Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell.

”We strongly support this legislation to modernize and standardize respiratory protection for wildland firefighters. As wildfire seasons grow longer and more dangerous, our federal wildland firefighters deserve safety standards that reflect the extreme conditions they face. Equally important is the bill’s mandate to determine appropriate equipment and regularly review and update all relevant PPE standards. This ensures that respiratory protection keeps pace with evolving science, operational demands, and the realities of modern fire behavior. Wildland firefighters risk their lives to protect our communities. Establishing clear exposure parameters and reliable respiratory protection is the least we owe to those who stand between our nation and catastrophic fire,” said Randy Erwin, National President, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM).

“Every fire season we send wildland firefighters into smoke that exceeds federal exposure limits without the respiratory protection the science says they need. Yesterday’s committee vote carries the Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act forward and begins to close that gap. I urge the full Senate to finish the job.”, said Dr. Lori Moore-Merrell, 11th U.S. Fire Administrator (2021–2025).

“The Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act has taken an important step forward with its inclusion in the Farm Bill and advancement through the Senate Agriculture Committee. Grassroots Wildland Firefighters thanks Senators Schiff, Curtis, Padilla, Sheehy, and Daines for their leadership in recognizing the very real occupational hazards wildland firefighters face from prolonged smoke and toxic exposures. For too long, wildland firefighters have been asked to accept these exposures as simply part of the job. Protecting the long-term health and wellbeing of the men and women who protect our communities and public lands must be treated as a fundamental responsibility. Advancing the Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act through the Farm Bill represents meaningful progress toward establishing respiratory protection standards that reflect the realities of the wildland fire environment. Grassroots Wildland Firefighters remains committed to seeing these protections enacted into law and implemented for the workforce.” Said Riva Duncan, President, Grassroots Wildland Firefighters.

“The National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) commends Senators Schiff and Curtis for leading the introduction of the ‘Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act’, and thanks Senators Sheehy and Padilla for their critical support. With two-thirds of fire departments reporting insufficient wildland PPE, many firefighters face dangerous gaps in protection against escalating wildfires. This legislation is a vital step to help ensure every firefighter has the gear they need to stay safe while safeguarding our communities,” said Jim Pauley, NFPA President and CEO.

“Wildland firefighters put their health and safety on the line every day to protect our communities, forests, and natural resources. Yet for too long, we have not given these frontline professionals the same basic respiratory protections that are standard in other high-risk occupations. The Healthy Lungs for Heroes Act is an important step toward changing that by establishing stronger protections for the men and women who face smoke and other hazardous exposures as part of their work. FireGen Collaborative is proud to support this legislation and its inclusion in the Senate’s Farm Bill, and we urge Congress to ensure these commonsense protections become law,” said Ryan Reed, Program Director, FireGen Collaborative.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-wyden-press-flock-ceo-for-answers-on-troubling-abuse-of-technology-amid-surveillance-network-concerns-push-to-protect-americans-privacy/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Wyden Press Flock CEO for Answers on Troubling Abuse of Technology Amid Surveillance Network Concerns, Push to Protect American’s Privacy",2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, are pressing for information regarding allegations of abuse of Flock’s surveillance platforms and whether their existing protocols are failing to protect Americans’ privacy. The inquiry follows increasingly troubling, documented reports of law enforcement officials abusing Flock’s nationwide license plate readers, camera network, and sensors to carry out extensive, unauthorized surveillance.

“Despite a professed public commitment to responsible governance, Flock has repeatedly failed to implement the safeguards necessary to protect Americans’ civil liberties,” the Senators wrote.

Multiple organizations and news reporting have revealed alarming concerns of unauthorized surveillance by Flock cameras. For instance, organizations have come forward to express concern that states restricting reproductive health care access are using Flock data to track down patients traveling to other states for care while other reports indicate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are conducting immigration-related searches of Flock databases to pursue individuals without warrants. An analysis of police and court reports by The Washington Post revealed that at least 50 law enforcement officers have been charged or accused of misusing Flock’s surveillance system for unauthorized purposes.

In their inquiry, the Senators express concern over how Flock has repeatedly failed to implement the safeguards necessary to protect Americans’ civil liberties and demand answers on how the company is protecting against misuse by law enforcement and others, as well as its compliance with existing privacy laws. They also direct Flock to preserve all records between the company, employees, consultants, and state, local, and federal agents regarding Flock cameras.

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

Dear Mr. Langley:

We write seeking information regarding allegations of potential abuse of Flock’s surveillance platforms and whether your existing protocols protect Americans’ privacy. Despite a professed public commitment to responsible governance, Flock has repeatedly failed to implement the safeguards necessary to protect Americans’ civil liberties.

In the last two years, there have been increasingly troubling, documented reports of law enforcement officials abusing Flock’s nationwide license plate readers, camera network, and sensors to carry out extensive, unauthorized surveillance. In 2025, investigative reporting uncovered that a deputy in Johnson County, Texas accessed Flock cameras to track a woman by falsely claiming the case was about a “missing person,” when in fact the woman’s husband reported her to police for attempting to access reproductive health care. Since then, multiple organizations have come forward to express concern that states restricting reproductive health care access are using Flock data to track down patients traveling to other states for care.

Numerous reports also indicate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials are conducting immigration-related searches of Flock databases to pursue individuals without warrants. While Flock claims to “not work with ICE,” and blames local customers who share information voluntarily with federal authorities for these searches, Flock has repeatedly failed to prevent ICE officials from accessing its data. In one instance, Kansas police went so far as to use Flock data to target a man who wrote an op-ed criticizing the department’s role in a local ICE operation. An analysis of police and court reports by the Washington Post revealed that at least 50 law enforcement officers have been charged or accused of misusing Flock’s surveillance system for unauthorized purposes.

Despite these alarming developments, Flock continues to expand its network and collaborations with other data-sharing entities. A leaked corporate presentation reveals that Flock plans to partner with Nexar, a dashcam producer, to collect data from roughly 350,000 devices installed in rideshare vehicles. Nexar is currently in negotiations with AI company, Nauto, to create an “intelligence engine” of a scale “that no simulation and no single company’s dataset can match.” Flock and Nexar’s proposal to collect and disseminate data from hundreds of thousands of consumer and rideshare dashcams risks creating an expansive, pervasive surveillance network that lacks adequate consumer consent, transparency, or accountability.

We understand that, in response to the recent public outcry against its products, Flock published a series of updates to its privacy standards. Unfortunately, these changes still leave many important questions unanswered. For example, although Flock shortened the default data retention timeline from 30 days to 7 days, it introduced a feature called, “Evidence Mode,” which allows detectives to “preserve specific [Automated License Plate] ALR data as evidence for an active investigation in cold storage.” Flock failed to explain how it plans to prevent misuse of this feature or what constitutes an active investigation. Flock also purported to add another capability, titled “offense filtering for sharing,” which would allow Flock users to limit searches of their data by outside agencies to certain types of offenses. However, a similar filtering requirement implemented in June 2025 failed to stop officers from querying restricted data using nonsensical, frivolous words to bypass the filtering system, including inputting the phrase “hehehe” to ostensibly circumvent prohibited search terms, instead of listing the actual terms they intended to search for. Clearly, this attempted corrective action was insufficient. Flock also updated its features to require law enforcement customers to adopt a program that automatically flags abnormal activity for administrator review. What qualifies as abnormal activity remains undefined. Furthermore, it is unclear whether Flock will also require those customers to adopt its “proactive lockout” feature, which would automatically suspend accounts exhibiting abnormal behavior.

Flock claims to have the tools to protect the American people from further abuses of its platform. It must use them. As part of our legislative oversight to protect and preserve Americans’ privacy and civil liberties, we request responses to the following questions no later than September 25, 2026:

Flock is currently subject to a patchwork of ordinances from cities, counties, and states across the country, how is Flock operating in that type of patchwork environment?

Does Flock track if and when its technology is not compliant with any local ordinances or state laws?

Does Flock request data on whether its technology violates any local ordinances or state laws?

When will Flock mandate its “proactive lockout” feature for law enforcement partners?

What additional safeguards has Flock included in its “offense filtering for sharing” feature to protect against misuse?

What additional safeguards has Flock implemented to prevent law enforcement officials from querying sensitive information using pretextual justifications?

Why did Flock choose to restrict transparency by switching to a generic dropdown menu rather than implementing stricter auditing of free-text entries? Furthermore, how does a pre-populated list prevent an officer from simply clicking a false, pretextual category to bypass oversight?

Does Flock plan to periodically review whether its law enforcement customers are compliant with its safeguards?

What specific safeguards has Flock deployed, placed in development, or evaluated to prevent system misuse of any kind? Please detail how each safeguard operates in practice, the rollout timeline for in-progress features, and the explicit reasons why any considered safeguards were rejected.

Does Flock support or plan to support hardware authenticators, such as security keys or smart cards, to prevent sharing credentials and ensure every system action is tied to a single verified individual?

Does Flock support or plan to support restricting system access so that searches are blocked unless the user is actively on duty, within an authorized location, and within an authorized time window?

Does Flock support or plan to support mandatory two-person sign-off to approve searches?

What corrective action does Flock plan to take to ensure that women seeking reproductive health care in states that protect access to reproductive health care do not have their data tracked by Flock Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs)?

How is Flock ensuring that it is compliant with California’s privacy laws?

What are the error rates for Flock’s data captures?

What accountability and transparency policies does Flock have for error rates?

Has Flock conducted a legal analysis of California’s privacy law in relation to its product and its use by local law enforcement?

Although Flock’s proposed partnership with Nexar may not be in effect at this time, a leaked presentation for the Georgia Attorney General’s Office reveals that Flock actively pitched a plan to leverage approximately 350,000 rideshare and delivery vehicle dashcams as mobile license plate scanners. Does Flock still plan to partner with Nexar to collect data from rideshare dashcams?

If so, will rideshare drivers be made aware that their dashcams are collecting data and be allowed to provide consent for such data collection?

Will rideshare drivers participating in the program be required to disclose to their passengers that their data may have been collected by Flock?

What steps does Flock plan to take to protect the privacy of rideshare drivers and their passengers who will be recorded by this or any other similar program?

In addition to the information requests above, as part of our legislative oversight, please preserve all records and communications between you, your employees, consultants, contractors, agents, state and local law enforcement, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Department of Homeland Security, regarding Flock cameras. This applies to internal communications and communications with U.S. departments and agencies. This includes but is not limited to: records and communications via email, whether official or personal; mobile devices; encrypted or disappearing messaging applications; social media; calendar entries; meeting notes; and voicemail and text messages. To the extent that you use any auto-delete functions, you should immediately suspend auto-delete functions and notify persons with control over potentially relevant records of their preservation obligations. This preservation request covers both past and current efforts, as well as any planned or in-development measures responsive to the issues raised in this letter.

We look forward to your prompt response and appreciate your attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-calls-out-trumps-obsession-with-kennedy-center-disregard-for-addressing-high-costs/,"WATCH: Sen. Schiff Calls Out Trump’s Obsession with Kennedy Center, Disregard for Addressing High Costs",2026-09-17,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Schiff: “It becomes not just absurd, but dangerously absurd that the president is spending so much mental energy on this ridiculousness.”

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined MS NOW’s All In with Chris Hayes to condemn President Donald Trump’s latest vanity project – threatening to tear down the Kennedy Center if his name does not appear on the building.

Schiff emphasized Trump’s repeated pattern of ignoring the Congress and the courts, putting his interests over Americans’ interests, and downplaying the recent the costs of the Iran War and its impacts on our economy.

View the full interview here.

On Trump bypassing the Congress and courts when it comes to renaming the Kennedy Center:

[…] We have those images of the East Wing being bulldozed after, in fact, the president had promised not to touch the East Wing. So, you can’t put anything past this president. The court seems determined to stop it. Congress could stop it in a heartbeat if, on a bipartisan basis, for once they were willing to stand up to this president. There’s little sign of that. All you hear are from a few members who are leaving the Congress, a willingness to criticize this. But I think, and again, this I guess gets into psychoanalysis: the Kennedy Center not only is a memorial to John F. Kennedy, it is also part of the Kennedy legacy and mystique, part of the whole Camelot appearance, the glamor, the arts, the culture. And Donald Trump just craves to be a part of that, wants his name on that, doesn’t want any president to seem greater than he is.

And so any president that he is insecure about, the way he’s insecure about Obama, the way he’s insecure about Kennedy, his answer is “put my name on it. Let people know I’m the dominant one. I’m the greatest president of all time. My name is on these buildings, and if you won’t let me do it, then I’m just going to tear it all down.” You add that to the fact that we’re in the middle of a war, and it becomes not just absurd, but dangerously absurd that the president is spending so much mental energy on this ridiculousness.

On pushing back against the administration’s refusal to uphold the rule of law:

[…] I think we always wonder how much voters take into consideration the need to have checks and balances in the system, how much does that really factor into their decisions. I think, given the extremity of this administration, that will definitely be a factor for voters. They see this president out of control. Even those that voted for him see him doing things he promised not to do. They see him ignoring the pain that his policies are inflicting on them with the cost of living. And I think they want some check on this runaway abuse of authority by the president.

They also, I think, are deeply turned off by the guy who said he was going to drain the swamp – how much he has just turned this into the most lucrative swamp for his family that the country’s ever seen. So, I think voters do want to push back on that, and mostly I think we see this over and over again with greater and greater frequency. They’re just so disappointed in him, the people that supported him, that I think they’re prepared to walk away from him – either vote Democratic or not vote at all.

On the need to expose the real costs of the Iran War:

[…] We are seeing reports like that from the Defense Department Inspector General that the situation is much worse than we know. And part of the reason it’s worse than we know is we have not really insisted on oversight in the Armed Forces Committee. […] There’s no willingness on the part of the Republican chairs of these committees to demand answers. And so we’re getting them from the Inspector General. We’re getting feedback from the families. Situations are bad, notwithstanding all of the wonderful things the president and Pete Hegseth are saying about how great everything’s going. When you get reports that sailors are trying to jump off an aircraft carrier, you know just how bad conditions really are.

[…] These estimates, like we just got, that the war has cost 40 billion, are almost certainly a dramatic understatement of the damage and the costs. We’re going to find out a lot more about that soon. And if we change the Congress, as I believe we will, we’ll have an opportunity to insist on that information.

###",1,2026-09-18T09:27:43Z,2026-09-18T09:29:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-blasts-kash-patels-firing-of-fbi-officials-investigating-cases-against-trump-and-january-6-insurrectionists-calls-out-att/,"WATCH: Sen. Schiff Blasts Kash Patel’s Firing of FBI Officials Investigating Cases Against Trump and January 6 Insurrectionists, Calls Out Attacks on Media",2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) blasted Kash Patel, the Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), for his widespread mismanagement and politicization of the nation’s foremost law enforcement agency.

Schiff pressed Patel on the Trump administration’s firing of FBI agents working on the investigations into President Donald Trump’s role in the January 6 insurrection and his mishandling of classified documents at Mar-a-Lago, as well as the FBI’s investigation of members of the media under Patel’s leadership.

Watch the full clip here. Download the full clip here.

Key Excerpts:

On Patel’s refusal to admit termination of FBI employees was motivated by political retribution:

Schiff: Mr. Patel, there were at least two major investigations of President Trump in the previous Justice Department. One that investigated his role in the violent attack on the Capitol and the incitement of that attack. Another investigation that investigated his purloining of hundreds of classified documents, their storage in his place at Mar-a-Lago, efforts to obstruct the investigation. Those two investigations were properly predicated. Those investigations resulted in grand juries bringing, returning indictments, charging the president numerous times with serious felony offenses. I have questions for you today about the agents who worked on those investigations. Let me first start with a simple numeric question: How many agents, FBI agents, were used in the investigation of the Mar-a-Lago documents case against the president? About how many?

Patel: I have no idea. I wasn‘t here then.

Schiff: Would it have been dozens?

Patel: I don’t know. You’d have to ask the prior administration.

Schiff: Well, a lot of those people were fired under your directorship, were they not?

Patel: I don‘t think a lot of them, but a lot of them retired, and some of the ones that weaponized law enforcement were terminated, as they always will be.

Schiff: So, can you pull the microphone close? We’re having trouble hearing you. Might want to pull the whole thing closer to you. So, are you testifying today that you don’t know if they were fired, or maybe some of them were fired, or many were fired? What’s your testimony? How many of them were fired?

Patel: My testimony is I don’t know the personnel actions that were taken by the prior administration and the personnel actions –

Schiff: You know what, I’m talking about your administration.

Patel: I’m getting there. The personnel actions that were taken by me are simply as follows: nobody at the FBI, as they’ve committed to, is allowed to participate in the weaponization of law enforcement –

Schiff: That’s not my question. How many of the agents who worked on Mar-a-Lago investigation of Donald Trump how many of them –

Patel: I don’t have that number.

Schiff: – were fired by the FBI?

Patel: I don’t know.

Schiff: Are any of them still working for the FBI?

Patel: I don’t have that number. That’s not my responsibility.

Schiff: Well, that’s not – I’m not asking for a number now. Are any of the agents who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation of the president still employed at the FBI?

Patel: I don’t believe so. Most of them left.

Schiff: Okay, so you don’t believe any of the agents who worked on that investigation are still at the FBI?

Patel: I can’t stop them from retiring.

Schiff: Is it your testimony that they’re not at the FBI because they retired, not because they were fired?

Patel: My understanding is the overwhelming majority of those agents and FBI personnel retired.

Schiff: Well, let me ask you this: Todd Blanche at a CPAC conference says, “and when it comes to the FBI, Director Patel has cleaned house there too. There isn’t a single man or woman with a gun, federal agent still in that organization, that had anything to do with the prosecution of President Trump.” So, the Attorney General says you cleaned house at the FBI.

Patel: I did.

Schiff: Was he right? Was he truthful when he said there’s not a single agent at the FBI who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation, still employed by the FBI?

Patel: The Attorney General is always truthful, so I believe his statement.

Schiff: Okay, so they’re all gone. Is your testimony today that most of those agents are no longer with the FBI because they decided suddenly to retire?

Patel: Yeah.

Schiff: They weren’t fired in whole or in part because they worked on that investigation?

Patel: The bulk of individuals that worked on those investigations left shortly thereafter –

Schiff: And they left voluntarily?

Patel: In the prior administration.

Schiff: I’m talking about under your watch, Director Patel.

Patel: They left before I got there. There’s really nothing I can do.

Schiff: So, it’s your testimony that most of them voluntarily left the bureau? They weren’t fired.

Patel: Most of them, yeah.

Schiff: And is the same true of the agents who investigated the president’s involvement in January 6? How many – well, first of all, how many agents would you say that would be? Would it be dozens or hundreds of agents?

Patel: I don’t know. You’d have to ask the prior administration. They were in charge of that.

Schiff: You have no idea whether it is over 100 agents?

Patel: No, my focus is not going back in time. My focus is crushing violent crime and defending the homeland and – results for the American people.

Schiff: My question is: were those agents, as Todd Blanche indicated, also purged from the FBI under your watch because they had worked on the January 6th investigation?

Patel: The FBI has one specific and simple standard. If you don’t meet our high standards –

Schiff: That’s not my question.

Patel: I’m getting there. If you don’t meet those standards, you don’t get to work at the FBI.

Schiff: Take a little less time to get there, if you would. Were they purged because they worked on the January 6th investigation of the president?

Patel: There was no purging, and there are individuals who worked on a whole host of investigations.

Schiff: Were any of those agents fired?

Patel: Many retired.

Schiff: Excuse me. Excuse me. Let me finish the question.

Patel: Go ahead.

Schiff: Were any of the agents who worked on the Mar-a-Lago investigation or the January 6 investigation, were any of those agents fired in whole or in part because they worked on those investigations?

Patel: So, the simple fact of working on those investigations, no. If they weaponize law enforcement, yes.

Schiff: So, all of the agents who just happened to work on those investigations and were fired – is it your testimony that’s because they were engaged in some other malfeasance, other than simply being assigned to those two cases?

Patel: There’s an entire inspection division at the FBI that looked at the totality of not just these agents and employees but everyone on a constant basis and they make recommendations.

Schiff: But my question is very specific, Mr. Patel.

Patel: I’m answering your question.

Schiff: Well, I haven’t heard the answer, so I’m going to try again.

Patel: Go ahead.

Schiff: Of all the probably hundreds of agents who worked on those two investigations of the president. Those hundreds of agents, maybe thousands, that your Attorney General says are gone from the FBI. Is it your testimony that none of them were fired solely for working on those investigations?

Patel: All FBI personnel, those matters or others, are held to the same standard. You don’t meet it, you don’t get to work at the FBI.

Schiff: So, it’s your testimony that none of them were fired, in whole or in part because they worked on those investigations.

Patel: I’ve answered the question.

Schiff: Is that answer a yes?

Patel: I’ve answered the question.

Schiff: I don’t think you have.

Patel: Okay.

On future congressional investigations and preserving future records:

Schiff: But I can understand why you wouldn’t want to. The FBI is being sued for wrongful termination, and I will remind you, director, because you probably need reminding, that while this Congress is not going to investigate the wrongful termination of potentially hundreds of agents for working on properly predicated investigations, the next Congress will. And you have an obligation as FBI director to ensure that none of the personnel files, none of the emails, none of the voicemails, none of the text messages are destroyed. You will preserve those records, will you not?

Patel: We preserve all records. We’re not the ones that deleted records.

Schiff: We will hold you to that.

Patel: The ones that deleted records are the prior administration.

On attacks against the media:

Schiff: Let me ask you another question. I want to read you a statement that you made about the press. This was in 2024, when you said that the mainstream media was “the most powerful enemy that the United States has ever seen.” Do you stand by that?

Patel: Your colleagues put that on full display here today.

Schiff: Do you stand by that?

Patel: I’m answering the question. Your colleagues put that on full display by hacking around the same lies and personal basis attacks –

Schiff: No, no, no, no. This is your comment –

Patel: And that’s what makes the majority of the mainstream media.[…]

Schiff: […]Do you stand by your statement?

Patel: I always do.

Schiff: So, is it your view then that the media is a greater enemy than Iran?

Patel: That’s not what I said. I said the media that participates in lying, like you do, and the baseless attacks on me and my personnel, my loved ones, is the most harmful institution to the United States of America because you don’t want to tell the truth.

Schiff: This mainstream media that you’re accusing of lying, you’re talking about the New York Times. Are they part of the enemy?

Patel: I mean, I’m talking about the ones that you said are —

Schiff: Excuse me. Are you talking about the New York Times?[…]. Mr. Patel, let me ask you specifically about some of your attacks on the media. Mr. Booker tried to get an answer from you, a very simple answer about the reporter who wrote an article about potential misuse of an FBI SWAT team by himself.

Patel: It didn’t happen. Total lie.

Schiff: And what he asked you. So, let me repeat it because you didn’t answer his question.

Patel: You’re going to repeat a lie, so I’m not going to answer it.

Schiff: […] So my question, Mr. Chairman, is following this New York Times article that alleged that you had abused the FBI SWAT team.

Patel: I just told you it’s a lie. So, the basis of your question is a lie.

Schiff: Excuse me. Mr. Chairman, I haven’t been able to finish my question. Did you or did you not? Or did anyone else at the FBI query a federal database regarding the New York Times reporter who wrote that story.

Patel: I did not, not to my knowledge.

Schiff: Did anyone at the FBI?

Patel: I have no idea. I don’t monitor everything they do.

Schiff: And let me also ask you a similar question about an article ‘The FBI director is missing in action.’ This was an article in the Atlantic.

Patel: Another total lie, which is why I’m suing Atlantic for $250 million.

Schiff: Mr. Chairman. I’m still trying to ask my questions.

Patel: He’s out of time. Are we done?

Schiff: Mr. Chairman?

Grassley: What I’d like to have you do is you ask your questions.

Schiff: I’m trying.

Grassley: And stop, and I want him to respond to you.

Schiff: That is what I’m doing, Mr. Chairman. Okay. So, my question is this, and I’ll address this through you to the director. My question is about the reporter Sarah Fitzpatrick, who wrote this article, ‘The FBI director is missing in action.’ After this article came out, were any FBI resources used to look into this reporter in any way?

Patel: No.

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/senate-committee-advances-padilla-bill-to-help-prevent-wildfires-padilla-sounds-alarm-on-protecting-public-lands-from-environmental-disasters/,Senate Committee Advances Padilla Bill to Help Prevent Wildfires; Padilla Sounds Alarm on Protecting Public Lands from Environmental Disasters,2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Senate Committee Advances Padilla’s bipartisan Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sounded the alarm on protecting communities and public lands from disaster, preventing wildfires, and providing resources to safeguard forests and lands from further destruction.

The Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) held a hearing on Padilla’s bipartisan Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act (WEPA), a bipartisan bill to prevent wildfires and increase the use of prescribed fire. The bill advanced out of committee with a unanimous vote.

“Year after year, increasingly devastating wildfires ravage our public lands and communities, so it’s critical we act with urgency,” said Senator Padilla. “Today’s unanimous Committee vote to advance WEPA will allow more prescribed fire to be deployed on the landscape and help prevent or mitigate wildfires. I am proud to see our bill advance as we work to be proactive in responding to the wildfire crisis instead of waiting to respond after disaster strikes.”

WEPA provides certainty that states will not be penalized for taking action to prevent wildfires and authorizes a program to help communities plan and prepare for smoke events. Padilla underscored the urgent need to make it easier for communities to use prescribed fires to prevent wildfire emissions, protect ecosystems and wildlife habitats, and make American forests and communities safer, healthier, and cleaner.

Full text of the bill is available here.

Video of Padilla’s EPW remarks is available here.

Padilla then delivered remarks at a Senate Energy and Natural Resources (ENR) Committee hearing, emphasizing the importance of passing legislation to prevent and respond to future wildfires that impact public lands and surrounding communities.

Padilla underscored the importance of his bipartisan Save Our Sequoias Act, legislation to protect giant sequoias from the growing threat of wildfires, insects, and disease. This bill would help reverse the damage caused by catastrophic wildfires and restore the resilience of giant sequoias groves — which provide critical ecological, scientific, and cultural benefits.

“Giant sequoias are one of the most iconic species in the world and are only found in roughly 70 groves across California,” said Senator Padilla. “However, due to dangerous fuel buildups and increasingly devastating wildfires, nearly 20% of these ancient trees have been lost over the past decade. This bill would accelerate forest restoration efforts and provide important resources to land managers to guard these groves from further destruction.”

Padilla also highlighted his recent bipartisan bicameral letter urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park, known as Hazel Green Ranch. Padilla urged DOI to back out of the land transfer and emphasized the bipartisan and bicameral opposition to the land transfer.

In the aftermath of the catastrophic Southern California fires, Padilla has introduced more than a dozen bills to help prevent and respond to future wildfires. Last year, he and Senator John Curtis (R-Utah) introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive. Last January, Padilla introduced a suite of bipartisan bills to strengthen wildfire recovery and resilience, including the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act, the Fire Suppression and Response Funding Assurance Act, and the Disaster Housing Reform for American Families Act. On the one-year anniversary of the Los Angeles fires, Padilla and Senator Tim Sheehy (R-Mont.) announced bipartisan legislation to establish a new grant program to help local communities defend themselves from the growing danger of wildfires.

Video of Padilla’s ENR remarks is available here.

###",1,2026-09-17T09:52:05Z,2026-09-17T09:53:00Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-ahead-of-vote-on-senate-farm-bill-sen-schiff-releases-new-reporting-highlighting-impact-of-republican-snap-cuts-making-food-insecurity-worse-for-families/,"NEWS: Ahead of Vote on Senate Farm Bill, Sen. Schiff Releases New Reporting Highlighting Impact of Republican SNAP Cuts Making Food Insecurity Worse for Families",2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"As a result of Trump Administration policies, including the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, more than 330,000 Californians lost food benefits, including more than 156,000 children.

Washington, D.C. – Washington, D.C. – Ahead of another markup on the Senate Agriculture Committee’s Farm Bill, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) released a new report underscoring the harmful impact that Trump administration policies, including its signature legislative package, are having on food insecurity for California families and the need for a Farm Bill that helps address this and rising food costs.

The current version of the Farm Bill set to be voted on today does not adequately address the deep cuts made by the One Big Beautiful Bill Act to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program (SNAP), known as CalFresh in California.

“As the cost of food in the United States soars, the Trump Administration’s continued attacks on proven federal food assistance programs are putting the health and prosperity of American families across the country in jeopardy. By purging millions of people from SNAP and other nutrition programs, the legacy of the Trump Administration and this Republican Congress will be one of increased hunger and more families struggling to make ends meet to keep food on their tables,” Schiff’s report says.

To understand the impact of food prices in California, Senator Schiff and his staff visited and interviewed dozens of employees and volunteers at foods banks and their partners across the state. Their message was clear and concerning: more people need food assistance, and higher food prices coupled with regressive federal policies are squeezing families already struggling to put food on the table.

Data in Schiff’s report show that SNAP participation fell by more than 4.5 million people since January 2025. In that same time period, more than 330,000 Californians have fallen off SNAP, including more than 156,000 children.

From a California Constituent: “I am a parent in Tulare County, in a little town called Strathmore. It’s very small…losing funding is very scary for me, myself, and my family. I have two daughters, so everything’s very expensive alone, you know. And then getting SNAP cut is going to be very bad. . . .There’s months where I can only pay a certain amount of my bills because it’s so expensive, and we’re all struggling. My community is struggling.”

Furthermore, the report highlights how President Trump’s Iran War and ongoing trade wars have driven food prices higher. Food price indexes measured a 3.0 percent increase from June 2025 to June 2026, and the overall price index increased 3.5 percent in that same period before seasonal adjustment.

The report findings include:

Under the Trump Administration, federal actions led to increased food insecurity for more than five million people in communities across California.

Food banks and partners observed increased need by employed, middle-class families.

Many people are frightened to seek food assistance because of the Trump Administration’s broad efforts to detain and remove immigrants.

Higher food prices affected the purchasing power of both families and the food banks that serve them.

Food prices are driving people and food banks toward less healthy options.

The impacts of food insecurity are not partisan.

The report makes several recommendations to ensure that all Americans have access to healthy and affordable food, including that:

Congress should restore the nearly $187 billion made in cuts to SNAP through 2034 in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.

Congress should provide relief to states and families by imposing, at a minimum, a two-year delay in the benefit cost-shift to states.

USDA must restore its local food programs. Congress should make these programs permanent and provide them with mandatory funding.

Congress should increase investments to make healthy foods, such as fruits and vegetables, more widely available to schools, food banks and other institutions. This can be done through improving federal procurement and increasing funding for nutrition incentive programs.

Senator Schiff’s full report can be found here.

###",1,2026-09-17T09:52:05Z,2026-09-17T09:53:00Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-as-the-administration-continues-dangerous-effort-to-exploit-federal-workers-health-records-sens-schiff-and-warner-demand-end-to-violation-of-privacy/,"NEWS: As the Administration Continues Dangerous Effort to Exploit Federal Workers’ Health Records, Sens. Schiff and Warner Demand End to Violation of Privacy",2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Following the White House Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) failure to suspend their proposed collection of the personal medical records of millions of federal workers, retirees, and their families to be weaponized in employment actions, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) are leading their colleagues in urging the administration to end this illegal effort and demanding safeguards to protect the data of federal workers.

Earlier this year, Schiff, Warner and 17 Senators urged the administration to reverse course on the dangerous decision to seek unprecedented access to personal medical records. In addition to OPM’s failure to address the Senators’ inquiry, the System of Records Notice (SORN), published in June, confirms their intention to collect identifiable data of federal workers.

“The modified SORN does not resolve the fundamental privacy, legal, and constitutional concerns raised in our initial letter regarding a federal personnel agency maintaining a longitudinal repository of highly sensitive health information on more than eight million people…Most concerningly, the SORN states that OPM retains the right to re-identify pseudonymized records. In combination, these features create an extraordinarily detailed longitudinal health history that remains linkable to a specific person,” the Senators wrote in a new letter to OPM Director Scott Kupor.

The Senators point to the administration’s clear intent to target vulnerable communities by using sensitive health information in employment actions, including the hiring and firing of federal workers.

The SORN revealed OPM is “utilizing ZIP code, birth year, provider, service dates, diagnoses, procedures, and drug information to reveal highly specific patterns of care.”

“We support responsible efforts to protect the integrity of federal health-benefit programs. However, OPM’s proposals create an unnecessarily broad, decades-long, re-identifiable medical history of millions of workers, retirees, spouses, children, and other family members. We strongly urge OPM to suspend further implementation while these concerns are addressed and to work with Congress, federal employees and retirees, health plans, privacy and civil-rights experts, reproductive-health advocates, and other affected stakeholders to establish safeguards commensurate with the sensitivity of the information at issue,” the Senators concluded.

Additionally, the Senators are requesting that OPM brief Congress to provide answers on their work to protect federal workers’ families and OPM’s automated detection system, which has the potential to result in the wrongful targeting of individuals.

In addition to Schiff and Warner, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.).

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

Dear Director Kupor,

We write to express serious concern regarding the System of Records Notice (SORN) published by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) on June 23, 2026, following OPM’s December 2025 proposal to obtain detailed health claims information from millions of federal employees, retirees, and their family members. On April 20, 2026, we urged you to immediately reverse course on OPM’s potentially illegal and dangerous decision to seek unprecedented access to personal medical records. The modified SORN does not resolve the fundamental privacy, legal, and constitutional concerns raised in our initial letter regarding a federal personnel agency maintaining a longitudinal repository of highly sensitive health information on more than eight million people.

The June SORN describes OPM’s intent to use identifiable data of federal employees, retirees, and their family members to create person-level longitudinal records that include persistent unique identifiers. Furthermore, OPM would enable authorized personnel to retrieve records using member identifiers for approved linkage, validation, and data-quality activities. Most concerningly, the SORN states that OPM retains the right to re-identify pseudonymized records. In combination, these features create an extraordinarily detailed longitudinal health history that remains linkable to a specific person.

While the SORN claims that pseudonymization will reduce some routine internal exposure, this change alone is not equivalent to eliminating identifiability. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) cautions that not all techniques that merely mask personal information provide sufficient de-identification and recommends that agencies evaluate re-identification risk, adopt measurable de-identification standards, and conduct governance and risk assessment around data releases and access. In the case of OPM’s recent SORN, a stable identifier permits repeated encounters to be linked over time, utilizing ZIP code, birth year, provider, service dates, diagnoses, procedures, and drug information to reveal highly specific patterns of care. OPM itself maintains the mechanism needed to reconnect the pseudonymized history to the individual, negating any intended anonymization of data.

The Privacy Act requires federal agencies to only maintain information about an individual that is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose required by statute or Executive Order. OPM has failed to provide any justification for the collection of person-level data, instead relying on broad references to program integrity, fraud prevention, or cost evaluation. Additionally, the SORN concerningly permits disclosure of personal data to federal, state, local, territorial, tribal, or foreign law-enforcement authorities whenever OPM believes a record indicates a potential violation of criminal, civil, or regulatory law. It also permits disclosures to other federal agencies to address suspected fraud, waste, and abuse in programs under those agencies’ purview. These overly broad allowances to share sensitive health information are extremely concerning, given this administration’s clearly stated goals of targeting vulnerable populations.

In our April 20, 2026, letter, we specifically expressed concern that sensitive health information could be used in employment actions, including hiring, suitability determinations, appeals, reductions in force, disability accommodation requests, labor-management relations, and performance reviews. We have yet to receive a response to that letter. Furthermore, the June SORN fails to confirm that collected data will not be used for these purposes or related personnel actions. We urge OPM to make these prohibitions explicit and enforceable, extending those protections to matching claims information against personnel systems or other OPM databases.

The SORN also incorporates a National Archives and Records Administration Records Schedule directing OPM to retain Health Claims Records for 30 years, materially increasing the consequences of breach or misuse of highly sensitive health data. OPM has failed to explain why identifiable or re-identifiable longitudinal health claims must persist for decades. At a minimum, OPM should adopt a substantially shorter retention period for identifiable and pseudonymized person-level records, with automatic destruction of linkage keys after the operational need has expired to protect individuals’ data.

OPM’s proposal covers not only federal employees but also annuitants, spouses, former spouses, family members, Postal Service employees and their families, certain tribal employees, separated employees, and former family members. Many of these individuals are not federal employees and have no employment relationship with OPM. Young-adult dependents may receive reproductive, sexual-health, mental-health, substance-use, or other sensitive services that should not be accessible to the federal government, regardless of their family member’s Federal Employee Health Benefits (FEHB) coverage. OPM should preserve strict separation among family members’ records and prohibit use of one individual’s claims information to infer or investigate another family member’s conduct.

Lastly, reports indicate that OPM intends to use claims data to identify potential anomalies and that records deemed suspicious by analysts may be referred to OPM’s Office of Inspector General for investigation. However, claims data are not complete clinical narratives and may reflect rare diseases, complex pregnancy, disability, chronic illness, fragmented care, referral patterns, or coding practices rather than fraud. We are deeply concerned that adverse referral or action based solely on automated scoring or anomaly detection, without documented human review, will result in wrongful targeting of individuals with complex health needs and subject them to unwarranted administrative or law enforcement scrutiny.

Before OPM proceeds further with expanded collection and use of federal employee health data, we urge OPM to take the following actions:

Suspend implementation of any expanded person-level collection under the modified SORN.

Publish a field-by-field necessity analysis identifying the statutory purpose served by each data element and explaining why de-identified, aggregated, limited, or sampled data would be insufficient.

Use genuinely de-identified or aggregated data by default and permit re-identification only after a documented, individualized showing of necessity, with dual authorization, immutable audit logging, and periodic independent review.

Adopt an enforceable firewall prohibiting use, disclosure, matching, or linkage of claims data for any employment or personnel decisions.

Prohibit use or disclosure of OPM records to other federal agencies or any law enforcement entities, including – but not limited to – records related to an individual’s for seeking, obtaining, providing, or assisting with lawful health care.

Prohibit the use or referral of any health information for unrelated civil, criminal, or regulatory enforcement, particularly when based merely on a potential violation of law and require senior-level legal and privacy review before any external law-enforcement disclosure.

Reevaluate the 30-year retention schedule for health claims records and adopt much shorter retention periods for identifiable and pseudonymized person-level data, including time-limited retention of re-identification keys.

Establish independent oversight and public transparency, including annual reporting on the number and categories of re-identifications, external disclosures, law-enforcement referrals, access-control violations, security incidents, and disciplinary actions for misuse.

Provide specific protections for dependents and family members, including strict separation of family members’ claims and a prohibition on using one family member’s health data to infer or investigate another family member.

Describe the validation, human-review, error-correction, and anti-bias safeguards that will govern any automated or algorithmic fraud or anomaly detection before a person or provider is referred for investigation.

We support responsible efforts to protect the integrity of federal health-benefit programs. However, OPM’s proposals create an unnecessarily broad, decades-long, re-identifiable medical history of millions of workers, retirees, spouses, children, and other family members. We strongly urge OPM to suspend further implementation while these concerns are addressed and to work with Congress, federal employees and retirees, health plans, privacy and civil-rights experts, reproductive-health advocates, and other affected stakeholders to establish safeguards commensurate with the sensitivity of the information at issue.

We request a written response and briefing by OPM on the office’s efforts related to the above requested actions no later than September 25, 2026.

###",1,2026-09-17T09:52:05Z,2026-09-17T09:53:00Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-and-kaine-file-oman-war-powers-resolution/,NEWS: Schiff and Kaine File Oman War Powers Resolution,2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) filed a War Powers Resolution to prohibit the use of the U.S. Armed Forces in hostilities in or against Oman. Last month, President Donald Trump threatened to “bomb the shit” out of Oman if it interferes with the United States’ blockade of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Donald Trump threatened, and then launched a war with Iran. Donald Trump threatened, and then launched strikes against Venezuela. And last month, Donald Trump threatened strikes against Oman – his next potential target for yet another foreign war,” said Senator Schiff. “Congress has not authorized any of these commitments of our armed forces. And this resolution will make it clear that the American people and the U.S. Senate reject any additional deployment of our servicemembers for new wars around the globe.”

“President Trump calls himself the ‘Peace President,’ but he has ordered military strikes in more countries around the world than any President in recent history,” said Senator Kaine, a member of the Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees. “The American people don’t want more war, but instead of listening to them, President Trump is threatening to bomb Oman. The use of the U.S. military has a time and a place, but President Trump’s chaotic and expansive use of the military isn’t making Americans more secure. All it’s doing is raising costs, hurting servicemembers and their families, depleting our munitions stockpile, killing innocent civilians, and distracting us from real threats posed by China and Russia. I hope my colleagues will join us in trying to prevent the Trump-Vance Administration from stumbling from one blunder into another.”

The full text of the resolution is available here.

###",1,2026-09-17T09:52:05Z,2026-09-17T09:53:00Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-breaks-down-fbi-director-kash-patels-sidestepping-during-senate-hearing-warns-of-future-investigations-of-patel/,"WATCH: Sen. Schiff Breaks Down FBI Director Kash Patel’s Sidestepping During Senate Hearing, Warns of Future Investigations of Patel",2026-09-16,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Schiff to FBI Director Patel: “You damn well better preserve records, because we’re going to be investigating all these hundreds of wrongful terminations, and we’re going to hold you accountable.”

Washington, D.C. – Last night, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined MS NOW’s The Briefing with Jen Psaki to recap the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel’s refusal to answer questions during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing.

During the hearing, Schiff pressed Patel on his mismanagement and politicization of the agency – including purging FBI agents who investigated President Trump – and emphasized that he will investigate Patel.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On Schiff investigating Patel’s corruption at the FBI and attacks on the media:

[…] [Patel] is being sued and the bureau being sued for wrongful terminations. There’s also litigation always when they try to go after journalists. And if discovery comes out and shows that Patel was made aware and maybe even asked for information about these reporters, and the reporters I was asking about there were those who wrote stories about him using a SWAT team to provide protection to his girlfriend and other stories about his excessive drinking on the job; these are not predicates to investigate some reporter or do queries or abuse FBI resources. And if it comes out in litigation that he was aware of this, that he was involved in this, he’s committed perjury – so, part of the object here too is to pin him down; I fully expect that he will lie to the Congress and hope that he doesn’t get caught – but we will be investigating. I will also be really interested in this private litigation and what it turns up in discovery.

On Patel and Blanche dodging Schiff’s questioning on purging investigators tied to investigating President Trump at the FBI and DOJ:

[…] When Todd Blanche testified, I asked him about comments he made at CPAC, that conservative convention, when he said that basically they had cleaned house at the Department of Justice of anybody who had worked on any of the prosecutions of Donald Trump, and that Patel had done the same thing at the FBI. When I asked Blanche about it, Blanche said, “Well, he was under an ethical requirement that he not involve himself in cases involving his old client, the president.” So, he wasn’t involved in the firings. He was just stating a fact.

Patel today said, “Well, if we cleaned a house of all these agents who worked on these investigations of the president, it was because they decided suddenly to retire, or for reasons unrelated to the fact that they all worked on these cases.” None of it passes the smell test. And I wanted to get across one main point, not just to Patel, but to the lawyers sitting behind him and people watching from the FBI: you damn well better preserve records, because we’re going to be investigating all these hundreds of wrongful terminations, and we’re going to hold you accountable.

On Patel and Blanche’s refusal to expose truth behind Donald Trump Jr.’s wedding partly funded by Russian oligarch:

[…] In this case, the oligarch spending potentially 100, $200,000 on Don Jr.’s wedding. It’s absurd. Of course, they’re aware of it. They would be derelict. Their staff would be derelict not to prepare them. This is a different kind of a lie. It’s a kind of a lie that says I don’t want to have to answer questions about this because there’s no way to answer them truthfully without looking like a horse’s ass. So, “I’m just going to say I don’t know anything about this story.”

But the fact that here we have an oligarch close to the Kremlin spending that kind of money on the president’s son, and to have the attorney general say, “Well, people are saying that he’s close to the Kremlin. We don’t know that, and I don’t want to know.” That’s the whole implication of that statement by Todd Blanche. “I don’t know. I don’t want to know.” The president has said what he’s going to say. Don Jr. says this Kremlin guy is a close friend. “I’m not going to ask any questions because I wasn’t hired to do that. I don’t represent the American people. I don’t represent our national security interests. I represent my criminal defense client, Donald Trump, only.”

###",1,2026-09-17T09:52:05Z,2026-09-17T09:53:00Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-durbin-blumenthal-whitehouse-jayapal-raskin-introduce-resolution-to-block-trump-administration-rule-restricting-international-students-exchange-visitors-and-foreign-journalists/,"Padilla, Durbin, Blumenthal, Whitehouse, Jayapal, Raskin Introduce Resolution to Block Trump Administration Rule Restricting International Students, Exchange Visitors, and Foreign Journalists",2026-09-15,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, introduced a Congressional Review Act (CRA) joint resolution of disapproval to block a regulation, entitled “Establishing a Fixed Time Period of Admission and an Extension of Stay Procedure for Nonimmigrant Academic Students, Exchange Visitors, and Representatives of Foreign Information Media,” which changes how international students, exchange visitors, and foreign journalists maintain their immigration status. U.S. Representatives Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.-07) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08) are leading the House companion.

For more than 40 years, F-1 visa students, J-1 visa exchange visitors, and I visa international journalists have been permitted to remain in the U.S. for as long as they engage in the activity that qualifies them for the visa, known as “duration of status.” However, on July 17, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a final rule that eliminates duration of status and requires recipients of F-1 student visas and J-1 exchange visas to enter the U.S. for a fixed admission period capped at a maximum of four years. Similarly, recipients of I visas would be admitted for the length of their project in the U.S. or a maximum of 240 days.

The rule also includes significant limitations on transfers and changes of educational objectives for student visa recipients. Educational institutions, labor unions, and medical associations have raised serious concerns about this rule’s impacts on the nation’s ability to attract the best and brightest students to U.S. universities and to retain doctors in American communities that desperately need them. The rule was scheduled to go into effect on September 15 but is currently paused by court order.

“International students deserve fair opportunities to receive an education in the United States. Students, exchange visitors, and foreign members of the media should never have to live in fear of the Administration’s unprecedented attacks on legal immigration,” said Senator Padilla. “Diversity is our country’s strength, and international students and exchange visitors support American innovation, job growth, higher education, and global competitiveness. We have a responsibility to protect these visa holders, including international students who contribute to the culture of American universities and eventually to our nation’s economy.”

This regulation will have adverse impacts on foreign students, international medical school graduates (residents), and foreign members of the media. The federal government last implemented a fixed period of admission for these visa categories in the 1970s, and the changes resulted in significant backlogs. This new regulation will likely yield the same result, as the most recent available data shows the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) processing backlog at 12 million cases.

Universities have predicted significant hardships for doctorate students, who can often take as long as seven years to complete their programs. In addition, universities have expressed concerns that the strict regulation will prevent graduate students from changing their educational objective and prevent undergraduate students, including athletes, from transferring to another university in their first year of education or changing their majors. Medical associations have similarly raised concerns about the impacts of the rule on medical residents. This rule is the most recent in a series of attempts by the Trump Administration to stop legal immigration to the United States.

“This proposed rule is just another part of the Donald Trump-Stephen Miller mass deportation agenda. They want to make the immigration process so difficult, so cumbersome, and so onerous that legal immigrants decide to leave the U.S. or never come here at all—which will result in the loss of talented, bright individuals who make America better,” said Senator Durbin. “Our nation is already confronting a serious health workforce shortage. Now is not the time to make it even more difficult for health care professionals to care for our most vulnerable communities. I appreciate my Democratic colleagues in joining me on this important measure and encourage members on both sides of the aisle to support it.”

“Rhode Island’s institutions of higher education help power the Ocean State’s economic competitiveness,” said Senator Whitehouse. “International students and medical residents drive innovation, contribute to cutting-edge research, and spend big not only on tuition, but also at local restaurants and businesses. This Trump administration rule punishes international students, young doctors, and foreign journalists as well as local small businesses and universities as part of their extreme anti-immigration agenda.”

“International students make our institutions of higher learning better for all students and create pipelines to ensure the best and brightest lend their talents to strengthen our economy and American innovation. We should be welcoming students, not wrapping the processes to obtain visas in layers of red tape. This has nothing to do with national security and everything to do with Trump and Stephen Miller’s plan to prevent all forms of legal immigration. I first came to this country on a student visa and understand deeply just how important these visas are,” said Representative Jayapal.

“America has always benefited from attracting brilliant students, researchers, doctors and journalists from around the world. The Trump Administration wants to obstruct that path with bureaucratic hurdles and quicksand designed to make legal immigration harder. This senseless rule will drive away talented people who come here to study, practice medicine, do research and contribute to our communities. It harms the American economy and American innovation and makes all of us worse off,” said Representative Raskin.

In addition to Padilla, Durbin, Blumenthal, and Whitehouse, the CRA resolution was cosponsored by U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Angus King (I-Maine), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

The CRA resolution of disapproval is endorsed by AAMC – Association of American Medical Colleges, AIRC: The Association of International Enrollment Management, Alliance for International Exchange, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American Association of Collegiate Registrars and Admissions Officers, American College of Radiology, American Council on Education, American Gastroenterological Association, American Immigration Lawyers Association, American Osteopathic Association, American Psychiatric Association, American Society of Nephrology, American Society of Neuroradiology, Association for Advancing Physician and Provider Recruitment, Association of American Universities, Association of Independent California Colleges & Universities, Association of Jesuit Colleges and Universities, Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), Connecticut Conference of Independent Colleges, Cornell University, Council of Graduate Schools, Federation of Independent Illinois Colleges and Universities, Global Detroit; Illinois State University; Illinois Tech; International Educators of Illinois; Miles for Migraine; NAFSA: Association of International Educators; National Association of Independent Colleges & Universities (NAICU); Northern Illinois University, Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration; Shorelight, LLC, Third Way, University of California – Berkeley, University of California Agriculture and Natural Resources, University of California System, University of California-San Diego, University of California-Davis; University of California – Los Angeles; University of California- San Francisco; University of California – Santa Cruz, University of Illinois System, and U.S. For Success Coalition.

Last month, Padilla led 29 Senate colleagues in expressing concern about the unavailability of student and exchange visitor visa appointments in time for the start of the academic year and demanding answers regarding delays in processing of these applications at U.S. embassies and consulates. Last year, Padilla joined 34 Democrats in pressing the Trump Administration to reconsider decisions to revoke student visas. Padilla and Senator Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) then condemned the Trump Administration’s harmful revocations of international student visas, underscoring the lack of due process regarding these revocations and the chilling effect of these actions in suppressing freedom of thought and expression.

Bill text is available here.

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-costa-huffman-lead-bipartisan-congressional-push-to-stop-proposed-yosemite-land-transfer-to-trump-donor/,"Padilla, Schiff, Costa, Huffman Lead Bipartisan Congressional Push to Stop Proposed Yosemite Land Transfer to Trump Donor",2026-09-15,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with U.S. Representatives Jim Costa (D-Calif.-21) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, led a bipartisan group of 153 lawmakers in urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park known as Hazel Green Ranch.

In their letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the lawmakers condemned recent reporting that indicated the Trump Administration is considering a proposal to exchange or convey an interest in an approximately quarter-mile strip of federally managed public land within Yosemite to facilitate access to private property owned by Kingsbarn, a company whose chief executive officer began making a series of donations to Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee in late 2024 — shortly after Kingsbarn acquired the Hazel Green Ranch property.

“At its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans,” wrote the lawmakers. “Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party.”

The lawmakers also raised concerns about the Department’s proposal to use Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate the exchange. The letter noted that the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee did not agree to move forward with the project due to congressional objections.

“Public lands belong in public hands,” concluded the lawmakers. “Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life.”

In addition to Padilla and Schiff, the letter was signed by U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

In addition to Costa and Huffman, the letter was signed by Representatives Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.-01), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.-03), Becca Balint (D-Vt.-AL), Wesley Bell (D-Mont.-01), Ami Bera, (D-Calif.-06), Donald Beyer Jr. (D-Va.-08), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.-01), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.-05), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), André Carson (D-Ind.-07), Ed Case (D-Hawaii-01), Sean Casten (D-Ill.-06), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.-14), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Gilbert Cisneros, Jr. (D-Calif.-31), J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.-46), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas-30), Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28), Sharice Davids (D-KS-03), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Diana DeGette (D-CO-01), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.-10), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-04), Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Maxine Dexter, (D-Ore.-03), Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.-06), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.-03), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.-03), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.-01), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas-07), Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.-04), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.-30), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.-04), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.-10), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.-34), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas-34), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.-02), Adam Gray (D-Calif.-13), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.-07), Josh Harder (D-Calif.-09), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.-04), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.-01), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Henry “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-Ga.-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif. 37), Thomas Kean, Jr. (R-N.J.-07), William Keating (D-Mass.-09), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.-03), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.-08), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio-01), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.-02), George Latimer (D-N.Y.-16), Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.-17), Susie Lee (D-Nev.-03), Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.-03), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.-16), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.-08), Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.-02), John Mannion (D-N.Y.-22), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Sarah McBride (D-Del.-AL), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.-04), James McGovern (D-Mass.-02), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.-06), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.-03), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.-06), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Richard Neal (D-Mass.-01), Joe Neguse (D-Colo.-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.-06), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.-01), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.-07), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.-07), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.-05), Emily Randall (D-Wash.-06), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.-29), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.-02), Raul Ruiz, M.D. (D-Calif.-25), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.-05), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.-09), Kim Schrier, (D-Wash.-08), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.-32), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12), Adam Smith (D-Wash.-09), Darren Soto (D-Fla.-09), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.-01), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.-04), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.-11), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.-10), Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio-13), Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.-38), Mark Takano (D-Calif.-39), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.-13), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Dina Titus (D-Nev.-01), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.-12), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii-02), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.-20), Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.-03), Derek Tran (D-Calif.-45), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52), Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.-02), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.-43), and George Whitesides (D-Calif.-27).

Senator Padilla has been a longtime advocate of protecting Yosemite and national parks across the nation. In July, Padilla slammed the Trump Administration for eliminating the Yosemite reservation system, pressing DOI officials on their plans to ensure Yosemite’s ability to manage wildfire risk, enhance visitor safety, and conserve natural resources. In 2025, Padilla introduced the Review and Evaluation of Strategies for Equal Reservations for Visitor Experiences (RESERVE) Federal Land Act to expand access to public lands, improve visitor experience, and enhance transparency of how fees are collected for federal lands and national parks.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Burgum:

Yosemite National Park is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California’s crown jewels. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that “nothing in the world is more beautiful than the Yosemite” and that our national parks should be “preserved” and “their majestic beauty all unmarred.” Yosemite is a national treasure preserved for the benefit of the American people. Its continued beauty, status as a wildlife sanctuary, and source of enjoyment is contingent upon preservation and proper maintenance of its land—not parts being sold off to enrich nearby private property owners. We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer.

Recent reporting indicates that since early 2025, the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service have been considering a proposal to exchange or convey an interest in an approximately quarter-mile strip of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park to facilitate access to an 83-acre privately owned ranch. This is not the first time this property has sought to have private access to Yosemite, with federal courts blocking this right to access in both 2007 and 2012.2 Now that the ranch has a new owner, they are once again seeking to acquire this land to enhance the value of their property, and the political leadership at DOI is pressuring career staff to approve the exchange.

At its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans. This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access. Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party.

We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers. In response to the Department’s request to fund this exchange through the LWCF, the Senate Interior Environment Appropriations Subcommittee did not agree to move forward on this project due to our objection.

Further, in response to inquiries from Congress, the Department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the Department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer. In its justification for the LWCF proposal, the Department indicated that this exchange was a “priority,” while providing no compelling explanation for why it was in the interest of the United States to pursue this exchange. Instead, when explaining the need for the project, the Department simply stated that the private landowner requested an interest in federally owned property within the national park.

Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life. We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/watch-padilla-presses-patel-on-election-interference-secures-commitment-fbi-will-not-seize-ballots-or-voting-machines-ahead-of-midterms/,"WATCH: Padilla Presses Patel on Election Interference, Secures Commitment FBI Will Not Seize Ballots or Voting Machines Ahead of Midterms",2026-09-15,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Padilla also raised AI security, immigration enforcement concerns

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, pressed Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel on the Trump Administration’s efforts to involve federal law enforcement in elections and secured a commitment that the FBI will not seize ballots, voting machines, or other election materials in connection with the 2026 midterm elections before they have concluded.

During the oversight hearing, Padilla raised concerns about the FBI’s unjustified raids on Fulton County, Georgia earlier this year to seize ballots from the 2020 presidential election that Donald Trump lost. He also cited the subsequent “copycat move” by a county sheriff to seize 650,000 ballots in Riverside County, California following the Prop 54 congressional redistricting referendum in 2025.

Additionally, Padilla highlighted Patel’s failure to provide any answers to written questions from last year’s congressional oversight hearing — severely undermining Patel’s claims of transparency and accountability. Padilla also raised concerns about Artificial Intelligence (AI) cyberattacks, and the FBI’s role in investigating the violent use of force by ICE and CBP officers and agents.

PADILLA PRESSES PATEL ON FBI ELECTION INVOLVEMENT

First, Padilla asked Patel to reaffirm the Department of Justice’s longstanding election noninterference policy to not take overt criminal investigative measures involving any alleged ballot fraud until an election has concluded, results have been certified, and recounts and election contests have been resolved. Padilla also asked if the FBI Director could make the same commitment that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, recently made that he has “no plans to use such personnel to seize ballots, voting machines, or other election related material.”

“My question to you is, can you make the same commitment?” Padilla asked Patel.

“Yes,” Patel responded.

PADILLA DEMANDS ACCOUNTABILITY

Padilla then pressed Patel on his failure to submit responses to written questions to the record from last year’s congressional oversight hearing.

PADILLA: “A year ago, this committee convened to exercise its oversight responsibility, like we are doing here today, to get answers to critical questions about the FBI’s activities under your leadership. I know other colleagues have reminded you of some of the pledges and statements you made that day: that you’re committed to full transparency, to oversight and accountability, to restore the public’s trust in the FBI. You made that promise again here today… it has been almost a year, and we still have not gotten responses, no answers, to our questions for the record that were submitted last year.”

[…]

“When can we expect answers to this year’s questions? By the end of October?”

PATEL: As fast as we can.

PADILLA: If last year is any indicator, that’s clearly not fast enough and not consistent with your pledge of transparency and accountability and responsiveness.

PATEL: If I may, the end of October is pretty reasonable. We can abide by that.

PADILLA PROBES PATEL ON AI CYBERSECURITY

Padilla then pressed Patel on the FBI’s response to reports of cyberattacks involving rogue AI agents, such as the recent Hugging Face hack. Padilla inquired who would be held accountable for attacks by autonomous agents and what safeguards the FBI has instituted to prevent rogue AI agent attacks within the FBI’s system.

PADILLA: First, the prospect of rogue AI agents is obviously top of mind because of the autonomous agents hacking into Hugging Face. I imagine it is also top of mind for you, given that Hugging Face apparently reported the cyberattack to the FBI. Is that correct?

PATEL: Partially. The rest of that, we can talk about in a classified setting.

[…]

PADILLA: As a follow-up, a specific policy and technical question – because it seems like we are in a new frontier here. What protocols or procedures are different, if any, given that these are autonomous, nonhuman actors that have been accused of committing these crimes?

PATEL: The difference is someone created them. For us, the approach is the same. We look at it as an electronic entity. Someone made them for this specific deployment, and just like any other program we have, if it’s for a good, lawful use, we’re fine. If it’s for an ill-intended, unlawful use, we go after the entity or the people that created that system if they intentionally deployed it to cause that result.

PADILLA: So to be clear, for the people watching at home, who was it then that you are investigating or will hold accountable if the information you come across warrants indictments, charges, etc.?

PATEL: Companies, personnel. Whoever is responsible.

[…]

PADILLA: Out of curiosity – AI is being utilized in the course of the FBI’s work, investigations and otherwise. What safeguards have you put into place to monitor, prevent, or respond to AI agents going rogue within the FBI systems?

PATEL: There is a ton. We don’t just bring in AI and let it run loose. We take it in as a test use, case-by-case basis, and then test it on a specific set of data, either at a headquarters component or one specific field office, then we get feedback on whether or not that AI capabilities and large language models abided by our policy and DOJ mandates and the law.

PADILLA PRESSES PATEL ON FBI INVESTIGATIONS OF IMMIGRATION ENFORCEMENT SHOOTINGS

Padilla further confronted Patel about reports that the FBI would no longer investigate shootings involving ICE and CBP officers and agents, and specifically asked about investigations into the killings of Joan Sebastian Guerrero and Lorenzo Salgado Araujo.

While Patel stated that the FBI participates in investigations of excessive use of force in immigration enforcement actions, he admitted they do not always take the lead and did not provide any updates on the status of such investigations, stating he would have to consult with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Padilla called for more independence in these investigations to ensure transparency.

PADILLA: Reports indicate, in July, field offices received guidance to stop investigating confrontations with immigration enforcement officials or agents involved with immigration enforcement. Yes or no, did you or your leadership team instruct field offices to stop investigating excessive use of force by ICE or CBP?

PATEL: No.

PADILLA: Can you reiterate for me, for the community, for the public, what is the current guidance to field offices as it pertains to these types of investigations?

PATEL: Every single investigation is different, depending on the location, on who the officer is. We have to bring in the lead home agency if it’s one of theirs, one of ours.

PADILLA: But every incident is investigated?

PATEL: To my knowledge, every incident is investigated through the interagency process.

PADILLA: With FBI participation in those investigations?

PATEL: Yes, and we’re always called in. We’re always asked to participate because we have some technical capabilities that other agencies don’t.

[…]

PADILLA: You should be the lead on these investigations. The independence of these investigations is critical for true accountability.

[…]

PADILLA: Can you comment on the status of investigations on the shootings of Joan Sebastian Guerrero, or Lorenzo Salgado Araujo, or any of the 23 shootings involving ICE or CBP?

PATEL: I would have to get back to you on those because again I’d have to go talk to my DHS partners.

Video of Padilla’s full questioning is available here.

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-costa-huffman-lead-bipartisan-congressional-push-to-stop-proposed-yosemite-land-transfer-to-trump-donor/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla, Costa, Huffman Lead Bipartisan Congressional Push to Stop Proposed Yosemite Land Transfer to Trump Donor",2026-09-15,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with U.S. Representatives Jim Costa (D-Calif.-21) and Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, led a bipartisan group of 157 lawmakers in urging the Department of the Interior (DOI) to abandon a proposed transfer of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park that would facilitate private access to and development of an 83-acre parcel adjacent to the park known as Hazel Green Ranch.

In their letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, the lawmakers condemned recent reporting that indicated the Trump Administration is considering a proposal to exchange or convey an interest in an approximately quarter-mile strip of federally managed public land within Yosemite to facilitate access to private property owned by Kingsbarn, a company whose chief executive officer began making a series of donations to Trump’s campaign and the Republican National Committee in late 2024 — shortly after Kingsbarn acquired the Hazel Green Ranch property.

“At its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans,” wrote the lawmakers. “Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party.”

The lawmakers also raised concerns about the Department’s proposal to use Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate the exchange. The letter noted that the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee did not agree to move forward with the project due to congressional objections.

“Public lands belong in public hands,” concluded the lawmakers. “Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life.”

In addition to Schiff and Padilla, the letter was signed by U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Christopher Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

In addition to Costa and Huffman, the letter was signed by Representatives Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.-01), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.-03), Becca Balint (D-Vt.-AL), Wesley Bell (D-Mont.-01), Ami Bera, (D-Calif.-06), Donald Beyer Jr. (D-Va.-08), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.-01), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.-05), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), André Carson (D-Ind.-07), Ed Case (D-Hawaii-01), Sean Casten (D-Ill.-06), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.-14), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Gilbert Cisneros, Jr. (D-Calif.-31), J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.-46), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas-30), Henry Cuellar (D-TX-28), Sharice Davids (D-KS-03), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Diana DeGette (D-CO-01), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.-10), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-04), Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Maxine Dexter, (D-Ore.-03), Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.-06), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.-03), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.-03), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.-01), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas-07), Valerie Foushee (D-N.C.-04), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.-30), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.-04), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.-10), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.-34), Vicente Gonzalez (D-Texas-34), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.-02), Adam Gray (D-Calif.-13), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.-07), Josh Harder (D-Calif.-09), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.-04), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.-04), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.-01), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Henry “Hank” Johnson, Jr. (D-Ga.-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif. 37), Thomas Kean, Jr. (R-N.J.-07), William Keating (D-Mass.-09), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.-03), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.-08), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio-01), Rick Larsen (D-Wash.-02), George Latimer (D-N.Y.-16), Michael Lawler (R-N.Y.-17), Susie Lee (D-Nev.-03), Teresa Leger Fernández (D-N.M.-03), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.-16), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.-08), Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.-02), John Mannion (D-N.Y.-22), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Sarah McBride (D-Del.-AL), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.-04), James McGovern (D-Mass.-02), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.-06), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.-03), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.-06), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Richard Neal (D-Mass.-01), Joe Neguse (D-Colo.-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-N.J.-06), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19), Chris Pappas (D-N.H.-01), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.-07), Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.-07), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.-05), Emily Randall (D-Wash.-06), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.-29), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.-02), Raul Ruiz, M.D. (D-Calif.-25), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.-05), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.-09), Kim Schrier, (D-Wash.-08), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.-32), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12), Adam Smith (D-Wash.-09), Darren Soto (D-Fla.-09), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.-01), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.-04), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.-11), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.-10), Emilia Sykes (D-Ohio-13), Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.-38), Mark Takano (D-Calif.-39), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.-13), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Dina Titus (D-Nev.-01), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.-12), Jill Tokuda (D-Hawaii-02), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.-20), Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.-03), Derek Tran (D-Calif.-45), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52), Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.-02), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.-43), and George Whitesides (D-Calif.-27).

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

Dear Secretary Burgum:

Yosemite National Park is a cornerstone of the National Park System and is one of California’s crown jewels. President Theodore Roosevelt once said that “nothing in the world is more beautiful than the Yosemite” and that our national parks should be “preserved” and “their majestic beauty all unmarred.” Yosemite is a national treasure preserved for the benefit of the American people. Its continued beauty, status as a wildlife sanctuary, and source of enjoyment is contingent upon preservation and proper maintenance of its land—not parts being sold off to enrich nearby private property owners. We are extremely concerned that the Department of the Interior is considering selling off portions of the park to private development and we strongly oppose the proposed land transfer.

Recent reporting indicates that since early 2025, the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service have been considering a proposal to exchange or convey an interest in an approximately quarter-mile strip of federally managed public land within Yosemite National Park to facilitate access to an 83-acre privately owned ranch. This is not the first time this property has sought to have private access to Yosemite, with federal courts blocking this right to access in both 2007 and 2012.2 Now that the ranch has a new owner, they are once again seeking to acquire this land to enhance the value of their property, and the political leadership at DOI is pressuring career staff to approve the exchange.

At its core, this proposal appears to provide a private benefit at the expense of land that belongs to all Americans. This transaction does not seek to expand public access to Yosemite, improve visitor services, or address transportation deficiencies in park access. Rather, this land exchange seeks to merely cut down on driving time for a select few on private property. Any decision to relinquish public land to private ownership should be supported by a clear and compelling public benefit, not merely the economic interests of a private party.

We were alarmed that the Department submitted to Congress a proposal to use money from the Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF) authority to facilitate this exchange. That fund exists to acquire and protect public lands for the benefit of the American public—not sell them off to corporate developers. In response to the Department’s request to fund this exchange through the LWCF, the Senate Interior Environment Appropriations Subcommittee did not agree to move forward on this project due to our objection.

Further, in response to inquiries from Congress, the Department indicated that it has not identified any land to be exchanged for the parcel of Yosemite National Park that the Department is seeking to sell to the private developer. This gives further credence to the notion that this exchange is not being done in the public interest, but rather solely to benefit a private developer. In its justification for the LWCF proposal, the Department indicated that this exchange was a “priority,” while providing no compelling explanation for why it was in the interest of the United States to pursue this exchange. Instead, when explaining the need for the project, the Department simply stated that the private landowner requested an interest in federally owned property within the national park.

Public lands belong in public hands. Protection of public lands is a bipartisan issue, overwhelmingly supported by the American people from all walks of life. We oppose any effort to privatize, sell off, give away, or otherwise undermine the continued existence of public lands, in Yosemite or across the country. We ask that you honor congressional objections and abandon this effort to sell off a piece of Yosemite National Park.

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-sen-schiff-statement-on-the-clarity-act/,STATEMENT: Sen. Schiff Statement on the Clarity Act,2026-09-15,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Schiff (D-Calif.) issued the following statement on the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act:

“I have long believed that Congress should institute rules of the road for the digital asset industry to protect consumers and our global financial system, and to ensure an even playing field with regulatory certainty for the industry. Equally important is ensuring that digital assets are not used for corrupt profit schemes by elected officials, nor used to evade sanctions or fund illicit financial and other criminal activity. This bill achieves some of these important goals, but unfortunately not all of them.

“From the beginning of this process, I have been clear that I will not support market structure legislation which fails to establish strong and enforceable ethics provisions in light of this administration’s complete disregard for ethical norms and President Trump’s entanglement of personal profit with his official duties. My position from the beginning has been simple, and something both Democrats and Republicans should support: all elected and senior government officials must be prohibited from issuing, sponsoring, and endorsing digital assets. No public official, including those currently serving in government, should get a carveout.

“After more than a year of intensive negotiations with my Senate Democratic colleagues, Republican counterparts and the White House, the administration has made clear it is not willing to reach a deal that would put an end to the President’s profiteering through digital assets.

“Over the last two years, we have seen an unprecedented level of pay to play corruption made possible by the Trump family’s role in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency company founded just days before the inauguration. This has opened the door for foreign governments to funnel hundreds of millions of dollars to the President in an apparent effort to obtain special treatment ranging from the sale of AI chips to the pardoning of convicted felons. This behavior undermines the integrity of our markets and American families suffer the costs.

“I strongly believe that the digital asset industry needs regulatory clarity and that Americans would benefit from market structure legislation. I wanted to get a deal on ethics that the American people could support and understand, and I worked hard to get there. I’m grateful to my colleagues for working in good faith with me on this and other critical issues. And while I support aspects of this bill, the ethics provisions included do not meet the mark. I also have concerns that there was not meaningful consultation with the Tribes and as a result the bill does not address their concerns over gambling in the prediction markets. The bill does nothing to rein in the CFTC’s blatant violation of tribal and state sovereignty and Congress’s intent with respect to state regulation of gaming.

“For these reasons, I voted against today’s procedural vote on the Clarity Act. But I remain open to continuing to work to get an ethics deal that will be acceptable to the American people and crack down on corruption by any and all public officials.”

###",1,2026-09-16T09:43:13Z,2026-09-16T09:44:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schumer-announce-dhs-whistleblower-report-revealing-trump-administration-directed-officers-to-break-state-laws-in-voter-fraud-hunt/,"Padilla, Schumer Announce DHS Whistleblower Report Revealing Trump Administration Directed Officers to Break State Laws in Voter Fraud Hunt",2026-09-14,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Whistleblower reveals DHS officers were directed to illegally access sensitive voter data and create law enforcement records based on faulty data; Senators demand DHS immediately halt illegal initiative

Known U.S. citizens are being swept up into the initiative, based on faulty and rushed data that DHS compiled using “supplemental magic”

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, with jurisdiction over federal elections, and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, and Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) announced the receipt of a new whistleblower disclosure that alleges the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) immigration officers to violate state laws as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at substantiating President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.

In response to the compelling evidence of this and other wrongdoing in the disclosure, Padilla and Schumer demanded DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and USCIS Director Joseph B. Edlow immediately halt the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” and provide an urgent report to Congress on its activities.

Following reports of the launch of a vast “Unlawful Voter Initiative” at DHS, an anonymous DHS whistleblower has come forward with a disclosure reporting illegal, deceptive and reckless practices that the Trump Administration is undertaking ahead of the midterm elections. The disclosure alleges that DHS and USCIS leadership has abruptly diverted USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (FDNS) immigration officers from their national security-related duties and directed them instead to use illegal procedures and questionable data to identify purported “unlawful voters,” and create federal law enforcement records against them, including naturalized U.S. citizens.

The disclosure addressed to Senator Padilla alleges that:

DHS agents are being ordered to violate state laws and access sensitive voter information under false pretenses

Agents assigned to the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” are directed to use personal information from DHS data to lie to access voter information on state voter registration websites, making false attestations that they are a voter or are acting with a voter’s express authorization in order to access sensitive voter data.

Leadership is pressuring USCIS personnel to create law enforcement records with information that is likely to be false, which will have serious negative consequences for eligible American voters and other innocent individuals

USCIS headquarters admits that DHS data can conflict with state records and contain both uncertainties and inconsistencies. Yet agency leadership directed officers to create “TECS” federal law enforcement records that relied solely on unreliable DHS-provided voting or registration data, even if officers believe it to be unreliable.

Known U.S. citizens are being swept up into the initiative, based on faulty and rushed data that DHS compiled using “supplemental magic”

Naturalized U.S. citizens are being investigated through this initiative without their knowledge or ability to correct erroneous data, with law enforcement records being generated against them. USCIS officers are facing demanding quotas and unrealistic timelines requiring five investigations per hour, or 12 minutes each, only further compounding the potential for errors. These records can have significant consequences that extend well beyond the electoral process, including the possibility that a naturalized U.S. citizen could be referred to secondary inspections by CBP personnel at ports of entry upon return to the United States from legally authorized travel abroad, negative impacts on immigration benefits, and referral to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) due to rushed, faulty data relied on through this initiative.

“These allegations are especially alarming because they come just weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections. The Administration is publicly asserting, without evidence, that large numbers of noncitizens are unlawfully registered to vote and deploying federal law enforcement resources to investigate those claims,” the Senators wrote. “If unreliable DHS data is used to generate purported evidence of “unlawful voters,” that could disenfranchise eligible voters or disrupt state and local election administration. DHS must not allow unreliable federal data or rushed investigations to interfere with Americans’ right to vote or the administration of the November elections.”

Reports of the establishment of the “Unlawful Voter Initiative” emerged earlier this month, with the New York Times reporting that hundreds of officers have been designated to participate in this hunt for individuals voting illegally. The whistleblower’s report shows that this initiative is a “diversion of resources,” pulling officers who otherwise specialize in immigration fraud or national security threats.

“Donald Trump and his Administration are obsessed with election conspiracy theories and operate under the wrong assumption that they are above the law – they are not,” said Senator Padilla. “The whistleblower’s disclosure outlines shocking allegations of unlawful and unethical conduct that includes potentially thousands of violations of state law and the use of highly questionable data, which they refer to as ‘supplemental magic’ to falsely flag naturalized U.S. citizens as ineligible voters in federal law enforcement records. At the same time, USCIS is directing employees to ignore the law in search of voters’ personal information because this Administration’s unlawful attempts to coerce states to hand over their voter rolls have been rejected by the courts. I thank the whistleblower for the bravery and integrity to come forward with these shocking reports and for standing up for the rule of law. Secretary Mullin must be transparent and shut down this sham ‘investigation’ now. I will do everything in my power to ensure accountability for anyone involved with it.”

“The Department of Homeland Security is sending hundreds of officers who should be focused on our security on a wild goose chase to prove Trump’s long-debunked election conspiracy theories – and DHS is telling officers to lie to do it. This new DHS initiative is nothing more than an unlawful order by the government to silence the voices of Americans,” said Leader Schumer. “As Trump tries to rig the results, Senate Democrats continue to make sure that in the upcoming midterms, all votes will be counted and all voices can be heard. I am thankful that we have brave public servants – like the whistleblower who brought forward this complaint – who are holding the administration accountable. Trump may try to steal this election but we will make sure he can never be successful.”

Trump faces a midterm electorate in the midst of his historically unpopular presidency. The American people are reeling as his policies have sent costs skyrocketing and our security is threatened by his Iran War, but instead, he seems most consumed with repainting the reflecting pool and making a ballroom for the White House. Rather than working to bring down costs and rein in corruption, he’s turned his focus to rigging the upcoming midterms. Trump has worked tirelessly to stifle mail-in voting, threaten nonpartisan election works, and systematically cast doubt on the results of the election. From a primetime address to Supreme Court petitions, Trump is working to undermine democracy in a way not previously seen in the modern era.

Senate Democrats have recognized the seriousness of Trump’s attempts to meddle in the upcoming elections and are working to ensure that every American’s voice can be heard. In June, Padilla and Schumer launched the Senate Democrats’ new Election Observer Program, a first-of-its-kind Senate initiative to train Senate staff to serve as official election observers and to document any meddling in the 2026 midterm elections.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee and California’s former Secretary of State and chief election officer, Padilla has championed election security and voting rights. Last month, Padilla led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop their illegal voter roll purges before election day. In June, Padilla joined Schumer in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide. The Task Force will continue meeting over the coming months to ensure that every American has fair access to the ballot box this November. Padilla also convened a Rules Committee Democrats and Senate Democrats’ Election Protection Task Force spotlight forum focused on state and local responses to combat efforts by the Trump Administration to undermine election administration in the upcoming midterm elections. Additionally, Padilla and his Senate colleagues demanded answers from Trump Administration officials about their lack of election security preparation, insufficient coordination with Congress and election officials, and unsupported public claims about voting system vulnerabilities. Earlier this year, Padilla and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a landmark mail-in voting case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that states are allowed to count ballots received after Election Day.

A one-pager outlining the whistleblower’s disclosure and the potential consequences for voters and elections is available here.

Padilla and Schumer’s letter, which includes the whistleblower’s disclosure, is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Mullin and Director Edlow:

On September 8, 2026, Senator Alex Padilla received a protected whistleblower disclosure (the Disclosure”) that reveals serious allegations of illegal and inappropriate activities within the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or “the Department”) U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) Fraud Detection and National Security Directorate (“FDNS”).

According to the attached Disclosure, the Department and USCIS leadership have abruptly diverted FDNS personnel to an “Unlawful Voter Initiative” using highly questionable data and methods to identify purported unlawful voters. DHS materials admit these investigations will include naturalized U.S. citizens, some of whom will have federal law enforcement records created against them. FDNS employees are expressing concern that they are being directed to take actions that are against the law and Department policy, which will harm Americans. The whistleblower’s Disclosure includes compelling evidence of wrongdoing and abuse of power by agency leadership including:

(1) USCIS personnel have been directed to access sensitive voter information in violation of state laws prohibiting unauthorized access to individual voter records potentially thousands of times;

(2) USCIS personnel are under significant pressure from headquarters to enter federal TECS records against individuals that are likely to be false in many cases, potentially harming thousands of people in likely violation of federal privacy requirements;

(3) With minimal training, agency leadership is imposing reckless quotas that demand USCIS personnel investigate 40 subjects per day, a rate of roughly 12 minutes per subject, to complete this rushed investigation by September 12; and,

(4) USCIS personnel are being tasked with unreliable DHS voter data of dubious origins, that is compiled with “supplemental magic”, which they are required to accept as accurate.

On Friday, August 21, 2026, USCIS FDNS personnel were instructed to drop everything and watch one training video. By the following Tuesday, August 25, they were directed to begin reviewing data provided by DHS to FDNS to hunt for “unlawful voters.” Hundreds of employees have been diverted to chasing the Administration’s unfounded claims of significant noncitizen voting. This sudden surge indicates that the Department’s top priority is now manufacturing evidence for election conspiracy theories, rather than FDNS’s fraud detection and national security mission.

It is notable that these activities come as federal courts have unanimously rejected the Administration’s attempts to coerce states to share their citizens’ voter data. The Disclosure shows how DHS is deploying federal law enforcement resources to go around those judicial rulings and gather state voter information by any means, regardless of state laws. Further, the Administration’s continued claims of election fraud signal its intent to use this unreliable evidence of “unlawful voters” in ways that can disenfranchise eligible voters, disrupt state and local election administration, and subject election officials to additional unwarranted threats of prosecution.

Illegal Access to State Voter Records Using PII

The whistleblower’s Disclosure shows this initiative appears to involve thousands of violations of state laws protecting voter data against unauthorized access. Several states, including Virginia, require a specific attestation that one is authorized to access the voter’s information, under penalty of law. However, the Department and USCIS are directing assigned personnel to make false claims, using Personally Identifiable Information (PII) from DHS data, on state government websites by affirming that they are the voter or have been authorized by the voter to obtain the desired state voter data. This appears to be a clear-cut violation of state laws regarding access to individual voter information and raises serious questions about federal privacy laws and data policies as well.

As documented by the Disclosure, federal employees are being directed to misrepresent themselves based on questionable guidance from USCIS’s Office of Chief Counsel (“OCC”). This guidance stated that FDNS officers may conduct such searches on these websites as “open-source research for ‘adjudicative or investigative’ purposes,” seemingly disregarding certain states’ laws. This guidance also conflicts with 5 U.S.C. §552a(a)(7), which defines “routine use” “with respect to the disclosure of a record” as “the use of such record for a purpose which is compatible with the purpose for which it was collected.” Further, statements made by Department leadership that personnel would not be “personally liable” for conducting these searches indicates a known concern about the legality of these actions.

Creation of Erroneous Federal Law Enforcement Records

The Disclosure also outlines the serious consequences for individuals whose information is being reviewed through this initiative. FDNS officers were instructed to create records known as “TECS records” for individuals who have been determined to be “unlawful voters” despite questions from officers regarding the source and accuracy of voting and immigration history information to make these determinations. TECS records are law enforcement records maintained by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) that carry significant downstream impacts on individuals, including naturalized U.S. citizens.

Now, tens of thousands of individuals are being investigated by FDNS officers through this initiative without their knowledge or ability to correct erroneous data. The Department’s own training information acknowledges there will be serious flaws in the data, even stating “there will be U.S. citizens in this population.” At a time when immigration enforcement is significantly increasing at airports, U.S. citizens or other lawfully present noncitizens could be referred to secondary inspections by CBP personnel at ports of entry upon return to the United States from legally authorized travel abroad due to a TECS record based on questionable sources. While USCIS’ materials caution about the possibility of unreliable data, personnel are nevertheless directed to generate records regardless of whether they believe that the DHS-provided data is correct, which can trigger referrals to Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).

Minimal Training and Reckless Quotas Leading to Criminal Investigations

As revealed in the Disclosure, staff were given just one session of training as part of this initiative – consisting only of a video that lasted approximately 1 hour and 45 minutes. Less than 3 business days later, assigned staff were expected to begin reviewing data, with quotas of 5 subjects per hour, or 40 per day over 8 hours. Not only is such a breakneck pace likely to cause fatigue amongst these staff, but it equates to approximately 12 minutes per subject – a completely inadequate timeline for investigating and reconciling multiple Alien Registration Numbers mistakenly or inadvertently issued to an individual, increasing the likelihood of error. Individual cases identified by this initiative can then be taken up by HSI for further action, including criminal investigations.

Questionable Source Data Compiled With “Supplemental Magic”

The Disclosure establishes a glaring lack of transparency around the source data provided by the Department for these investigations. The official training video states that the data was compiled with “supplemental magic.” The video also establishes that both headquarters and USCIS personnel understand the shortcomings of both the state voter data and the federal immigration and citizenship data, including individuals with multiple alien numbers, but personnel are required to accept the data even when they believe it to be inaccurate. This use of “supplemental magic” on this data set to create records to be used against citizens shows a shocking disregard for the federal privacy and data laws enacted to protect the American people.

The Department has already shown repeated disregard for the Privacy Act and other laws and policies limiting federal agencies’ collection, use, and sharing of individuals’ records. The Disclosure shows that some of the data being used to check against state voter rolls comes from the SAVE program. The modified use of SAVE is now barred by a federal court injunction, raising questions about whether the Department is following that court order.

Continuation of Administration’s Baseless Claims of Election Fraud

These activities are especially alarming just weeks before the 2026 midterm elections. They also must be seen in the context of the repeated, unverified claims by President Trump of widespread noncitizen voter fraud, including those made during his July 16, 2026, prime-time address from the White House. Over the past several weeks, CNN, The New York Times, The Washington Post, and ProPublica and other outlets have reported on the intense White House pressure on DHS and other agencies to back up the President’s baseless claims of widespread election fraud. ‘ Now, the Administration appears likely to use the “unlawful voters” supposedly identified with “supplemental magic” in ways that disenfranchise eligible voters and threaten state and local election officials before, during and after Election Day 2026.

In light of this Disclosure, DHS and USCIS must (1) be transparent about what they intend to do with the unreliable records they are generating; (2) immediately stop this initiative and related activities; and (3) remove any TECS or other law enforcement or administrative records generated from it. In addition to taking immediate corrective action, please provide answers to the attached questions no later than September 21, 2026.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-15T09:50:21Z,2026-09-15T09:52:05Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/watch-padilla-leads-congressional-response-to-bombshell-dhs-whistleblower-disclosure-demands-trump-administration-stop-sham-unlawful-voter-investigation/,"WATCH: Padilla Leads Congressional Response to Bombshell DHS Whistleblower Disclosure, Demands Trump Administration Stop Sham “Unlawful Voter” Investigation",2026-09-14,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"New report reveals federal officers told to impersonate voters to access state voter websites, use unreliable “magic” data in effort to justify Trump Administration’s baseless voter fraud claims and undermine elections

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration with jurisdiction over federal elections and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Immigration Subcommittee, called for immediate action and transparency from the Trump Administration following a bombshell whistleblower disclosure he received last week alleging the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is directing U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) immigration officers to violate state laws as a part of its “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” an effort aimed at manufacturing evidence for President Trump’s unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud.

The disclosure, which was addressed to Padilla and made public today, details allegations that USCIS immigration officers have been directed to stop their regular national security and anti-fraud work, misrepresent themselves to access sensitive voter information, and rush to create potentially unreliable law enforcement records targeting American citizens in many cases.

Key excerpts:

Padilla laid out the whistleblower’s claims and warned that USCIS officers have been directed to find evidence of voter fraud, ultimately diverting agency resources:

“They were directed to stop their national security screenings. They were directed to stop all the things that this Administration claims it cares about and instead go on a wild goose chase to find or manufacture evidence for the president’s conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud. This, without question, is a terrible waste and misuse of agency resources. But, colleagues, it is actually so much more worse than that.”

On the disclosure’s claim that USCIS officers misrepresent themselves to access sensitive and private voter data, as directed by agency officials:

“Officers are being told to attest under penalty of law that they are the voter or the voter’s representative. But on the websites, like the one of my home state of California, officers are being told to misrepresent themselves and enter voter-sensitive information like Social Security or driver’s license numbers. When USCIS officers expressed concerns with these practices, they have been told by agency leadership to just go ahead, that they won’t be, quote, ‘personally liable,’ end quote. Think about that for a second. If what the department is doing and if what these officers are being told to do was legal, it begs the question: Why would they need to be reassured by agency lawyers that they won’t be held personally liable?”

On claims that DHS and USCIS leadership are forcing officers to create unreliable records against voters they believe are not eligible to vote by using “supplemental magic”:

“USCIS also admit that their data is unreliable, complex, and will have multiple ID numbers for various individuals, but nevertheless, officers are told to generate federal law enforcement records against them, even if they suspect that they’re relying on inaccurate or incomplete information. It’s already clear that this ‘Unlawful Voter Initiative’ is inaccurate, not to mention, likely illegal. But to make matters worse, it’s also been rushed, and it’s reckless. Because rank-and-file USCIS officers are given reckless quotas to review 40 people per day. Do the math. That’s five people per hour, or 12 minutes per individual.”

Padilla on the dangerous consequences impacts of DHS and USCIS’s unlawful activities in the “Unlawful Voter Initiative”:

“Saying that this is dangerous for our democracy is a huge understatement. This is more than a reckless attempt to prove Donald Trump’s election denial,” concluded Senator Padilla. “This isn’t just about voting. This could lead to unwanted secondary screening at airports, consequences for immigration benefits, referrals to HSI or the FBI for criminal investigation, no clear recourse to undo the consequences of an erroneous federal law enforcement record being created. There’s also the danger that Donald Trump will use false numbers of supposed votes cast by noncitizens to threaten to prosecute state and elections officials that he doesn’t like. The president and his allies could even try using the unreliable results of this ‘Unlawful Voter Initiative’ to undermine and challenge election results themselves.”

Padilla concluded by reminding DHS leaders that federal whistleblowers are protected by law:

“And I would remind the department, and USCIS, that whistleblowers to Congress are protected by federal law. Let me repeat: Whistleblowers to Congress are protected by federal law. This individual will remain anonymous, and any attempt at retaliation is illegal and wrong.”

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee and California’s former Secretary of State and chief election officer, Padilla has championed election security and voting rights. Last month, Padilla led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop their illegal voter roll purges before election day. In June, Padilla joined Schumer in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide. The Task Force will continue meeting over the coming months to ensure that every American has fair access to the ballot box this November. Padilla also convened a Rules Committee Democrats and Senate Democrats’ Election Protection Task Force spotlight forum focused on state and local responses to combat efforts by the Trump Administration to undermine election administration in the upcoming midterm elections.

Video of Padilla’s remarks is available here.

Full transcript of Padilla’s remarks is available below:

As our colleagues know, I serve as ranking member of the Rules Committee, which oversees federal elections. I also serve on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Border Security and Immigration, and I referenced this because last week, I received a protected disclosure from an anonymous federal whistleblower.

At a time when many Americans feel discouraged by the Trump administration’s unprecedented chaos and corruption, it is heartening to see a federal government employee with the integrity and the courage to expose potential illegal activity and abuse of power.

Today, Leader Schumer and I made the full disclosure public, and I want to go over some of these highlights, which are incredibly disturbing. I know they’re disturbing to me, and I think they should be disturbing to every member of this chamber.

First, leadership at the Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services have ordered hundreds of employees in USCIS Fraud Detection and National Security Division to stop doing the jobs that they were hired and trained to do and instead watch a short training video and immediately turn their time and attention to something called the, quote, “Unlawful Voter Initiative,” quote.

They were directed to stop their anti-fraud work, right? This administration makes a lot of claims about going after fraud. They were directed to stop their national security screenings. They were directed to stop all the things that this administration claims it cares about and instead go on a wild goose chase to find or manufacture evidence for the president’s conspiracy theories of widespread voter fraud.

This, without question, is a terrible waste and misuse of agency resources. But, colleagues, it is actually so much more worse than that.

The whistleblower disclosure also includes compelling claims that USCIS officers are being directed to lie and to misrepresent themselves in order to search voters’ sensitive personal information on state election officials’ websites.

Let me say that again. Federal officers are being told by headquarters to lie or to misrepresent themselves in order to access state voter data. It is a clear violation of state laws. And these violations have likely occurred thousands and thousands of times on some state websites.

Officers are being told to attest under penalty of law that they are the voter or the voter’s representative. But on the websites, like the one of my home state of California, officers are being told to misrepresent themselves and enter voter-sensitive information like Social Security or driver’s license numbers.

When USCIS officers expressed concerns with these practices, they have been told by agency leadership to just go ahead, that they won’t be, quote, “personally liable,” end quote.

Think about that for a second. If what the department is doing and if what these officers are being told to do was legal, it begs the question: Why would they need to be reassured by agency lawyers that they won’t be held personally liable?

The whistleblower disclosure also reveals that DHS is using their own unreliable data to target people for investigation. That’s right, data that the department and agencies already acknowledge is unreliable.

Agency leadership is then forcing USCIS officers to create federal law enforcement records against people, many of them United States citizens, even though they have doubts about the accuracy of the data.

So let’s take a step back. Why are they doing this? Well, the Trump administration has tried and failed to force states to hand over these voter rolls. President Trump tried in his first term through a sham commission, which failed, and now he’s weaponized the federal government to try to accomplish it here in the second term.

But guess what? They’ve been taken to court, and they have lost in court over 30 times. States represented by Democrats and Republicans have said no.

So the proverbial front door is locked. As much as Trump wants access to voter data, the front door is locked. And so now they’re trying to break in a back door.

They’re using something called, quote, “supplemental magic,” end quote. That’s right. In the materials that have been uncovered, they’re using the supplemental magic to create lists of people that they think are not eligible to vote.

Remember, the agency has already said they know that data is unreliable. And so, frankly, this disclosure raises a lot of questions. Why is this initiative happening now? What are the potentially hundreds of thousands of people being investigated? Who are they, and what the heck is “supplemental magic”?

We need answers. This Senate Congress deserves answers. The American people deserve answers.

Agency training materials for this initiative say, quote, “raw data includes a lot of U.S. citizens,” end quote.

Let me repeat that. The training materials acknowledge that the data includes a lot of U.S. citizens. So why would you target them when you’re looking for noncitizen voters?

USCIS also admit that their data is unreliable, complex, and will have multiple ID numbers for various individuals, but nevertheless, officers are told to generate federal law enforcement records against them, even if they suspect that they’re relying on inaccurate or incomplete information.

It’s already clear that this unlawful voter initiative is inaccurate, not to mention likely illegal. But to make matters worse, it’s also been rushed, and it’s reckless because rank-and-file USCIS officers are given reckless quotas to review 40 people per day.

Do the math. That’s five people per hour, or 12 minutes per individual. Colleagues, you know as well as I. Twelve minutes to review unreliable data in complex immigration history is not an adequate amount of time to conduct a thorough investigation, because these aren’t that. These are sham investigations.

We all know that voting by noncitizens is illegal. That’s already the law. You know that. I know that.

We, on study after study, report after report, audit after audit, it is extremely, extremely rare. Our current safeguards are working.

This unlawful voter initiative does not appear to be a legitimate effort, and we should not take anything that comes out of it with face value. Now, just 12 minutes for an investigation, a lot of U.S. citizens in the unreliable magic data, and potentially thousands of violations of state and federal privacy laws.

Madam President, saying that this is dangerous for our democracy is a huge understatement. This is more than a reckless attempt to prove Donald Trump’s election denial talking points. Like the ones he used in the White House speech this past July.

Diversion of federal law enforcement to break laws for political purposes is a clear abuse of power, and there’s a very real danger that thousands of naturalized U.S. citizens and legal residents will potentially face negative consequences because of this sham investigation.

This isn’t just about voting. This could lead to unwanted secondary screening at airports, consequences for immigration benefits, referrals to HSI or the FBI for criminal investigation, and no clear recourse to undo the consequences of an erroneous federal law enforcement record being created after a quick 12-minute review.

There’s also the danger that Donald Trump will use false numbers of supposed votes cast by noncitizens to threaten to prosecute state and elections officials that he doesn’t like.

The president and his allies could even try using the unreliable results of this unlawful voter initiative to undermine and challenge election results themselves. That’s right. January 6th was not the end of this.

So today, Senator Schumer and I sent this whistleblower’s disclosure regarding the so-called unlawful voter initiative to Secretary Mullin and USCIS Director Edlow.

We’re demanding an immediate halt to these activities. We’re demanding transparency for DHS, and we’re demanding the removal of unreliable law enforcement records, many of which are against United States citizens.

We will have more to say about this in the coming days. And I would remind the department, and USCIS, that whistleblowers to Congress are protected by federal law.

Let me repeat: Whistleblowers to Congress are protected by federal law.

This individual will remain anonymous, and any attempt at retaliation is illegal and wrong.

###",1,2026-09-15T09:50:21Z,2026-09-15T09:52:05Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-joins-durbin-and-senate-judiciary-democrats-in-scrutinizing-director-patels-decision-to-gut-bis-hiring-standards/,NEWS: Schiff Joins Durbin and Senate Judiciary Democrats in Scrutinizing Director Patel’s Decision to Gut BI’s Hiring Standards,2026-09-14,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"In their letter to FBI Director Patel ahead of tomorrow’s oversight hearing, Senate Judiciary Democrats demand justification for the FBI’s recent decision to remove sex solicitation, bestiality, and theft from an employer from the list of automatic hiring disqualifications

Washington, D.C. – Ahead of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel’s testimony in tomorrow’s Senate Judiciary Committee hearing conducting oversight on the agency, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and all other members of the Senate Judiciary Committee Democrats in sending a letter to Director Patel demanding answers about the FBI’s recent decision to gut hiring standards. In June, the FBI reportedly revised their hiring policy to remove theft from an employer, sex solicitation, and bestiality from the list of automatic hiring disqualifications; however, some of these changes may have been quietly implemented as early as February 2025.

“We write to request a full accounting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) decision to gut hiring standards that have governed the FBI’s workforce for decades,” the lawmakers wrote.

Under the new criteria, an applicant who paid for sex fewer than three times more than 10 years ago no longer faces automatic disqualification if they were not serving in positions the FBI deems of “public trust” at the time of the solicitation. Theft from a prior employer that occurred more than three years ago, and other extreme conduct, including a history of bestiality or animal cruelty that occurred prior to the applicant turning 18, is also no longer automatically disqualifying. As the lawmakers note in their letter, these are major adjustments to FBI eligibility requirements, opening up law enforcement positions to be filled by applicants with a history of significant misconduct.

“These are not minor technical adjustments. They represent a considered decision to open the Bureau’s ranks to individuals who engaged in conduct that the FBI previously treated as disqualifying—and that, in the case of solicitation of prostitution, controlling Department of Justice policy describes as ‘threaten[ing] the core mission of the Department, not simply because it invites extortion, blackmail, and leaks of sensitive or classified information, but also because it undermines the Department’s efforts to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking,’” the lawmakers wrote.

Director Patel has allowed for the lowering of hiring standards while simultaneously purging career agents from the agency. In 2026, the FBI reportedly lost more than 1,100 special agents with an average tenure of nearly 22 years. Further, Director Patel has purged more than 5,000 nonpartisan career personnel, including all six former Executive Assistant Directors and at least 18 Special Agents in Charge with little to no explanation.

“You have defended your efforts to overhaul hiring standards, stating that the FBI is ‘losing too many qualified candidates to the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.’ Though the FBI faces real recruitment and retention challenges, you are primarily responsible for the current shortfall of personnel,” the lawmakers wrote.

“Having dangerously thinned the FBI’s experienced workforce for reasons that had nothing to do with performance, you are now asking the American people to accept, without explanation, that the resulting shortfall justifies admitting applicants with histories of employee theft, paying for sex, or bestiality,” the lawmakers continued.

The lawmakers dismantled the counterargument that the degradation of hiring standards was necessary to combat the diminishing number of FBI employees. Rather, part of the shift in hiring standards may have occurred just eight days after Director Patel’s confirmation.

“Attrition also cannot be the sole reason for this disturbing shift in standards, because the FBI appears to have changed its public document denoting employment eligibility standards on February 28, 2025, just eight days after your confirmation, to remove ‘engagement in prostitution or bestiality’ as an automatic disqualification. Although the Administration’s retributive and partisan purges had begun as soon as President Trump took office, February 2025 was long before the bulk of the drastic workforce reduction currently imperiling critical missions,” the lawmakers wrote.

The lawmakers concluded their letter by requesting detailed, unredacted records and memorandums outlining the hiring policy changes, as well as any information about the effect these changes could have on courtroom credibility, counterintelligence exposure, or blackmail vulnerability among personnel hired under them.

“The Committee has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the FBI’s personnel practices, and a change of this magnitude with no discernible justification must be scrutinized…We further expect the Bureau to make appropriate officials available for a Committee briefing on this matter without delay,” the lawmakers concluded their letter.

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

Dear Director Patel:

We write to request a full accounting of the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) decision to gut hiring standards that have governed the FBI’s workforce for decades. In June, the FBI reportedly issued an internal directive removing theft from an employer, sex solicitation, and bestiality from the list of automatic hiring disqualifications —and it appears that some of these changes may have been quietly implemented as early as February 2025.

Under the new criteria, an applicant who paid for sex fewer than three times more than 10 years ago no longer faces automatic disqualification from serving at the FBI, so as long as they were not in a position deemed one of “public trust.” Notably, the FBI does not identify a number of positions from which it recruits agents as positions of public trust, including members of the armed forces. Theft from a prior employer is also no longer a categorical bar if it occurred more than three years ago. Other extreme conduct, including a history of bestiality or animal cruelty, is not automatically disqualifying under this new policy either, so long as the conduct occurred before the applicant turned 18. These are not minor technical adjustments. They represent a considered decision to open the Bureau’s ranks to individuals who engaged in conduct that the FBI previously treated as disqualifying—and that, in the case of solicitation of prostitution, controlling Department of Justice policy describes as “threaten[ing] the core mission of the Department, not simply because it invites extortion, blackmail, and leaks of sensitive or classified information, but also because it undermines the Department’s efforts to eradicate the scourge of human trafficking.”

You have defended your efforts to overhaul hiring standards, stating that the FBI is “losing too many qualified candidates to the rigors of the requirements from yesteryear.” Though the FBI faces real recruitment and retention challenges, you are primarily responsible for the current shortfall of personnel. The FBI reportedly lost over 1,100 special agents “with an average tenure of 21.8 years” in 2025. The major driver of that attrition: your own purge of the Bureau’s personnel, including over 5,000 nonpartisan career personnel, all six former Executive Assistant Directors, and at least 18 Special Agents in Charge. Having dangerously thinned the FBI’s experienced workforce for reasons that had nothing to do with performance, you are now asking the American people to accept, without explanation, that the resulting shortfall justifies admitting applicants with histories of employee theft, paying for sex, or bestiality.

Attrition also cannot be the sole reason for this disturbing shift in standards, because the FBI appears to have changed its public document denoting employment eligibility standards on February 28, 2025, just eight days after your confirmation, to remove “engagement in prostitution or bestiality” as an automatic disqualification. Although the Administration’s retributive and partisan purges had begun as soon as President Trump took office, February 2025 was long before the bulk of the drastic workforce reduction currently imperiling critical missions.

The Committee has a constitutional obligation to conduct oversight of the FBI’s personnel practices, and a change of this magnitude with no discernible justification must be scrutinized. We therefore request the FBI produce the following no later than September 28, 2026:

A complete, unredacted copy of the June 16, 2026 memorandum outlining these hiring policy changes, and any drafts, analyses, or briefing materials prepared in connection with it;

All records reflecting who at the FBI reviewed or approved this change and any consultation with internal or external parties before it was adopted;

The number of applicants hired, extended conditional offers, or placed under case-by-case review since June 16, 2026, whose files would previously have been automatically disqualified, broken out by category of conduct;

The number of applicants hired, extended conditional offers, or placed under case-by-case review since February 28, 2025, whose files would previously have been automatically disqualified for engagement in prostitution or bestiality;

Any analysis the Bureau conducted, before or after February 28, 2025, of the effect these changes could have on courtroom credibility, counterintelligence exposure, or blackmail vulnerability among personnel hired under them; and

All guidance issued to background investigators, polygraph examiners, and adjudicators instructing them to apply the revised standards.

We further expect the Bureau to make appropriate officials available for a Committee briefing on this matter without delay.

###",1,2026-09-15T09:50:21Z,2026-09-15T09:52:05Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-warren-padilla-blumenthal-demand-freedom-250-disclose-donations-raise-concerns-over-whether-organization-was-a-slush-fund-for-trump-corruption-pay-to-play-politics/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Warren, Padilla, Blumenthal Demand Freedom 250 Disclose Donations, Raise Concerns Over Whether Organization Was a Slush Fund for Trump Corruption, Pay-to-Play Politics",2026-09-14,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Freedom 250 has received over $50 million from corporate sponsors, many of whom have ongoing business before the federal government

“The American people deserve to know who has or will finance Freedom 250, how those funds are being or will be used, and whether the organization’s fundraising activities are creating financial conflicts of interest for President Trump or other administration officials.”

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) in pressing Freedom 250 — the entity established by President Trump to plan and fund the widely panned 250th anniversary celebrations in Washington, D.C. — on whether it represented a slush fund for President Trump’s pay-to-play politics and demanded that the organization disclose its corporate donors. The Senators are requesting answers following the Freedom 250 celebrations this summer, including the Great American State Fair, the July 4 Celebrations, the Patriot Games, and the Freedom 250 Grand Prix. In the letter, the senators expressed concerns that the secrecy surrounding Freedom 250’s corporate sponsors raised questions about how the organization was funded and whether donors received any favors or special treatment.

New reports indicate that Freedom 250 has raised over $50 million from more than 20 corporate sponsors, many of whom have ongoing business with the federal government.

“The lack of transparency in these donations makes it difficult for the public to determine whether donors may have received any favors or special treatment in exchange for their donations, concealing potential pay-to-play politics or even outright bribery,” wrote the Senators.

Recent reporting also alleges that the President is personally involved in fundraising for his projects, including those organized with Freedom 250, and may be engaged in corrupt quid pro quo dealings. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Trump has been demanding large checks from companies for a range of political and legacy projects—telling executives and lobbyists that their companies should give $25 million or $50 million. He has sometimes offered donors special access,” and “(i)f a company encounters an issue with the federal government that comes to Trump’s attention, he will want to know how much money the company gave.”

“If true, these reports raise serious questions about whether Freedom 250—like the fundraising entities for the President’s ballroom, library, and other vanity projects—is serving as a vehicle through which wealthy corporations and other private interests can make contributions while seeking preferential access to, and favorable treatment from, the Trump Administration,” wrote the Senators.

In the months leading up to July 4, 2026, Freedom 250 even offered sponsorship packages that included VIP access, a “historic photo opportunity,” and an invitation to a “private Freedom 250 reception,” granting companies exclusive access to the President for the price of $1 million or more.

Among Freedom 250’s corporate sponsors, Chevron donated $5 million, United Airlines donated $2.5 million, and defense contractor RTX donated $1.5 million. Many of these companies have substantial interests before the federal government and significant financial stakes in the outcome of contracting decisions, regulatory actions, or other activities by President Trump or his administration.

“The politicized fundraising and potential for pay-to-play influence-peddling involving Freedom 250 is one more example of this administration’s boundless corruption,” wrote the Senators. “(F)reedom 250 appears to be yet another slush fund for wealthy corporations and insiders to buy influence with the White House.”

The Senators asked Freedom 250 to provide answers to their questions regarding its finances, fundraising activities, and relationships with its donors and sponsors by no later than September 28, 2026.

Background: Senator Schiff has continued to press for answers regarding the conflicts of interests raised by Freedom 250:

On June 18, 2026, Senator Schiff and Senate Democrats demanded answers on the Trump administration’s awarding of federal contracts to Event Strategies, Inc. (ESI), the event management firm that organized the rally used to incite the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Since January 2025, ESI had received more than $22 million in taxpayer-funded contracts, including for events associated with the country’s 250th anniversary.

On March 5, 2026, Senator Schiff led 11 Senators in pressing Department of Interior (DOI) Secretary Doug Burgum for answers on the troubling allocation of at least $100 million in taxpayer funds to Freedom 250.

On February 12, 2026, Sen. Schiff led his Senate colleagues in demanding information from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles about Freedom 250, including requesting that the White House provide a list of donors, information on their involvement with anniversary events, and the ethical guidance the group has received from ethics officials.

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

Dear Mr. Krach,

We write to request that you disclose to Congress donations made to Freedom 250, the entity established by President Trump to plan and fund the widely panned semi quincentennial celebration in our nation’s capital. As the nation continues to celebrate the 250th anniversary of our country’s founding, new reports indicate that Freedom 250 has raised over $50 million from more than 20 corporate sponsors, many of whom have ongoing business before the federal government. However, despite previous inquiries from Congress seeking clarity regarding the funding, governance, and role of Freedom 250, the exact details about the timing, amount, and source for the vast majority of these donations remain unknown.

The lack of transparency in these donations makes it difficult for the public to determine whether donors may have received any favors or special treatment in exchange for their donations, concealing potential pay-to-play politics or even outright bribery. Indeed, troubling new reports allege that the President is personally involved in fundraising for his vanity projects, including those organized in conjunction with Freedom 250, and may be engaged in quid pro quo dealings. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Trump has been demanding large checks from companies for a range of political and legacy projects—telling executives and lobbyists that their companies should give $25 million or $50 million. He has sometimes offered donors special access.” Reportedly, “[i]f a company encounters an issue with the federal government that comes to Trump’s attention, he will want to know how much money the company gave.”

If true, these reports raise serious questions about whether Freedom 250—like the fundraising entities for the President’s ballroom, library, and other vanity projects—is serving as a vehicle through which wealthy corporations and other private interests can make contributions while seeking preferential access to, and favorable treatment from, the Trump Administration. The American people deserve to know who has or will finance Freedom 250, how those funds are being or will be used, and whether the organization’s fundraising activities are creating financial conflicts of interest for President Trump or other administration officials.

The Governance, Finances, and Operations of Freedom 250

Freedom 250 was established as a limited liability corporation on October 28, 2025, in what now appears to be a successful attempt by the Trump Administration to seize control over the national celebration of America’s 250th anniversary and sideline the bipartisan, congressionally authorized America250 Commission. Notably, unlike America250, Freedom 250 allows its donors to remain anonymous and does not disclose key financial information. Freedom 250 is awash with ties to partisan campaign operatives and businesses. President Trump has stacked the board of Freedom 250’s parent organization, the congressionally chartered National Park Foundation, with campaign loyalists, including Jim McCray, Richard Walters, and Meredith O’Rourke, who has also served as a fundraiser for Trump’s presidential campaign, the White House Ballroom, and other Trump pet projects. According to the Wall Street Journal, O’Rourke is regularly in close contact with President Trump regarding fundraising efforts. The President calls her “[a]lmost every night in the White House” to ask “which companies and donors have cut checks and which haven’t, and for how much.” O’Rourke is “often at Trump’s side in the White House and elsewhere.”

Beyond the National Park Foundation’s board, Freedom 250 contractors and vendors are also closely connected to Trump’s presidential campaign. Registration for Freedom 250 events is run by Campaign Nucleus, a company founded by Mr. Trump’s campaign digital director Brad Parscale. Ace Specialties, the Trump campaign merchandise vendor, operates the official Freedom 250 online merchandise store. Event Strategies Inc., the company that organized President Trump’s January 6 rally that incited the violent attack on the U.S. Capitol, is planning the program and logistics for Freedom 250 events. The list goes on, and paints a picture of an organization that looks less and less like what Congress intended in the bipartisan America250 and more like a campaign designed to promote the President and reward his political allies.

With President Trump’s advisors and friends at the helm, Freedom 250 has opened another avenue for private interests to curry favor with the Trump Administration. In the months leading up to July 4, 2026, Freedom 250 offered sponsorship packages that included VIP access, a “historic photo opportunity,” and an invitation to a “private Freedom 250 reception” granting companies exclusive access to the President’s ear for the price of $1 million or more. Additionally, the President reportedly held a “wine reception” with Freedom 250 donors at the White House earlier this year.

Freedom 250 Donations Freedom 250 lists 21 corporate sponsors on its website, most of which have business pending before the federal government and significant financial stakes in the outcome of contracting decisions, regulatory actions, or other activities by President Trump or his administration. The list includes technology and AI companies and three major defense contractors: Lockheed Martin, GE Aerospace, and Northrop Grumman. Of the corporate donors listed on the Freedom 250 website, only three—United Airlines, RTX, and Chevron—disclosed their financial contributions in accordance with the Lobbying Disclosure Act. All three have business pending before the federal government and also may have already benefited from their contributions. According to its report, United Airlines donated $2.5 million to Freedom 250 in March 2026. The company has substantial interests before the federal government, including millions of dollars in contracts with the Department of Defense. On July 29, 2026, the President announced a $22 billion plan to renovate Washington Dulles airport, which one reporter called “a huge boon” to United Airlines, which has a 68.5% passenger market share at Dulles.

Aerospace and defense contractor RTX donated $1.5 million in May 2026, according to the company’s own lobbying disclosure report. The donation came after President Trump singled out RTX in a January 2026 Truth Social post, in which he threatened to cut defense contracts with RTX subsidiary Raytheon. In June and July 2026, RTX was awarded $1.1 and $1.8 billion contracts with the U.S. Navy. The company’s stock recently hit an all-time high amid Trump’s Iran War.

Chevron donated $5 million to Freedom 250 on May 28, 2026, according to the company’s own disclosure report. Although Chevron’s donation is the largest known contribution to the organization, it is significantly less than the $50 million requested of the company by Trump fundraisers this year. Chevron’s donation—and its failure to meet the demands of the President —come amidst scrutiny from the administration regarding gas prices. In addition, Chevron has significant business before the administration in the aftermath of the U.S. intervention in Venezuela–-where Chevron is the only major American oil company currently operating–-and as the war in Iran continues to affect oil prices.

Without details from lobbying disclosure transports and full transparency from Freedom 250, we are left to guess about any connections between a company’s donation and any benefit potentially derived from that gift. Chemical fertilizer company Mosaic, for example, was listed as a sponsor of Freedom 250 in mid-June 2026, the day after Trump stated that he was “looking at doing a form of help because of fertilizer,” because of high costs related to the war with Iran. The sponsorship announcement also came as Mosaic was reportedly monitoring trade talks between the U.S. and Canada, where the company has multiple mines. Meanwhile, Palantir, the software giant who has helped carry out the federal government’s surveillance and tracking of U.S. immigrants, was listed as a Freedom 250 sponsor and has been awarded billions of dollars in federal contracts by the Trump Administration. And most recently, the Defense Intelligence Agency reversed course on a contract solicitation in response to a bid protest by Palantir, and the announcement of the request withdrawal alone led Palantir stock to jump 1%.

There are likely even more companies and donors that are not listed on the Freedom 250 website who may now be in a position to cash in on presidential favors. TikTok, for example, is not a listed sponsor on the Freedom 250 website, but reportedly donated $2 million to Freedom 250.

The company—which hired three Trump-linked lobbyists in the spring—recently scored a win with the Justice Department, who announced that federal employees can now use the app.

Conclusion & Questions

The politicized fundraising and potential for pay-to-play influence-peddling involving Freedom 250 is one more example of this administration’s boundless corruption. From the President’s gold-encrusted ballroom to his presidential library, Freedom 250 appears to be yet another slush fund for wealthy corporations and insiders to buy influence with the White House.

The American people should not have to wonder whether the nation’s 250th anniversary is being leveraged as an opportunity for wealthy corporations and special interests to purchase access or influence by channeling money through Freedom 250. Commemoration of one of the most significant milestones in our nation’s history should not be overshadowed by questions about opaque fundraising, undisclosed donors, or potential conflicts of interest. Although the July 4, 2026, celebrations have concluded, Freedom 250 and the administration have a number of events and projects scheduled for the remainder of the year. Therefore, the public is entitled to a full accounting of Freedom 250’s finances, fundraising activities, and relationships with its donors and sponsors.

To address our questions on this matter, I ask that you please answer the following by September 28, 2026:

How much money has Freedom 250 received in contributions, grants, sponsorships, or other donations since its creation?

Please provide a complete list of Freedom 250’s donors, sponsors, and contributors, the date of their contributions, and their contribution amounts.

How much cash and other assets does Freedom 250 have on hand?

Please provide a complete accounting of how Freedom 250 has spent all funds that it has received since its creation.

How have the remaining funds post-July 4, 2026, been used? How will the remaining funds continue to be used?

Does Freedom 250 intend to continue soliciting funds and accepting donations? If so, for what purpose?

What role or involvement did government employees or officials of the Trump Administration have in planning Freedom 250 events, soliciting donations, stewarding, or overseeing Freedom 250 funds?

How much funding, if any, has Freedom 250 received from the federal government?

Has Freedom 250 received government funds or appropriations that were initially obligated to America250? Please provide a complete accounting of all such funds.

Please provide a list of all attendees at all private Freedom 250 events or receptions and corresponding dates of each event or reception.

Has Freedom 250 received or solicited foreign donations? If so, please provide a complete list of each donor and their contribution amount.

Please describe the process in which Ace Specialties was selected to operate the official Freedom 250 merchandise store. Please describe the process through which Freedom 250 verified that all merchandise sold on the official Freedom 250 merchandise store was manufactured in the United States.

How much gross revenue has been generated through the sale of Freedom 250 merchandise since the store launched?

How have the proceeds been utilized? How will they continue to be utilized?

Were any federal resources, federal employees, government-owned intellectual property, or official government branding used in the design, production, marketing, or sale of Freedom 250 merchandise?

In a briefing to Congress, staff from the Department of Interior reportedly stated that the Department is seeking an additional $10 million from Congress to pay for costs incurred by the National Park Service during Freedom 250 events, including the Rededicate 250 prayer event, the Great American State Fair, and the July 4th Salute to America.41 Please describe the costs and funding of these events.

How much money did Freedom 250 spend on each of these events?

How much of the total money spent on these events came from government funds and how much came from private contributions?

To your knowledge, what costs did the National Park Service incur from these events, if any?

Why are some corporate donors, including TikTok, not listed as sponsors on the Freedom 250 website, despite reports that they donated millions of dollars to the organization?

###",1,2026-09-15T09:50:21Z,2026-09-15T09:52:05Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-sen-schiff-with-ai-rapidly-advancing-washington-cannot-afford-to-sit-on-its-hands/,STATEMENT: Sen. Schiff: With AI Rapidly Advancing “Washington Cannot Afford to Sit on its Hands”,2026-09-13,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Senator Schiff released the following statement in response to recent AI news:

“There’s been a lot of news and warnings this week about AI. And I think it’s fair to ask whether Congress is asleep at the wheel as we hurtle towards AGI and the unknown.

“AI experts and industry executives are delivering a clear message — the risks of quickly evolving frontier AI pose serious threats to our safety and the future of our society. We must heed their call, and we can’t wait.

“I’ve spent the last four years learning from experts, companies and researchers about AI, the threat it poses, and the promise it holds. Many of these companies and workers are in California, and I’ve been hearing about the existential threat to humankind for years. And I’ll be honest, I’m not sure everyone in Congress has been doing the same. I’m far from an expert, but this technology is improving and changing so fast that it’s incumbent on all of us to learn and understand the dangers.

“AI undoubtedly holds great opportunity for scientific advancement and other innovation. However, we’ve seen harbingers of the threats that this technology holds as researchers and developers lose control of rogue collusive AI agents, and the technology is advancing far more rapidly than we originally assumed it would. It’s science fiction come to life.

“The past decade has shown us what happens when Congressional inaction leaves private technology companies to regulate themselves. We failed on social media (and still are). We failed on foreign interference online. We cannot fail here.

“Washington cannot afford to sit on its hands while our economy, national security and everyday lives are disrupted more rapidly than even AI labs themselves believed possible. I’ve put forth several bipartisan proposals to ensure Congress is keeping up with the state of this technology, and have many more that I’m working on.

“I’m glad that the biggest AI companies are clamoring for regulation. One of the most promising suggestions has been to incorporate truly independent monitors within the AI companies, that can evaluate the risks, report them and ensure transparency.

“Legislation is necessary to make this a requirement of all companies, not simply those who agree to do so, to ensure the requisite of these monitors, and that the companies properly and safely pace new developments.

“But regulation and legislation should not be used to lock in monopolies, bypass important state laws or give broad exemptions that lock out a competitive landscape for decades to come. We also cannot afford to cede ground to China and their companies.

“We must also confront the way that AI will change our economy, our livelihoods, and the nature of work. Any discussion of regulation without asking serious questions about our employment, the tax code, energy costs and benefits necessary to every day life isn’t complete. I’m working on major legislation in this area too.

“Both government and industry must establish commonsense guardrails and provide real checks on the development and dangers of this technology. As I’ve said before, unenforceable voluntary commitments and self-regulation will not cut it. And I’m hopeful that we can all meet this moment, and regulate in a way that will both allow this industry to continue to grow, but put in place guardrails that are desperately needed.

“The stakes could not be higher, and time is of the essence for Congress to act.”

###",1,2026-09-15T09:50:21Z,2026-09-15T09:52:05Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-bennet-schiff-sound-alarm-on-lack-of-firefighting-resources-during-the-2026-wildfire-season/,"Padilla, Bennet, Schiff, Sound Alarm on Lack of Firefighting Resources During the 2026 Wildfire Season",2026-09-11,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), Michael Bennet, John Hickenlooper (both D-Colo.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), expressed serious concerns about the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) preparedness and ability to adequately respond to the 2026 fire season. California has faced severe wildfires this year, with more than 310,000 acres burned.

In a letter to DOI Secretary Doug Bergum and USDA Secretary Brooke Rollins, the Senators highlighted the impacts that wildfires have had on communities throughout the 2026 fire season.

“[…] Record-breaking high temperatures and historic drought have led to catastrophic fires across the West, destroying thousands of homes, wreaking havoc on the economies of rural communities, stressing the budgets of local governments, and leading to the loss of four wildland firefighters and two pilots,” wrote the Senators.

Between July 18 and September 4, 2026, the national firefighting force was at preparedness level 5 with federal resources fully committed to combating wildland fires across the country. So far this year, the U.S. Forest Service and U.S. Wildland Fire Service has dedicated over $6 billion to fire suppression budget authority, spending nearly the entire fire suppression budget as of September 2, 2026. The West is expected to remain in peak fire season with hot, dry, and windy conditions for at least the next two months, raising concerns that federal wildfire resources and suppression funds could run out entirely.

“In light of these concerns, the capacity of the federal government to sustain operations is critical,” continued the Senators. “We are concerned that the agencies simply do not have enough highly qualified personnel, Incident Management Teams, and supervisory staff to sustain operations. Our offices have received reports that teams have worked more fires than is safe, using temporary supervisory structures because fully qualified personnel are not available. We have also heard that locally-led initial attack was affected by national mobilization, and that personnel have worked repeated or extended assignments. This is exceptionally concerning given that the worst of the fire season is likely yet to come and the high wildland firefighter fatality rate this season.”

Padilla has consistently fought for protections of wildfire victims and prevention of future wildfires. Last month, Padilla and Schiff joined their Senate colleagues in pressing the Commodity Futures Trading Commission on its plans to crack down on prediction markets now offering event contracts for individuals to bet on wildfires. In July, Padilla and Senate Environment and Public Works committee members introduced the bipartisan Wildfire Emissions Prevention Act (WEPA) of 2026, which would make it easier for states and communities to use prescribed fires to prevent wildfire emissions, protect ecosystems and wildlife habitats, and make American forests and communities safer, healthier, and cleaner. Last year, Padilla introduced the Fix Our Forests Act, bipartisan legislation to combat catastrophic wildfires, restore forest ecosystems, and make federal forest management more efficient and responsive.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretaries Burgum and Rollins:

We write with serious concern about the U.S. Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) continued preparedness to respond to the 2026 fire season. Record- breaking high temperatures and historic drought have led to catastrophic fires across the West, destroying thousands of homes, wreaking havoc on the economies of rural communities, stressing the budgets of local governments, and leading to the loss of four wildland firefighters and two pilots. The national firefighting force was at preparedness Level 5 between July 18 and September 4, meaning that federal resources were fully committed for nearly seven weeks. With several weeks remaining in peak fire season, fire conditions could continue to strain an already stretched system.

In light of these concerns, the capacity of the federal government to sustain operations is critical. We are concerned that the agencies simply do not have enough highly qualified personnel, Incident Management Teams, and supervisory staff to sustain operations. Our offices have received reports that teams have worked more fires than is safe, using temporary supervisory structures because fully qualified personnel are not available. We have also heard that locally led initial attack was affected by national mobilization, and that personnel have worked repeated or extended assignments. This is exceptionally concerning given the high wildland firefighter fatality rate this season.

We are also concerned that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and U.S. Wildland Fire Service (USWFS) may run out of fire suppression funds this year. As you know, these two agencies had over $6 billion in fire suppression budget authority for Fiscal Year 2026. However, as of September 2, nearly the entire fire suppression budget has been spent. With over four weeks left in the fiscal year, USFS and USWFS may need to borrow funding from other accounts to pay for fire suppression.

Please respond to the following questions within 10 days:

Every day of this fire season, wildland fire personnel have put themselves in harm’s way as they work to suppress fires. Tragically, 9 first responders have given their lives this summer responding to fires. Now, more than ever, we must do everything possible to support those who have returned to the front lines after watching their colleagues fall.

Why are we seeing so many firefighter fatalities, entrapments, and shelter deployments this year? To what extent has the full suppression policy contributed to a higher rate of injuries and fatalities this summer?

In response to the deaths of so many response personnel, what resources are USFS and USWFS deploying to ensure the safety of wildland firefighters?

How are DOI and USDA prioritizing safety?

How many hours of overtime have wildland firefighters, and specifically Hotshot and Type 1 crews, accumulated so far this year? How does that compare to the past?

In 2025, DOI and USDA cut nearly 8,700 public servants, USFS alone reducing its staff by 16% (approximately 6,000 full-time equivalents) nationwide. We are especially concerned about the loss of highly-qualified personnel, supervisory capacity, and red- card holders in high-level fire management positions. We are now hearing from communities across the West that requests for crews are going unfilled.

How many complex incident management teams are operating this year? Please also provide data on the number of complex incident management teams for the last ten years.

How many personnel are working repeated or extended assignments?

Describe how DOI and USDA are managing current shortfalls in wildland firefighting teams and supervisory capacity.

What, if any, plans do DOI and USDA have to increase the number of Incident Management Teams to historic (or greater) levels?

How does the number of contract federal wildland firefighter crews compare this year to previous years?

In Fiscal Year 2025, USFS and DOI spent a combined $5.9 billion on suppression, a $1.5 billion increase from the previous most expensive year. As stated previously, the agencies have already spent over 70% of their $6 billion FY26 budget authority. As of August 31, 2026, fires have already burned nearly twice the acreage compared to 2025 (8,238,284 acres in 2026, up from 4,142,738 over the same window in 2025).

Explain why there was such a dramatic increase in spending in FY25 and how FY25 spending informed FY26 operations.

How are USDA and DOI ensuring that, after record spending in FY25, FY26 dollars are being spent as efficiently as possible to account for the significant increase in burning acres?

Going into the 2026 fire season, did USDA and DOI expect to have spent 70% of their budget authority by this point in the summer?

With the potential exhaustion of fire suppression funding this year, the federal agencies will likely be forced to use appropriated funding from other accounts to pay for fire suppression, a practice known as “fire borrowing.”

To what extent are USDA and DOI rationing other resources this summer in preparation for potential fire borrowing?

Describe the appropriated accounts that USFS and USWFS would borrow from in order to fund fire suppression.

Will USFS and USWFS borrow from accounts that fund hazardous fuels reduction, watershed restoration, state and Tribal forestry, Burned Area Emergency Response, Emergency Response, or other similar accounts focused on reducing the threat of and responding to wildland fire?

We have been glad to work with the agencies to raise pay for federal wildland firefighters. Temporary wildland firefighters (1039) continue to face pay caps and limitations on their employment. Given the extreme fire season, the Administration, in partnership with Congress, must take all necessary steps to compensate all front-line first responders.

Describe to what extent the agency has had, if any, ongoing discussions to extend the federal temporary 1039 appointment, allowing seasonal workers greater flexibility to continue fighting fires. To what extent are seasonal workers approaching the caps associated with 1039 appointments?

5 U.S.C. § 5545(c)(iii), passed in March 2025, requires USDA, DOI, and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to ensure that the compensation paid to wildfire personnel is consistent with FY2023 levels. What steps have you taken to implement this law?

At the beginning of the 2026 fire season, agency officials discussed the successes of fighting fires in 2025.

To what extent does weather factor into the differences between the 2025 wildland fire season and the 2026 wildland fire season?

Describe how the organizational changes and restructuring of the wildland fire organizations address the issues associated with prolonged drought and extreme weather.

Thank you for your prompt response to our questions.

###",1,2026-09-12T09:02:30Z,2026-09-12T09:03:27Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-25th-anniversary-of-september-11-attacks/,Padilla Statement on 25th Anniversary of September 11 Attacks,2026-09-11,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"LOS ANGELES, CA — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) issued the following statement on the 25th anniversary of the terrorist attacks on the United States on September 11, 2001:

“Today, we remember and mourn the innocent lives lost twenty-five years ago during the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil in our nation’s history.

“We continue to stand with the families carrying the unimaginable grief of losing loved ones. We recognize the heroism and sacrifice of the many firefighters, police officers, EMTs, and other first responders who put their lives on the line. We remember the construction workers and countless others who worked tirelessly to rescue those they could, recover those who were lost, clear the rubble, and help New York rebuild – many at great cost to their own health. And we honor the Muslim and Sikh communities who faced bigotry and violence in the aftermath of the attacks because of their faith.

“I had the solemn duty of serving as Acting Mayor of Los Angeles on September 11, 2001, and in the days that followed, I saw firsthand the fear and uncertainty that swept across our nation – a shadow that would linger over our daily lives for years to come. But I also witnessed the extraordinary outpouring of support, generosity, and compassion as we came together across race, religion, geography, and political party in common cause – all as Americans.

“As we commemorate the lives lost and the sacrifices made twenty-five years later, we must remember that sense of unity and recommit ourselves to our shared values – compassion, courage, service, and the belief that together we can build a better world and a brighter future for all.”

###",1,2026-09-12T09:02:30Z,2026-09-12T09:03:27Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-and-scotts-doug-lamalfa-federal-disaster-tax-relief-certainty-act-signed-into-law/,NEWS: Sens. Schiff and Scott’s Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act Signed into Law,2026-09-11,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, bipartisan, bicameral legislation by U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rick Scott (R-Fla.), the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act, was signed into law by President Donald Trump.

The bill provides tax relief for victims of wildfires and other natural disasters and ensures victims of natural disasters have immediate access to tax relief for years to come. The bill also extends victims’ ability to receive tax deductible payments from wildfire settlements, which often happen many years after a disaster, through January 1, 2027.

The bill was renamed last year to the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act to honor Congressman Doug LaMalfa, who passed away in January of 2026.

“Surviving a natural disaster can place an enormous financial burden on families. It is critical that we support victims of devastating disasters like the wildfires in California and across the country. That’s why I was proud to team up with Senator Rick Scott and Representatives Greg Steube, Mike Thompson and Jimmy Panetta to provide tax relief to the victims of natural disasters and why I am so grateful to see our bipartisan bill signed into law. We must ensure that those hit the hardest when disaster strikes receive the support and the tax relief they need to recover. And in seeing our bill become law, we affirm a vital part of the late Doug LaMalfa’s legacy,” said Senator Adam Schiff.

“After disaster strikes, impacted Americans should be focused on rebuilding their lives and their communities – not surprise changes to their tax bills. After speaking with so many Americans in Florida and across the country impacted by natural disasters, including meeting Spencer Pratt at his burned-down home and touring the aftermath of the Palisades Fire, I knew we had to do something. Now that President Trump has signed this bill into law, I’m grateful to have worked with Spencer, Rep. Steube, and Sen. Schiff to ensure those affected by hurricanes, wildfires, and other natural disasters continue to receive the real tax relief – and the peace of mind – they deserve,” said Senator Rick Scott.

U.S. Representative Greg Steube (R-Fla.-17) led the legislation in the House alongside Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19).

The full text of the bill is available here.

###",1,2026-09-12T09:02:30Z,2026-09-12T09:03:27Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/statement-sen-schiff-statement-marking-25-years-since-september-11th-attacks/,STATEMENT: Sen. Schiff Statement Marking 25 Years Since September 11th Attacks,2026-09-11,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) issued the following statement to mark 25 years since the September 11th attacks:

“Today, we remember the 2,977 innocent lives tragically lost 25 years ago on September 11, 2001. We honor the heroism of the first responders, passengers, crews and countless volunteers who put their lives on the line for our country. And we pray for all those grieving loved ones lost on that terrible day and for those still dealing with its calamitous effects.

“In the days following our nation’s darkest hours, millions of Americans – regardless of party – stood side-by-side in the face of violence and the threat of international terrorism. While the horrible actions of that day remain forever etched in our minds, so do the incredible acts of patriotism – from the first responders who, in the face of immeasurable loss, bravely ran towards the smoke and rubble to the thousands of volunteers who provided assistance and the generation of Americans who stepped up to serve their country.

“On this solemn anniversary, we are reminded that America must remain unified and resilient in protecting our democracy, national security and fundamental freedoms.”

###",1,2026-09-12T09:02:30Z,2026-09-12T09:03:27Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-whitehouse-carbajal-lead-colleagues-in-filing-amicus-brief-challenging-trump-administrations-involvement-in-the-sable-offshore-pipeline-restart/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla, Whitehouse, Carbajal Lead Colleagues in Filing Amicus Brief Challenging Trump Administration’s Involvement in the Sable Offshore Pipeline Restart",2026-09-09,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), along with U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), led 14 of their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in California v. Wright, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to challenge the Trump Administration’s use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate the restart of the Sable Offshore oil pipeline system along California’s Central Coast.

The brief argues that the Administration has failed to identify a legitimate national defense need for Sable’s crude oil and that the DPA order does not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking this extraordinary authority. Sable produces crude oil — not finished fuels used by the military—and the order does not establish a connection between Sable’s production and an unmet military fuel requirement.

“The idea that reopening a damaged pipeline on the Central Coast of California is somehow imperative to our national defense – when killing other renewable energy sources is just fine, when data centers are demanding new energy and we’re taking offline 90 to 95% of the new energy coming into the grid – tells you this has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with your price at the pump. It only has to do with the president keeping a promise to the big oil companies, and we are all paying the price,” said Senator Schiff.

“Californians have been clear: we don’t want oil infrastructure off our coast,” said Senator Padilla. “The Trump Administration is using a bogus justification to open our waters to their Big Oil donors, jeopardizing our environment and our economy. It’s corrupt, it’s dangerous, and I’ll do everything in my power to stop it.”

Sable Offshore acquired the Santa Ynez Unit from ExxonMobil in 2024. The pipeline had been out of service since the 2015 Refugio oil spill. In March 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked the DPA and ordered Sable to restore pipeline operations. The brief argues that the Administration used national defense as a pretext to advance domestic energy policy and benefit a specific company.

“This case is not about national defense. It is about a heavily leveraged, crude oil company asking the President to transform the Defense Production Act (DPA) from a statute designed to ‘assure the availability of domestic energy supplies for national defense needs,’ 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(5), into a corporate rescue operation for political allies; a rescue that advances the Administration’s political preference for fossil-fuel development at the expense of all other concerns,” wrote the lawmakers. “The Department of Energy’s (‘DOE’) March 13, 2026 order (the ‘Wright Order’) comes nowhere close to identifying a need for Sable crude oil or pipelines in the Order’s generalized invocation of California’s military presence and increased reliance on foreign crude. DOE never explains why those general circumstances create a national-defense need for Sable’s crude, much less how restarting its beleaguered pipelines would meet one.”

“Merely invoking ‘national defense’ or an ‘emergency’ does not insulate executive action from the statutory prerequisites that Congress imposed in the DPA on the exercise of delegated authority,” continued the lawmakers. “Enforcing these requirements, i.e., that the Secretary establish the statutory predicates for invoking the DPA, does not amount to second-guessing genuine executive judgments about national defense. Instead, enforcement honors the conditions precedent Congress imposed to prevent abuse of the DPA. DOE’s failure to satisfy these statutory prerequisites invalidates the Wright Order.”

In addition to Schiff, Padilla, and Whitehouse the amicus brief was filed by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

“President Trump and Secretary Wright’s ‘national security’ justification for invoking the Defense Production Act to restart flow of the Sable pipeline was clearly pretextual,” said Senator Whitehouse. “The order was intended to throw a lifeline to a failing fossil-fuel company facing a severe financial cliff. The Trump administration will do anything to please their fossil fuel megadonors, no matter the environmental and public safety risks.”

“Once again, Trump is blatantly boosting the fossil fuel industry under guise of national security. They’re betraying the real national interests of our communities and public health. Restarting the Sable pipeline displays this Administration’s continued abuse of power, benefiting Trump’s billionaire cronies at the expense of the American people. I will continue fighting to stop Trump’s overreach threatening our environment,” said Senator Blumenthal.

“Donald Trump is obsessed with abusing the Presidency to enrich his billionaire buddies while his policies keep sending everyday costs through the roof,” said Senator Duckworth. “The Defense Production Act is a tool meant to help protect our national security—not bail out the President’s Big Oil donors. The Administration’s phony justification for restarting this pipeline without environmental and safety review is blatant corruption, and it could seriously endanger public health. It must be stopped.”

In addition to Carbajal, the amicus brief was filed by U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.-37), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19).

“The Sable pipeline restart is a classic example of the Trump administration abusing power to benefit political allies at the expense of local communities,” said Representative Carbajal. “As our brief outlines, there was no legitimate national security justification for invoking the Defense Production Act on behalf of Sable. This Administration is clearly fixated on boosting the fossil fuel industry, even when doing so risks putting our environment and public health in harm’s way. The people of Santa Barbara County and California have every right to be concerned about the pipeline restart given its role in the 2015 Refugio oil spill. I will keep fighting alongside my colleagues to hold the Administration accountable for this overreach and protect our communities’ right to a safe environment.”

“Trump is turning the Defense Production Act into a blank check for Big Oil,” said Representative Huffman. “Emergency national security powers exist to protect this country in a crisis. They were never meant to force open an oil pipeline that has sat idle for more than a decade after fouling our coast. This is a fossil fuel giveaway dressed up as national security, designed to enrich Trump and reward his political allies. But it’s our beaches, our coastal communities, and the businesses that depend on a clean, healthy ocean that will face the consequences if we let his sham continue. We have cleaned up this company’s mess once already. Californians have defended this coast for decades, and we are not backing down.”

“The Trump Administration’s abuse of the Defense Production Act to revive the Sable pipeline is an unlawful corporate giveaway masquerading as a national security measure,” said Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. “California communities know the devastating consequences of offshore oil spills. Congress created the Defense Production Act to protect our national security—not to reward political allies, endanger our coastline and override vital environmental safeguards.”

“As Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, we have been united against this Administration’s illegal attempts to force fossil fuel projects at the expense of our state’s environment and public health,” said Representative Lofgren. “Trump has always put oil company profits above Americans’ well-being, but invoking the Defense Production Act for this pipeline is ridiculous. Californians don’t want a repeat of the 2015 oil spill, and the Administration is overstepping its authority to put our environment and coastal economy at risk.”

In May, Schiff, Padilla, and Carbajal launched an investigation into Sable Offshore Corp.’s politicized efforts to restart oil drilling operations off the Santa Barbara coast and demanded answers about the company’s collaboration with the Trump Administration to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) in relation to this project. In June, Schiff and Padilla introduced legislation to establish strict standards for offshore oil and gas operators and set requirements to hold them responsible for decommissioning and cleanup efforts off the coast.

###",1,2026-09-10T09:25:58Z,2026-09-10T09:27:09Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-continues-bipartisan-push-for-federal-film-tax-incentive-highlights-benefits-of-keeping-film-production-in-america/,"WATCH: Sen. Schiff Continues Bipartisan Push for Federal Film Tax Incentive, Highlights Benefits of Keeping Film Production in America",2026-09-09,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Burbank, CA – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined CNN’s The Story Is with Elex Michaelson to discuss the latest developments in his push to secure a bipartisan film tax incentive following President Donald Trump’s endorsement of its passage. Schiff highlighted the tax incentive’s benefits, emphasizing how the drive for more production will increase job opportunities and economic development.

The Senator emphasized his willingness to work across the aisle to make sure this legislation gets bipartisan support and is able to get passed to ensure the future of film production in America and all those who support it.

View the full interview here.

Key excerpts:

On working to make this a bipartisan agreement:

[…] When I took this office, I said I’m going to try to do two things that are going to be in tension with each other. I’m going to try to get things done, and I’m going to try to fight any corruption, any attack on our democracy. Well, this is something we can get done. And just because it’s this president, if it’s a good idea, I’m not going to oppose it. In fact, I fully support this. As you know, I’ve been working for a federal tax credit for the film and television industry to bring these jobs back to California. And now I think we are very close to making that happen.

On the parameters of a federal tax incentive:

The basic plan would provide a 15, 20, or 25% tax credit for production that’s made in the United States for film or television. We’ve lost almost all the film industry; it’s gone overseas to Canada, to Britain, to New Zealand, elsewhere. This would help bring that back. We’ve lost a lot of television production as well. It would be overlaid on top of the state tax credits, and the cumulative amount would be equivalent to what other countries are offering. And we want to bring these jobs home. This has been the epicenter of that industry. It’s not just people working industry, but people work adjacent to the industry who are also deeply impacted. The restaurants, the caterers, the dry cleaners-you name it-it affects the whole regional economy.

On finding bipartisan common ground:

[…] You got to look for those areas where there’s agreement. I’ve been able to get a number of bills passed these past couple years by working with Republicans from Mississippi, Florida. Rick Scott, for example, from Florida, and I worked on relief for the victims of fire. That was actually something that brought Spencer Pratt and I together, and that is tax relief for those who have been victimized by these natural disasters. And also if you get a recovery from Edison, that will no longer be taxable income.

On prospects of passage this Congress:

So, we’ve been in conversation with Republicans for the last two years about trying to move this forward. I think they’ve been in a wait and see. They wanted to know. Does the president support this? Will he get behind it? And now that the president has been so clear and repeatedly that he supports this in a full-throated way, yes, we’re seeing a lot more Republican interest. And I think this is the best opportunity now we’ve had to get this done in really decades.

[…] We’re hoping that we can get this done before the end of the year, before the election would be ideal. But there will also be a lame duck session after the election, as long as we get it done. But my feeling is, let’s strike while the iron is hot. Let’s try to do it right now.

On whom will benefit from the federal film tax incentive:

It isn’t about the top-of-the-line actors. They’re going to get paid well no matter what happens and no matter where the film is being produced. What matters is what about the set designers and the electricians? What about the grips? What about the dry cleaners? What about the whole economy? All these 1000s and 1000s of jobs. That’s what we’re fighting to preserve and to bring back. So, it’s not just about what people think about when they think about the industry, which is the movie stars. They’re a small part of this. It’s the everyday ordinary people who made their living this way.

###",1,2026-09-10T09:25:58Z,2026-09-10T09:27:09Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schumer-lead-all-senate-democrats-to-urge-supreme-court-to-block-postal-service-rule-limiting-mail-in-voting/,"Padilla, Schumer Lead All Senate Democrats to Urge Supreme Court to Block Postal Service Rule Limiting Mail-In Voting",2026-09-08,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"261 Members and former Members file bicameral, bipartisan brief as court order barring Postal Service rule limiting mail voting is being challenged by Trump’s DOJ

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.), along with Representative Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.-25), Ranking Member of the Committee on House Administration, and Co-Chairs of the House Democrats’ Litigation Task Force Oversight Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), Assistant Leader Joe Neguse (D-Colo.-02), and Judiciary Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08), led a bicameral amicus brief challenging the legality of President Trump’s Executive Order and U.S. Postal Service rule seeking to exert control over mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The group, made up of a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of 261 lawmakers and former lawmakers, filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the matter of State of California, et al. v. United States Postal Service, et al., a lawsuit brought by a coalition of State Attorneys General against the U.S. Postal Service (USPS). The court case challenges a final rule issued by the USPS pursuant to Trump’s directive that imposes unconstitutional and unworkable restrictions on mail-in voting, including requiring states to provide a “citizenship verification list” and attempting to give USPS control over who can vote by mail.

“The law is clear: states and Congress have authority over our elections — not the President and certainly not the Postal Service. Protecting the right to vote-by-mail is critical to ensure every eligible voter can make their voices heard in the November midterm elections and in future elections,” said Senator Padilla. “Despite the Trump Administration’s attempts to eliminate vote-by-mail and suppress voter participation, voting by mail remains one of the safest and most secure ways to vote, especially for service members, rural voters, and Americans living abroad. I urge the Court to uphold our Constitution and reject Trump’s attacks on our fundamental right to vote.”

Nearly one-third of Americans have voted by mail in recent elections — a voting practice Trump himself used as recently as August 2026, when he voted in Florida’s Republican primary.

In the court filing, the amici curiae argue that Trump’s Executive Order 14399 and USPS’s final rule violate the separation of powers and usurp congressional authorities outlined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the States and Congress exclusive authority over election administration.

“As current and former legislators, amici took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States — including its guarantee of the separation of powers,” wrote the lawmakers. “Amici have a particular interest in defending the institutional role of the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution and in vindicating the long-settled principle that the Constitution commits ultimate regulatory authority over federal elections to Congress. The Constitution does not contemplate the Executive Branch acting unilaterally to assert power over federal elections. Yet that is what the Order and Final Rule do.”

The amici also pointed to a recent federal court ruling blocking the USPS from implementing its newly finalized mail ballot rule for the midterm elections, saying the agency lacked the authority to implement the rule and that its actions are “substantively unconstitutional and contrary to law.”

“The district court correctly concluded that Appellees are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule, that the Final Rule unconstitutionally imposes mail-ballot requirements on the States, and that the Final Rule unconstitutionally bars non-compliant State and local election officials from using the USPS to mail ballots at all,” wrote the lawmakers.

The lawmakers concluded by asserting States’ power to administer elections and Congress’s power to make or alter rules regulating elections, which the Supreme Court itself has described as an “override” authority. Trump’s illegal incursion on this authority is an attempt to disenfranchise people who depend on mail-in ballots to vote.

“The integrity of our constitutional system depends on each branch keeping to its assigned role,” concluded the lawmakers. “The Framers set up a two-part system that gave the States default authority to regulate federal elections subject to Congress’s authority to override the States. The Framers did not provide the President with any authority to interfere in that system, nor has Congress subsequently imbued the President or the Executive Branch with any such authority by statute.”

In addition to Padilla, Schumer, Durbin, and Peters, the amicus brief was joined by the entire Senate Democratic Caucus.

“Donald Trump is once again asking the highest court in the land to silence voters and destroy the precious integrity of the American electoral process,” said Leader Schumer. “Mail-in voting is proven safe and secure, and Trump’s continued efforts to obstruct America’s free and fair elections are blatant, unconstitutional attempts at interfering with the November midterms. Trump’s message to the American people is clear: he isn’t worried about voter fraud, he’s afraid of voter accountability. I urge the court to uphold the Constitution and reject Trump’s baseless attempt at poisoning our democracy.”

“Presidents do not control our elections—the American people do. Today, in a bipartisan agreement, Members defended the constitutional authority of Congress and deliberately chose to protect our elections from executive overreach. Our elections are safe and secure, and we intend to keep them that way. We will not allow USPS to put Americans’ ballots at risk,” said Ranking Member Morelle.

“The Constitution is clear that the states and Congress make the rules for federal elections, not the President. Yet, in utter defiance of the Constitution, President Trump is attempting to use the Postal Service to decide who can and cannot receive a ballot just days before mail-in voting begins in some of the states. This is a naked power grab by a historically unpopular President—who himself regularly votes by mail—to inject confusion and chaos into our elections in a last-ditch effort to keep his party in power. It will not work. I’m proud to stand with a strong bipartisan, bicameral group of current and former colleagues in urging the court to continue rejecting this lawless election interference,” said Ranking Member Raskin.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee and California’s former Secretary of State and chief election officer, Padilla has championed election security and voting rights. Last month, Padilla led 27 of his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop their illegal voter roll purges before election day. In June, Padilla joined Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) in launching the first-ever Senate Election Observer Program to protect the 2026 midterms and maintain election integrity nationwide. The Task Force will continue meeting over the coming months to ensure that every American has fair access to the ballot box this November. Padilla also convened a Rules Committee Democrats and Senate Democrats’ Election Protection Task Force spotlight forum focused on state and local responses to combat efforts by the Trump Administration to undermine election administration in the upcoming midterm elections. Additionally, Padilla and his Senate colleagues demanded answers from Trump Administration officials about their lack of election security preparation, insufficient coordination with Congress and election officials, and unsupported public claims about voting system vulnerabilities. Earlier this year, Padilla and Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) led their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in Watson v. Republican National Committee, a landmark mail-in voting case in which the U.S. Supreme Court ultimately ruled that states are allowed to count ballots received after Election Day.

The full brief is available here.

###",1,2026-09-09T09:27:09Z,2026-09-09T09:29:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-smithsonian-secretary-lonnie-bunchs-decision-to-retire/,Padilla Statement on Smithsonian Secretary Lonnie Bunch’s Decision to Retire,2026-09-08,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) released the following statement after Secretary of the Smithsonian Lonnie G. Bunch III announced his decision to depart from the Smithsonian Institution:

“Secretary Bunch has been instrumental in telling and preserving the story of our nation and our culture, putting truth and accuracy over politics. Since 2019, he has protected the Smithsonian’s long-standing mission of telling the full story of America, and not shying away from the challenges and injustices many have faced throughout our history. I have had the honor of working with Secretary Bunch to ensure the voices of all Americans are represented and uplifted in our museums. I commend him for his longstanding service to our country and I wish him the best in his retirement.

“In the face of Donald Trump’s attacks on the Smithsonian, Secretary Bunch spoke truth to power and reasserted his commitment to defend and uphold American history and values. While I respect his decision to depart, the job now falls to the Board of Regents and Congress to ensure the success of his work will remain for generations to come.

“While Trump continues to try to re-write history, I will continue to fight to defend the Smithsonian’s independence from Trump’s pressure campaign and political agenda. And I fully expect the Regents and my colleagues in Congress to do the same.”

###",1,2026-09-09T09:27:09Z,2026-09-09T09:29:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-whitehouse-schiff-carbajal-lead-colleagues-in-filing-amicus-brief-challenging-trump-administrations-involvement-in-the-sable-offshore-pipeline-restart/,"Padilla, Whitehouse, Schiff, Carbajal Lead Colleagues in Filing Amicus Brief Challenging Trump Administration’s Involvement in the Sable Offshore Pipeline Restart",2026-09-08,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, a member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, along with U.S. Representative Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), led 14 of their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in California v. Wright, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to challenge the Trump Administration’s use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate the restart of the Sable Offshore oil pipeline system along California’s Central Coast.

The brief argues that the Administration has failed to identify a legitimate national defense need for Sable’s crude oil and that the DPA order does not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking this extraordinary authority. Sable produces crude oil — not finished fuels used by the military—and the order does not establish a connection between Sable’s production and an unmet military fuel requirement.

“Californians have been clear: we don’t want oil infrastructure off our coast,” said Senator Padilla. “The Trump Administration is using a bogus justification to open our waters to their Big Oil donors, jeopardizing our environment and our economy. It’s corrupt, it’s dangerous, and I’ll do everything in my power to stop it.”

Sable Offshore acquired the Santa Ynez Unit from ExxonMobil in 2024. The pipeline had been out of service since the 2015 Refugio oil spill. In March 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright invoked the DPA and ordered Sable to restore pipeline operations. The brief argues that the Administration used national defense as a pretext to advance domestic energy policy and benefit a specific company.

“This case is not about national defense. It is about a heavily leveraged, crude oil company asking the President to transform the Defense Production Act (DPA) from a statute designed to ‘assure the availability of domestic energy supplies for national defense needs,’ 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(5), into a corporate rescue operation for political allies; a rescue that advances the Administration’s political preference for fossil-fuel development at the expense of all other concerns,” wrote the lawmakers. “The Department of Energy’s (‘DOE’) March 13, 2026 order (the ‘Wright Order’) comes nowhere close to identifying a need for Sable crude oil or pipelines in the Order’s generalized invocation of California’s military presence and increased reliance on foreign crude. DOE never explains why those general circumstances create a national-defense need for Sable’s crude, much less how restarting its beleaguered pipelines would meet one.

“Merely invoking ‘national defense’ or an ‘emergency’ does not insulate executive action from the statutory prerequisites that Congress imposed in the DPA on the exercise of delegated authority,” continued the lawmakers. “Enforcing these requirements, i.e., that the Secretary establish the statutory predicates for invoking the DPA, does not amount to second-guessing genuine executive judgments about national defense. Instead, enforcement honors the conditions precedent Congress imposed to prevent abuse of the DPA. DOE’s failure to satisfy these statutory prerequisites invalidates the Wright Order.”

In addition to Padilla, Whitehouse, and Schiff, the amicus brief was filed by U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

“President Trump and Secretary Wright’s ‘national security’ justification for invoking the Defense Production Act to restart flow of the Sable pipeline was clearly pretextual,” said Senator Whitehouse. “The order was intended to throw a lifeline to a failing fossil-fuel company facing a severe financial cliff. The Trump administration will do anything to please their fossil fuel megadonors, no matter the environmental and public safety risks.”

“The idea that reopening a damaged pipeline on the Central Coast of California is somehow imperative to our national defense – when killing other renewable energy sources is just fine, when data centers are demanding new energy and we’re taking offline 90 to 95% of the new energy coming into the grid – tells you this has nothing to do with national security. It has nothing to do with your price at the pump. It only has to do with the president keeping a promise to the big oil companies, and we are all paying the price,” said Senator Schiff.

“Once again, Trump is blatantly boosting the fossil fuel industry under guise of national security. They’re betraying the real national interests of our communities and public health. Restarting the Sable pipeline displays this Administration’s continued abuse of power, benefiting Trump’s billionaire cronies at the expense of the American people. I will continue fighting to stop Trump’s overreach threatening our environment,” said Senator Blumenthal.

“Donald Trump is obsessed with abusing the Presidency to enrich his billionaire buddies while his policies keep sending everyday costs through the roof,” said Senator Duckworth. “The Defense Production Act is a tool meant to help protect our national security—not bail out the President’s Big Oil donors. The Administration’s phony justification for restarting this pipeline without environmental and safety review is blatant corruption, and it could seriously endanger public health. It must be stopped.”

In addition to Carbajal, the amicus brief was filed by U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.-37), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19).

“The Sable pipeline restart is a classic example of the Trump administration abusing power to benefit political allies at the expense of local communities,” said Representative Carbajal. “As our brief outlines, there was no legitimate national security justification for invoking the Defense Production Act on behalf of Sable. This Administration is clearly fixated on boosting the fossil fuel industry, even when doing so risks putting our environment and public health in harm’s way. The people of Santa Barbara County and California have every right to be concerned about the pipeline restart given its role in the 2015 Refugio oil spill. I will keep fighting alongside my colleagues to hold the Administration accountable for this overreach and protect our communities’ right to a safe environment.”

“Trump is turning the Defense Production Act into a blank check for Big Oil,” said Representative Huffman. “Emergency national security powers exist to protect this country in a crisis. They were never meant to force open an oil pipeline that has sat idle for more than a decade after fouling our coast. This is a fossil fuel giveaway dressed up as national security, designed to enrich Trump and reward his political allies. But it’s our beaches, our coastal communities, and the businesses that depend on a clean, healthy ocean that will face the consequences if we let his sham continue. We have cleaned up this company’s mess once already. Californians have defended this coast for decades, and we are not backing down.”

“The Trump Administration’s abuse of the Defense Production Act to revive the Sable pipeline is an unlawful corporate giveaway masquerading as a national security measure,” said Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. “California communities know the devastating consequences of offshore oil spills. Congress created the Defense Production Act to protect our national security—not to reward political allies, endanger our coastline and override vital environmental safeguards.”

“As Chair of the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, we have been united against this Administration’s illegal attempts to force fossil fuel projects at the expense of our state’s environment and public health,” said Representative Lofgren. “Trump has always put oil company profits above Americans’ well-being, but invoking the Defense Production Act for this pipeline is ridiculous. Californians don’t want a repeat of the 2015 oil spill, and the Administration is overstepping its authority to put our environment and coastal economy at risk.”

Padilla has led the charge against offshore oil and gas leases. In May, Padilla, Schiff, and Carbajal launched an investigation into Sable Offshore Corp.’s politicized efforts to restart oil drilling operations off the Santa Barbara coast and demanded answers about the company’s collaboration with the Trump Administration to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) in relation to this project. In June, Padilla and Schiff introduced legislation to establish strict standards for offshore oil and gas operators and set requirements to hold them responsible for decommissioning and cleanup efforts off the coast.

The full amicus brief is available here.

###",1,2026-09-09T09:27:09Z,2026-09-09T09:29:04Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/watch-sen-schiff-continues-push-for-federal-film-tax-incentive-breaks-down-upcoming-elections-on-abc7/,"WATCH: Sen. Schiff Continues Push for Federal Film Tax Incentive, Breaks Down Upcoming Elections on ABC7",2026-09-08,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Los Angeles, CA – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined ABC7 Los Angeles’ Josh Haskell to discuss his ongoing push to enact a bipartisan federal film tax incentive following President Donald Trump’s Truth Social post last week declaring support for the passage of a federal incentive. Schiff highlighted how federal film tax credits would create thousands of jobs and support local economic growth in California and across the country.

The Senator also broke down efforts to disenfranchise voters which are being enacted ahead of the 2026 midterm election and outlined his agenda for safeguarding elections to ensure every American’s right to vote is protected ahead of the upcoming midterm elections.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On the importance of a federal film tax incentive:

This is some rare, good news of bipartisan agreement in Congress. And that is, this is a fabulous industry. It brings a lot of good-paying jobs. It supports the local economy here in Burbank, Glendale. We have so much of the industry, and it’s great for people who work in the industry. But it’s also great for the dry cleaners. It’s great for the caterers and the wardrobe people, and it supports the entire economy. But we’re losing those jobs overseas because other countries have given tax incentives that we haven’t matched. Now, for the first time, there’s a lot of bipartisan interest in this, in getting a federal tax credit done. This is something I’ve been carrying for years and years and years and fighting for. And now we have this rare confluence where the president is for it, Democrats are for it, Republicans are for it. So, we actually have a chance now, finally, to get it done.

On the administration’s voting restriction plans:

[…] They realize I think there’s going to be a major backlash against the tariffs, against the Iran war, against many of the president’s policies that have raised the cost of living for Americans, and they want to basically discourage people from voting. Their hope is to win the election by depriving people of the franchise. So, all around the country, there’s this attack on voting. There’s a case right now before the Supreme Court. If the administration is successful, it will completely upend absentee voting. It will be chaos, which I think they hope for. Here in California, there’s Prop 39, where it may require people to put their Social Security numbers, or some of them, or their driver’s license numbers on their ballots before they mail them. If they forget, their vote doesn’t count. If they use the wrong ID, their vote doesn’t count. This is all designed to take away people’s right to vote.

[…] I’m also concerned, though, apart from these legal efforts or illegal efforts, that you could see interference at polling places on election day. You could see them dispatching the military or ICE as they threatened to do. When you consider that the last big contested election, the president was willing to incite people to attack the Capitol. You really can’t put anything beyond or out of bounds.

On the impact of President Trump’s increasing wealth on Americans:

[…] He has made 2.2 or 2.3 billion dollars in his first year as president. So yeah, there’s a lot that needs to be looked into, and it shouldn’t fall on just Democrats to do it. But Republicans have been unwilling to look at anything the president has done, no matter how corrupt. So yeah, there’ll be investigations, but it’ll be important always to bring it back to what’s the impact of this corruption on people. And I think the impact is that because the president is so focused on making money for himself and his family, he’s not focused on average American families. He’s not focused on their cost of living. He doesn’t care what the tariffs with Canada do to their income and whether they can afford to buy groceries. It’s all about his own wealth. That that needs to be exposed.

On Trump’s trade war with Canada:

I think it’s stupid and destructive. The Canadians have been our strongest allies. They fought side by side with us in every war we’ve been engaged in, and to treat them this way and to engage in this just self-destructive trade war makes no sense at all. Canadians are not our enemies. And it’s I think the Canadians don’t recognize the United States anymore, which is a tragedy. Their government is having to recalibrate its relationship with us after such a productive partnership. It’s just needless and senseless and harmful in raising the cost of living for people.

On the ongoing Iran war:

I don’t think we can afford it at all. And when you break it down, I think I’ve seen some estimates that average families have now had to pay $1,700 to $2,300 more per year that this war has gone on, just in the increased cost of things. And then, of course, the most serious cost is we’ve lost 18 service members. And the cost that those families have borne is just incalculable. So when the president downplays the significance of the war. Well, it may not matter much to him. It may not matter much to his family, but it matters a lot to Americans. And this needs to come to an end.

On the proposed land swap in Yosemite National Park:

It does concern me, and you mentioned investigations earlier. This is something we’re investigating, and that is why this wealthy developer, why this particular proposal, when there are lots of hotel owners and other enterprises that would love to do business in Yosemite and love to have a road of their own. So why does this developer get a road of their own? Why do they get this special easement? It doesn’t make any sense except for the money. You always follow the money. I’m a former prosecutor. You follow the money. And generally, where the money leads with this administration is there’s some corrupt bargain involved. The Forest Service shouldn’t be selling off pieces of a treasure like Yosemite because they’ve got some big donor involved.

###",1,2026-09-09T09:27:09Z,2026-09-09T09:29:04Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-welch-condemn-dojs-failure-to-vigorously-defend-fundamental-gun-violence-prevention-law/,"Padilla, Welch Condemn DOJ’s Failure to Vigorously Defend Fundamental Gun Violence Prevention Law",2026-09-04,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led eleven colleagues in condemning the Department of Justice (DOJ)’s refusal to seek immediate appellate relief from a recent district court decision striking down key regulatory requirements of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).

In a letter to Attorney General Todd Blanche, the Senators expressed serious concerns about DOJ’s failure to vigorously defend the NFA, a foundational federal gun violence prevention law that regulates some of the most dangerous concealable weapons in the country.

“For months, DOJ has defended the NFA in court against legal challenges brought by the firearms industry, certain state attorneys general, and the gun lobby. But less than one week after you were confirmed as Attorney General, the Department appears to have reversed course,” wrote the Senators. “The Department’s failure to immediately pursue an appeal in support of the NFA calls into question statements you made to the United States Senate during your confirmation process and raises serious doubts about your willingness—and ability—to keep Americans safe.”

Last month, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas held unconstitutional the NFA’s regulatory requirements for certain highly dangerous weapons. Although the court temporarily stayed its order to give DOJ time to seek immediate appellate relief, DOJ declined to do so, opting instead to let the court’s injunction take effect.

“DOJ’s failure to seek immediate relief is profoundly concerning—for the integrity of the Department, the rule of law, and the public’s safety,” the Senators explained. “The Department has long recognized its ‘duty to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support.’ During your confirmation proceedings, you reiterated this precise principle—including in the specific context of the NFA.” The Senators went on to note that DOJ’s sudden retreat appeared to be the result of a substantial pressure campaign by gun rights lobbyists and a group of Republican lawmakers.

The Senators demanded answers about DOJ’s justification for not seeking immediate relief and called on DOJ to appeal the district court’s decision.

“As a result of DOJ’s refusal to seek a stay of the District Court’s order, some of the most dangerous concealable weapons in the country—including those that have been used in several mass shootings—can now be (and have been) bought and sold outside the NFA’s heightened regulatory framework for the first time in nearly 100 years,” concluded the Senators. “We urge the Department to resume its vigorous defense of the NFA and fulfill the promises you made to defend the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and keep Americans safe.”

In addition to Padilla and Welch, the letter was signed by Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Padilla has been a longtime advocate for commonsense, lifesaving gun safety measures. Last month, Padilla co-sponsored the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act, bicameral legislation to close a dangerous loophole that allows domestic abusers to legally obtain weapons. Last year, Padilla and Representative Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08) introduced a bicameral bill to prevent federal contracts with gun dealers whose firearms are consistently linked to violent crime.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Attorney General Blanche:

We write to express our serious concern that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has chosen to abandon enforcement of the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA)—one of our nation’s foundational federal gun violence prevention laws. For months, DOJ has defended the NFA in court against legal challenges brought by the firearms industry, certain state attorneys general, and the gun lobby. But less than one week after you were confirmed as Attorney General, the Department appears to have reversed course. The Department’s failure to immediately pursue an appeal in support of the NFA calls into question statements you made to the United States Senate during your confirmation process and raises serious doubts about your willingness—and ability—to keep Americans safe.

The NFA regulates some of the most dangerous concealable firearms and devices in the country, including short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, and silencers. Enacted to address the “growing frequency of crimes of violence in which people are killed or injured by the use of dangerous weapons,” the NFA imposes (among other things) application, registration, and recordkeeping requirements for the importation, manufacturing, possession, and transfer of covered weapons. Since the NFA’s enactment, these requirements have played a critical role in reducing the number of crimes involving these highly destructive weapons.

On August 5, 2026, however, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas struck down the NFA’s regulatory requirements for certain firearms and devices as unconstitutional in Silencer Shop Foundation v. ATF. The court stayed its order for seven days to give DOJ time to seek a further stay from the Fifth Circuit. But rather than pursue immediate appellate relief—and continue to vigorously defend the NFA as it had throughout the litigation —DOJ stepped aside and let the court’s injunction take effect.

DOJ’s failure to seek immediate relief is profoundly concerning—for the integrity of the Department, the rule of law, and the public’s safety. The Department has long recognized its “duty to defend the constitutionality of an Act of Congress whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support.” During your confirmation proceedings, you reiterated this precise principle—including in the specific context of the NFA. You explained that “[t]he Department’s duty is to defend the constitutionality of the laws passed by [Congress],” and “[t]o that end, the Department is presently defending the NFA against constitutional challenges.” You further recognized that whether the NFA should be repealed is a policy question for Congress’s “measured judgment.”

The Department’s apparent abdication of its responsibility to defend the NFA—just four days after your confirmation—is impossible to reconcile with your statements to Congress. The Department has not identified any reason to believe that the legal arguments it has made to date in support of the NFA have somehow become unreasonable. To the contrary, the only explanation for the Department’s about-face appears to be a substantial pressure campaign by gun rights lobbyists and a group of Republican lawmakers to dismantle longstanding gun laws they dislike. For example, just one day after Representative Andrew Clyde led a letter urging DOJ not to seek appellate relief, he purportedly “received confirmation from the Trump Administration that the DOJ will NOT appeal our historic court victory against the NFA,” and thanked you and President Trump for “delivering the most significant Second Amendment win in OVER 90 YEARS.” As you previously acknowledged, however, whether to repeal the NFA is a policy decision left to Congress. DOJ’s role is to independently and impartially enforce the law as written. It is not to help favored groups effectively achieve through litigation what they failed to achieve through legislation.

The Department’s decision has, and will continue to have, substantial repercussions for Americans’ safety. The NFA’s regulatory requirements help ensure that covered weapons are possessed only by law-abiding citizens and deter these weapons’ criminal misuse. As a result of DOJ’s refusal to seek a stay of the District Court’s order, some of the most dangerous concealable weapons in the country—including those that have been used in several mass shootings—can now be (and have been) bought and sold outside the NFA’s heightened regulatory framework for the first time in nearly 100 years. Even if DOJ were to eventually appeal the District Court’s decision and succeed, the potential damage from weapons made and transferred outside the NFA in the interim cannot easily be undone.

In light of these serious concerns, we request written responses to the following questions no later than September 11:

What “confirmation” did DOJ provide Representative Clyde? Was it limited to not seeking a stay from the Fifth Circuit or did it also extend to not appealing the decision on the merits?

Does DOJ still commit to defending the constitutionality of an Act of Congress so long as a reasonable argument can be made in its support? If not, what standard are you using to determine whether to defend the constitutionality of federal laws?

What was the Department’s justification for declining to seek immediate relief in Silencer Shop? Please provide all communications with advocacy groups, Republican lawmakers, and the White House concerning this decision.

Will the Department commit to enforcing the challenged NFA provisions against individuals and entities who are not covered by the Silencer Shop injunction?

Will the Department commit to enforcing related firearms provisions—such as 18 U.S.C. § 922(b)(4)—that were not within the scope of the Silencer Shop injunction, including against any individuals or entities that may have violated these provisions in the wake of the District Court’s decision?

Will the Department continue to defend the NFA in ongoing litigation in other jurisdictions, including Brown v. ATF, No. 4:25-CV-01162 (E.D. Mo.) and Roberts v. ATF, No. 26-CV-00091 (E.D. Ky.)?

Has the Department determined whether to appeal the Silencer Shop decision?

If so, please explain the specific justification for any such determination and provide all communication with advocacy groups, Republican lawmakers, and the White House concerning this conclusion.

If not, when does the Department plan to reach a decision? As a reminder, 28 U.SC. § 530D requires you to inform Congress of any decision not to appeal a judicial determination “adversely affecting the constitutionality” of a federal statute “within such time as will reasonably enable the House of Representatives and the Senate to take action, separately or jointly, to intervene in timely fashion in the proceeding, but in no event later than 30 days after the making of [such] determination.”

The NFA has helped protect Americans’ safety for almost a century. And as DOJ explained earlier this year, the NFA’s regulatory requirements “fit[] squarely within Congress’s constitutional authority.” We urge the Department to resume its vigorous defense of the NFA and fulfill the promises you made to defend the constitutionality of laws passed by Congress and keep Americans safe.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-05T08:49:07Z,2026-09-05T08:50:44Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-morelle-demand-dhs-restore-cybersecurity-funding-to-protect-state-and-local-election-offices/,"Padilla, Morelle Demand DHS Restore Cybersecurity Funding to Protect State and Local Election Offices",2026-09-03,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"DHS has failed to follow congressional direction to restore funding to help states with cyber threats, misinformation for 2026 midterms

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and U.S. Rep. Joe Morelle (D-N.Y.-25), Ranking Member of the House Administration Committee, the top Democrats on the Senate and House congressional committees with jurisdiction over federal elections, demanded the Trump Administration immediately restore funding to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC), which helps state and local election officials protect federal elections from cybersecurity threats and election mis- and disinformation campaigns, and provide an update on the rehiring of critical election security staff in regions across the country.

In a letter directed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) Acting Director Nicholas Andersen, Padilla and Morelle highlighted the national security threats that underscore the importance of ensuring election cybersecurity safeguards for the upcoming midterm elections, including Trump’s war with Iran and recent reported cyberattacks on critical infrastructure.

“Following the removal of hundreds of CISA personnel and attempts by the Trump Administration to slash the agency’s budget, CISA is only just now beginning to take steps to reestablish working relationships with election officials and rehire critical staff ahead of the 2026 midterms,” wrote Ranking Members Padilla and Morelle. “This is particularly disturbing at a time when our nation is at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has reportedly engaged in sophisticated cybersecurity attacks, including on water infrastructure in the United States and nuclear energy facilities in the United Kingdom. Russia, China, and other foreign and non-state actors also have significant cyber and online election interference capabilities, which are likely increasing with advances in artificial intelligence technology.”

Padilla and Morelle urged the restoration of federal funding for the EI-ISAC to enable more state and local governments to participate in this voluntary partnership between the Center for Internet Security (CIS), CISA, and the Election Infrastructure Subsector Government Coordinating Council (GCC). Many state and local election offices benefited from this partnership, but participation has dropped after the Trump Administration terminated federal funding for it in 2025 under then DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, leaving many jurisdictions in the dark about cyber threats. In 2024, the EI-ISAC provided roughly 3,700 election jurisdictions access to a real-time operations center, curated threat intelligence feeds, intrusion analysis, and rapid incident response. Federal funding cuts are expected to force out two-thirds of the states and thousands of local governments that currently partner with EI-ISAC.

Congress directed DHS to restore federal funding to the EI-ISAC, previously around $10 million annually, when it enacted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 Department of Homeland Security funding law. With that funding, local election offices were to receive services such as detection, coordination, and/or mitigation of cybersecurity attacks or mis- and disinformation campaigns, all at no cost to state and local governments.

“Over four months ago, in April, Congress provided clear, bipartisan instructions in the report accompanying FY 2026 DHS Appropriations ‘to continue Election Security Program activities funded in fiscal year 2024, including Election Security Advisors in each CISA Region and the continuation of the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC),’” continued Ranking Members Padilla and Morelle. “However, under your leadership, CISA has still not provided any of the over $39.6 million in appropriated funds to the EI-ISAC.”

Padilla and Morelle highlighted that without this funding, the EI-ISAC is unable to provide security training to under-resourced communities that cannot opt-in to its paid membership. They requested the agencies release this funding, ensure CISA is sufficiently staffed with election roles prior to the midterm elections, and provide answers about the delay in FY26 federal funds.

“The failure to restore this funding as directed by Congress is a disservice to the thousands of election jurisdictions across this country,” Ranking Members Padilla and Morelle concluded. “As a result, we urgently remind you of your responsibility to ensure that funding is restored to the EI-ISAC immediately and request a response by September 9, 2026 on the status of the disbursement of this funding and the hiring of critical election roles at CISA.”

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections and California’s former Secretary of State, Padilla has been a vocal leader in protecting our elections. Last month, with less than 100 days until the midterm elections, Padilla led a letter to the Department of Justice and state’s chief election officers against illegal voter list maintenance practices that may remove eligible voters from state voter registration lists’ during the National Voter Registration Act’s 90-day “quiet period.” Padilla has also been strongly opposed to the significant workforce reductions at CISA and the lack of transparency regarding the agency’s elections-related services. Along with Committee on House Administration Ranking Member Morelle, Padilla has written to CISA regarding staff cuts, internal review documents, access that was provided to the so-called Department of Government Efficiency,and leadership vacancies. Ranking Members Padilla and Morelle continue to fight efforts by the Trump Administration to undermine federal agencies’ election security work. In addition to warning CISA leadership, Padilla and Morelle sounded the alarm about the dangerous implications for elections following President Trump’s executive order purporting to bring independent regulatory agencies under total control of the White House.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Mullin and Acting Director Andersen:

With the midterm elections occurring in two months, we write with grave concern that time is running out for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) to act to assist state and local election officials in protecting our elections from cyber and mis- and disinformation threats.

Following the removal of hundreds of CISA personnel and attempts by the Trump Administration to slash the agency’s budget, CISA is now only just beginning to take steps to reestablish working relationships with election officials and rehire critical staff ahead of the 2026 midterms. This is particularly disturbing at a time when our nation is at war with the Islamic Republic of Iran, which has reportedly engaged in sophisticated cybersecurity attacks, including on water infrastructure in the United States and nuclear energy facilities in the United Kingdom. Russia, China, and other foreign and non-state actors also have significant cyber and online election interference capabilities, which are likely increasing with advances in artificial intelligence technology.

While there is a long way to go to repair trust with election officials and find qualified candidates to fill these important roles – work that will not be accomplished before November 3, 2026 – we write to remind you that Congress has directed DHS and CISA to immediately support state and local election officials through the restoration of federal funds to the Election Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC). We urge you to follow that direction immediately and explain the delay as to why federal funds have not yet been provided in Fiscal Year (FY) 2026.

Over four months ago, in April, Congress provided clear, bipartisan instructions in the report accompanying FY 2026 DHS Appropriations “to continue Election Security Program activities funded in fiscal year 2024, including Election Security Advisors in each CISA Region and the continuation of the Elections Infrastructure Information Sharing and Analysis Center (EI-ISAC).” However, under your leadership, CISA has still not provided any of the over $39.6 million in appropriated funds to the EI-ISAC.

Administrations of both parties have recognized that election security is national security and that the federal government has a responsibility to support state and local election offices in their efforts to protect against cyber and mis- and disinformation threats, some of which come from foreign actors. For years, the EI-ISAC provided election security services to local election offices at no cost before the federal government abruptly cut their federal funding in March 2025. While the EI-ISAC has continued providing some services to a limited number of offices through a paid membership model, it now lacks the reach it once had and is unable to share this critical information around cyber threats and security training to under-resourced communities who have not, or cannot, opt in to this new model.

The failure to restore this funding as directed by Congress is a disservice to the thousands of election jurisdictions across this country. As a result, we urgently remind you of your responsibility to ensure that funding is restored to the EI-ISAC immediately and request a response by September 9, 2026 on the status of the disbursement of this funding and the hiring of critical election roles at CISA.

Thank you for your urgent attention to this important matter.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-09-04T09:19:37Z,2026-09-04T09:20:58Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-announce-nearly-150-million-in-federal-funding-for-la-metro-vermont-transit-corridor-bus-rapid-transit-project/,"Padilla, Schiff Announce Nearly $150 Million in Federal Funding for LA Metro Vermont Transit Corridor Bus Rapid Transit Project",2026-09-01,2026,2026-09,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) applauded the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) announcement that it is providing nearly $150 million in federal funds for the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s Vermont Transit Corridor Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. The federal funding, which Padilla and Schiff have championed, was provided by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) and is the maximum amount permitted under the Capital Investment Grant’s Small Starts Program.

The Vermont Avenue BRT Project will include 12.4 miles of all-day dedicated side-running bus lanes. The project will also provide 26 enhanced bus stations along the route with upgraded lighting to improve public safety, as well as installing safety-focused crosswalks. The Vermont Avenue BRT Project is a key component of LA Metro’s transportation plan for the 2028 Olympics and is expected to significantly reduce travel time on major transit corridors across Metro’s service area during the games.

“Our local public transit systems are the backbone of economy, connecting people to jobs, schools, essential services, and opportunities in their communities,” said Senator Padilla. “As Los Angeles prepares to welcome the world for the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games, we must ensure Angelenos and visitors alike can rely on safe, accessible, and high-quality public transportation. With the Games now less than two years away, this funding is an important down payment, and we look forward to working with DOT and the Administration to secure the remaining federal transportation investment essential to making the Games a success.”

“I am proud to work with Senator Padilla, our Congressional partners, and local leaders in securing these important federal dollars that will help deliver safe, efficient, and reliable transportation for thousands of Angelenos ahead of the upcoming 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games,” said Senator Schiff. “This investment will support local economic growth, upgrade bus stations along the route, reduce travel time, and connect thousands of people along one of Los Angeles County’s busiest bus routes.”

“I am grateful to U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, and to our LA County Congressional Delegation, for their strong and effective advocacy for the Vermont Avenue BRT Project,” said Metro CEO Stephanie Wiggins. “This Congressional support will benefit hundreds of thousands of Angelenos, as this project will, in the near future, be the highest ridership bus rapid transit project in the United States. The support of the Federal Transit Administration and our U.S. Senators and House delegation also means that this project will play a key role with respect to our mobility plans for the upcoming 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Metro very much looks forward to building this project that will improve the quality of life for so many LA County residents.”

Senator Padilla has been a strong advocate for critical funding for transit access across California. Earlier this month, Padilla and Schiff joined their Democratic colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop delaying the advancement of public transportation projects funded by the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program, including its continued lack of action on the next phase of Metro’s Southeast Gateway line, which is critical to strengthening and expanding transit infrastructure in Los Angeles. In April, Padilla announced that the Los Angeles metro area would receive nearly $90 million for transit costs associated with hosting the 2028 Summer Olympics and Paralympic Games. In 2024, Padilla announced new federal transportation infrastructure investments for the LA region and nearly $900 million in federal investments in LA Metro to improve mobility and upgrade transportation infrastructure ahead of the 2028 Olympic and Paralympic Games.

###",1,2026-09-02T09:19:58Z,2026-09-02T09:20:51Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-rep-aguilar-deliver-more-than-1-million-for-cal-state-san-bernardino-ai-research-center/,"NEWS: Sen. Schiff, Rep. Aguilar Deliver More Than $1 Million For Cal State San Bernardino AI Research Center",2026-08-31,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"New investment in the Inland Empire is part of more than $258 million in federal funds Schiff delivered for California for fiscal year 2026

San Bernardino, CA – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Congressman Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33) announced that they delivered more than $1 million in federal funding for California State University, San Bernardino. The new investment will support the college completing the buildout and launch of The Applied Research Training Center in Artificial Intelligence, Robotics, and Virtual Reality.

This federal project will support a new hands-on facility, launched by Cal State San Bernardino with the support of industry partners and government agencies, which will expand on the college’s cybersecurity workforce development program and will incorporate AI-driven security solutions and VR-based training to cultivate a workforce pipeline positioned to navigate complexities around modern cybersecurity, supply chain, and logistics roles.

Senator Schiff and Congressman Aguilar secured this federal investment as part of Congress’s fiscal year 2026 funding package, and funding is now being disbursed to the university. This investment is part of the more than $258 million in federal funds Schiff delivered for California for fiscal year 2026.

“Cal State San Bernardino plays a critical role in preparing students in the Inland Empire for jobs of the future,” said Senator Schiff. “As artificial intelligence transforms our economy, this new research and training center will ensure students are ready to harness AI advancements as they enter the workforce. I’m proud that Congressman Aguilar and I delivered more than a million dollars toward making sure California students continue leading the way in the innovations of tomorrow.”

“Here in the Inland Empire, it’s essential that we invest in innovative technology training to ensure that young people entering the workforce have the tools they need to succeed,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (CA-33). “I was proud to work with Senator Schiff to deliver this critical funding for CSUSB’s Applied Research Training Center to give students more opportunities to build good-paying careers right here in our community.”

###",1,2026-09-01T09:48:49Z,2026-09-01T09:49:51Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-colleagues-statement-opposing-israeli-governments-e1-settlement-tenders/,"Padilla, Schiff, Colleagues Statement Opposing Israeli Government’s E1 Settlement Tenders",2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Statement follows a joint effort with 45 Senators urging Prime Minister Netanyahu to immediately crack down on settler violence and settler expansion in the West Bank

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with Senator Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and 27 Democratic colleagues, issued the following statement opposing the Israeli government’s decision to issue tenders for the construction of 1,234 housing units in the E1 settlement project:

“Construction in the E1 area would sever East Jerusalem from major Palestinian population centers and make a viable contiguous Palestinian state under a two-state solution far harder to achieve. For decades, Republican and Democratic administrations have recognized that development in E1 would seriously jeopardize the prospects for a Palestinian state. That concern remains just as urgent today.

“At a time when settler violence — including violence against Palestinian Americans — is reaching unprecedented levels in the West Bank and severe restrictions continue to constrain Palestinian movement and the Palestinian economy, moving forward with construction in E1 risks further destabilizing the West Bank and making a negotiated resolution even more difficult.

“We urge the Israeli government to immediately rescind these tenders, halt settlement expansion in the West Bank, and take urgent action to rein in settler violence. Without a change in course, Israel risks weakening its international standing and undermining its prospects for long-term security. We also urge the Trump administration to make full use of its existing authorities, including targeted sanctions on individuals and entities.

“The United States must remain committed to a two-state solution that delivers lasting peace and security for both the Jewish, democratic State of Israel and for a future Palestinian state. Construction in E1 would take us further away from that goal.”

In addition to Padilla, Schiff, and Gallego, the statement was issued by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.).

###",1,2026-08-28T17:11:49Z,2026-08-28T17:13:14Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-statement-on-six-costly-months-of-trumps-war-with-iran/,Padilla Statement on Six Costly Months of Trump’s War with Iran,2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) issued the following statement after Donald Trump’s war with Iran reached the 6-month mark:

“Six months into Donald Trump’s unauthorized war against Iran, American families are less safe and paying the price through rising costs and their taxpayer dollars funding Trump’s reckless whims. Most tragically, 18 service members have died for Donald Trump’s shortsightedness.

“This catastrophe is entirely of Donald Trump’s making. Prior to Trump entering office, Iran had agreed to limit its uranium enrichment through the JCPOA — which also included agreements with adversaries like Russia and China to help constrain Iran’s nuclear program. The Strait of Hormuz was open and free from Iranian control. Now, because of Trump’s incompetence, the opposite is true. Instead of enforcing checks on the Iranian regime, Russia and China are helping Iran sustain the war and the Strait of Hormuz is far from open.

“This is a failed war from a failed president. American service members deserve better and the American people deserve better. Congress must rein in this out-of-control president.“

###",1,2026-08-29T11:31:28Z,2026-08-29T11:32:37Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-sens-schiff-padilla-cortez-masto-urge-trump-admin-to-abandon-reckless-plan-to-equip-ice-with-electric-shock-gloves/,"ICYMI: Sens. Schiff, Padilla, Cortez Masto Urge Trump Admin to Abandon Reckless Plan to Equip ICE with Electric Shock Gloves",2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – In case you missed it, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) joined Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Senate colleagues to call on the Trump Administration to abandon its reckless plan to outfit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers with gloves that deliver painful electric shocks. Their letter also demands that ICE provide Congress with answers and documentation for over 30 questions about how these devices will be used, the protocol for using them, safety guardrails, accountability measures, and more.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock. The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Despite opposition, on August 27, ICE moved forward with a $16.7 million no-bid contract for these gloves without providing Congress responses to questions.

“We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks,” the Senators began. “…The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase.”

“The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights,” the Senators continued. “Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight.”

“At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency,” the Senators wrote. “In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric-shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale.”

“If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses,” the Senators concluded.

The letter was also signed by Senators Angus King (I-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

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

Dear Acting Director Venturella,

We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks. Over the past year, ICE personnel have been involved in numerous well-documented incidents of excessive force and civil rights violations. These incidents have shown the American people that ICE personnel are not adequately trained or accountable for their interactions with civilians. The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock that is described as a “Conductive Distraction and De-escalation Device,” for use by both Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Congress has an obligation to ensure that federal law enforcement agencies have the resources necessary to perform their duties safely and effectively while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used for tools that are necessary, proportionate, and subject to meaningful safeguards. The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights. Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight.

ICE personnel have access to pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques, not to mention deescalation strategies that are widely used by law enforcement throughout the country. At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency. In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale. This history raises concerns about wasteful spending and unethical contracting practices that could benefit individuals who have personal relationships with administration officials rather than those who can provide the best service at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.

If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses. The manufacturer identifies restrictions on the device’s use, including limitations involving children, pregnant women, elderly or disabled individuals, and repeated or simultaneous use. The manufacturer also warns that use of the electric-shock glove may cause or contribute to death or serious injury, and that longer exposure increases that potential risk. If it proceeds with this contract, ICE must establish and make public clear, enforceable limits on when and against whom the electric-shock gloves may be used, especially given that ICE may not be able to immediately assess whether an individual is pregnant or disabled. Given that ICE is most frequently engaged in civil immigration enforcement rather than criminal arrests, the agency must carefully evaluate whether deployment of the electric-shock gloves in such situations is proportionate to the task.

ICE must also establish and make public the training requirements the agency will put in place prior to and throughout any potential deployment of these gloves. Over the past year, ICE has undermined the public’s trust in the agency’s training standards by putting new personnel into operational situations who are not properly vetted or adequately trained. Training for ICE recruits was slashed before being extended again following significant backlash. Additionally, ICE has put new recruits in the field before even completing their background checks, with tragic consequences. The issuance of these electric-shock gloves to personnel in the field without sufficient training would be yet another failure of ICE in the eyes of the public.

ICE has continually failed to meet basic standards of transparency and accountability. The electric-shock gloves present a particular accountability challenge because the use of force may cause significant pain and internal injury without necessarily producing obvious visible injuries. If the electric-shock gloves are deployed, ICE must establish a robust system for documenting and reviewing every deployment and instance of use. ICE should not deploy the gloves without evidence that personnel understand and take seriously the device’s risks and that individuals subjected to its use can receive an appropriate medical response. ICE must also ensure robust internal procedures for investigating misuse of the device and all use-of-force tools provided to personnel, and effective consequences for those who are found to have abused them.

In light of these many concerns, we request answers to the following questions and production of the documents identified below.

Necessity, Procurement, and Alternatives

What specific operational capability does the G.L.O.V.E. provide that existing ICE defensive tactics and less-lethal tools—including pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques—do not? Please provide the operational analysis or other documentation supporting the acquisition.

How many electric-shock gloves does ICE intend to purchase, at what projected per-unit cost? How many personnel will be issued the device?

What alternatives did ICE consider before selecting the G.L.O.V.E.?

Did ICE consult with other law enforcement agencies that use the device regarding effectiveness, injuries, complaints, misuse, training requirements, or other concerns?

Please provide the justification for the purchase of the G.L.O.V.E. via a non-competitive contract process.

Safety and Appropriate Use

How does ICE classify the G.L.O.V.E. under DHS Use of Force Policy 044-05? Are the electric-shock gloves considered a de-escalation tactic under this policy?

In what specific circumstances will use of the electric-shock gloves be authorized?

Will use of the electric-shock gloves require supervisory authorization?

Which positions and units will carry the device?

What is the protocol for usage of the electric-shock gloves? Will ICE personnel be instructed to issue a warning before gloves are activated?

Will ICE expressly prohibit use of the electric-shock gloves as a routine compliance or punishment tool?

What restrictions will apply to vulnerable populations?

Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves against animals?

Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves in crowd-control situations?

What restrictions will govern the duration and repetition of electrical shocks?

Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use against U.S. citizens?

Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use in custodial settings? Will they be authorized for use in removal operations?

How will protocol for use differ between HSI and ERO?

Testing, Medical Safety, and Training

What testing has DHS or ICE conducted or reviewed concerning the safety and effectiveness of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide all manufacturer testing, independent testing, medical evaluations, risk assessments, and other relevant documentation.

Will ICE conduct a limited pilot program before broad deployment? If so, provide the parameters, location, duration, and evaluation criteria for the pilot.

What medical contraindications or risks has ICE identified related to use of the electricshock gloves?

What training will be required before an officer or agent may carry or use the electricshock gloves? Please provide all existing and proposed training and written guidance concerning the G.L.O.V.E., including curricula, lesson plans, instructor materials, certification standards, policy directives, field guidance, and manufacturer training materials.

Will ICE require recurring certification and refresher training? Please provide the certification requirements, frequency of recertification, proficiency standards, and consequences for personnel who fail to maintain certification.

Accountability, Reporting, and Oversight

What is the required response when a person is injured or appears to be in medical distress following use of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide the applicable medical response protocols, including requirements for medical evaluation, documentation, notification of supervisors, and preservation of evidence.

Will every activation or use of the electric-shock gloves against a person be reported as a use of force?

Will ICE require body-worn cameras to be activated and operational whenever the electric-shock gloves are deployed, regardless of whether the officers are in plainclothes?

Will every activation require written justification and supervisory review? Please identify who will review these incidents, what factors supervisors must consider, and what specific consequences will apply when personnel violate the applicable restrictions.

How will ICE track complaints and injuries? Will ICE maintain and publicly report data concerning internal and external complaints, injuries, improper uses, disciplinary actions, and uses of force involving the electric-shock gloves?

How will ICE evaluate, track, and report complaints of civil rights violations involving the use of the electric-shock gloves?

Will ICE conduct an independent audit of the program?

Please provide records reflecting any internal concerns or objections regarding the electric-shock gloves, including communications involving the Office of Tactical Programs and Firearms.

We request that ICE provide written responses to the questions above and produce the requested documents no later than September 10, 2026. The American people have made it clear that ICE must de-escalate its immigration enforcement operations. ICE must refrain from deployment of the G.L.O.V.E. and instead invest in de-escalation tools, training, and accountability. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-08-29T11:31:28Z,2026-08-29T11:32:37Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-padilla-call-for-official-investigation-into-ices-attempt-to-enter-sacramento-immigration-law-firm/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla Call for Official Investigation into ICE’s Attempt to Enter Sacramento Immigration Law Firm",2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, formally demanded an investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) recent attempt to enter an immigration law firm in Sacramento, California.

“The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm’s premises. We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer’s conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE’s perceived authorities to conduct such actions,” the Senators wrote.

In an inquiry directed to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director David J. Ventulla, the lawmakers are pressing for answers on the purpose of ICE’s attempted entry onto Morris Law Group’s premises, on ICE failing to secure a judicial warrant prior to arriving at the firm, information about ICE’s policies to enter private property without warrants and on alleged threats of violence made by an ICE officer during their attempt to gain entry. The lawmakers also pushed back against DHS’s statement that ICE officers were not aware that this address was a law firm prior to their arrival, though the firm’s name was clearly legible on its premises.

The Senators continued, “after months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS “will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we’re pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house,” DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people.”

The full text of the letter can be found hereand below.

Dear Secretary Mullin and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director Venturella:

It has come to our attention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers conducted an operation in Sacramento, California on Friday, August 14 at an immigration law firm named Morris Law Group. The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm’s premises. We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer’s conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE’s perceived authorities to conduct such actions.

The behavior carried out by DHS enforcement officers and agents throughout this last year in Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, make clear that immigration enforcement officers and agents are capable of and have acted without regard for the safety and civil liberties of individuals. It is clear that some DHS enforcement personnel wrongly believe they can enter individuals’ private properties, including places of business, without valid, judicial warrants required by the Fourth Amendment (notwithstanding exigent circumstances that could be sufficiently established in a court of law). After months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS “will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we’re pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house,” DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people.

Reporting also states that this same ICE officer claimed to have a “list” from “Washington, D.C.” which listed the building’s address for inspection and that the officers wanted to “tour the office for beds.” Furthermore, in DHS’s statement to KCRA 3 following the reporting of this incident, DHS stated that ICE officers approached “an unmarked door” and believed it to be an address with beds, but that after learning it was a law firm, left. We are baffled by this statement. First, a Google search of this address shows that it is a law firm. Second, a Google street view image of the address shows clearly that “Morris Law Group” is written on the front of the entire building, right next to the building number. We find DHS’s statement troubling and unsatisfactory.

ICE’s conduct here is another example of a broader, systemic effort by this administration to intimidate immigrant communities and the attorneys and legal representatives who represent them. We refuse to tolerate these efforts to target law firms and organizations based solely on who their clients may be or their practice areas. Federal immigration officers and agents must comply with the law as all other federal law enforcement agents are required.

We are troubled by the serious allegations that ICE officers attempted to enter private property without a judicial warrant and further threatened to return to the law firm at 3 a.m. to “break windows” to enter private property. We request that DHS and ICE promptly investigate the nature of these threats by its officers, and request responses to the following questions:

What was the purpose of the ICE operation on August 14 at Morris Law Group?

Why did the ICE officers fail to secure a judicial warrant prior to their arrival at Morris Law Group’s premises?

What is ICE’s protocol or policy regarding requiring judicial warrants to enter private property since Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as the DHS Secretary? Where and when was that policy made public?

Will DHS and ICE commit to investigating this incident, including the allegation that an ICE officer claimed they could return at “3 a.m.” to “break windows” to enter private property, and share the outcome of that investigation with our offices?

What is ICE’s policy regarding investigating officers who threaten violence during enforcement actions?

Are ICE officers required to be trained in deescalation in the context enforcement actions? If so, is that training required prior to beginning employment? Are there additional and continuous deescalation trainings throughout their term of employment? Please provide all documentation regarding ICE’s policy and training protocol regarding deescalation.

Why did ICE officers request to tour the law firm offices for beds?

Reporting indicates that ICE officers received a “list” from “Washington, D.C.” for this enforcement action.

From whom did they receive this list?

What is the process for creating lists of targets for ICE enforcement actions? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.

What is the process for creating targeting lists of law firms or legal service providers and what factors are considered for such lists? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.

Who are the officials responsible for creating and approving such lists and distributing them to ICE officers?

What were the specific factors that established Morris Law Group as a target for this enforcement action?

Was this enforcement action anchored in seeking a particular individual? Or does DHS believe it can target locations without a particular human target?

Was the ICE San Francisco Field Office leading this enforcement operation?

If yes, what is the protocol for coordinating with the ICE San Francisco Field Office to prepare lists of individuals or law firms subject to enforcement actions?

If not, which ICE Field Office was tasked with carrying out this enforcement action?

How many officers were involved and were they wearing body cameras? If not, why not?

Does ICE have a protocol for verifying addresses before arriving at them?

If yes, why was this protocol not followed in this instance? Will ICE investigate possible lack of compliance with protocol here?

If not, why not?

Given the serious allegations of this incident, we request responses by Friday, September 11. We appreciate your attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-08-29T11:31:28Z,2026-08-29T11:32:37Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-call-for-official-investigation-into-ices-attempt-to-enter-sacramento-immigration-law-firm/,"Padilla, Schiff Call for Official Investigation into ICE’s Attempt to Enter Sacramento Immigration Law Firm",2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, formally demanded an investigation into Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) recent attempt to enter an immigration law firm in Sacramento, California.

“The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm’s premises,” wrote the Senators. “We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer’s conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE’s perceived authorities to conduct such actions.”

In their letter to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Acting Director David J. Venturella, the lawmakers pressed for answers on the purpose of ICE’s attempted entry onto Morris Law Group’s premises, ICE’s failure to secure a judicial warrant prior to arriving at the firm, information about ICE’s policies to enter private property without warrants, and on allegedthreats of violence made by an ICE officer during their attempt to gain entry. The lawmakers also pushed back against DHS’s statement that ICE officers were not aware that this address was a law firm prior to their arrival, given the firm’s name was clearly legible on its premises.

“After months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS ‘will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we’re pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house,’ DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people,” continued the Senators.

Full text of the letter can be found here and below.

Dear Secretary Mullin and Senior Official Performing the Duties of the Director Venturella:

It has come to our attention that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers conducted an operation in Sacramento, California on Friday, August 14 at an immigration law firm named Morris Law Group. The reporting of this operation is alarming. ICE officers attempted to enter private property unlawfully, with one officer allegedly threatening to return in the early morning hours of the following day and break windows to enter the law firm’s premises. We request a thorough investigation into this operation, including a review of the officer’s conduct, threats made by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE personnel, and timely and comprehensive responses to our questions about ICE’s perceived authorities to conduct such actions.

The behavior carried out by DHS enforcement officers and agents throughout this last year in Los Angeles, California; Chicago, Illinois; Portland, Oregon; and Minneapolis, Minnesota, make clear that immigration enforcement officers and agents are capable of and have acted without regard for the safety and civil liberties of individuals. It is clear that some DHS enforcement personnel wrongly believe they can enter individuals’ private properties, including places of business, without valid, judicial warrants required by the Fourth Amendment (notwithstanding exigent circumstances that could be sufficiently established in a court of law). After months of significant community indignation, unanswered congressional oversight, and commitments from DHS Secretary Mullin at his nomination hearing that DHS “will not enter a home or a place of business without a judicial warrant, unless we’re pursuing the individual that runs into a place of business or a house,” DHS is again failing to comply with the law, its commitment to Congress, and its promise to the American people.

Reporting also states that this same ICE officer claimed to have a “list” from “Washington, D.C.” which listed the building’s address for inspection and that the officers wanted to “tour the office for beds.” Furthermore, in DHS’s statement to KCRA 3 following the reporting of this incident, DHS stated that ICE officers approached “an unmarked door” and believed it to be an address with beds, but that after learning it was a law firm, left. We are baffled by this statement. First, a Google search of this address shows that it is a law firm. Second, a Google street view image of the address shows clearly that “Morris Law Group” is written on the front of the entire building, right next to the building number. We find DHS’s statement troubling and unsatisfactory.

ICE’s conduct here is another example of a broader, systemic effort by this administration to intimidate immigrant communities and the attorneys and legal representatives who represent them. We refuse to tolerate these efforts to target law firms and organizations based solely on who their clients may be or their practice areas. Federal immigration officers and agents must comply with the law as all other federal law enforcement agents are required.

We are troubled by the serious allegations that ICE officers attempted to enter private property without a judicial warrant and further threatened to return to the law firm at 3 a.m. to “break windows” to enter private property. We request that DHS and ICE promptly investigate the nature of these threats by its officers, and request responses to the following questions:

What was the purpose of the ICE operation on August 14 at Morris Law Group?

Why did the ICE officers fail to secure a judicial warrant prior to their arrival at Morris Law Group’s premises?

What is ICE’s protocol or policy regarding requiring judicial warrants to enter private property since Markwayne Mullin was sworn in as the DHS Secretary? Where and when was that policy made public?

Will DHS and ICE commit to investigating this incident, including the allegation that an ICE officer claimed they could return at “3 a.m.” to “break windows” to enter private property, and share the outcome of that investigation with our offices?

What is ICE’s policy regarding investigating officers who threaten violence during enforcement actions?

Are ICE officers required to be trained in deescalation in the context enforcement actions? If so, is that training required prior to beginning employment? Are there additional and continuous deescalation trainings throughout their term of employment? Please provide all documentation regarding ICE’s policy and training protocol regarding deescalation.

Why did ICE officers request to tour the law firm offices for beds?

Reporting indicates that ICE officers received a “list” from “Washington, D.C.” for this enforcement action.

From whom did they receive this list?

What is the process for creating lists of targets for ICE enforcement actions? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.

What is the process for creating targeting lists of law firms or legal service providers and what factors are considered for such lists? Please provide a list of the offices and officials involved in the process, both at DHS and ICE, as well as any engagement by the White House and other federal agencies.

Who are the officials responsible for creating and approving such lists and distributing them to ICE officers?

What were the specific factors that established Morris Law Group as a target for this enforcement action?

Was this enforcement action anchored in seeking a particular individual? Or does DHS believe it can target locations without a particular human target?

Was the ICE San Francisco Field Office leading this enforcement operation?

If yes, what is the protocol for coordinating with the ICE San Francisco Field Office to prepare lists of individuals or law firms subject to enforcement actions?

If not, which ICE Field Office was tasked with carrying out this enforcement action?

How many officers were involved and were they wearing body cameras? If not, why not?

Does ICE have a protocol for verifying addresses before arriving at them?

If yes, why was this protocol not followed in this instance? Will ICE investigate possible lack of compliance with protocol here?

If not, why not?

Given the serious allegations of this incident, we request responses by Friday, September 11. We appreciate your attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-09-01T09:48:49Z,2026-09-01T09:49:51Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-cortez-masto-urge-trump-administration-to-abandon-reckless-plan-to-equip-ice-with-electric-shock-gloves/,"Padilla, Schiff, Cortez Masto Urge Trump Administration to Abandon Reckless Plan to Equip ICE with Electric Shock Gloves",2026-08-28,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both-D-Calif) joined Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and 13 other Senate colleagues in calling on the Trump Administration to abandon its reckless plan to outfit U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers with gloves that deliver painful electric shocks. Their letter also demanded that if ICE proceeds with this purchase, it must first provide Congress with answers and documentation to over 30 questions about how these devices will be used, the protocol for using them, safety guardrails, and accountability measures.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock. The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Despite opposition, on August 27, ICE moved forward with a $16.7 million no-bid contract for these gloves without providing Congress responses to questions.

“We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks,” wrote the Senators. “…The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase.”

“The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights,” continued the Senators. “Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight.”

“At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency,” wrote the Senators. “In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric-shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale.”

“If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Padilla, Schiff, and Cortez Masto, the letter was signed by Senators Angus King (I-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).

This week, Padilla, along with Senators Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and ICE to immediately halt the planned purchase of electric shock gloves and demanded answers about the circumstances and questionable contracting process that led ICE to pursue the acquisition. Earlier this month, Padilla called out the Trump Administration’s continued abuses of power through the carrying out of their violent mass deportation agenda and inhumane treatment of detained immigrants. In June, Padilla pressed Mullin and Venturella on the staggering death toll at ICE detention centers. Padilla also condemned Republicans’ partisan bill to provide ICE and CBP with an extra $70 billion without necessary reforms and forced a vote on his amendment that would require ICE officers to wear body cameras while on duty.

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

Dear Acting Director Venturella,

We write to express deep concern about U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) plans to spend up to $20 million on gloves that deliver electric shocks. Over the past year, ICE personnel have been involved in numerous well-documented incidents of excessive force and civil rights violations. These incidents have shown the American people that ICE personnel are not adequately trained or accountable for their interactions with civilians. The blatant and tragic misuse of force in Los Angeles, Chicago, Minneapolis, Houston, Maine, and other locations around the country raises significant skepticism about the agency’s professional capability to safely deploy a new tool that could be used to harm Americans without cause. Therefore, we urge ICE to cancel the contract and reconsider the purchase.

On August 10, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) published a notice concerning ICE’s planned acquisition of the CTG-5 G.L.O.V.E., a glove designed to deliver a painful electric shock that is described as a “Conductive Distraction and De-escalation Device,” for use by both Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO). The notice estimates the potential value of the acquisition between $10 million and $20 million. Congress has an obligation to ensure that federal law enforcement agencies have the resources necessary to perform their duties safely and effectively while ensuring that taxpayer dollars are being used for tools that are necessary, proportionate, and subject to meaningful safeguards. The proposed acquisition raises serious questions about necessity, proportionality, medical safety, training, accountability, and constitutional rights. Those questions are particularly important given the significant public scrutiny surrounding ICE’s excessive use of force. A device capable of delivering an electrical shock through direct contact with an individual presents substantial risks if deployed during civil arrests – even more so if it is deployed without clear limits, appropriate training, and comprehensive oversight.

ICE personnel have access to pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques, not to mention deescalation strategies that are widely used by law enforcement throughout the country. At a time when the American people have demanded de-escalation in immigration enforcement, it is not clear why existing tools and tactics are insufficient for the agency. In the past year, DHS has repeatedly spent millions of taxpayer dollars on purchases it ends up not using, including $464 million for airplanes, $700 million on warehouses, and more than $2.25 million for SUVs wrapped with ICE branding. Many of these ICE transactions, including the planned electric shock glove purchase, are completed through no-bid contracts that circumvent the normal competitive procurement process without a sufficient rationale. This history raises concerns about wasteful spending and unethical contracting practices that could benefit individuals who have personal relationships with administration officials rather than those who can provide the best service at the lowest cost to the taxpayer.

If ICE proceeds with purchasing $20 million worth of electric-shock gloves, Congress needs a clear understanding of the device’s safety and authorized uses. The manufacturer identifies restrictions on the device’s use, including limitations involving children, pregnant women, elderly or disabled individuals, and repeated or simultaneous use. The manufacturer also warns that use of the electric-shock glove may cause or contribute to death or serious injury, and that longer exposure increases that potential risk. If it proceeds with this contract, ICE must establish and make public clear, enforceable limits on when and against whom the electric-shock gloves may be used, especially given that ICE may not be able to immediately assess whether an individual is pregnant or disabled. Given that ICE is most frequently engaged in civil immigration enforcement rather than criminal arrests, the agency must carefully evaluate whether deployment of the electric-shock gloves in such situations is proportionate to the task.

ICE must also establish and make public the training requirements the agency will put in place prior to and throughout any potential deployment of these gloves. Over the past year, ICE has undermined the public’s trust in the agency’s training standards by putting new personnel into operational situations who are not properly vetted or adequately trained. Training for ICE recruits was slashed before being extended again following significant backlash. Additionally, ICE has put new recruits in the field before even completing their background checks, with tragic consequences. The issuance of these electric-shock gloves to personnel in the field without sufficient training would be yet another failure of ICE in the eyes of the public.

ICE has continually failed to meet basic standards of transparency and accountability. The electric-shock gloves present a particular accountability challenge because the use of force may cause significant pain and internal injury without necessarily producing obvious visible injuries. If the electric-shock gloves are deployed, ICE must establish a robust system for documenting and reviewing every deployment and instance of use. ICE should not deploy the gloves without evidence that personnel understand and take seriously the device’s risks and that individuals subjected to its use can receive an appropriate medical response. ICE must also ensure robust internal procedures for investigating misuse of the device and all use-of-force tools provided to personnel, and effective consequences for those who are found to have abused them.

In light of these many concerns, we request answers to the following questions and production of the documents identified below.

Necessity, Procurement, and Alternatives

What specific operational capability does the G.L.O.V.E. provide that existing ICE defensive tactics and less-lethal tools—including pepper spray, Tasers, batons, and restraint techniques—do not? Please provide the operational analysis or other documentation supporting the acquisition.

How many electric-shock gloves does ICE intend to purchase, at what projected per-unit cost? How many personnel will be issued the device?

What alternatives did ICE consider before selecting the G.L.O.V.E.?

Did ICE consult with other law enforcement agencies that use the device regarding effectiveness, injuries, complaints, misuse, training requirements, or other concerns?

Please provide the justification for the purchase of the G.L.O.V.E. via a non-competitive contract process.

Safety and Appropriate Use

How does ICE classify the G.L.O.V.E. under DHS Use of Force Policy 044-05? Are the electric-shock gloves considered a de-escalation tactic under this policy?

In what specific circumstances will use of the electric-shock gloves be authorized?

Will use of the electric-shock gloves require supervisory authorization?

Which positions and units will carry the device?

What is the protocol for usage of the electric-shock gloves? Will ICE personnel be instructed to issue a warning before gloves are activated?

Will ICE expressly prohibit use of the electric-shock gloves as a routine compliance or punishment tool?

What restrictions will apply to vulnerable populations?

Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves against animals?

Will ICE prohibit the use of the electric-shock gloves in crowd-control situations?

What restrictions will govern the duration and repetition of electrical shocks?

Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use against U.S. citizens?

Will the electric-shock gloves be authorized for use in custodial settings? Will they be authorized for use in removal operations?

How will protocol for use differ between HSI and ERO?

Testing, Medical Safety, and Training

What testing has DHS or ICE conducted or reviewed concerning the safety and effectiveness of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide all manufacturer testing, independent testing, medical evaluations, risk assessments, and other relevant documentation.

Will ICE conduct a limited pilot program before broad deployment? If so, provide the parameters, location, duration, and evaluation criteria for the pilot.

What medical contraindications or risks has ICE identified related to use of the electricshock gloves?

What training will be required before an officer or agent may carry or use the electricshock gloves? Please provide all existing and proposed training and written guidance concerning the G.L.O.V.E., including curricula, lesson plans, instructor materials, certification standards, policy directives, field guidance, and manufacturer training materials.

Will ICE require recurring certification and refresher training? Please provide the certification requirements, frequency of recertification, proficiency standards, and consequences for personnel who fail to maintain certification.

Accountability, Reporting, and Oversight

What is the required response when a person is injured or appears to be in medical distress following use of the electric-shock gloves? Please provide the applicable medical response protocols, including requirements for medical evaluation, documentation, notification of supervisors, and preservation of evidence.

Will every activation or use of the electric-shock gloves against a person be reported as a use of force?

Will ICE require body-worn cameras to be activated and operational whenever the electric-shock gloves are deployed, regardless of whether the officers are in plainclothes?

Will every activation require written justification and supervisory review? Please identify who will review these incidents, what factors supervisors must consider, and what specific consequences will apply when personnel violate the applicable restrictions.

How will ICE track complaints and injuries? Will ICE maintain and publicly report data concerning internal and external complaints, injuries, improper uses, disciplinary actions, and uses of force involving the electric-shock gloves?

How will ICE evaluate, track, and report complaints of civil rights violations involving the use of the electric-shock gloves?

Will ICE conduct an independent audit of the program?

Please provide records reflecting any internal concerns or objections regarding the electric-shock gloves, including communications involving the Office of Tactical Programs and Firearms.

We request that ICE provide written responses to the questions above and produce the requested documents no later than September 10, 2026. The American people have made it clear that ICE must de-escalate its immigration enforcement operations. ICE must refrain from deployment of the G.L.O.V.E. and instead invest in de-escalation tools, training, and accountability. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-09-04T09:19:37Z,2026-09-04T09:20:58Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-schumer-lead-condemnation-of-trump-admin-attempts-to-shield-communications-between-trump-and-private-advisers-block-congressional-oversight/,"NEWS: Schiff, Schumer Lead Condemnation of Trump Admin Attempts to Shield Communications Between Trump and Private Advisers, Block Congressional Oversight",2026-08-27,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Democratic Senators are pushing back against the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel’s (OLC) opinion asserting that presidential executive privilege applies to communications between the President and his private, non-governmental advisers.

In an inquiry to White House Counsel David Warrington, the lawmakers emphasize that OLC lacks the authority to override judicial precedent and unilaterally dictate the boundaries of congressional oversight as they attempt to shield communications involving the President and “private advisers.”

“Extending this constitutional protection to private individuals — who hold no official government position, take no oath to support the Constitution, and are exempt from federal ethics and record-keeping laws — fundamentally distorts the intent of the executive privilege. Allowing the President to extend privilege to outside consultants or advisers creates an unchecked loophole through which private citizens can shape public policy without public, electoral, or congressional accountability,” the Senators wrote.

“We are deeply concerned that the White House requested guidance pursuant to the August 10 OLC opinion with the intent of improperly withholding documents and instructing private individuals and non-governmental advisers to defy lawful congressional subpoenas and oversight inquiries, now and in the future. Such actions severely harm Congress’s ability to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities and obstruct any public accountability,” the Senators continued.

The Senators are requesting that the White House Counsel’s office confirm whether it will fully cooperate with all current or future constitutionally protected legislative inquiries, a detailed list of all private advisers OLC believes to be shielded under the opinion, and all communications in the White House Counsel’s Office and DOJ’s possession regarding the August 10 OLC opinion.

In addition to Sen. Schiff and Leader Schumer, this letter was signed by U.S. Senator and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

Background: In April 2026, Sen. Schiff and Leader Chuck Schumer led Senate Democrats in demanding answers from the White House on the administration’s legal opinion declaring the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 unconstitutional.

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

Dear Mr. Warrington:

We are writing to express serious concern regarding the latest Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion to come at the behest of the White House’s attempts to shield any communications involving the President from Congress’s constitutional oversight responsibilities. On August 10, 2026, OLC published an opinion titled “Applicability of Executive Privilege to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers” in which it argued the President can assert executive privilege over a broad purview of communications with “private advisers.”

The opinion, which was rendered at the request of your office, asserts that executive privilege related to presidential communications extends to communications with individuals outside the Executive Branch – including private citizens. This expansive interpretation appears designed to build a blanket shield around external and informal influences on presidential decision-making, insulating the President’s personal and non-governmental advisers from any potential congressional scrutiny. Further, much like an April 1, 2026, OLC opinion concerning the Presidential Records Act that has already been enjoined by a federal judge, this opinion does not arise from an inter-agency legal disagreement or statutory conflict, but rather serves to unilaterally broaden executive secrecy.

The August 10 OLC opinion asserts that executive privilege applies to private advisers so long as communications relate to official presidential decision-making, involve or reflect communications with the President or direct advisers, and are confidential.

This position stands in stark contrast to long-established separation-of-powers principles and federal jurisprudence. Federal courts have repeatedly emphasized that executive privilege must be narrowly construed due to its direct tension with Congress’s core Article I oversight functions and the public’s right to government transparency. In applying the presidential communications privilege to communications that are either by the President directly or by his immediate advisers in the wake of the Nixon-era Watergate scandal, the judiciary cautioned that not every communication with a presidential adviser would be protected. The courts further declined to grant the privilege to certain Justice Department officials outside of the President’s immediate advisers.

Executive privilege is a qualified doctrine intended to ensure that the President receives candid, uninhibited advice from government subordinates in the execution of Article II duties. It is not an unlimited shield designed to insulate private citizens, informal advisers, and non-governmental actors from congressional oversight and public accountability.

Extending this constitutional protection to private individuals — who hold no official government position, take no oath to support the Constitution, and are exempt from federal ethics and record-keeping laws — fundamentally distorts the intent of the executive privilege. Allowing the President to extend privilege to outside consultants or advisers creates an unchecked loophole through which private citizens can shape public policy without public, electoral, or congressional accountability.

OLC’s traditional role is to provide objective legal guidance on complex legal questions, not to fashion novel legal theories designed to overcome existing or anticipated congressional oversight. Furthermore, OLC lacks the authority to override judicial precedent or unilaterally dictate the boundaries of congressional oversight established by the Constitution.

We are deeply concerned that the White House requested guidance pursuant to the August 10 OLC opinion with the intent of improperly withholding documents and instructing private individuals and non-governmental advisers to defy lawful congressional subpoenas and oversight inquiries, now and in the future. Such actions severely harm Congress’s ability to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities and obstruct any public accountability. Our concerns are furthered by your failure to respond to our previous April 29, 2026, inquiry regarding OLC’s April 1 opinion on the Presidential Records Act.

Please confirm by September 4, 2026, that the White House will fully cooperate with current and future congressional inquiries, including by providing all requested or subpoenaed information or communication records between any non-governmental advisers and the President. Additionally, we request a detailed list of all non-governmental advisers for whom the White House claims executive privilege protections – including their employers, titles, and relation to the President – as well as all communications in your office’s and DOJ’s possession regarding the August 10 OLC opinion. Please provide these records no later than September 4, 2026.

We look forward to your response.

###",1,2026-08-27T16:10:01Z,2026-08-27T16:10:50Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-booker-blumenthal-demand-dhs-ice-halt-the-purchase-of-electric-shock-gloves/,"Padilla, Booker, Blumenthal Demand DHS, ICE Halt the Purchase of Electric Shock Gloves",2026-08-27,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to immediately halt the planned purchase of electric shock gloves and demanded answers about the circumstances that led ICE to pursue the acquisition.

According to an August 10 DHS acquisition forecast, ICE intends to spend up to $20 million through a sole-source, no-bid contract with Compliant Technologies, the manufacturer of the devices. The weapons, known as G.L.O.V.E. (Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters), are hand-worn electrical devices that deliver a painful shock upon contact.

In their letter to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and ICE Acting Director David J. Venturella, the Senators raised concerns about the safety of the devices, ICE’s record of excessive use of force, and the risks of outfitting untrained officers who operate with little to no accountability, with new weapons.

“The manufacturer’s user manual warns that these electric shock weapons can cause sudden death or serious injury, along with physiological changes that increase the risk of elevated blood pressure, changes in blood chemistry, increased respiration and heart rates, changes in heart rhythm, and elevated adrenaline. The longer the exposure, the higher the risk,” wrote the Senators. “The manufacturer recommends avoiding their use on the elderly, small children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities.”

The Senators warned that the gloves could be deployed more easily than conventional electrical control weapons because an officer only needs to make hand contact and press a switch. They argued that ICE’s existing use-of-force record, combined with fatal shootings of civilians and inadequate training and oversight, raises additional concerns about deploying an untested weapon.

They also raised concerns about accountability for ICE officers, citing comments from Compliant Technologies CEO Jeff Niklaus about the lack of visible injuries from the devices.

“That is not a safety feature, it is a liability shield. These devices are designed to leave no trace—an ‘invisible partner’ according to Compliant Technologies—even when the force is unjustified or violates the Fourth Amendment,” continued the Senators. “DHS is not procuring a less-lethal weapon. It is procuring a tool engineered to evade accountability.”

The Senators also pointed to the erosion of public trust in ICE, writing, “ICE is answerable to the American public whose trust in the agency has eroded: over half of Americans have little to no confidence in the agency and over half believe it uses excessive force.”

The Senators demanded that DHS and ICE halt the procurement, deployment, and use of the devices and, within 10 days, provide information about the justification and materials reviewed before the purchase, the devices’ operational need, the legal and factual basis for the sole-source contract, any potential ties between Compliant Technologies and Trump Administration officials, medical and safety reviews conducted before the procurement, and ICE’s use-of-force record since January 20, 2025.

Senator Padilla has been a leader against the harsh and cruel operations of ICE and CBP under the Trump Administration. Today, Padilla joined Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and 14 of their Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration abandon its plan to equip ICE officers with the electric shock gloves. Their letter also demanded that if ICE proceeds with this purchase, it must first provide Congress with answers and documentation to over 30 questions about how these devices will be used, the protocol for using them, safety guardrails, and accountability measures. Earlier this month, Padilla called out the Trump Administration’s continued abuses of power through the carrying out of their violent mass deportation agenda and inhumane treatment of detained immigrants. In June, Padilla, pressed Mullin and Venturella on the staggering death toll at ICE detention centers. Padilla also condemned Republicans’ partisan bill to provide ICE and CBP with an extra $70 billion without necessary reforms and forced a vote on his amendment that would require ICE agents to wear body cameras while on-duty. In March, Padilla pressed former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem during a DHS oversight hearing on the Administration’s cruel mass deportation and detention campaign.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Mullin and Acting Director Venturella:

We write in regard to your plans to purchase electric shock weapons marketed as gloves for use in immigration enforcement actions. According to your August 10 announcement, you will pay the manufacturer of these weapons, known as the G.L.O.V.E. for Generated Low Output Voltage Emitters, up to $20 million through a sole-source, no-bid contract. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) must provide urgent clarification on the scope of this acquisition, the justification for it, and a commitment to cease the procurement immediately.

For the past year and a half, Americans have watched federal immigration enforcement officers engage in the indiscriminate abuse of authority and excessive use of force to detain people they think may be immigrants, no matter their age, size, sex, or whether they pose any threat to officers. Agents seemingly use force as a default—not only when necessary—with tactics that include the use of high-risk neck restraints, knee-to-neck pins, chemical weapons, high-speed vehicle pursuits, and the tackling, shoving, and slamming of civilians. Meanwhile, DHS and ICE hired thousands of officers and deployed them to communities across the country without the proper vetting or training. The consequences have been fatal—the killings of Lorenzo Salgado Araujo in Houston, Johan Sebastián Durán Guerrero in Maine, and Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis stand as stark reminders. It is under these circumstances that DHS and ICE plan to outfit officers with electrical devices on their hands, turning any physical contact into an electric shock. They are, in effect, hand-worn tasers disguised as restraint equipment.

Compliant Technologies does not “consider” G.L.O.V.E. devices to be weapons and markets them as safer than Tasers or stun guns. DHS has defended the purchase of these weapons on that basis. While true that G.L.O.V.E. weapons have a lower voltage output than other electrical current weapons (ECW), we are unaware of any independent evidence or studies that they are safer. Indeed, the manufacturer’s user manual warns that these electric shock weapons can cause sudden death or serious injury, along with physiological changes that increase the risk of elevated blood pressure, changes in blood chemistry, increased respiration and heart rates, changes in heart rhythm, and elevated adrenaline. The longer the exposure, the higher the risk. The manufacturer recommends avoiding their use on the elderly, small children, pregnant women, and people with disabilities. In sum, lower voltage does not mean lower risk. Moreover, because electric shock gloves are easier and faster to use—an officer only has to make hand contact and press a switch, as opposed to unholstering an electronic control weapon, aiming it, and discharging probes—officers may deploy them in situations where they would not have used a less-lethal weapon at all.

Where force is not justified, officers will escape liability. Compliant Technologies’ CEO Jeff Niklaus has made this explicit: “with a glove there are no burn marks or scars when it’s done” and because there is no visible injury, “it doesn’t really pay off” for people to sue officers. That is not a safety feature, it is a liability shield. These devices are designed to leave no trace—an “invisible partner” according to Compliant Technologies—even when the force is unjustified or violates the Fourth Amendment. DHS is not procuring a less-lethal weapon. It is procuring a tool engineered to evade accountability.

No federal law enforcement agency should deploy a novel, untested electric shock device without independent medical and safety review. Law enforcement best practices demand that electric shock devices including G.L.O.V.E. weapons “be used only by trained personnel and only to overcome active resistance, its threat, or assaultive behavior or a threat of bodily harm to officers or others.” Most ICE arrests meet none of these conditions. Since January 2025, ICE has conducted expansive, unsupervised immigration enforcement in public spaces—traffic stops, workplaces, homes—with minimal oversight. Electric shock gloves would become an untested pain compliance weapon in the hands of officers operating with broad discretion, inadequate training, and minimal, if any, accountability.

ICE’s record of lethal and less-lethal force should trigger an immediate moratorium on new force tools, not approval of them. Before DHS considers acquiring and deploying G.L.O.V.E. weapons, it must conduct a full accounting of ICE’s current use-of-force practices and the deaths that have resulted. Additionally, it must explain to taxpayers why these devices are necessary and justify its pattern of awarding multimillion-dollar contracts without competitive procurement review.

ICE is answerable to the American public whose trust in the agency has eroded: over half of Americans have little to no confidence in the agency and over half believe it uses excessive force. To that end, DHS and ICE must immediately halt the procurement, deployment, and use of electrical shock G.L.O.V.E. weapons, and provide the following no later than 10 days from the date of this letter:

All documents and communications reflecting the justification for this procurement, all documents and materials reviewed by DHS prior to the contract, including manuals, safety guidelines, training materials and protocols, or consultations with experts or training instructors, and the identity and title of every official who participated in or approved the acquisition decision.

All documents and communications discussing the specific operational need these devices are intended to address, including examples of incidents in which officers were unable to arrest or detain an individual using other available less-lethal weapons or tactics.

The legal and factual basis for awarding a sole-source, no-bid contract to Compliant Technologies, including the statutory authority cited and any market research conducted prior to award.

All documents and communications reflecting any personal or business association between Compliant Technologies, its principals, or its investors and any official of the Trump Administration, including any financial relationship, prior employment, or role in facilitating this procurement.

All documents reflecting any medical, safety, or use-of-force review—whether internal or independent—conducted prior to this procurement, including any risk assessment addressing the potential for death or serious injury.

The total number of use-of-force incidents involving ICE officers since January 20, 2025, disaggregated by type of force used, and for each incident: whether injury or death resulted, the employment status of the officer involved, and whether the incident triggered an internal review or disciplinary action.

Your prompt attention to this request is appreciated.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-08-28T17:11:49Z,2026-08-28T17:13:14Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-king-and-colleagues-demand-department-of-education-reverse-unlawful-cuts-to-school-based-mental-health-services/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, King, and Colleagues Demand Department of Education Reverse Unlawful Cuts to School-Based Mental Health Services",2026-08-27,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Angus King (I-Maine) are leading their colleagues in urging the Department of Education to disburse the funds abruptly and unlawfully canceled for School-Based Mental Health Services (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration (MHSP) grant programs and halt its attempts to end the grant programs.

Upon canceling over 200 of these grants in April 2025, the Trump administration attempted to justify their cuts to school-based mental health funding by claiming that grant programs promoted diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and did not adhere to the administration’s policy priorities. The Senators push back against this false claim pointing to the significant impact to mental health staffing and resources that thousands of students relied on.

“The Department’s recent actions create significant operational uncertainty for local school districts, interrupting student access to care and stalling the recruitment of future school-based mental health care professionals. These choices will increase the financial and administrative barriers to obtaining a quality education. We therefore demand that the Department disburse the funds grantees are contractually owed in a timely manner to ensure local school programs face no further disruption,” the Senators wrote in a new letter to U.S. Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon.

These grants – part of the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act – address the shortage of mental health professionals, social workers and services in our nation’s schools, especially those in rural and underserved areas. In California, 44 grantees saw their funding affected by these cuts.

“Despite these grants’ clear effectiveness, the Department sent boilerplate notices in April 2025 to 70 SBMH and 153 MHSP recipients claiming that these grantees did not adhere to the Trump Administration’s priorities and policy preferences. The notices failed to provide specific, individualized explanations for why the grants were abruptly discontinued. Consequently, grantees were forced to pause hiring and training and lay off school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. MHSP-supported graduate programs could also no longer fund the scholarships needed to recruit students,” the Senators continued.

After a court-ordered injunction and restraining order stemming the grant cancellations, the Trump administration imposed additional requirements upon grantees before deciding to release funding for the second half of the year – causing greater uncertainty for schools. The administration is now attempting to fully terminate these programs, placing their future in jeopardy.

“We insist that the Department honor the statutory funding directives enacted by Congress, resolve the administrative barriers affecting the pipeline of mental health professionals in our nation’s schools, and ensure that students have access to these crucial services. To cut, delay, and otherwise obstruct these grants is not only unlawful, but also unconscionable in light of the mental health crisis facing our youth. It’s not an exaggeration to say that young lives are at stake. Please step in to help,” the Senators concluded.

In addition to Schiff and King, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

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

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to request immediate clarification regarding the Department of Education’s (the Department) termination of $1 billion in School-Based Mental Health Services Grant (SBMH) and Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant (MHSP) programs. The Department’s recent actions create significant operational uncertainty for local school districts, interrupting student access to care and stalling the recruitment of future school-based mental health care professionals. These choices will increase the financial and administrative barriers to obtaining a quality education. We therefore demand that the Department disburse the funds grantees are contractually owed in a timely manner to ensure local school programs face no further disruption.

Funded by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the SBMH and MHSP programs address the dire shortage of mental health service providers in our nation’s schools. More than half of schools in the nation reported their ability to provide mental health services to students was limited in a significant way by inadequate funding, while 40 percent described insufficient access to mental health professionals as a barrier. SBMH grants help schools hire and retain counselors, psychologists, and other mental health professionals, specifically targeting areas with a demonstrated need, like rural and low-income communities. MHSP grants enable institutions of higher education and school districts to enter partnerships to recruit and train mental health professionals to work in schools.

The efficacy of SBMH and MHSP is supported by clear performance metrics. In just one year, grantees reached nearly 775,000 K-12 students nationwide, reduced absenteeism and behavioral issues, lowered suicide risk, trained and hired nearly 1,300 mental health professionals, and retained a vast majority of new and existing mental health professionals.

These programs fill crucial gaps in mental health care for youth in our nation’s schools. A 2023 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention survey found that 40 percent of high school students reported feeling sad or hopeless, an increase from 30 percent in 2013. Twenty-nine percent of high school students reported experiencing poor mental health and nine percent shared that they had attempted suicide.

Despite these grants’ clear effectiveness, the Department sent boilerplate notices in April 2025 to 70 SBMH and 153 MHSP recipients claiming that these grantees did not adhere to the Trump Administration’s priorities and policy preferences. The notices failed to provide specific, individualized explanations for why the grants were abruptly discontinued.

Consequently, grantees were forced to pause hiring and training and lay off school counselors, psychologists, and social workers. MHSP-supported graduate programs could also no longer fund the scholarships needed to recruit students.

In June 2025, 16 states, home to 140 of the canceled grants, sued the Department, arguing that the discontinuation of the grants violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). A district court subsequently issued a preliminary injunction against the discontinuation and then granted summary judgment and a permanent injunction to the plaintiff states, finding that the Department’s actions were inconsistent with statutory requirements. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Ninth Circuit denied the Department’s request to stay the permanent injunction.

The Department resumed 122 of the grants through June 30, 2026, imposing additional reporting requirements before deciding whether to release funding for the second half of the year. This process caused serious administrative uncertainty because grantee organizations could not reliably and effectively project budgets to determine if they would have the funds to hire and train mental health professionals. Some grantees were forced to lay off employees, exacerbating the challenges they face in addressing student mental health.

Furthermore, the Administration has indicated plans to permanently discontinue these grants, raising serious concerns regarding compliance with standing federal permanent injunctions and the July 27, 2026, Temporary Restraining Order.

The Department’s decision to withhold this funding from our nation’s schools will reverberate as the new school year starts in the fall, and the harm will be exacerbated if the Department continues to disrupt or withhold SBMH and MHSP funding. Our nation’s schools are already facing significant barriers to retaining mental health professionals, who serve as trusted adults for students and their parents.

These interruptions in student services disrupt the continuity of care. The Department’s actions will also slow the recruitment of new mental health professionals, disincentivizing prospective counselors and therapists from serving in our nation’s schools.

In light of the Department’s actions, we request answers to the following questions by September 18, 2026:

How many grantees have received an additional six months of funding after June 30, 2026? Please provide a list containing the name, a description of the grant, the amount, and any associated reporting requirements for each grantee.

Will the Department continue to impose similar requirements on these grantees for the remainder of their grant period?

What objective evaluation criteria were used to determine program compliance? Please provide a written justification for each discontinued grant including grant-specific reasons that go beyond the generic justification currently offered in the notices.

How does the Department plan to address the interruptions and uncertainty for grantees caused by the discontinuations?

We insist that the Department honor the statutory funding directives enacted by Congress, resolve the administrative barriers affecting the pipeline of mental health professionals in our nation’s schools, and ensure that students have access to these crucial services. To cut, delay, and otherwise obstruct these grants is not only unlawful, but also unconscionable in light of the mental health crisis facing our youth. It’s not an exaggeration to say that young lives are at stake. Please step in to help.

###",1,2026-08-28T17:11:49Z,2026-08-28T17:13:14Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-joins-democratic-colleagues-in-condemning-trump-administration-attempts-to-shield-communications-between-trump-and-private-advisers-from-congressional-oversight/,Padilla Joins Democratic Colleagues in Condemning Trump Administration Attempts to Shield Communications Between Trump and Private Advisers from Congressional Oversight,2026-08-27,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and seven Democratic colleagues, pushed back against a recent opinion from the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) asserting that presidential executive privilege applies to communications between the President and his private, non-governmental advisers.

In a letter sent to White House Counsel David Warrington, the Senators emphasized that OLC lacks the authority to override judicial precedent and unilaterally dictate the boundaries of congressional oversight as they attempt to shield communications involving the President and “private advisers.”

“Extending this constitutional protection to private individuals — who hold no official government position, take no oath to support the Constitution, and are exempt from federal ethics and record-keeping laws — fundamentally distorts the intent of the executive privilege,” wrote the Senators. “Allowing the President to extend privilege to outside consultants or advisers creates an unchecked loophole through which private citizens can shape public policy without public, electoral, or congressional accountability.”

“We are deeply concerned that the White House requested guidance pursuant to the August 10 OLC opinion with the intent of improperly withholding documents and instructing private individuals and non-governmental advisers to defy lawful congressional subpoenas and oversight inquiries, now and in the future,” continued the Senators. “Such actions severely harm Congress’s ability to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities and obstruct any public accountability.”

The Senators demanded that the White House Counsel’s Office confirm whether it will fully cooperate with all current or future congressional inquiries, and requested a detailed list of all private advisers OLC believes to be shielded under the opinion as well as all communications in the White House Counsel’s Office and DOJ’s possession regarding the August 10 OLC opinion.

In addition to Padilla, Schiff, and Leader Schumer, this letter was signed by Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), and Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.).

In April, Padilla joined Schiff and Leader Schumer in demanding answers from the White House Counsel’s Office on the Administration’s OLC opinion declaring the Presidential Records Act (PRA) of 1978 unconstitutional.

Full text of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Mr. Warrington:

We are writing to express serious concern regarding the latest Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion to come at the behest of the White House’s attempts to shield any communications involving the President from Congress’s constitutional oversight responsibilities. On August 10, 2026, OLC published an opinion titled “Applicability of Executive Privilege to Presidential Communications with Private Advisers” in which it argued the President can assert executive privilege over a broad purview of communications with “private advisers.”

The opinion, which was rendered at the request of your office, asserts that executive privilege related to presidential communications extends to communications with individuals outside the Executive Branch – including private citizens. This expansive interpretation appears designed to build a blanket shield around external and informal influences on presidential decision-making, insulating the President’s personal and non-governmental advisers from any potential congressional scrutiny. Further, much like an April 1, 2026, OLC opinion concerning the Presidential Records Act that has already been enjoined by a federal judge, this opinion does not arise from an inter-agency legal disagreement or statutory conflict, but rather serves to unilaterally broaden executive secrecy.

The August 10 OLC opinion asserts that executive privilege applies to private advisers so long as communications relate to official presidential decision-making, involve or reflect communications with the President or direct advisers, and are confidential.

This position stands in stark contrast to long-established separation-of-powers principles and federal jurisprudence. Federal courts have repeatedly emphasized that executive privilege must be narrowly construed due to its direct tension with Congress’s core Article I oversight functions and the public’s right to government transparency. In applying the presidential communications privilege to communications that are either by the President directly or by his immediate advisers in the wake of the Nixon-era Watergate scandal, the judiciary cautioned that not every communication with a presidential adviser would be protected. The courts further declined to grant the privilege to certain Justice Department officials outside of the President’s immediate advisers.

Executive privilege is a qualified doctrine intended to ensure that the President receives candid, uninhibited advice from government subordinates in the execution of Article II duties. It is not an unlimited shield designed to insulate private citizens, informal advisers, and non-governmental actors from congressional oversight and public accountability.

Extending this constitutional protection to private individuals — who hold no official government position, take no oath to support the Constitution, and are exempt from federal ethics and record-keeping laws — fundamentally distorts the intent of the executive privilege. Allowing the President to extend privilege to outside consultants or advisers creates an unchecked loophole through which private citizens can shape public policy without public, electoral, or congressional accountability.

OLC’s traditional role is to provide objective legal guidance on complex legal questions, not to fashion novel legal theories designed to overcome existing or anticipated congressional oversight. Furthermore, OLC lacks the authority to override judicial precedent or unilaterally dictate the boundaries of congressional oversight established by the Constitution.

We are deeply concerned that the White House requested guidance pursuant to the August 10 OLC opinion with the intent of improperly withholding documents and instructing private individuals and non-governmental advisers to defy lawful congressional subpoenas and oversight inquiries, now and in the future. Such actions severely harm Congress’s ability to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities and obstruct any public accountability. Our concerns are furthered by your failure to respond to our previous April 29, 2026, inquiry regarding OLC’s April 1 opinion on the Presidential Records Act.

Please confirm by September 4, 2026, that the White House will fully cooperate with current and future congressional inquiries, including by providing all requested or subpoenaed information or communication records between any non-governmental advisers and the President. Additionally, we request a detailed list of all non-governmental advisers for whom the White House claims executive privilege protections – including their employers, titles, and relation to the President – as well as all communications in your office’s and DOJ’s possession regarding the August 10 OLC opinion. Please provide these records no later than September 4, 2026.

###",1,2026-08-29T11:31:28Z,2026-08-29T11:32:37Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-warner-demand-answers-from-prediction-market-companies-paying-influencers-spreading-election-disinformation/,"Padilla, Warner Demand Answers from Prediction Market Companies Paying Influencers Spreading Election Disinformation",2026-08-26,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Prediction market paid influencers have posted misinformation about elections under the label “paid partnership,” including in SAVE Act posts

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, and Mark Warner (D-Va.), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, demanded answers from the country’s largest prediction market platforms and urged them to take immediate action to protect election integrity ahead of this year’s midterm elections and end relationships with paid influencers on their platforms spreading election disinformation.

In a letter to Polymarket and Kalshi, the Senators raised concerns regarding the platforms’ practice of paying online influencers who have spread false information, including claims that U.S. federal elections are subject to widespread fraud.

“We are seriously alarmed that your marketing strategy includes paying numerous social media influencers willing to espouse unreliable information on elections,” wrote the Senators. “In doing so, we are concerned that your prediction market platforms may be subsidizing — and amplifying — social media influencers who echo President Trump’s baseless attacks and sow distrust in American elections. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, we urge your platforms to reevaluate this practice, thoroughly vet your paid influencers election related activities, and immediately terminate any paid influencer relationships with individuals who undermine free and fair elections.”

The Senators also highlighted the platforms’ ability to allow users to wager on government actions. They emphasized the role of paid Polymarket and Kalshi influencers in those wagers through spreading false claims of election fraud and ultimately undermining election integrity in their promoted social media posts. The Senators specifically flagged paid influencer posts about the anti-voter SAVE Act.

“In July, a series of major social media influencers, including former Congressman Matt Gaetz, all posted similar ‘paid partnership’ posts linking to Polymarket and Kalshi charts showing the odds of enactment of the SAVE Act dropping to all-time lows. As Majority Leader Thune has noted, much of the pressure on the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, rooted in false claims of widespread election fraud, comes from ‘paid influencers.’ These paid posts on X, some of which have been removed for violation of X’s policies, added commentary that either undermined confidence in U.S. election integrity, advocated for the passage of this partisan, anti-voter legislation, or both,” continued the Senators.

The Senators requested additional information from Polymarket and Kalshi about their paid influencer contracts and strategy, their policies for influencers who post about elections, whether the companies consider disinformation to be fraudulent conduct, and the vetting process of paid influencers in the context of elections.

“As your platforms work to respond to these questions, we urge you to act now to reevaluate all paid influencer relationships regarding elections, thoroughly vet all existing and future paid influencer arrangements, and immediately terminate any existing relationships with those who spread election misinformation, disinformation, or undermine the integrity of U.S. elections,” the Senators concluded.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections and California’s former Secretary of State, Padilla has been a leader in protecting our elections. Last month, Padilla introduced the Stop Harassment and Intimidations in Elections through Legal Defenses (SHIELD) Our Elections Act, legislation that would provide states and voters the ability to enforce federal election protections and protect voters’ ballots from seizure. In June, Padilla and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) introduced the Fraudulent Artificial Intelligence Regulations (FAIR) Elections Act to protect voters in the face of misuse of artificial intelligence to suppress voting and voter purges amid the Trump Administration’s attacks on the right to vote and election conspiracy theories.

A list of prediction market paid influencer posts is available here.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Mr. Coplan and Mr. Mansour:

In operating prediction markets tied to American elections, your platforms have a responsibility not to undermine the confidence in those elections as well as an obligation to protect the integrity of the trading activities on the platforms. With the 2026 midterm elections 69 days away, we are writing to urge your companies, the largest prediction markets platforms in the United States, to assume greater responsibility and take immediate appropriate action to ensure that your platforms do not undermine confidence in American elections.

Misinformation and disinformation pose serious threats to election security and the ability to hold free and fair elections. Recent surveys show that Americans’ confidence in our elections has been falling in the wake of years of baseless attacks on the integrity of our elections, including those led by President Trump and his election denier allies. As a result of these baseless attacks, nonpartisan and bipartisan election workers have endured verbal abuse and threats of physical violence for doing their jobs, causing many experienced personnel to leave the field. By creating and aggressively promoting markets on elections, your platforms now play a significant role in shaping Americans’ perceptions of their elections.

Given this context, we are seriously alarmed that your marketing strategy includes paying numerous social media influencers willing to espouse unreliable information on elections. In doing so, we are concerned that your prediction market platforms may be subsidizing—and amplifying—social media influencers who echo President Trump’s baseless attacks and sow distrust in American elections. Ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, we urge your platforms to reevaluate this practice, thoroughly vet your paid influencers election related activities, and immediately terminate any paid influencer relationships with individuals who undermine free and fair elections.

Social media influencer content sponsored by prediction markets that contains election misinformation or disinformation is not a hypothetical concern. In June, influencers under contract with both Kalshi and Polymarket spread false conspiracy theories about recent California elections. These posts appeared on X, formerly Twitter, marked as “paid partnership,” using prediction market election odds to support baseless claims of election fraud. These posts were only taken down when reported on by the news media, and after they were viewed by millions of Americans. Yet, despite posting previous “paid partnership” posts violating Polymarket and Kalshi’s terms and conditions, some of these same influencer accounts continue to post misinformation that undermine confidence in elections as paid partners.

Polymarket has committed to keep its “markets free from deceptive, manipulative, and unfair trading practices.” Similarly, Kalshi forbids users from “intentionally provid[ing] misleading, erroneous, or fraudulent information.” Polymarket and Kalshi both forbid certain persons with the ability to influence, directly or indirectly, the outcome of the underlying event, from trading on related contracts on the platform. When election related mis- and disinformation is deployed to create false narratives, to manipulate attitudes, to obfuscate facts, and to create public perceptions derived from that mis- and disinformation, it undermines confidence in the accuracy and fairness of the markets that your platforms offer for U.S. elections.

Your companies also have independent obligations under the Commodity Exchange Act to police fraud, enforce compliance with their rules, and guard against prohibited trading practices. These obligations raise additional concerns when platforms are paying individuals to promote contracts while those same individuals may be spreading false information about the events underlying those contracts.

In addition to offering prediction markets based on election outcomes, both Kalshi and Polymarket offer users the ability to bet on government actions, including the passage of legislation or actions by the executive branch. Also relevant to election misinformation on your platforms is the betting interest in whether President Trump’s partisan, anti-voter legislation known as the SAVE Act or SAVE America Act will be enacted by certain dates. In July, a series of major social media influencers, including former Congressman Matt Gaetz, all posted similar “paid partnership” posts linking to Polymarket and Kalshi charts showing the odds of enactment of the SAVE Act dropping to all-time lows. As Majority Leader Thune has noted, much of the pressure on the Senate to pass the SAVE Act, rooted in false claims of widespread election fraud, comes from “paid influencers.” These paid posts on X, some of which have been removed for violation of X’s policies, added commentary that either undermined confidence in U.S. election integrity, advocated for the passage of this partisan, anti-voter legislation, or both. A document containing saved images of many of these posts is attached.

Some paid influencer election misinformation posts were taken down after Senate committee staff or the media alerted Polymarket, Kalshi and/or X that these posts appeared to violate X’s paid partnership policy prohibiting “[g]eo-political, political, social issues or crises for commercial purposes” as a content category for paid partnerships. In contrast, posts that were not flagged for X remain online, indicating that both Kalshi or Polymarket continue to enable the dissemination of false content undermining our nation’s elections and are not taking sufficient steps to prevent this harmful content from being published by your paid social media marketers. Prediction markets appear to place responsibility on the social media companies, rather than taking proactive measures with your marketing partners, for posts that violate your own terms and conditions. Given the public track record of many of these influencers, these types of paid sponsorship posts espousing election denial claims were foreseeable – and should not be repeated.

We appreciate your platforms’ engagement with Senate staff to answer questions about your paid influencer policies and practices. However, given the issues discussed above, serious questions remain. We therefore request written answers to the following inquiries by September 4, 2026:

Describe the standard paid influencer contract for your platform, including any restrictions, range of payment amounts, and provide a sample contract.

What criteria does a paid influencer need to meet to be considered for an influencer contract with your platform? What type of vetting do paid influencers receive before your platform finalizes a paid influencer contract?

Does your platform have a policy towards paid influencer content regarding U.S. elections? If so, please provide a copy of that policy.

Does your platform have a policy towards paid influencer content containing misinformation about elections? If so, please provide a copy of that policy.

Please explain your company’s rationale for entering into paid influencer contracts with social media influencers who have public records of spreading misinformation or disinformation about U.S. elections.

KalshiEX LLC Rulebook’s Rule 5.17(h) states that “No Person shall engage in any activity that presents a risk of harm to Kalshi, its Participants, or the public.” In the same document, Rule 5.17 (i) states that “No Person shall engage in any activity that adversely affects the integrity of the Platform or its underlying systems.”

Does Kalshi consider the spreading of mis- and disinformation about events that are the subject of event contracts as creating a risk of harm to Kalshi, its Participants, or the public?

Does Kalshi consider the spreading of mis- and disinformation about events that are the subject of event contracts as an action that adversely affects the integrity of the Kalshi Platform?

Polymarket’s Rulebook Rule 7.2(b) states that “No Participant shall engage in fraudulent or deceitful conduct. Nor shall any Participant make any untrue or misleading statement or omit a material fact.”

Does Polymarket consider the spreading of mis- and disinformation about events that are the subject of event contracts as engaging in fraudulent or deceitful conduct?

Does Polymarket consider the spreading of mis- and disinformation about events that are the subject of event contracts to be the making of an untrue or misleading statement or omit a material fact? Does Polymarket believe that mis- and disinformation is capable of changing the likelihood of events to resolve in a given way, and therefore is information that would influence the result, and payout, of an event contract?

Does your platform engage in any vetting of paid influencer content regarding U.S. elections, either before or after the influencer posts content for which they are being compensated for by your platform? Please describe.

Are paid influencers allowed to place bets in the prediction markets that they are being paid to promote, such that they could “front run” their own posts by taking positions that would likely profit following a coordinated social media influencer campaign?

Please describe the policies, procedures, surveillance systems, or other controls your respective platforms have in place to identify whether paid influencer activity may constitute or contribute to fraud, manipulation, price distortion, or other conduct prohibited by the Commodity Exchange Act, CFTC regulations, or your respective platform rules.

Have either of your platforms investigated paid influencer activity for potential violations of these obligations?

As your platforms work to respond to these questions, we urge you to act now to reevaluate all paid influencer relationships regarding elections, thoroughly vet all existing and future paid influencer arrangements, and immediately terminate any existing relationships with those who spread election misinformation, disinformation, or undermine the integrity of U.S. elections.

Thank you for your continued engagement on these issues, and we urge you to take all necessary actions to prepare for the 2026 election so that prediction markets do not cause additional harms to American election security.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-08-27T16:10:01Z,2026-08-27T16:10:50Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sen-schiff-leader-schumer-sen-booker-lead-45-senators-in-urging-netanyahu-to-immediately-crack-down-on-settler-violence-in-west-bank-protect-u-s-citizens/,"NEWS: Sen. Schiff, Leader Schumer, Sen. Booker, Lead 45 Senators in Urging Netanyahu to Immediately Crack Down on Settler Violence in West Bank, Protect U.S. Citizens",2026-08-26,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Senators call for those responsible for violence against Palestinians, including Palestinian-Americans, to be held accountable

Washington, D.C. – Today, a broad group of 45 Senators led by U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) urged Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take immediate actions to reduce violence in the West Bank and prevent further incidents amidst a significant increase in harassment, threats, and acts of violence in recent weeks. They also called on the government of Israel to complete investigations into the deaths of nine American citizens who have been killed by settlers or security forces in the West Bank in recent years.

“We urge you to take measures to prevent and intercede in this violence, establish a credible mechanism to investigate violations of law, and to make clear that the Government of Israel will not tolerate violence by its people, just as it does not tolerate violence against its people,” the Senators wrote in a letter signed by almost the entire Senate Democratic Caucus.

The Senators warn that “continued settlement expansion and fighting in the West Bank will harm Israel’s long-term security and the prospects for lasting peace, prosperity, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”

President Donald Trump and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio previously expressed their opposition to annexation of and violence in the West Bank, which the Israeli government has failed to address.

“Like you, the safety and security of our constituents is of paramount importance. We urge your government to ensure that Americans in the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank are able to enjoy the security and protection of property to which they are entitled. We also hope to see the conditions improved so that Israelis and Palestinians may one day live in peace with each other without the fear of terrorism or lawless violence,” the Senators concluded.

Additionally, the Senators call for those responsible for such violent acts to be held accountable and investigated.

The Senators joining Schiff, Leader Schumer, and Booker on the letter are U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai’i), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai’i), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Background: Last year, Schiff and 45 other Senate Democrats urged President Trump to reinforce his stated opposition to the State of Israel’s annexation of territory in the West Bank amidst ongoing focus on implementing and sustaining the much-needed ceasefire in Gaza.

Last year, Schiff, Schumer, Rosen, and Schatz led a group of 44 Senate Democrats in pushing for large-scale expansion of humanitarian aid into Gaza as part of diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire agreement and end the war in the region.

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

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

We write in shared concern and opposition to the growing levels of violence in the West Bank. Many of us have previously expressed to President Trump that continued settlement expansion and fighting in the West Bank will harm Israel’s long-term security and the prospects for lasting peace, prosperity, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Incidents of fatal violence by settlers have reportedly already surpassed 2025 levels and continue to increase. The last few weeks alone saw a significant surge in violence on both sides, resulting in a large-scale response by Israeli security forces, mass arrests of Palestinians, and reported attacks by settlers on mosques. We urge you to take measures to prevent and intercede in this violence, establish a credible mechanism to investigate violations of law, and to make clear that the Government of Israel will not tolerate violence by its people, just as it does not tolerate violence against its people.

We write particularly on behalf of American citizens who have been killed or threatened in such violence. Many of us have heard first-hand from their families and other constituents who have themselves been threatened without cause by settlers. We have engaged the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and your embassy in Washington to ensure their protection and appreciate measures taken on their behalf, but a more significant response from your government is clearly needed. We ask for your personal and direct engagement and intervention in order to protect our constituents and their families.

President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio have expressed their opposition to all violence in the West Bank and actions aimed at annexation, but those concerns have gone unaddressed. Now, we urge you to take the following actions:

Issue clear directives to the Israeli Police and Israeli Defense Forces to prevent and intervene in harassment, threats, and actual use of violence, regardless of the perpetrators.

Ensure that all those responsible for harassment, threats, and violence against Palestinians, including Palestinian-Americans, are held accountable through a transparent and credible process. This includes completing investigations into and ensuring accountability for the deaths of nine American citizens who have been killed by settlers or security forces in the West Bank since 2022.

Stop approving additional settlements and stop allowing the construction of, and take steps to remove, illegal outposts in the West Bank.

Like you, the safety and security of our constituents is of paramount importance. We urge your government to ensure that Americans in the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank are able to enjoy the security and protection of property to which they are entitled. We also hope to see the conditions improved so that Israelis and Palestinians may one day live in peace with each other without the fear of terrorism or lawless violence.

###",1,2026-08-27T16:10:01Z,2026-08-27T16:10:50Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-join-democratic-colleagues-in-urging-netanyahu-to-immediately-crack-down-on-settler-violence-in-west-bank-protect-u-s-citizens/,"Padilla, Schiff Join Democratic Colleagues in Urging Netanyahu to Immediately Crack Down on Settler Violence in West Bank, Protect U.S. Citizens",2026-08-26,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), joined Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and 41 other Democratic Senators in urging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to take immediate actions to reduce violence in the West Bank and prevent further incidents amidst a significant increase in harassment, threats, and acts of violence in recent weeks. The Senators also called on the government of Israel to complete investigations into the deaths of nine American citizens who have been killed by settlers or security forces in the West Bank in recent years.

“We urge you to take measures to prevent and intercede in this violence, establish a credible mechanism to investigate violations of law, and to make clear that the Government of Israel will not tolerate violence by its people, just as it does not tolerate violence against its people,” wrote the Senators.

“Many of us have previously expressed to President Trump that continued settlement expansion and fighting in the West Bank will harm Israel’s long-term security and the prospects for lasting peace, prosperity, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike,” continued the Senators.

The Senators called for those responsible for such violent acts to be held accountable and investigated. The Senators also noted that President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have previously voiced opposition to West Bank annexation and violence, concerns they argued the Israeli government has yet to adequately address.

“Like you, the safety and security of our constituents is of paramount importance,” concluded the Senators. “We urge your government to ensure that Americans in the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank are able to enjoy the security and protection of property to which they are entitled. We also hope to see the conditions improved so that Israelis and Palestinians may one day live in peace with each other without the fear of terrorism or lawless violence.”

In addition to Padilla, Schiff, Leader Schumer, and Booker, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D. Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).

Last October, Padilla, Schiff, and 44 other Senate Democrats urged President Trump to reinforce his stated opposition to the State of Israel’s annexation of territory in the West Bank amidst ongoing focus on implementing and sustaining the much-needed ceasefire in Gaza. Last year, Padilla joined Booker, Leader Schumer, and 39 other Democrats in demanding the State Department resume medical and humanitarian visas for civilians in Gaza in need of urgent medical care, including children with life-threatening injuries or conditions.

Full text of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Mr. Prime Minister,

We write in shared concern and opposition to the growing levels of violence in the West Bank. Many of us have previously expressed to President Trump that continued settlement expansion and fighting in the West Bank will harm Israel’s long-term security and the prospects for lasting peace, prosperity, and freedom for Israelis and Palestinians alike.

Incidents of fatal violence by settlers have reportedly already surpassed 2025 levels and continue to increase. The last few weeks alone saw a significant surge in violence on both sides, resulting in a large-scale response by Israeli security forces, mass arrests of Palestinians, and reported attacks by settlers on mosques. We urge you to take measures to prevent and intercede in this violence, establish a credible mechanism to investigate violations of law, and to make clear that the Government of Israel will not tolerate violence by its people, just as it does not tolerate violence against its people.

We write particularly on behalf of American citizens who have been killed or threatened in such violence. Many of us have heard first-hand from their families and other constituents who have themselves been threatened without cause by settlers. We have engaged the U.S. Embassy in Jerusalem and your embassy in Washington to ensure their protection and appreciate measures taken on their behalf, but a more significant response from your government is clearly needed. We ask for your personal and direct engagement and intervention in order to protect our constituents and their families.

President Trump and Secretary of State Rubio have expressed their opposition to all violence in the West Bank and actions aimed at annexation, but those concerns have gone unaddressed. Now, we urge you to take the following actions:

Issue clear directives to the Israeli Police and Israeli Defense Forces to prevent and intervene in harassment, threats, and actual use of violence, regardless of the perpetrators.

Ensure that all those responsible for harassment, threats, and violence against Palestinians, including Palestinian-Americans, are held accountable through a transparent and credible process. This includes completing investigations into and ensuring accountability for the deaths of nine American citizens who have been killed by settlers or security forces in the West Bank since 2022.

Stop approving additional settlements and stop allowing the construction of, and take steps to remove, illegal outposts in the West Bank.

Like you, the safety and security of our constituents is of paramount importance. We urge your government to ensure that Americans in the Israeli-controlled parts of the West Bank are able to enjoy the security and protection of property to which they are entitled. We also hope to see the conditions improved so that Israelis and Palestinians may one day live in peace with each other without the fear of terrorism or lawless violence.

###",1,2026-08-28T17:11:49Z,2026-08-28T17:13:14Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-sen-schiff-joined-30th-annual-lake-tahoe-summit-underlined-bipartisan-progress-in-keeping-tahoe-blue/,"ICYMI: Sen. Schiff Joined 30th Annual Lake Tahoe Summit, Underlined Bipartisan Progress in Keeping Tahoe Blue",2026-08-25,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"View the full Summit HERE

Lake Tahoe, CA – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) joined the 30th Annual Lake Tahoe Summit where he highlighted key priorities to safeguard Lake Tahoe through supporting scientific research necessary to protect the lake, preserving the forests and supporting firefighters, protecting against invasive species and securing consistent and reliable funding for projects across the lake.

“I will be working diligently with my colleagues to continue to bring resources back [to Lake Tahoe] to make sure that these brave firefighters have what they need to do the job and come home safely, that we continue to support all of the good scientific research that is necessary to protect the lake and that we make sure this remains a public-private, nonpartisan partnership for another 30 years,” said Senator Schiff at the Lake Tahoe Summit.

U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) hosted the summit this year and U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.); U.S. Representatives Mark Amodei (R-Nev.-02) and Kevin Kiley (I-Calif.-06); Nevada Governor Joe Lombardo; and Chairman Serrell Smokey of the Washoe Tribe of Nevada and California were in attendance.

Background: Senator Schiff hosted the 29th annual Lake Tahoe Summit, “Protecting Lake Tahoe: Balancing Sustainable Recreation and Conservation,” where he emphasized that protecting the environment, improving fire response, addressing the insurance crisis and balancing outdoor recreation and conservation are key priorities to help safeguard Lake Tahoe. The 29th Summit honored the legacy of former California Senator Dianne Feinstein, who created the Summit in 1997 with former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Most recently, Schiff, Rosen, Padilla, and Cortez Masto introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to deliver more funding to protect the Lake Tahoe Basin with no new costs to taxpayers.

Schiff secured $2.2 million in federal funding for South Lake Tahoe projects that support critical infrastructure development that ensures water sustainability, and for the development of essential affordable housing.

Schiff also led his California and Nevada colleagues in requesting the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) and U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) ensure Lake Tahoe Basin benefits from the bipartisan Expanding Public Lands Outdoor Recreation Experiences (EXPLORE) Act.

Schiff and Padilla introduced the Golden Mussel Eradication and Control Act of 2026, legislation to expedite the control and eradication of golden mussels – harmful invasive species.

Schiff also secured an increase in the authorization of appropriations for Army Corps Lake Tahoe Basin restoration activities in the 2026 Senate Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) bill from $50 million to $60 million. This bipartisan bill was reported out of committee in July.

###",1,2026-08-26T05:33:32Z,2026-08-26T05:34:56Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/schiff-blumenthal-and-welch-demand-answers-after-dhs-pays-464-million-for-luxury-jets-and-airplanes-via-a-no-bid-contract-with-company-owned-by-prominent-trump-supporter/,"Schiff, Blumenthal and Welch Demand Answers after DHS Pays $464 million for Luxury Jets and Airplanes via a No-bid Contract with Company Owned by Prominent Trump Supporter",2026-08-25,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), today demanded answers from Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Markwayne Mullin, about DHS’s wasteful purchase of 10 airplanes for $464 million via a no-bid contract. In a letter to Mullin, the Senators called out the Department’s growing and alarming reliance on no-bid contracts since the beginning of the second Trump Administration and raised concerns that the owner of the company that received the award also runs a company alleged to have solicited kickback payments to former DHS official Corey Lewandowski.

“Recent reporting reveals that, beginning in the fall of 2025, DHS pursued and eventually awarded a no-bid contract to purchase 10 aircraft, including three ‘luxury business jets’ and seven ‘Boeing 737 passenger jets,’ and that most of these aircraft have sat idle for months since DHS acquired them. Although DHS claims that the contract was undertaken during Secretary Noem’s tenure, contracting records indicate that the cost of the contract ‘increased by $303 million on the day that Mr. Mullin was sworn in as secretary,’” the Senators wrote.

The Senators continued, “The apparent waste generated by idle, multi-million-dollar government assets belies the Department’s claim of urgency. To date, there is no public indication that any of these aircraft have ever been used for DHS’s claimed purpose of removing noncitizens from the United States. One of the luxury jets was leased to the FBI for use by Director Kash Patel who, in February 2026, incurred estimated costs of $75 million to fly to the Olympic Winter Games in Italy, using the same make of luxury aircraft as the one reportedly leased to the FBI.”

The Senators continued, “DHS purchased the aircraft through a $464 million no-bid contract to Daedalus Aviation Corporation (Daedalus), a Virginia-based company led by chairman William Walters…In fact, Mr. Walters has allegedly created ‘a web of companies,’ that subsequently received government contracts despite having no prior government contracting experience. Companies with ties to Mr. Walters include Salus Worldwide Solutions Corporation (Salus), which, in 2025, received a hastily-awarded contract worth $915 million ‘for air operations to support the administration’s effort to persuade millions of undocumented immigrants to ‘self-deport.’ Public reporting alleges that a representative of Salus repeatedly approached a prospective subcontracting firm with proposals to undertake work for DHS only if the firm would direct millions in kickbacks to Corey Lewandowski or consulting firms connected to him.”

“Congress and the American people deserve the Department’s full and prompt transparency with respect to the shocking waste of taxpayer funds and potential corruption involved in the Department’s aircraft purchase and widespread no-bid contracting,” the Senators concluded.

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

Dear Secretary Mullin:

We write to request documents and information regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (“DHS” or “the Department”) purchase of 10 airplanes for $464 million via a no-bid contract.[1] DHS justified this purchase by claiming that these aircraft were urgently needed to operate noncitizen removal flights, but recent reporting reveals that most of these airplanes have sat idle, and one was made available to Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel.[2] That these aircraft have been parked for months or redistributed for purposes inconsistent with DHS’s claimed reason for acquiring the planes significantly undermines the Department’s explanation for bypassing a full and fair competitive contracting process and raises troubling questions about whether DHS overpaid for these aircraft, as well as about the Department’s growing and alarming reliance on no-bid contracts since the beginning of the second Trump Administration. We are also concerned that DHS awarded this no-bid contract to a company led by William Walters. A separate company that Mr. Walters has ties to, engaged in contract dealings with DHS that have raised allegations of solicitation of corrupt kickback payments to former DHS official Corey Lewandowski.

Recent reporting reveals that, beginning in the fall of 2025, DHS pursued and eventually awarded a no-bid contract to purchase 10 aircraft, including three “luxury business jets” and seven “Boeing 737 passenger jets,” and that most of these aircraft have sat idle for months since DHS acquired them. Although DHS claims that the contract was undertaken during Secretary Noem’s tenure, contracting records indicate that the cost of the contract “increased by $303 million on the day that Mr. Mullin was sworn in as secretary.” DHS justified “the enormous price tag” for the aircraft by claiming “it had no time to consider other offers” because “[t]he planes were needed urgently for deportation flights.” The apparent waste generated by idle, multi-million-dollar government assets belies the Department’s claim of urgency. To date, there is no public indication that any of these aircraft have ever been used for DHS’s claimed purpose of removing noncitizens from the United States. One of the luxury jets was leased to the FBI for use by Director Kash Patel who, in February 2026, incurred estimated costs of $75 million to fly to the Olympic Winter Games in Italy, using the same make of luxury aircraft as the one reportedly leased to the FBI.

The waste generated by parking most of these aircraft compounds the loss of taxpayer funds involved in the suspect, no-bid process the Department hurriedly implemented to buy these jets. DHS purchased the aircraft through a $464 million no-bid contract to Daedalus Aviation Corporation (“Daedalus”), a Virginia-based company led by chairman William Walters. Mr. Walters “has emerged as a vocal Trump supporter” who made at least one $10,000 donation to a political action committee supporting former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem during her tenure as governor of South Dakota. Former Secretary Noem and Corey Lewandowki reportedly traveled the country in 2025 on a separate, $70 million luxury 737 MAX 8 that was leased to DHS by a separate company with ties to Mr. Walters, Valkyrie Aviation Holdings Group. In fact, Mr. Walters has allegedly created “a web of companies,” that subsequently received government contracts despite having no prior government contracting experience. Companies with ties to Mr. Walters include Salus Worldwide Solutions Corporation (“Salus”), which, in 2025, received a hastily-awarded contract worth $915 million “for air operations to support the administration’s effort to persuade millions of undocumented immigrants to ‘self-deport.’” Public reporting alleges that a representative of Salus repeatedly approached a prospective subcontracting firm with proposals to undertake work for DHS only if the firm would direct millions in kickbacks to Corey Lewandowski or consulting firms connected to him.

The no-bid contract awarded to purchase these aircraft is only the latest in the Department’s growing abuse of a contracting shortcut designed to meet genuinely urgent necessity. The “urgency exception” permits bypassing full competition only when an agency’s “need for the supplies or services is of such an unusual and compelling urgency that the Government would be seriously injured” unless permitted to move forward on a no-bid basis. Despite the narrow set of circumstances when bypassing money-saving competition might be justified, “[t]he exemption accounts for nearly two-thirds of the $34 billion that [DHS] has spent on contracts signed in 2026,” which “is up sharply from past years.” In 2024, only one percent of DHS contracts were awarded under the urgency exception.

Congress and the American people deserve the Department’s full and prompt transparency with respect to the shocking waste of taxpayer funds and potential corruption involved in the Department’s aircraft purchase and widespread no-bid contracting. Our offices are reviewing allegations of misconduct arising from federal contract awards to assess whether and the extent to which laws and regulations governing honest services and federal procurement may require legislative reform. In order for us to better understand the award of this contract, plans for these airplanes moving forward, and remedial measures for the American taxpayer, please provide the following information by September 7, 2026:

How did DHS initiate conversations with Daedalus to act as broker for the purchase of 10 airplanes?

Which DHS officials were involved in initiating these conversations?

How did DHS ascertain the number and type of airplanes necessary for purchase?

How did DHS evaluate and conclude that purchasing aircraft would be more cost effective than leasing or otherwise engaging a contractor to operate removal flights?

What metrics did DHS evaluate for cost effectiveness before arriving to its decision to purchase these aircraft?

How does DHS plan to use the 10 purchased airplanes moving forward?

How much has DHS spent to store, retrofit, convert, move, and maintain the 10 aircraft since their purchase?

Has DHS implemented changes to its contracting procedures as it relates to the use of exemptions for full and open competition?

Please also provide the following records by September 7, 2026:

All communications regarding the award of the $464 million contract to Daedalus, including but not limited to communications with Daedalus, William Walters, Secretary Mullin, former Secretary Noem and Corey Lewandowski or any of their staff;

All communications regarding the purchase of each individual airplane, including but not limited to communications with Daedalus, William Walters, Secretary Mullin, former Secretary Noem and Corey Lewandowski or any of their staff;

All communications regarding plans for the use of each airplane after purchase;

All flight logs and passenger logs for each airplane purchased under the contract.

Please contact our offices if you have questions about responding to this request. Thank you for your attention to this matter.

###",1,2026-08-26T05:33:32Z,2026-08-26T05:34:56Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-huffman-and-panetta-lead-california-lawmakers-in-push-to-end-politically-motivated-attack-on-californias-ability-to-protect-coastline/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla, Huffman, and Panetta Lead California Lawmakers in Push to End Politically Motivated Attack on California’s Ability to Protect Coastline",2026-08-21,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Lawmakers write: “Secretary Lutnick’s threat to revoke California’s program approval and Federal funding for failure to obediently comply with the Department’s prioritization of its favorite projects is contrary to 50 years of cooperative state and Federal relationships – and blatantly illegal.”

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.) and U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19) are leading 29 colleagues in condemning the administration’s recent decision to initiate a formal review of California’s coastal management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) – emphasizing their ideologically driven intent to trample on states’ rights and jeopardize California’s shoreline.

“This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument. It is an attempt to curb our state’s federally approved authority to evaluate offshore energy, infrastructure, and commercial activities. We ask that if you proceed with this review, you commit to respecting states’ rights and cooperative federalism as is consistent with the CZMA,” the lawmakers wrote in a new letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Neil Jacobs.

The CZMA authorizes California’s ability to preserve and manage its coastline – giving the state the power to review and approve of projects impacting the coastal zone in coordination with the federal government. For 50 years, California and NOAA have successfully worked together to mitigate the effects of coastal projects on California’s coastal ecosystems and economy.

The lawmakers rebut U.S. Department of Commerce’s Howard Lutnick’s claim that “California has repeatedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith,” and that California’s objections were “unfounded.”

“Complementing this strong record is the reality that California is the world’s fourth largest economy, home to Silicon Valley, 400 unicorn startups, unmatched high-tech enterprise, world-renowned research institutions. California’s global leadership in research and innovation supports a coastal economy that attracts visitors and entrepreneurs from all over the world and positions us as the nation’s leading agricultural state. California contributes nearly $700 billion to the federal government, which is $83 billion more than it receives. Each dollar invested in California’s coastal management creates important returns for the rest of the United States. Simply put, far from obstructing innovation and economic development, California’s success subsidizes the success of the nation,” the lawmakers continued.

“If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the federal government on effective and responsible project development, to offer meaningful mitigation measures for coastal development projects, or to access federal financial opportunities that support the protection and security of America’s Pacific Coast…Both California and NOAA should share a strong interest in ensuring federal projects in America’s coastal areas have minimal impacts on the environment and fisheries, promote responsible economic development, and guarantee national security,” the lawmakers concluded.

In addition to Schiff, Padilla, Huffman, and Panetta the letter is signed by U.S. Representatives Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.-31), Lou Correa (D-Calif.-46), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.-30), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.-37), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.-16), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.-29), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), Derek Tran (D-Calif.-45), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52), and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.-43).

The full text of the letter can be found hereand below.

Dear Administrator Jacobs:

We write to express our strong opposition to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) out-of-cycle performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) undertaken just one year after the previous evaluation was completed. This unprecedented review threatens to disrupt 48 years of successful coordination between the State of California and the federal government to protect California’s coast. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) relies on a robust, voluntary partnership between federal and state governments to ensure that all coastal development projects are carried out thoughtfully, prudently, and in alignment with both the state’s priorities and the goals of the law. This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument. It is an attempt to curb our state’s federally approved authority to evaluate offshore energy, infrastructure, and commercial activities. We ask that if you proceed with this review, you commit to respecting states’ rights and cooperative federalism as is consistent with the CZMA.

The purpose of the CZMA is to require collaboration between participating coastal states and the federal government to further both preservation and development goals and “to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone.” (16 USC 1452(2)). California has advanced this purpose by carefully reviewing, seeking to improve where appropriate, and ultimately approving the vast majority of projects impacting its coastal zone.

For this reason, it is strange that in a letter from Commerce Secretary Lutnick to the National Economic Council, the Secretary inexplicably claims that “California has repeatedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” without any evidence in support of this and that California has a “long record of obstructing technological innovation, economic development, and related Federal efforts in the name of environmental extremism.” Both of these statements can be easily contradicted with facts.

The record of California’s regulatory decisions over the past few decades shows the State disapproved of only one desalination project out of several dozen, objected to just two space launch activities out of 135, and disapproved of exactly zero undersea cable and pipeline repair and maintenance projects. In fact, of the 3,700 projects the California Coastal Commission has reviewed under the CZMA since 1978, fully 96% of them have been approved by the Commission either outright or with environmentally beneficial modifications that advanced the Act’s twin goals of preservation and development. This reality plainly contradicts Secretary Lutnick’s allegation of obstructionism.

California has a long history of approving space launch projects and, as mentioned above, has only rejected two of 135 space launch and aerospace projects under its review since 1980. The Coastal Commission attributed its decision-making in these two cases to noise pollution, the potential for sonic booms, disruption of wildlife, and the fact that the applicant, SpaceX, provided insufficient information about its proposed Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Thus, California’s objections were not “unfounded,” as Secretary Lutnick’s press statement claimed.

Moreover, it is important to note that the CZMA does not grant a participating state veto power to block a federal project. If a state objects, the CZMA offers the Secretary of Commerce the opportunity to override a state’s objection when appropriate. In the case of the only two spaceport projects to which California objected, despite California’s clear explanation of its concerns, the federal government proceeded with the projects anyway without working through the issues California raised. As both the State and federal government acted within their rights in accordance with the law, this again calls the review of California’s program into question.

Complementing this strong record is the reality that California is the world’s fourth largest economy, home to Silicon Valley, 400 unicorn startups, unmatched high-tech enterprise, world-renowned research institutions. California’s global leadership in research and innovation supports a coastal economy that attracts visitors and entrepreneurs from all over the world and positions us as the nation’s leading agricultural state. California contributes nearly $700 billion to the federal government, which is $83 billion more than it receives. Each dollar invested in California’s coastal management creates important returns for the rest of the United States. Simply put, far from obstructing innovation and economic development, California’s success subsidizes the success of the nation.

Secretary Lutnick’s threat to revoke California’s program approval and Federal funding for failure to obediently comply with the Department’s prioritization of its favorite projects is contrary to 50 years of cooperative state and Federal relationships – and blatantly illegal. Even the first Trump Administration’s NOAA plainly stated in 2019 that NOAA lacks the authority to revoke a state program approval for failing to implement newly imposed Federal policies. The first Trump Administration acknowledged:

NOAA does not have authority to require a state to make a change to state law or its coastal management program, except in limited circumstances if a state is not adhering to its NOAA-approved coastal management program. [NOAA Coastal Zone Management Act Program Change Procedures Final Rule, Federal Register at 38120-38121 (August 6, 2019)].

California’s compliance with its own program is what NOAA can review – not whether California is complying with the current President’s Executive Orders or the current Secretary of Commerce’s insistence on his two favorite projects.

Secretary Lutnick’s letter misses this point that the CZMA as established by Congress, which is “to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.” (16 USC 1452(1)). The CZMA is not about rushing through specific development projects. Instead, it exits to establish a coherent framework to both protect and develop the coast, preserving its essential nature “for this and succeeding generations.”

California has fully complied with the CZMA’s goals by coherent planning of preservation and development activities that have built up a “blue economy” valued at $51 billion of tourism, fishing and aquaculture, shipping and coastal recreation. We Californians cherish our magnificent coast, and the robust economic activity it generates depends upon advancing developments that will enhance rather than damage the coast’s value. As part of the coherent management of our coastal resources, for decades Californians have consistently opposed new oil and gas drilling, because just one oil spill could destroy our vibrant $51 billion coastal economy. Our position on new offshore drilling is in no way inconsistent with the CZMA. Quite to the contrary, it is part and parcel of the coherent regulatory framework that CZMA demands to both preserve and develop the state’s coastal economy in a manner that benefits this and future generations.

Fundamental to the CZMA is the understanding that the country’s interests are best served when the federal government works in collaboration, rather than in direct conflict, with state costal management programs. If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the federal government on effective and responsible project development, to offer meaningful mitigation measures for coastal development projects, or to access federal financial opportunities that support the protection and security of America’s Pacific Coast.

For all the reasons above, we express our strong opposition to decertification of California’s coastal program or withholding of financial assistance. Both California and NOAA should share a strong interest in ensuring federal projects in America’s coastal areas have minimal impacts on the environment and fisheries, promote responsible economic development, and guarantee national security. We must work together to accomplish these objectives. In this spirit, we thank you for your consideration of this letter and ask that if you decide to proceed that you fairly review California’s coastal zone management program based on its full record of regulatory approvals and in accordance with the CZMA’s mandate for consistent implementation of a state’s chosen management program to achieve wise use of its coastal resources.

###",1,2026-08-23T05:27:15Z,2026-08-23T05:29:02Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-huffman-panetta-lead-california-lawmakers-in-push-to-end-politically-motivated-attack-on-californias-coastline-protections/,"Padilla, Schiff, Huffman, Panetta Lead California Lawmakers in Push to End Politically Motivated Attack on California’s Coastline Protections",2026-08-21,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.-02) and Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.-19), led 29 colleagues in condemning the Trump Administration’s recent decision to initiate a formal review of California’s coastal management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). In the letter, they warned that the politically-motivated review threatens California’s authority to protect its coastline and manage responsible coastal development.

The CZMA gives California a federally approved role in preserving and managing its coastline, including reviewing and approving projects impacting the coastal zone in coordination with the federal government.

“This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument,” wrote the lawmakers. “It is an attempt to curb our state’s federally approved authority to evaluate offshore energy, infrastructure, and commercial activities. We ask that if you proceed with this review, you commit to respecting states’ rights and cooperative federalism as is consistent with the CZMA.”

In the letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Neil Jacobs, the lawmakers emphasized that for 50 years, California and NOAA have successfully worked together to mitigate the effects of coastal projects on California’s coastal ecosystems and economy.

The lawmakers rebut U.S. Department of Commerce’s Howard Lutnick’s claim that “California has repeatedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith,” and that California’s objections were “unfounded.”

“Complementing this strong record is the reality that California is the world’s fourth largest economy, home to Silicon Valley, 400 unicorn startups, unmatched high-tech enterprise, world-renowned research institutions,” continued the lawmakers. “California’s global leadership in research and innovation supports a coastal economy that attracts visitors and entrepreneurs from all over the world and positions us as the nation’s leading agricultural state. California contributes nearly $700 billion to the federal government, which is $83 billion more than it receives. Each dollar invested in California’s coastal management creates important returns for the rest of the United States. Simply put, far from obstructing innovation and economic development, California’s success subsidizes the success of the nation.”

“If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the federal government on effective and responsible project development, to offer meaningful mitigation measures for coastal development projects, or to access federal financial opportunities that support the protection and security of America’s Pacific Coast,” concluded the lawmakers. “Both California and NOAA should share a strong interest in ensuring federal projects in America’s coastal areas have minimal impacts on the environment and fisheries, promote responsible economic development, and guarantee national security.”

In addition to Padilla, Schiff, Huffman, and Panetta, the letter was signed by U.S. Representatives Pete Aguilar (D-Calif.-33), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.-24), Judy Chu (D-Calif.-28), Gil Cisneros (D-Calif.-31), Lou Correa (D-Calif.-46), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.-30), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.-42), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.-37), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Mike Levin (D-Calif.-49), Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.-16), Ted Lieu (D-Calif.-36), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.-07), Dave Min (D-Calif.-47), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.-11), Scott Peters (D-Calif.-50), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.-29), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Norma Torres (D-Calif.-35), Derek Tran (D-Calif.-45), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52), and Maxine Waters (D-Calif.-43).

Padilla has fought to protect California from the Trump Administration’s efforts to promote new oil drilling off the coast. In June, Padilla and Schiff introduced legislation to establish strict standards for offshore oil and gas operators and set requirements to hold them responsible for decommissioning and cleanup efforts off the coast. In May, Padilla and Schiff launched an investigation into Sable Offshore Corp.’s politicized efforts to restart oil drilling operations off the Santa Barbara coast and demanded answers about the company’s collaboration with the Trump Administration to invoke the Defense Production Act (DPA) in relation to this project. In April, Padilla pressed Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, highlighting that the Trump Administration’s plans to drill off of California’s coast coupled with proposed cuts to funding for environmental programs and enforcement will endanger the coastline, the people who live there, and coastal economies. Last year, Padilla introduced the West Coast Protection Act to permanently prohibit new oil and gas leases for offshore drilling off the coast of California, Oregon, and Washington.

Full text of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Administrator Jacobs:

We write to express our strong opposition to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) out-of-cycle performance evaluation of the California Coastal Management Program (CCMP) undertaken just one year after the previous evaluation was completed. This unprecedented review threatens to disrupt 48 years of successful coordination between the State of California and the federal government to protect California’s coast. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) relies on a robust, voluntary partnership between federal and state governments to ensure that all coastal development projects are carried out thoughtfully, prudently, and in alignment with both the state’s priorities and the goals of the law. This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument. It is an attempt to curb our state’s federally approved authority to evaluate offshore energy, infrastructure, and commercial activities. We ask that if you proceed with this review, you commit to respecting states’ rights and cooperative federalism as is consistent with the CZMA.

The purpose of the CZMA is to require collaboration between participating coastal states and the federal government to further both preservation and development goals and “to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone.” (16 USC 1452(2)). California has advanced this purpose by carefully reviewing, seeking to improve where appropriate, and ultimately approving the vast majority of projects impacting its coastal zone.

For this reason, it is strange that in a letter from Commerce Secretary Lutnick to the National Economic Council, the Secretary inexplicably claims that “California has repeatedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith” without any evidence in support of this and that California has a “long record of obstructing technological innovation, economic development, and related Federal efforts in the name of environmental extremism.” Both of these statements can be easily contradicted with facts.

The record of California’s regulatory decisions over the past few decades shows the State disapproved of only one desalination project out of several dozen, objected to just two space launch activities out of 135, and disapproved of exactly zero undersea cable and pipeline repair and maintenance projects. In fact, of the 3,700 projects the California Coastal Commission has reviewed under the CZMA since 1978, fully 96% of them have been approved by the Commission either outright or with environmentally beneficial modifications that advanced the Act’s twin goals of preservation and development. This reality plainly contradicts Secretary Lutnick’s allegation of obstructionism.

California has a long history of approving space launch projects and, as mentioned above, has only rejected two of 135 space launch and aerospace projects under its review since 1980. The Coastal Commission attributed its decision-making in these two cases to noise pollution, the potential for sonic booms, disruption of wildlife, and the fact that the applicant, SpaceX, provided insufficient information about its proposed Falcon 9 launches from Vandenberg Space Force Base. Thus, California’s objections were not “unfounded,” as Secretary Lutnick’s press statement claimed.

Moreover, it is important to note that the CZMA does not grant a participating state veto power to block a federal project. If a state objects, the CZMA offers the Secretary of Commerce the opportunity to override a state’s objection when appropriate. In the case of the only two spaceport projects to which California objected, despite California’s clear explanation of its concerns, the federal government proceeded with the projects anyway without working through the issues California raised. As both the State and federal government acted within their rights in accordance with the law, this again calls the review of California’s program into question.

Complementing this strong record is the reality that California is the world’s fourth largest economy, home to Silicon Valley, 400 unicorn startups, unmatched high-tech enterprise, world-renowned research institutions. California’s global leadership in research and innovation supports a coastal economy that attracts visitors and entrepreneurs from all over the world and positions us as the nation’s leading agricultural state. California contributes nearly $700 billion to the federal government, which is $83 billion more than it receives. Each dollar invested in California’s coastal management creates important returns for the rest of the United States. Simply put, far from obstructing innovation and economic development, California’s success subsidizes the success of the nation.

Secretary Lutnick’s threat to revoke California’s program approval and Federal funding for failure to obediently comply with the Department’s prioritization of its favorite projects is contrary to 50 years of cooperative state and Federal relationships – and blatantly illegal. Even the first Trump Administration’s NOAA plainly stated in 2019 that NOAA lacks the authority to revoke a state program approval for failing to implement newly imposed Federal policies. The first Trump Administration acknowledged:

NOAA does not have authority to require a state to make a change to state law or its coastal management program, except in limited circumstances if a state is not adhering to its NOAA-approved coastal management program. [NOAA Coastal Zone Management Act Program Change Procedures Final Rule, Federal Register at 38120-38121 (August 6, 2019)].

California’s compliance with its own program is what NOAA can review – not whether California is complying with the current President’s Executive Orders or the current Secretary of Commerce’s insistence on his two favorite projects.

Secretary Lutnick’s letter misses this point that the CZMA as established by Congress, which is “to preserve, protect, develop, and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations.” (16 USC 1452(1)). The CZMA is not about rushing through specific development projects. Instead, it exits to establish a coherent framework to both protect and develop the coast, preserving its essential nature “for this and succeeding generations.”

California has fully complied with the CZMA’s goals by coherent planning of preservation and development activities that have built up a “blue economy” valued at $51 billion of tourism, fishing and aquaculture, shipping and coastal recreation. We Californians cherish our magnificent coast, and the robust economic activity it generates depends upon advancing developments that will enhance rather than damage the coast’s value. As part of the coherent management of our coastal resources, for decades Californians have consistently opposed new oil and gas drilling, because just one oil spill could destroy our vibrant $51 billion coastal economy. Our position on new offshore drilling is in no way inconsistent with the CZMA. Quite to the contrary, it is part and parcel of the coherent regulatory framework that CZMA demands to both preserve and develop the state’s coastal economy in a manner that benefits this and future generations.

Fundamental to the CZMA is the understanding that the country’s interests are best served when the federal government works in collaboration, rather than in direct conflict, with state costal management programs. If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the federal government on effective and responsible project development, to offer meaningful mitigation measures for coastal development projects, or to access federal financial opportunities that support the protection and security of America’s Pacific Coast.

For all the reasons above, we express our strong opposition to decertification of California’s coastal program or withholding of financial assistance. Both California and NOAA should share a strong interest in ensuring federal projects in America’s coastal areas have minimal impacts on the environment and fisheries, promote responsible economic development, and guarantee national security. We must work together to accomplish these objectives. In this spirit, we thank you for your consideration of this letter and ask that if you decide to proceed that you fairly review California’s coastal zone management program based on its full record of regulatory approvals and in accordance with the CZMA’s mandate for consistent implementation of a state’s chosen management program to achieve wise use of its coastal resources.

###",1,2026-08-25T05:31:37Z,2026-08-25T05:33:09Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-cosponsors-bicameral-bill-protecting-domestic-violence-survivors-from-gun-violence/,Padilla Cosponsors Bicameral Bill Protecting Domestic Violence Survivors from Gun Violence,2026-08-20,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) joined U.S. Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and U.S. Representative Jim Himes (D-Conn.-04) in introducing the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act, legislation to close a dangerous loophole that allows domestic abusers to legally obtain weapons. The Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act restricts those under temporary restraining orders from purchasing or possessing a firearm and extends protections to domestic violence survivors who have been abused by their dating partners.

The bill is named in memory of Lori Jackson, a Connecticut mother who was tragically shot and killed by her estranged husband who had legally obtained a handgun even though he was subject to a temporary restraining order, and Nicolette Elias, a Connecticut mother who, despite securing restraining orders and temporary stalking orders against her estranged and abusive ex-husband, was murdered by her former spouse in front of their children with a handgun that he refused to relinquish.

“Denying a domestic abuser access to a gun is one of the most obvious, common-sense steps we can take to protect survivors,” said Senator Padilla. “This bill would address a deadly loophole, reduce dangerous domestic violence incidents, and most importantly, save lives.”

“This legislation closes a gaping loophole—to save lives when current law leaves domestic abuse victims most vulnerable to violent partners with guns,” said Senator Blumenthal. “The link between domestic violence and guns is deadly. The Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act would prevent the purchase and possession of a firearm by someone who is subject to a temporary restraining order—protecting survivors of domestic violence when courts recognize the danger.”

“Keeping guns out of the hands of domestic violence abusers is commonsense,” said Senator Wyden. “It’s past time to help end the cycle of gun violence and provide domestic violence survivors with bare minimum protection against their abusers, and our bill is the way to do it.”

“Lori Jackson and Nicolette Elias should still be alive today. That perpetrators of domestic violence can still access firearms even with a temporary restraining order against them is a dangerous loophole that needs to be closed. We owe it to Lori, Nicolette, and the countless other survivors of domestic violence killed by gun violence to close this loophole once and for all—and that’s precisely what this bill would do,” said Representative Himes.

In addition to Padilla, Blumenthal, and Wyden, the bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) in the Senate.

The legislation is supported by a number of organizations, including Brady, Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund, GIFFORDS, Newtown Action Alliance, Everytown, Jewish Women International, March for Our Lives, National Domestic Violence Hotline, National Network to End Domestic Violence, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence, and CT Coalition Against Domestic Violence.

“Domestic violence is a serious issue that cuts across racial, gender, economic, sexual, generational, and religious divides. In fact, one-third of women and one-quarter of men are victims of physical violence at the hands of an intimate partner at least once in their lifetime. The mere presence of a firearm in the hands of an abuser is a key factor that can transform a dangerous situation into a deadly one. The Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act will protect survivors of intimate partner violence by fully closing the “boyfriend loophole” and restricting individuals under emergency restraining orders from purchasing or possessing firearms. Brady is grateful to Senator Blumenthal for introducing this important bill and for his steadfast dedication to protecting survivors and ending the American gun violence crisis,” said Mark Collins, Director of Federal Policy, Brady.

“No one escaping domestic violence should fear that their abuser can still access a firearm,” said Lauren Levin, chief advocacy officer of the Sandy Hook Promise Action Fund. “We are proud to endorse the Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act, strengthening protections for survivors facing serious threats and helping keep families and communities safe by reducing the risk of future violence.”

“The gaps in federal gun policy regarding domestic abuse are completely unacceptable and deadly. An abusive partner’s access to a firearm makes it five times more likely that a woman will be killed. That’s why I urge Congress to pass Senator Blumenthal’s lifesaving bill, and finally take steps to prevent known abusers from getting their hands on dangerous weapons,” said Emma Brown, Executive Director at GIFFORDS.

“A protective order should protect. Yet loopholes in federal law still allow too many dangerous domestic abusers to keep or acquire firearms even after a court has found that they pose a credible threat,” said Po Murray, Chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance. “The Lori Jackson-Nicolette Elias Domestic Violence Survivor Protection Act closes those deadly loopholes and helps ensure that a judge’s order is backed by meaningful action. Survivors deserve more than a piece of paper—they deserve the freedom to live safely in their own homes without fear of gun violence.”

Full text of the bill can be found here.

###",1,2026-08-21T05:30:57Z,2026-08-21T05:32:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-senate-democrats-sound-alarm-on-trump-administration-attacks-on-unaccompanied-childrens-legal-representation/,"Padilla, Senate Democrats Sound Alarm on Trump Administration Attacks on Unaccompanied Children’s Legal Representation",2026-08-20,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) sounded the alarm on the Trump Administration’s unprecedented attacks on legal services for unaccompanied children, requesting the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Inspector General (IG) conduct a full investigation into the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) process for entering into agreements for legal services and how it plans to ensure children are adequately represented.

In a letter to the HHS Inspector General, the Senators raised concerns about the Trump Administration’s continued attempts to undermine essential legal services for unaccompanied children.

“On July 31, 2026, after a year and a half of repeated attempts to gut legal services for unaccompanied children, the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) allowed contracts for the provision of these services to expire. The agency appeared to have no clear plan to ensure that the over 25,000 children impacted by this expiration would have lawyers in their deportation proceedings,” wrote the Senators. “Instead, ORR has since hastily attempted to award contracts for legal services to political allies of the Trump Administration with few, if any, qualifications to provide such services—all amid a push by the Administration to deport these children. In addition, ORR appears to have provided sensitive personal information about children to new representation without any consultation with current counsel or the children themselves. This has led to a full blown crisis for vulnerable children, who should not have to represent themselves in deportation proceedings. We write to request that you immediately initiate an investigation into whether funds appropriated for legal services to unaccompanied children have been implemented in a manner that meets ORR’s legal obligations.”

“Congress has, on a bipartisan basis, made clear that unaccompanied children should not be forced to represent themselves in immigration court…” continued the Senators. “Despite these statutory protections, ORR has nevertheless taken drastic steps to gut legal representation for children.”

The Senators cited troubling reports of contracts with longstanding legal service providers expiring, current providers remaining in the dark, and new problematic contacts like those to Burke Law Group and Our Rescue.

“ORR’s collective actions seem designed to deprive unaccompanied children of adequate representation in deportation proceedings,” the Senators concluded. “Attempts by the Administration to expedite the deportation of these children by limiting their access to immigration counsel deserves urgent oversight.”

The Senators requested a formal investigation into ORR’s actions by the HHS Inspector General, to ensure compliance with the law.

Last week, Padilla joined his Democratic colleagues in demanding answers from the Trump Administration on its intent to award a no-bid contract to a Trump-aligned law firm with no apparent immigration law experience, allowing them to represent unaccompanied children who are in the care and custody of the ORR. Earlier this month, Padilla cosponsored the Fairness to Freedom Act of 2026, legislation that would guarantee the right to legal representation for all individuals facing deportation or immigration proceedings, even if they are unable to afford it.

Full letter is available here.

###",1,2026-08-21T05:30:57Z,2026-08-21T05:32:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-ruiz-push-back-against-trump-administration-efforts-to-abandon-new-river-and-imperial-county-wastewater-infrastructure-projects/,"Padilla, Schiff, Ruiz Push Back Against Trump Administration Efforts to Abandon New River and Imperial County Wastewater Infrastructure Projects",2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representative Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25) pushed back against a new proposal to deauthorize environmental infrastructure projects for the New River and Imperial County. In a letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle, the lawmakers warned that these rollbacks could have serious consequences for surrounding California communities and the environment.

The lawmakers criticized the Army Corps of Engineers’ new proposal, emphasizing that these projects do not meet the Corps’ criteria for deauthorization and highlighting the significant public health issues that the projects’ funding could address.

“There remains an urgent public purpose for the New River and Imperial County authorizations, given that an estimated 60 million gallons of water flow through the New River into the United States at Calexico each day, and recent border monitoring has documented pollutants and water quality indicators including fecal coliform, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, arsenic, and selenium,” wrote the lawmakers. “The urgency of this problem has also generated significant local non-federal support and consideration of additional federal support for actions to remedy the public health impacts.”

New River and Imperial County have been authorized $20 million in federal funding for wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality and address environmental and public health issues caused by contaminated water flowing through southern Calexico.

“For residents of Calexico, this is a direct environmental threat and public health crisis. Communities live, work, and attend school near the New River and are exposed to the conditions surrounding it every day,” continued the lawmakers. “Air quality surrounding the New River remains a serious public health concern. Hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns can affect the respiratory and nervous systems, has been detected near the New River. Monitoring has, at times, recorded hydrogen sulfide levels above health-based guidance established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), raising additional concerns for communities that live, work, and attend school near the river.”

Maintaining these two funding authorizations would help ensure that both the New River and Imperial County are still eligible for future funding to address continued water and environmental needs.

“These conditions make it clear that the need for action on the New River is still present,” wrote the lawmakers. “Pollution crossing the international border cannot be solved by Calexico or Imperial County alone. The volume of cross-border flow, the contaminants documented in the river, and the impacts experienced by surrounding communities warrant continued federal involvement.”

“We also urge the Corps to consult with the California congressional delegation, Imperial County, the City of Calexico, and other affected stakeholders,” the lawmakers concluded. “The evidence is clear that the environmental concerns that these projects were authorized to address still exist. Millions of gallons continue to cross the border through the New River each day, contaminants continue to be detected, and Imperial Valley communities continue to live with the consequences. This is the time for sustained federal and non-Federal action, not deauthorization.”

The Corps’ proposal to deauthorize these important projects must come before Congress for final approval, which gives the lawmakers an opportunity to fight the proposed deauthorizations.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Assistant Secretary Telle:

We write in opposition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposal to deauthorize the New River and Imperial County environmental infrastructure projects. There remains strong local support and an urgent need to proceed with these projects due to serious public health effects from untreated sewage originating in Mexico that is flowing through the New River channel into Calexico.

As the Corps acknowledges in its notice seeking public comment on the proposed deauthorization list, Congress has directed the agency to identify water resources development projects that are no longer viable for construction due to (1) a lack of local support, (2) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources, or (3) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible. The New River and Imperial County projects do not meet these criteria for deauthorization. There remains an urgent public purpose for the New River and Imperial County authorizations, given that an estimated 60 million gallons of water flow through the New River into the United States at Calexico each day, and recent border monitoring has documented pollutants and water-quality indicators including fecal coliform, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, arsenic, and selenium. The urgency of this problem has also generated significant local non-Federal support and consideration of additional Federal support for actions to remedy the public health impacts.

For residents of Calexico, this is a direct environmental threat and public health crisis. Communities live, work, and attend school near the New River and are exposed to the conditions surrounding it every day. As a result, students at nearby schools have called emergency services from classrooms because of exposure symptoms including headaches, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness. Additionally, Imperial County has experienced some of the highest rates of asthma-related emergency department visits among children in California. Moreover, individuals who have come into contact with the river, including Border Patrol agents, have also reported symptoms such as severe headaches, skin rashes, blurred vision, and flu-like symptoms.

Air quality surrounding the New River remains a serious public health concern. Hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns can affect the respiratory and nervous systems, has been detected near the New River. Monitoring has, at times, recorded hydrogen sulfide levels above health-based guidance established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), raising additional concerns for communities that live, work, and attend school near the river. These conditions are further compounded by Imperial Valley’s extreme summer heat, with temperatures in Calexico frequently exceeding 110 degrees Fahrenheit. High temperatures can intensify the persistent and noxious odors associated with the river, further burdening nearby residents. Children, seniors, outdoor workers, and individuals with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions are particularly vulnerable to the combined effects of extreme heat, persistent odors, and ongoing air quality concerns.

These conditions make it clear that the need for action on the New River is still present. Pollution crossing the international border cannot be solved by Calexico or Imperial County alone. The volume of cross-border flow, the contaminants documented in the river, and the impacts experienced by surrounding communities warrant continued federal involvement.

During an April hearing, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin committed to visiting the New River region, engaging with the binational water-quality study, and applying the federal model used to address the Tijuana River crisis to the New River. This has brought much-needed federal attention to this environmental crisis. However, it is deeply concerning that the Army Corps is considering abandoning these communities as EPA increases its efforts to monitor these cross-border environmental challenges. The proposal to deauthorize the New River and Imperial County projects would withhold vital resources from impacted communities and move federal efforts in opposite directions at a time when cross-government collaboration is essential to addressing this public health crisis.

We therefore oppose the USACE’s inclusion of the New River and Imperial County projects on the proposed deauthorization list. We also urge the Corps to consult with the California congressional delegation, Imperial County, the City of Calexico, and other affected stakeholders. The evidence is clear that the environmental concerns that these projects were authorized to address still exist. Millions of gallons continue to cross the border through the New River each day, contaminants continue to be detected, and Imperial Valley communities continue to live with the consequences. This is the time for sustained Federal and non-Federal action, not deauthorization.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-slam-shasta-county-plans-to-hire-election-denier-urge-california-sos-to-conduct-maximum-oversight-of-access-to-sensitive-election-materials/,"Padilla, Schiff Slam Shasta County Plans to Hire Election-Denier, Urge California SOS to Conduct Maximum Oversight of Access to Sensitive Election Materials",2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"SACRAMENTO, CA — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla, Ranking Member of the Senate Rules Committee with oversight over federal elections, and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.), sent a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber expressing deep concern regarding Shasta County Registrar of Voters’ announcement to hire convicted former Mesa County, Colorado Clerk Tina Peters as a senior advisor and urged her office to conduct maximum oversight of Peters’ access to sensitive election materials. The letter also copied the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.

“Peters, the former County Clerk for Mesa, Colorado, was convicted on seven separate criminal charges, including four felonies, for participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election,” the Senators wrote. “We are concerned that this hiring decision in Shasta County has less to do with Ms. Peters’ qualifications, and more to do with the President’s obsession with interfering in the midterm elections – having suggested a need to ‘take over the voting’ by installing individuals who would put the President’s agenda above following the law, and his fixation on passage of the SAVE Act, which would create significant barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans.”

The Senators highlighted Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis’ comments that he is planning to hire Peters “to assist us with making sure the FBI and DHS can test the ballots for authenticity.”

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security have no role in the administration of elections, and this statement indicates the potential for violations of California and/or federal election laws. Following the FBI’s unjustified raid on Fulton County, Georgia’s election offices and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots last year, and Ms. Peters’ own record, the California Secretary of State’s office must take this situation seriously,” the Senators continued. “If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of California’s recently passed S.B. 73 or any other state or federal election law.”

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Weber,

Thank you for your continued efforts to ensure California’s elections remain safe and secure. California, like many states across the country, reminds us that elections do not occur just once every two or four years. In the last year alone, your office has overseen a statewide special election, the 2026 primary election, a special congressional primary election, and yesterday’s general election in that same race. With over 23 million registered voters across the state, the California Secretary of State’s Office has a critical responsibility for not only ensuring elections are administered to the highest degree of accuracy but also ensuring that our election laws are enforced and retaining public confidence in our electoral system.

Given the current environment facing our elections, we write with grave concern over the statements by the Shasta County Registrar of Voters, Mr. Clint Curtis, that he plans to hire former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters next month, ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, either to replace the current Assistant Registrar of Voters or as a consultant.

Ms. Peters, the former County Clerk for Mesa, Colorado, was convicted on seven separate criminal charges, including four felonies, for participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election. These events cost the rural county of Mesa, Colorado at least $1.4 million in legal fees and other impacts. Despite the harm that Ms. Peters caused to our electoral system, her sentence was commuted after President Trump exerted corrupt political pressure over the state of Colorado, including withholding millions of dollars in federal grants. We are concerned that this hiring decision in Shasta County has less to do with Ms. Peters’ qualifications, and more to do with the President’s obsession with interfering in the midterm elections – having suggested a need to “take over the voting” by installing individuals who would put the President’s agenda above following the law, and his fixation on passage of the SAVE Act, which would create significant barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans.

Sincer her release, Ms. Peters’ apology has completely failed to demonstrate she has any real remorse for the damage she has caused voters in Colorado and it is clear that she does not belong in a role overseeing any part of our electoral system. In fact, Mr. Curtis has stated that Ms. Peters is being hired to “assist us with making sure the FBI and DHS can test the ballots.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security have no role in the administration of elections, and this statement indicates the potential for violations of California and/or federal election laws. Following the FBI’s unjustified raid on Fulton County, Georgia’s election offices and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots last year, and Ms. Peters’ own record, the California Secretary of State’s office must take this situation seriously.

We strongly encourage your office to reach out to Mr. Curtis and the Shasta County Board to share concerns about the plan to place Ms. Peters in any position of authority over elections in California. If Shasta County puts Ms. Peters in a position to again violate election laws following her convictions, county taxpayers could be burdened with unwelcomed and potentially hefty expenses. If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of California’s recently passed S.B. 73 or any other state or federal election law.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

Sincerely,

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-sen-schiff-says-trump-owns-status-quo-while-democrats-are-focused-on-affordability-at-politico-california-summit/,ICYMI: Sen. Schiff Says Trump Owns “Status Quo” While Democrats Are Focused on Affordability at POLITICO California Summit,2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Sacramento, CA – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) spoke at the POLITICO California Summit on his priorities for tackling the affordability crisis, including by addressing the housing shortage. Schiff also emphasized that Democrats should continue pushing a legislative agenda that focuses on making our economy work for all Americans.

Schiff, in conversation with POLITICO’s Dasha Burns, highlighted how Trump and Republicans represent the failed status quo as Americans are facing higher prices on their watch as a result.

View the full interview here.

Key Excerpts:

On Republicans and President Trump owning the status quo:

[…] Donald Trump, Mike Johnson represent an ugly status quo. A status quo in which people can’t afford the price of gasoline, they can’t afford the price of housing, they can’t afford childcare. We’re involved in yet another foreign war that the president doesn’t know what to do about. They are the status quo.

And much as they try to change the topic and make a handful of Democrats the subject, I don’t think it’s going to work because people are asking themselves, “Is my life better? Did the president and Republicans keep their word?” And the answer is no. The president promised he would keep us out of foreign wars. He promised he would address rising prices. And what has he done? In addition to getting us involved in this terrible war, he has told the country that the cost-of-living affordability is a hoax.

On building an economy that works for everyone as AI transforms the economy:

[…] What most Americans really have on their minds, and that is, they’re working their ass off, and they’re still struggling to get by. They feel very little security in their retirement. They are afraid of getting sick because their health insurance isn’t going to cut it. They are terrified.

[…] We are in the midst of another transformation. I think it is the fault of policymakers that we have not adapted to a workplace that is so different than the workplace my parents worked in. Where so many people stayed with the same company their whole career and had health care and retirement through their work. And we’re going to have to, with the advent of AI, think even more broadly now about how do we ensure that people have gained full employment and dignified employment and secure retirement. What does that look like in the era of AI and globalization and automation? So, this is, I think, going to be the cardinal challenge for both parties. And I’d like to see the Democratic Party leading the way.

On taxing the ultra-wealthy and making the tax code fairer for working Americans:

[…] There should be a wealth tax at the federal level. There should be a much more progressive tax code than the one we have. And one thing that has become so abundantly clear is this concentration of wealth we see now is operating to perpetuate itself. And you have individuals now that have such a massive say in our electoral process that they can pour hundreds of millions of dollars into a single campaign if they choose to. We have a broken campaign finance system that allows them to do that.

And I think if we don’t bring determination to solving that problem, also, this income inequality, wealth inequality gap is just going to get worse. And it is, I also think, deeply destabilizing. The combination of the disruption of the workforce through AI, the vast concentration, and the arrogant use of wealth by some who have amassed it, is going to be hugely disruptive for society. It’s bad economics. I think it’s immoral, and I’m working on federal solutions to try to address that.

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-schiff-padilla-and-ruiz-push-back-against-trump-administration-efforts-to-abandon-new-river-and-imperial-county-wastewater-infrastructure-projects/,"NEWS: Schiff, Padilla, and Ruiz Push Back Against Trump Administration Efforts to Abandon New River and Imperial County Wastewater Infrastructure Projects",2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), along with U.S. Representative Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.-25) pushed back against a new proposal to deauthorize environmental infrastructure projects for the New River and Imperial County. In a letter to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle, the lawmakers warned that these rollbacks could have serious consequences for surrounding California communities and the environment.

The lawmakers criticized the Army Corps of Engineers’ new proposal, emphasizing that these projects do not meet the Corps’ criteria for deauthorization and highlighting the significant public health issues that the projects’ funding could address.

“There remains an urgent public purpose for the New River and Imperial County authorizations, given that an estimated 60 million gallons of water flow through the New River into the United States at Calexico each day, and recent border monitoring has documented pollutants and water quality indicators including fecal coliform, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, arsenic, and selenium,” wrote the lawmakers. “The urgency of this problem has also generated significant local non-federal support and consideration of additional federal support for actions to remedy the public health impacts.”

New River and Imperial County have been authorized $20 million in federal funding for wastewater infrastructure to improve water quality and address environmental and public health issues caused by contaminated water flowing through southern Calexico.

“For residents of Calexico, this is a direct environmental threat and public health crisis. Communities live, work, and attend school near the New River and are exposed to the conditions surrounding it every day,” continued the lawmakers. “Air quality surrounding the New River remains a serious public health concern. Hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns can affect the respiratory and nervous systems, has been detected near the New River. Monitoring has, at times, recorded hydrogen sulfide levels above health-based guidance established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), raising additional concerns for communities that live, work, and attend school near the river.”

Maintaining these two funding authorizations would help ensure that both the New River and Imperial County are still eligible for future funding to address continued water and environmental needs.

“These conditions make it clear that the need for action on the New River is still present,”wrote the lawmakers. “Pollution crossing the international border cannot be solved by Calexico or Imperial County alone. The volume of cross-border flow, the contaminants documented in the river, and the impacts experienced by surrounding communities warrant continued federal involvement.”

“We also urge the Corps to consult with the California congressional delegation, Imperial County, the City of Calexico, and other affected stakeholders,” the lawmakers concluded. “The evidence is clear that the environmental concerns that these projects were authorized to address still exist. Millions of gallons continue to cross the border through the New River each day, contaminants continue to be detected, and Imperial Valley communities continue to live with the consequences. This is the time for sustained federal and non-Federal action, not deauthorization.”

The Corps’ proposal to deauthorize these important projects must come before Congress for final approval, which gives the lawmakers an opportunity to fight the proposed deauthorizations.

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

Dear Assistant Secretary Telle:

We write in opposition to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers’ proposal to deauthorize the New River and Imperial County environmental infrastructure projects. There remains strong local support and an urgent need to proceed with these projects due to serious public health effects from untreated sewage originating in Mexico that is flowing through the New River channel into Calexico.

As the Corps acknowledges in its notice seeking public comment on the proposed deauthorization list, Congress has directed the agency to identify water resources development projects that are no longer viable for construction due to (1) a lack of local support, (2) a lack of available Federal or non-Federal resources, or (3) an authorizing purpose that is no longer relevant or feasible. The New River and Imperial County projects do not meet these criteria for deauthorization. There remains an urgent public purpose for the New River and Imperial County authorizations, given that an estimated 60 million gallons of water flow through the New River into the United States at Calexico each day, and recent border monitoring has documented pollutants and water-quality indicators including fecal coliform, ammonia, biochemical oxygen demand, arsenic, and selenium. The urgency of this problem has also generated significant local non-Federal support and consideration of additional Federal support for actions to remedy the public health impacts.

For residents of Calexico, this is a direct environmental threat and public health crisis. Communities live, work, and attend school near the New River and are exposed to the conditions surrounding it every day. As a result, students at nearby schools have called emergency services from classrooms because of exposure symptoms including headaches, shortness of breath, and lightheadedness. Additionally, Imperial County has experienced some of the highest rates of asthma-related emergency department visits among children in California. Moreover, individuals who have come into contact with the river, including Border Patrol agents, have also reported symptoms such as severe headaches, skin rashes, blurred vision, and flu-like symptoms.

Air quality surrounding the New River remains a serious public health concern. Hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) warns can affect the respiratory and nervous systems, has been detected near the New River. Monitoring has, at times, recorded hydrogen sulfide levels above health-based guidance established by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR), raising additional concerns for communities that live, work, and attend school near the river. These conditions are further compounded by Imperial Valley’s extreme summer heat, with temperatures in Calexico frequently exceeding 110 degrees Fahrenheit. High temperatures can intensify the persistent and noxious odors associated with the river, further burdening nearby residents. Children, seniors, outdoor workers, and individuals with respiratory or cardiovascular conditions are particularly vulnerable to the combined effects of extreme heat, persistent odors, and ongoing air quality concerns.

These conditions make it clear that the need for action on the New River is still present. Pollution crossing the international border cannot be solved by Calexico or Imperial County alone. The volume of cross-border flow, the contaminants documented in the river, and the impacts experienced by surrounding communities warrant continued federal involvement.

During an April hearing, EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin committed to visiting the New River region, engaging with the binational water-quality study, and applying the federal model used to address the Tijuana River crisis to the New River. This has brought much-needed federal attention to this environmental crisis. However, it is deeply concerning that the Army Corps is considering abandoning these communities as EPA increases its efforts to monitor these cross-border environmental challenges. The proposal to deauthorize the New River and Imperial County projects would withhold vital resources from impacted communities and move federal efforts in opposite directions at a time when cross-government collaboration is essential to addressing this public health crisis.

We therefore oppose the USACE’s inclusion of the New River and Imperial County projects on the proposed deauthorization list. We also urge the Corps to consult with the California congressional delegation, Imperial County, the City of Calexico, and other affected stakeholders. The evidence is clear that the environmental concerns that these projects were authorized to address still exist. Millions of gallons continue to cross the border through the New River each day, contaminants continue to be detected, and Imperial Valley communities continue to live with the consequences. This is the time for sustained Federal and non-Federal action, not deauthorization.

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-padilla-slam-shasta-county-plans-to-hire-election-denier-urge-california-sos-to-conduct-maximum-oversight-of-access-to-sensitive-election-materials/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla Slam Shasta County Plans to Hire Election-Denier, Urge California SOS to Conduct Maximum Oversight of Access to Sensitive Election Materials",2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), sent a letter to California Secretary of State Shirley Weber expressing deep concern regarding Shasta County Registrar of Voters’ announcement to hire convicted former Mesa County, Colorado Clerk Tina Peters as a senior advisor and urged her office to conduct maximum oversight of Peters’ access to sensitive election materials. The letter also copied the Shasta County Board of Supervisors.

“Peters, the former County Clerk for Mesa, Colorado, was convicted on seven separate criminal charges, including four felonies, for participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election,” the Senators wrote. “We are concerned that this hiring decision in Shasta County has less to do with Ms. Peters’ qualifications, and more to do with the President’s obsession with interfering in the midterm elections – having suggested a need to ‘take over the voting’ by installing individuals who would put the President’s agenda above following the law, and his fixation on passage of the SAVE Act, which would create significant barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans.”

The Senators highlighted Shasta County Registrar of Voters Clint Curtis’ comments that he is planning to hire Peters “to assist us with making sure the FBI and DHS can test the ballots for authenticity.”

“The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security have no role in the administration of elections, and this statement indicates the potential for violations of California and/or federal election laws. Following the FBI’s unjustified raid on Fulton County, Georgia’s election offices and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots last year, and Ms. Peters’ own record, the California Secretary of State’s office must take this situation seriously,” the Senators continued. “If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of California’s recently passed S.B. 73 or any other state or federal election law.”

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

Dear Secretary Weber,

Thank you for your continued efforts to ensure California’s elections remain safe and secure. California, like many states across the country, reminds us that elections do not occur just once every two or four years. In the last year alone, your office has overseen a statewide special election, the 2026 primary election, a special congressional primary election, and yesterday’s general election in that same race. With over 23 million registered voters across the state, the California Secretary of State’s Office has a critical responsibility for not only ensuring elections are administered to the highest degree of accuracy but also ensuring that our election laws are enforced and retaining public confidence in our electoral system.

Given the current environment facing our elections, we write with grave concern over the statements by the Shasta County Registrar of Voters, Mr. Clint Curtis, that he plans to hire former Colorado elections clerk Tina Peters next month, ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, either to replace the current Assistant Registrar of Voters or as a consultant.

Ms. Peters, the former County Clerk for Mesa, Colorado, was convicted on seven separate criminal charges, including four felonies, for participating in a scheme to chase election conspiracy theories related to the 2020 election. These events cost the rural county of Mesa, Colorado at least $1.4 million in legal fees and other impacts. Despite the harm that Ms. Peters caused to our electoral system, her sentence was commuted after President Trump exerted corrupt political pressure over the state of Colorado, including withholding millions of dollars in federal grants. We are concerned that this hiring decision in Shasta County has less to do with Ms. Peters’ qualifications, and more to do with the President’s obsession with interfering in the midterm elections – having suggested a need to “take over the voting” by installing individuals who would put the President’s agenda above following the law, and his fixation on passage of the SAVE Act, which would create significant barriers to the ballot for millions of Americans.

Sincer her release, Ms. Peters’ apology has completely failed to demonstrate she has any real remorse for the damage she has caused voters in Colorado and it is clear that she does not belong in a role overseeing any part of our electoral system. In fact, Mr. Curtis has stated that Ms. Peters is being hired to “assist us with making sure the FBI and DHS can test the ballots.” The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of Homeland Security have no role in the administration of elections, and this statement indicates the potential for violations of California and/or federal election laws. Following the FBI’s unjustified raid on Fulton County, Georgia’s election offices and Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco’s illegal seizure of ballots last year, and Ms. Peters’ own record, the California Secretary of State’s office must take this situation seriously.

We strongly encourage your office to reach out to Mr. Curtis and the Shasta County Board to share concerns about the plan to place Ms. Peters in any position of authority over elections in California. If Shasta County puts Ms. Peters in a position to again violate election laws following her convictions, county taxpayers could be burdened with unwelcomed and potentially hefty expenses. If county officials proceed with this misguided plan, we request that you provide the maximum oversight possible to ensure that Ms. Peters does not improperly access ballots, voting systems, or sensitive information that could impact the rights and privacy of the over 100,000 registered voters in Shasta County in violation of California’s recently passed S.B. 73 or any other state or federal election law.

Thank you for your consideration of this important matter.

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-brownley-sherman-urge-fema-to-provide-answers-on-delay-to-release-millions-in-federal-funding-for-wildfire-emergency-preparedness-project-in-los-angeles-county/,"Padilla, Schiff, Brownley, Sherman Urge FEMA to Provide Answers on Delay to Release Millions in Federal Funding for Wildfire Emergency Preparedness Project in Los Angeles County",2026-08-19,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and U.S. Representatives Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.-32) urged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to quickly release more than $4 million in federal funding for the Encinal Canyon Road Emergency Interconnection Project. This project is essential for protecting the flow of fire hydrants and building connections during firefighting operations in the western Malibu community. Malibu was among the cities impacted by the Palisades fire in January 2025.

The Los Angeles County was selected for $4,893,885 in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) award in December 2024 to support construction. However, the project has been significantly delayed due to FEMA’s prolonged processing of the award. The project would provide an urgently needed alternative water source during emergencies, system disruptions, or supply shortages. Any failure to complete this project could jeopardize potable water and fire protection for up to 23,000 residents.

“The issuance of this grant is essential to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure the community remains resilient in the face of increasing risk of natural disasters” the lawmakers wrote.

Padilla has worked tirelessly to deliver federal support in the wake of the LA fires. Yesterday, Padilla convened a roundtable with California leaders to sound the alarm about the Trump Administration’s withholding of federal disaster funding. Earlier this month, the Senate unanimously passed the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act, which included a version of Padilla’s Protect Innocent Victims of Taxation After Fire Extension Act to extend tax relief for wildfire victims. In July, Padilla blasted the Trump Administration for Trump’s supplemental funding request that did not include disaster aid funding for communities to rebuild and recover following natural disasters across the country.

Full letter is available here and below:

Dear Administrator Hamilton,

We are writing to request your assistance regarding a critical infrastructure project for Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29, the Encinal Canyon Road Emergency Interconnection Project. This project is essential to protecting the reliability of drinking water and needed fire flow for fire hydrants and building connections during firefighting operations in the western Malibu community and was selected for a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) award in December 2024. However, the project has been significantly delayed due to FEMA’s prolonged processing of the award.

The Encinal Interconnection will construct approximately 7,000 feet of new water main and appurtenances to connect District 29 with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. This new interconnection will provide an urgently needed alternative water source during emergencies, system disruptions, or supply shortages. The Malibu area currently relies on a single 35‑mile transmission main that traverses steep, landslide‑prone coastal terrain. Any failure along this alignment would jeopardize potable water and fire protection for up to 23,000 residents, and this interconnection will provide vital resiliency for the community.

The County completed the design and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the project on November 18, 2025. The total project cost is approximately $9 million, and the County had applied for $4,893,885 in HMGP funding to support construction.

The project application (AP1140) was submitted under HMGP DR‑4683 in August 2023 and was selected for award in December 2024. However, more than a year and a half later, FEMA has not issued a Notice of Award. FEMA has cited an ongoing environmental review, despite the project being limited to buried pipeline installation within an existing roadway, and no notable impacts anticipated. The project has already completed environmental reviews consistent with local and state laws.

We have been informed that the County cannot advertise the construction contract until FEMA issues the grant award, or they risk forfeiting the funding. As a result, the project remains on hold, and the delay poses a threat to public safety and emergency preparedness.

Considering the critical importance of this project, we respectfully request answers to the following questions:

What is the status of FEMA’s review for AP1140?

What is the specific reason for the extended environmental review?

What is the estimated timeline for issuance of the Notice of Award?

The issuance of this grant is essential to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure the community remains resilient in the face of increasing risk of natural disasters. We appreciate your expeditious attention to this critical matter.

###",1,2026-08-21T05:30:57Z,2026-08-21T05:32:22Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-california-leaders-sound-alarm-as-trump-administration-cuts-billions-in-federal-funding/,"Padilla, California Leaders Sound Alarm as Trump Administration Cuts Billions in Federal Funding",2026-08-18,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"SACRAMENTO, CA — As the Trump Administration moves to slash federal funding and rewrite longstanding grant programs, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) convened California leaders to sound the alarm about the consequences for communities across the state. The roundtable included a discussion among leaders from California universities, nonprofits, childcare, food banks, immigrant-serving organizations, and philanthropy.

In California alone, the Trump Administration has cancelled $7.6 billion in clean energy funding, withdrawn nearly $2 billion in research funding, and continues to withhold overdue disaster relief funding for communities impacted by wildfires. New changes to federal grantmaking and regulations could put even more funding — and the essential services that depend on it — at risk.

“The Trump Administration is ripping away billions of dollars that California communities rely on to keep people safe, housed, fed and healthy,” said Senator Padilla. “These are not abstract budget numbers. It means childcare providers struggling to stay open, food banks facing greater demand, researchers losing support, and disaster survivors waiting for the resources they need to rebuild. I’m grateful to the leaders on the front lines who are fighting back, and I will continue doing my part in Congress to protect the critical programs that Californians depend on.”

Padilla’s roundtable featured a discussion about how interruptions or restrictions in federal funding could impact basic needs, public education, housing, healthcare, childcare, and immigrant and marginalized communities. The roundtable also highlighted the need for continued coordination and preparedness as organizations navigate an increasingly uncertain federal funding environment. Padilla and California leaders emphasized the importance of collaboration among philanthropy, nonprofits, public institutions, and government to keep essential services running and protect vulnerable communities.

In addition to Padilla, the roundtable featured remarks from the Chancellor of UC Davis Gary S. May, CEO of CalNonprofits Geoff Green, CEO of California Alliance of Child and Family Services Pete Weldy, President of Child Care Resource Center Donna Sneeringer, Executive Director of CalCAPA David Knight, Executive Director of California Immigrant Policy Center Masih Fouladi, Executive Director of Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA) Angelica Salas, CEO of League of California Community Foundations Laura Seaman, and Director of Public Policy and Advocacy of California Food Banks Jared Call.

“The University of California urges Congress to provide a legislative fix that would prevent OMB’s detrimental changes to the Uniform Guidance from going into effect,” said UC Davis Chancellor Gary S. May. “This fix would protect the merit-based research process that has allowed UC and the nation to lead the world in innovation.”

“California’s nonprofit sector is central to our state’s social, economic, and environmental well-being,” said Geoff Green, CEO of CalNonprofits. “At $450 billion in annual revenue, 110,000 organizations strong, and the third largest private employer, California’s nonprofits serve every community across the state. Working arm in arm with our public and private sector partners, we stand as a bulwark against federal attacks on our state’s people and values, and call on our elected representatives at all levels to defend the golden state’s 40 million residents.”

“The vulnerable families served by California’s community-based nonprofits are hanging on by a thread — and that thread is Medi-Cal. Cut a parent off from care, and kids get hurt too,” said Pete Weldy, CEO of California Alliance of Child and Family Services.“CA Alliance members thank Senator Padilla for fighting to protect the coverage our families – and our future – depend on.”

“Stable and reliable child care is critical to the well-being of our young children, their families and employers,” said Donna Sneeringer, President of Child Care Resource Center. “Repeated disruptions or threats to the funding that provides these services creates repeated stress and fear in our communities.”

“CalCAPA represents California’s Community Action Network, operating federally funded opportunities, including the Community Services Block Grant (CSBG), to help American families build toward economic mobility,” said David Knight, Executive Director of CalCAPA. “When final budgets get held up, OMB creates funding holds, leading to stalled programs, staff lay offs, and families paying for Washington’s delays.”

“Every dollar the federal government spends is a choice — and right now, it’s choosing detention and intimidation over health care, food, due process, and the nonprofits standing with immigrant communities,” said Masih Fouladi, Executive Director of the California Immigrant Policy Center. “We are grateful to Senator Padilla for his consistent leadership in defending immigrant families and his efforts to advance the right to legal representation for people facing deportation. Together, we must protect California’s safety net, sustain immigration legal services, defend the lawful work of community organizations, and ensure public dollars support families and due process, not detention and family separation.”

“CHIRLA is grateful for Senator Padilla’s leadership to ensure that all Californians have access to federal funding for basic needs and to address ongoing crises, including fires, and immigration enforcement. We know that budgets reflect our collective values. It’s unacceptable that billions of dollars are invested in agencies meant to harm the most vulnerable. That’s why we must fight to represent the most vulnerable while ensuring that due process is preserved for the countless families facing multiple crises at home, including food insecurity, natural disasters, arrests and detention, and family separation. We’re proud to be fighting alongside a true champion for California residents and values,” stated Angelica Salas, Executive Director, Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (CHIRLA).

“Californians prove every day what’s possible when local generosity rises to meet a crisis, but the altruism of neighbors was never meant to replace federal investment in resilience, and it can’t,” said Laura Seaman, CEO of League of California Community Foundations. “As Washington considers even deeper cuts to the programs and infrastructure that keep Californians safe from all kinds of disasters and crises, we thank Senator Padilla and his colleagues for recognizing that while local communities can prepare for and respond to a crisis, only sustained federal investment can prevent the next one. Philanthropy and nonprofits are ready to partner with Senator Padilla and his colleagues in that work.”

“California Food Banks™ thanks Senator Padilla for his strong leadership on anti-hunger issues and standing with Californians who are trying to make ends meet,” said Stacia Levenfeld, CEO of California Food Banks. “We urge Senator Padilla and all members of the California delegation to stand firm in their commitment to aid farmers, and also support families who need help putting food on the table.”

Last week, Padilla joined his Senate colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop delaying Federal Transit Administration funding for public transportation projects. In July, Padilla blasted the Trump Administration for Trump’s supplemental funding request that did not include disaster aid funding for communities to rebuild and recover following natural disasters across the country.

###",1,2026-08-19T05:29:02Z,2026-08-19T05:30:24Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-in-new-sacramento-bee-op-ed-sen-schiff-calls-for-new-guardrails-on-fraudulent-ai-use-ad-transparency-in-political-campaigning/,"ICYMI: In New Sacramento Bee Op-Ed, Sen. Schiff Calls for New Guardrails on Fraudulent AI Use, Ad Transparency in Political Campaigning",2026-08-18,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) penned an op-ed in The Sacramento Bee on how California’s recent primary elections should serve as a warning sign on the proliferation of AI-generated political campaign advertising, as well as political ads posted by paid influencers.

In the piece, Senator Schiff asserts that current guardrails around campaign advertisements are not keeping up with the changing landscape of technology-empowered political speech, and he lays out his remedy to the problem. Schiff recently introduced two bills, the AI Ads Act to tamp down on fraudulent AI-generated campaign ads, and the PAID Act to require influencers to publicly disclose when they’re paid to post by a candidate or political committee.

“We count on voters to make sense of political speech, to evaluate it and to make their decisions at the ballot box. But what happens when the line between fact and fiction is so obscured by modern technology that Americans are not able to believe their own eyes or ears? When voters cannot determine who put out such statements, who is paying for them and who is soliciting their contributions? Current legislation around campaign advertisements is not keeping up with the changing landscape of technology-empowered political speech,” wrote the Senator.

Read the full op-ed here and below:

The Sacramento Bee: Sen. Adam Schiff explains bills aimed at combating deepfakes, paid ads

By: U.S. Senator Adam Schiff

This election season, California has seen an onslaught of campaign advertising made possible by artificial intelligence and a growing influencer economy. Some of it is clever, creative and ingenious. But some of it is just plain fraudulent.

Political ads have cropped up showing completely AI-generated scenes. Viral online videos can now utilize a candidates’ name, image, voice and likeness to parody their positions, or to blatantly misrepresent the content as coming from their opponents. Online influencers have found a growing niche in the ability to reach the voters who trust them, but that trust has not always been matched by disclosure or transparency.

We count on voters to make sense of political speech, to evaluate it and to make their decisions at the ballot box. But what happens when the line between fact and fiction is so obscured by modern technology that Americans are not able to believe their own eyes or ears? When voters cannot determine who put out such statements, who is paying for them and who is soliciting their contributions?

Current legislation around campaign advertisements is not keeping up with the changing landscape of technology-empowered political speech. This is why I recently introduced two pieces of legislation designed to address the issue in federal campaigns.

Fraudulent misrepresentation

The AI Ads Act would expand on existing law that prohibits fraudulent misrepresentation of political candidates or committees to content generated by AI, regardless of the extent of the damage.

This would attack the worst kind of abuses, such as when an individual or organization solicits funds by fraudulently representing themselves as someone else, or when they use another person’s image, likeness and voice to defraud you into believing the advertisement or statement was put out by someone else. The bill would also codify bipartisan recommendations of the Federal Election Commission. Proving fraud is a high bar, and it should be.

In California’s gubernatorial race and Los Angeles’ mayoral primary campaign, we saw AI-generated videos posted by candidates Steve Hilton and Spencer Pratt. These videos would not be banned under my legislation, because they don’t purport to have been put out by their opponents’ campaigns or to reflect actual footage of them. Parody has been a staple of campaign advertising since America had its first political campaigns, and nothing in my bill changes that.

Our First Amendment protects a broad swath of political speech even when we don’t like it — especially when we don’t like it. But a line is crossed when campaigns engage in outright fraud.

Some ads we are seeing this campaign season come very close to the line or cross it. In Georgia’s Senate race, Congressman Mike Collins — who will face off against Senator Jon Ossoff in November — created a deepfake video deceptively showing Ossoff’s image, likeness and voice making a series of claims and statements he never made.

Ads like these are the tip of the spear on the low-cost, easy-to-make AI-generated ads that appear intended to deliberately deceive their audience. Sadly, we’re going to see a lot more of them. And when someone uses generative AI to create a fraudulent political ad or solicitation, we need to make sure they can be held accountable in civil proceedings for violations of federal election law.

Political ad transparency

We must also take steps to improve transparency around political ads posted by paid influencers, who are trusted sources of information for voters online. Although Americans are increasingly getting their news from internet creators, there is no requirement that these online personalities disclose when they are being paid for their political posts.

We saw a proliferation of paid influencer content in the California governor’s race, and with the 2028 presidential election on the horizon, much more is on the way.

The PAID Act, which I introduced with Rep. Mark Takano, D-Riverside, requires clear and prominent disclaimers on posts by online influencers that have been paid for by political committees or candidates. Voters should know when influencers are being paid by a campaign to promote that campaign’s message, just as we require of any other form of political advertising in federal campaigns.

It is already difficult to tell what is real and what is not in modern campaign advertising without the compounding challenges posed by AI and the evolution of the influencer economy. These innovations are the wave of the future. That can be a good thing — provided there is also transparency, disclosure and accountability.

U.S. Senator Adam Schiff, D-CA, serves on the Agriculture, Judiciary, Small Business and Environment and Public Works Committees and is a member of the Senate National Security Working Group.

###",1,2026-08-19T05:29:02Z,2026-08-19T05:30:24Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/icymi-sen-schiff-tours-rice-paddy-farm-in-yuba-city-highlights-2026-farm-bill-priorities/,"ICYMI: Sen. Schiff Tours Rice Paddy Farm in Yuba City, Highlights 2026 Farm Bill Priorities",2026-08-18,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Sutter County, CA – U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, visited and toured the rice crops of Montna Farms in California’s Sacramento Valley. California is the second largest rice-producing state.

Schiff, the first California Senator to serve on the Senate Agriculture Committee in over 30 years, discussed with farmers his priorities for the 2026 Farm Bill, including his support for California specialty crop farmers and expanding access to CalFresh and other nutrition programs.

View the photos from the visit below:

###",1,2026-08-19T05:29:02Z,2026-08-19T05:30:24Z
https://www.schiff.senate.gov/news/press-releases/news-sens-schiff-padilla-reps-brownley-sherman-urge-fema-to-provide-answers-on-delay-to-release-millions-in-federal-funding-for-wildfire-emergency-preparedness-project-in-los-angeles-county/,"NEWS: Sens. Schiff, Padilla, Reps. Brownley, Sherman Urge FEMA to Provide Answers on Delay to Release Millions in Federal Funding for Wildfire Emergency Preparedness Project in Los Angeles County",2026-08-18,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Adam B. Schiff,S001150,www.schiff.senate.gov,schiff,https://www.schiff.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (both D-Calif.), and U.S. Representatives Julia Brownley (D-Calif.-26) and Brad Sherman (D-Calif.-32) urged the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to quickly release more than $4 million in federal funding for the Encinal Canyon Road Emergency Interconnection Project. This project is essential for protecting the flow of fire hydrants and building connections during firefighting operations in the western Malibu community. Malibu was among the cities impacted by the Palisades fire in January 2025.

The Los Angeles County was selected for $4,893,885 in FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) award in December 2024 to support construction. However, the project has been significantly delayed due to FEMA’s prolonged processing of the award. The project would provide an urgently needed alternative water source during emergencies, system disruptions, or supply shortages. Any failure to complete this project could jeopardize potable water and fire protection for up to 23,000 residents.

“The issuance of this grant is essential to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure the community remains resilient in the face of increasing risk of natural disasters” the lawmakers wrote.

Background: Schiff has led multiple efforts to support communities impacted by natural disasters and to protect them from future disasters.

He’s continued calling out the refusal of the Trump administration to provide overdue disaster relief funding for California, more than a year and half past due for communities impacted by Eaton and Palisades fires.

The first bill Schiff introduced in the Senate was legislation promoting community resilience to natural disasters through the creation of a new federal tax credit to incentivize home hardening. He’s also authored legislation to stabilize prices for homeowners’ insurance, to grant mortgage relief for disaster survivors, has joined bipartisan legislation to exempt from federal taxes the rebates homeowners receive when protecting their home against natural disasters.

Schiff has urged the U.S. Department of Agriculture to increase the firefighting capacity at the United States Forest Service as staffing shortages persist and as California faces extreme heat warnings and wildfire season.

Last week, the Senate voted unanimously to send his bipartisan, bicameral the Doug LaMalfa Federal Disaster Tax Relief Certainty Act, to the President’s desk. The bill provides meaningful and long-overdue tax relief for victims of natural disasters and ensures survivors have immediate access to tax relief for years to come.

The full text of the letter can be viewedhereand below:

Dear Administrator Hamilton,

We are writing to request your assistance regarding a critical infrastructure project for Los Angeles County Waterworks District 29, the Encinal Canyon Road Emergency Interconnection Project. This project is essential to protecting the reliability of drinking water and needed fire flow for fire hydrants and building connections during firefighting operations in the western Malibu community and was selected for a Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) award in December 2024. However, the project has been significantly delayed due to FEMA’s prolonged processing of the award.

The Encinal Interconnection will construct approximately 7,000 feet of new water main and appurtenances to connect District 29 with the Las Virgenes Municipal Water District. This new interconnection will provide an urgently needed alternative water source during emergencies, system disruptions, or supply shortages. The Malibu area currently relies on a single 35‑mile transmission main that traverses steep, landslide‑prone coastal terrain. Any failure along this alignment would jeopardize potable water and fire protection for up to 23,000 residents, and this interconnection will provide vital resiliency for the community.

The County completed the design and Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors approved the project on November 18, 2025. The total project cost is approximately $9 million, and the County had applied for $4,893,885 in HMGP funding to support construction.

The project application (AP1140) was submitted under HMGP DR‑4683 in August 2023 and was selected for award in December 2024. However, more than a year and a half later, FEMA has not issued a Notice of Award. FEMA has cited an ongoing environmental review, despite the project being limited to buried pipeline installation within an existing roadway, and no notable impacts anticipated. The project has already completed environmental reviews consistent with local and state laws.

We have been informed that the County cannot advertise the construction contract until FEMA issues the grant award, or they risk forfeiting the funding. As a result, the project remains on hold, and the delay poses a threat to public safety and emergency preparedness.

Considering the critical importance of this project, we respectfully request answers to the following questions:

What is the status of FEMA’s review for AP1140?

What is the specific reason for the extended environmental review?

What is the estimated timeline for issuance of the Notice of Award?

The issuance of this grant is essential to strengthen critical infrastructure and ensure the community remains resilient in the face of increasing risk of natural disasters. We appreciate your expeditious attention to this critical matter.

###",1,2026-08-19T05:29:02Z,2026-08-19T05:30:24Z
https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/padilla-schiff-announce-over-150-million-to-upgrade-amtraks-pacific-surfliner-route/,"Padilla, Schiff Announce Over $150 Million to Upgrade Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner Route",2026-08-18,2026,2026-08,Democrat,Senate,CA,Alex Padilla,P000145,www.padilla.senate.gov,padilla,https://www.padilla.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/,scraper,"WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff (both D-Calif.) announced that Amtrak’s Pacific Surfliner route will receive over $150 million in federal grant funding from the Federal Railroad Administrations (FRA) Federal-State Partnership for Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) program. The Department of Transportation (DOT) grant is designed to improve railroad performance, expand passenger rail service, and provide more reliable connectivity and safety.

“I’m proud to announce more than $150 million in federal funding for Amtrak — an investment in the reliable, affordable rail service Californians count on,” said Senator Padilla. “Reliable rail service means good jobs, less gridlock, and better transportation options for Californians.”

“I am proud to help deliver over $150 million in new safety and modernization upgrades across our Amtrak Pacific Surfliner route to improve pedestrian access,” said Senator Schiff. “From extending pedestrian underpasses to increasing reliability, this essential investment will improve safety, efficiency, and reduce travel times for Californians – making travel seamless and keeping pedestrians safe.”

New grants announced are:

San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG)’s will receive $124,429,778 to support a new double track segment, bridge replacement, realigning pedestrian access to a bike path, extending a pedestrian underpass, and rail crossing safety upgrades in the City of Oceanside, Marine Corps Base Camp Pendleton, and other cities along infrastructure owned by North County Transit District. This project is part of a larger effort to double-track the entire San Diego subdivision of the LOSSAN Corridor.

City of Encinitas will receive $33,600,000 to help install new vehicle and pedestrian gates at three existing crossings, close one pedestrian crossing, construct two new pedestrian and bicycle at-grade crossings, and construct a new pedestrian and bicycle undercrossing.

Last week, Padilla and Schiff joined their colleagues in demanding the Trump Administration stop delaying the advancement of public transportation projects funded by the Capital Investment Grants (CIG) program. Last month, Padilla and Schiff announced over $53 million from the DOT to repair highways and roads across California.

###",1,2026-08-20T05:28:41Z,2026-08-20T05:29:58Z