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.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-schatz-colleagues-press-for-media-access-to-gaza,"Van Hollen, Schatz, Colleagues Press for Media Access to Gaza",2025-12-22,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) were joined by over a dozen of their colleagues in pressing the Trump Administration to demand free and independent press access to Gaza immediately. In their letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the Senators urge the Administration to do more to secure the lifting of the Netanyahu government’s ban on press access to Gaza, underscoring the need for this access to ensure the international community has unbiased information to understand the conflict, current conditions, and ceasefire implementation. In addition to Senators Van Hollen and Schatz, the letter was signed by Senators Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). The Senators began, “We write to urge the Trump administration to swiftly demand that Israel allow free and independent press access to Gaza. We welcome reports that the Trump administration has been requesting that the Netanyahu government allow foreign journalists into Gaza now that a ceasefire is in place, and we urge the administration to amplify this pressure and prioritize this request as part of the ongoing talks with the Netanyahu government on the path to peace in the region. Free and independent press access to Gaza is crucial to facilitate the public’s right to uncensored and impartial information, to monitor implementation of the current ceasefire, and to ensure that Americans, Israelis, and the rest of the world have a factual accounting of what is occurring on the ground in Gaza.” “Foreign journalists have consistently reported in high-risk, high-casualty, and volatile armed conflicts - including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine – without military or government approval or monitoring. In fact, the Foreign Press Association – which represents journalists working for international news organizations reporting from Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip – has repeatedly called for immediate access to Gaza and even petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice demanding such access,” they note. “The Netanyahu government’s insistence on barring journalists from Gaza on safety and security grounds counters journalistic precedent and stands in stark contrast to the alarming number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza,” they continue. The Senators stress, “Press freedom and freedom of expression are protected as fundamental rights even during wartime under Article 19 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, guaranteeing the right to opinions without interference and ‘freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.’ Israel has ratified this covenant. We encourage this Administration to remind the Netanyahu government of its commitment to protecting free and independent press and the safety of journalists.” “As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues and the ceasefire continues to take shape, it is all the more important that the foreign journalists have free and independent access to the Strip to provide a window to the rest of the world. We urge this administration to swiftly demand free and independent press access to Gaza,” the Senators write in closing. The full text of the letter is available here and below. Dear Secretary Rubio, We write to urge the Trump administration to swiftly demand that Israel allow free and independent press access to Gaza. We welcome reports that the Trump administration has been requesting that the Netanyahu government allow foreign journalists into Gaza now that a ceasefire is in place, and we urge the administration to amplify this pressure and prioritize this request as part of the ongoing talks with the Netanyahu government on the path to peace in the region. Free and independent press access to Gaza is crucial to facilitate the public’s right to uncensored and impartial information, to monitor implementation of the current ceasefire, and to ensure that Americans, Israelis, and the rest of the world have a factual accounting of what is occurring on the ground in Gaza. As you know, the Netanyahu government has imposed a foreign press blockade since October 7, 2023. To date, the Israeli Defense Forces has only allowed highly controlled and censored military-escorted trips into Gaza for select international media who are not permitted to freely engage with Palestinians. These trips only last for a few hours and follow the itineraries set by the military. In August 2025, BBC was taken into Gaza by the Israeli military and reported “The brief visit was highly controlled and offered no access to Palestinians, or other areas of Gaza. Military censorship laws in Israel mean that military personnel were shown our material before publication.” Meaningful and unimpeded press access in Gaza is necessary for the international community to have unbiased information to understand the rapidly changing environment, especially as the administration plans for Gaza’s post-war governance in accordance with regional partners and a reformed Palestinian Authority. There is high demand for oversight of the distribution of humanitarian aid, in-depth understanding of how Gazans want to see their future shaped without Hamas, and critical verification of how all parties are either adhering to or violating the fragile ceasefire. Foreign journalists have consistently reported in high-risk, high-casualty, and volatile armed conflicts - including Iraq, Afghanistan, and Ukraine – without military or government approval or monitoring. In fact, the Foreign Press Association – which represents journalists working for international news organizations reporting from Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip – has repeatedly called for immediate access to Gaza and even petitioned the Israeli High Court of Justice demanding such access. At a court hearing on October 23, the Israeli government acknowledged that the ceasefire constituted a significant change in circumstances and justified a review of policy towards press access, and yet the state requested and was granted another 30-day delay to update its position. This month, the Israeli High Court of Justice granted the 9th delay since the petition was filed in September 2024. We urge you to use this opportunity to press the Netanyahu government to open Gaza’s borders to foreign journalists. The Netanyahu government’s insistence on barring journalists from Gaza on safety and security grounds counters journalistic precedent and stands in stark contrast to the alarming number of Palestinian journalists killed in Gaza. The world has relied on brave Palestinian journalists and media for uncensored reporting from Gaza at great personal risk. At least 206 journalists and media workers have been killed in Gaza by the Israeli armed forces, the most in any modern conflict. The Netanyahu government has both denied and justified targeting journalists. Following the August 10 killing of six journalists by an airstrike on a hospital complex in Gaza, the IDF released a statement saying the IDF “does not target journalists as such.” At the same time, the Netanyahu government repeated its accusation that a prominent Palestinian journalist killed in the attack, Anas Al-Sharif, was a Hamas-linked terrorist without providing any reliable evidence. Press freedom and freedom of expression are protected as fundamental rights even during wartime under Article 19 of the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political rights, guaranteeing the right to opinions without interference and ""freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers.” Israel has ratified this covenant. We encourage this Administration to remind the Netanyahu government of its commitment to protecting free and independent press and the safety of journalists. As the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza continues and the ceasefire continues to take shape, it is all the more important that the foreign journalists have free and independent access to the Strip to provide a window to the rest of the world. We urge this administration to swiftly demand free and independent press access to Gaza. Given the urgent concerns outlined in this letter, we request a response within two weeks.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-congressional-delegation-announces-69-million-for-firefighters-first-responders-across-maryland,"Maryland Congressional Delegation Announces $6.9 Million for Firefighters, First Responders Across Maryland",2025-12-18,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Andy Harris, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all Md.) announced $6,966,579 in federal funding to support firefighters and first responders across Maryland. The funding will enhance departments’ emergency response capabilities through hiring, training, and acquisition of critical emergency equipment. “We can always count on Maryland’s firefighters and first responders to run towards danger to save others in an emergency. This federal funding will equip our local fire departments with new resources to support them in their life-saving work, to better protect both themselves and our communities,” said the lawmakers. The lawmakers announced the following grants: Baltimore Region $2,687,779 to the Baltimore City Fire Department to acquire critical gear and equipment, including cardiac monitors, CPR devices, portable radios, and gear washers and dryers, and to provide training in trench rescue and hazardous materials response $1,243,636 to the Baltimore County Fire Department to provide advanced rescue training for 1,300 personnel Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties $516,646 to the Hyattsville Volunteer Fire Department to purchase a new gear washer & dryer and support volunteer firefighter recruitment & retention activities $320,500 to the Riverdale Fire Department to support volunteer firefighter recruitment and retention activities $309,913 to the University of Maryland, College Park’s Maryland Fire and Rescue Institute to purchase simulator equipment, turnout gear, and mapping equipment for firefighter training $379,999 to the Burtonsville Volunteer Fire Department to hire a full-time volunteer firefighter recruiter and provide tuition reimbursement to volunteers Eastern Shore $436,761 to the Hack's Point Fire Company in Earleville and the Crumpton Volunteer Fire Department to acquire 59 sets of self-contained breathing apparatus (SCBA) $100,000 to the Water Witch Fire Company in Port Deposit to purchase 20 sets of turnout gear $116,190 to the Community Fire Company of Perryville to install a fire alarm system in two stations $291,428 to the Ocean Pines Volunteer Fire Department to acquire 34 sets of SCBA Western Maryland $146,285 to the Oakland Volunteer Fire Department to acquire new turnout gear $83,181 to the Community Rescue Service in Hagerstown to purchase five new automatic CPR devices $45,130 to the Community Rescue Service in Hagerstown, Williamsport Volunteer Fire and EMS, and the Smithsburg Community Volunteer Fire to equip ambulances with narcotic safes for controlled substances $40,857 to the Community Volunteer Fire Company of District No. 12 in Fairplay to acquire a new thermal imaging camera and automatic CPR chest compressor Southern Maryland $124,174 to the Hughesville, Dentsville, Bryans Road, and Benedict Volunteer Fire Departments to acquire new gear washers and dryers Statewide $124,100 to the Maryland State Police to support a smoke and Co2 alarm installation program in collaboration with the Office of the State Fire Marshall and the Maryland Department of Health The awards are provided through the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG), the Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response (SAFER), and the Fire Prevention and Safety Grant (FP&S) programs with funds from FY 2024 annual appropriations that Federal Team Maryland fought to secure. Team Maryland additionally worked to reauthorize the AFG, SAFER, and FP&S programs through FY2028 within the Fire Grants and Safety Act of 2023, which passed Congress and was signed into law in 2024.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-schiff-colleagues-in-urging-trump-administration-to-end-staffing-crisis-at-fish-and-wildlife-service-warning-of-devastating-impacts-to-ecosystems-and-public-lands,"Van Hollen Joins Schiff, Colleagues in Urging Trump Administration to End Staffing Crisis at Fish and Wildlife Service, Warning of Devastating Impacts to Ecosystems and Public Lands",2025-12-18,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Subcommittee on Fisheries, Water, and Wildlife, and their colleagues in urging the administration to immediately address and reverse the staffing crisis at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), which has lost the capacity to properly manage most of America’s wildlife refuges — putting in jeopardy the ability to protect endangered wildlife species under the Service’s care. In a letter to U.S. Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and FWS Director Brian Nesvik, the Senators highlight the direct impacts cuts in staffing are having on the 573 national wildlife refuges across the country — with almost 60 percent of them lacking the resources and staff needed to fulfill their missions. “Americans of all backgrounds love their public lands, and protecting wildlife refuges is a bipartisan cause that brings together environmentalists, sportsmen, and all who enjoy the outdoor recreation opportunities provided by America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge System is the only federal network of public lands that is primarily dedicated to the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats,” the Senators wrote. “This downward trend did not begin under the Trump administration. Yet the current administration has not only shown an unwillingness to address the problem—it has made the situation far worse. The President’s Fiscal Year 26 budget request slashed funding for FWS’s overall Resource Management account, which included a proposed 22 percent cut to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Moreover, the administration has indicated that it is planning more firings for public land agencies,” the Senators continued. The Senators also emphasized that operating with few or no employees has also hurt disaster resilience because FWS employees carry out projects to control flooding and prevent catastrophic wildfires. The letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai'i), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai'i), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). The full text of the letter can be found hereand below. Dear Secretary Burgum and Director Nesvik: We write to sound the alarm on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (FWS) staffing crisis, which is causing particular harm to the National Wildlife Refuge System. A startling amount of staff and expertise needed to manage the Refuge System and protect America’s wildlife have been lost due to the administration’s firings, early retirement programs, and other efforts to push staff out of FWS. The agency is losing the capacity to manage America’s wildlife refuges and struggling to even keep them open. We ask that you provide Congress with your plan to address FWS’s staffing crisis and immediately act to ensure that FWS and the Refuge System have the staff and resources needed to guarantee a safe, quality experience for visitors to the Refuge System and to protect the invaluable wildlife species under the agency’s care. Americans of all backgrounds love their public lands, and protecting wildlife refuges is a bipartisan cause that brings together environmentalists, sportsmen, and all who enjoy the outdoor recreation opportunities provided by America’s National Wildlife Refuge System. The Refuge System is the only federal network of public lands that is primarily dedicated to the conservation, management, and restoration of fish, wildlife, and plant species and their habitats. There are 573 national wildlife refuges across the country, with a footprint in every state. The Refuge System also utilizes a unique conservation approach through community-based initiatives that provide recreational and sporting opportunities and other localized needs. According to FWS, wildlife refuge recreation generates $3.2 billion in local economic activity each year. Every dollar that is invested in the Refuge System generates $3.12 in U.S. economic activity, a tremendous return on investment for the American taxpayer. However, according to recently released internal agency documents, almost 60 percent of the nation’s wildlife refuges lack the resources and staff needed to fulfill their missions. FWS has experienced a staggering 29 percent loss of employees who work for the Refuge System. This downward trend did not begin under the Trump administration. Yet the current administration has not only shown an unwillingness to address the problem—it has made the situation far worse. The President’s Fiscal Year 26 budget request slashed funding for FWS’s overall Resource Management account, which included a proposed 22 percent cut to the National Wildlife Refuge System. Moreover, the administration has indicated that it is planning more firings for public land agencies. Staffing reductions have negatively impacted national wildlife refuges across the country, forcing multiple wildlife refuges to operate with few or no employees. FWS’s internal estimates indicate that 9 percent of wildlife refuges are now classified as “shuttered.” It appears that FWS has abandoned these refuges, as there may not be a single employee on the ground to manage the refuge. The consequences of slashing the FWS workforce are already being felt across the nation. The collapse of staffing capacity within the Refuge System leaves refuges open to damage, vandalism, flooding, fire, and loss of protection and conservation measures for threatened and endangered wildlife species who rely on these refuges for survival. FWS staffing losses also hurt resilience because FWS employees carry out projects to control flooding and prevent catastrophic wildfires. It has also become more difficult for the agency to meet deadlines to list species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act, an already challenging but essential obligation. This delay in work pushes endangered species closer to extinction and prevents infrastructure projects from moving forward, as they may encounter difficulties with acquiring needed permits amid such regulatory uncertainty. Considering the alarming scale of FWS’s staffing crisis, we request answers to the following by January 2, 2026: Will you commit to reversing the staffing losses at FWS? What is your plan to address FWS’s debilitating loss in capacity? Has the Administration considered the impact of decimating the FWS workforce on the economics of gateway communities? Does the Administration still plan on moving forward with firing more FWS employees, even as those firings are being stopped by federal courts? How is FWS planning to meet deadlines to list species as threatened or endangered under the Endangered Species Act? Protecting natural resources for Americans has always been a bipartisan effort and it is important that FWS has the workforce required to meet its core mandates. Thank you, and we look forward to your response.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-markey-whitehouse-dingell-statement-on-dc-circuits-decision-to-rehear-case-on-greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund-grants,"Van Hollen, Markey, Whitehouse, Dingell Statement on D.C. Circuit’s Decision to Rehear Case on Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants",2025-12-18,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) welcomed the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to reinstate a prior administrative stay blocking the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) from clawing back legally obligated funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) as the full active bench of the D.C. Circuit prepares to rehear the case early next year. In September, the lawmakers were joined by over three dozen additional members of Congress in filing an amicus brief at the D.C. Circuit, urging it to take this action. “We created the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund to spur investment in innovative clean energy solutions that create jobs, lower Americans’ energy costs, boost our economy, and reduce harmful emissions. The EPA stood up this program according to the letter of the law, awarding and disbursing funds after a rigorous and transparent process. As we have said since the day that the Trump Administration launched its politically motivated attacks on the GGRF, its brazen attempt to seize these legally awarded federal funds from private bank accounts is both unfounded and unlawful. As the full D.C. Circuit prepares to rehear the case, we will continue fighting to protect these essential investments to support good-paying jobs, reduce Americans’ energy bills, and strengthen our energy independence.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/12/17/2025/van-hollen-statement-on-national-defense-bill-vote,Van Hollen Statement on National Defense Bill Vote,2025-12-17,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on his vote against the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): “Every year, the national defense bill is Congress’ opportunity to conduct oversight of our military operations and realign our defense policies to ensure we’re ready to take on the threats we face around the world. This year’s legislation includes many positive elements that I fought for and support, from a pay increase for our servicemembers – including the thousands based in Maryland – to investments in our veterans and military families to funding for Maryland-based military installations. It also includes a provision I authored to ensure continued public access to Greenbury Point near the Naval Academy and bipartisan legislation I led with Senator Kennedy to protect investors from foreign insider trading. “However, I ultimately could not support this year’s NDAA while we are confronting a president who is playing politics with our nation’s military and using our troops to advance his authoritarian agenda both here at home and abroad. From missile strikes on boats that lack Congressional authorization and are extrajudicial killings amounting to state-sanctioned murder, to the deployment of the National Guard to American cities to support the President’s indiscriminate mass deportation agenda, it’s clear this Administration no longer respects our laws, including those around the use of the U.S. military. These concerns have only deepened my existing reservations around the continued unchecked growth in defense spending. “We deploy a strong military to protect our nation and democracy from foreign threats and adversaries. Unfortunately, the attack on our democracy, freedoms and the rule of law is now mainly from the president himself – including the fact that the current Commander in Chief is ignoring the laws governing the use of our military. And for those reasons, I refused to sign a blank check to the lawless Trump Administration.” Senator Van Hollen secured the passage of two of his bills within the fiscal year 2026 NDAA. The NDAA includes his Protect Greenbury Point Conservation Area Act – cosponsored by Senator Angela Alsobrooks and led in the House by Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth (both D-Md.) – to prevent the U.S. Navy from developing a golf course on the Greenbury Point peninsula at Naval Support Activity Annapolis (NSA Annapolis); and his bipartisan Holding Foreign Insiders Accountable Act with Senator John Kennedy (R-La.) to hold executives of foreign companies that are traded on U.S. stock exchanges to the same disclosure requirements that U.S.-based firms are required to follow.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-congressional-delegation-holds-meeting-to-discuss-future-of-nasa-marylands-role-in-space-innovation,"Maryland Congressional Delegation Holds Meeting to Discuss Future of NASA, Maryland’s Role in Space Innovation",2025-12-16,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Yesterday, members of Maryland’s Congressional Delegation met with NASA officials and stakeholders to discuss protecting and supporting Maryland-based efforts to advance American leadership in space science and innovation. They received updates on and discussed the importance of NASA Goddard’s workforce and missions, as well as other missions being built, led, and supported across Maryland. Video of the members’ press availability following the meeting is available here. “From NASA Goddard to the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory to nearby Wallops Flight Facility and the many additional science centers and related enterprises across the state, Maryland has been at the center of American space exploration and the forefront of technological advancements that have made our country stronger and safer. The dedicated scientists, engineers, and contractors who power these facilities are central to America’s leadership in space and innovation, but these workers – and the critical work they do – have been under attack from the Trump Administration since day one. For America to continue leading the world in space science, the Administration must start respecting the people who put us in that position. Federal Team Maryland will continue pushing to maintain our leadership in cutting-edge missions while fighting to ensure the workers who drive them have the support they need to carry out these critical missions,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen. “The work being done every day at Goddard Space Flight Center and Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory are the reason Maryland – and our nation – is a leader in science, technology, and research. We are exceptional because of the scientists and engineers doing this incredible work - their innovation and talent is unmatched. But this Administration doesn't seem to care. They have ripped apart the federal government including our work at NASA – ceding ground to global competitors. I will continue to stand up to this Administration and keep fighting for investments that keep America at the forefront of scientific discovery,” said Senator Angela Alsobrooks. “NASA Goddard is vital not only to our local community in Maryland but to the entire country and world. Home to one of the greatest concentrations of scientists in the world, the team at Goddard is deepening our understanding of our planet and what lies beyond. In the course of that pursuit, they are also helping America continue to stay ahead of China and other competitors when it comes to science, technology, innovation, and economic growth. I was pleased our delegation could meet today to discuss how we can best support Goddard in that important mission,” said Congressman Steny H. Hoyer. ""The research that happens at the Goddard Space Flight Center and the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory is work that cannot be reduced overnight. Unfortunately, Donald Trump and the Department of Government Evil took a chainsaw to the field of science - threatening research, innovation, and America's competitive edge,"" said Congressman Mfume. ""We hope to have some concrete action as we continue to support our local scientists and engineers across the state of Maryland."" “Maryland remains a cornerstone of America’s scientific community, and NASA’s Goddard has long driven space science research and innovation,” said Congressman Jamie Raskin. “Team Maryland condemns the Trump Administration’s threats to cut funding at Goddard which would be a disaster for all Americans. I am grateful to the hundreds of NASA scientists and staff from the Free State who make Maryland a great home for natural discovery and scientific excellence.” “At the worst possible moment, the Trump administration’s reckless cuts are hollowing out America’s space leadership. Driving our best scientists out of public service puts us on track for another Sputnik moment; this time with China in the lead. We must invest in NASA and protect the mission-critical work at Goddard and Johns Hopkins APL,” said Congressman Glenn Ivey. “From working with University Affiliated Research Centers, like the Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory located in the Third District, to leading our nation in space flight missions, NASA Goddard’s importance to American leadership in space science cannot be overstated,” said Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth (MD-03). “As they look to expand their mission-critical work, the Maryland Delegation will have their back even in the face of closures by the Trump Administration.” “NASA Goddard is a national jewel with a long and storied legacy of spaceflight and discovery made possible by our state's exceptional workforce and our ability to attract world-class academic and international partnerships. It is imperative that our Congress and Team Maryland continue to push against these reckless cuts that will undermine our research, workforce, innovation, U.S. competitiveness, and national security. As Maryland's only member of the House, Science, Space, and Technology Committee, I am standing with our delegation to demand accountability, restore NASA's public service mission, and ensure Maryland continues to lead in scientific discovery. It is ""mission critical"" to preserve and protect our role as the world's leader on space innovation and technology policy,” said Congresswoman April McClain Delaney.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-statement-on-court-decision-blocking-trump-administration-from-canceling-disaster-preparedness-grants,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Statement on Court Decision Blocking Trump Administration from Canceling Disaster Preparedness Grants",2025-12-12,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) released the following statement on today’s decision by U.S. District Court Judge Richard Stearns finding that the Trump Administration unlawfully canceled the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program, which supports local efforts to protect and harden our communities from natural disasters. Earlier this year, Senator Van Hollen led a bipartisan effort, joined by Senator Alsobrooks and over 80 members of the House and Senate, to restore the BRIC program. “The Trump Administration’s attempt to cancel smart investments in disaster preparedness threatened to leave countless lives and communities needlessly vulnerable to ruin by extreme weather, which is why we’ve been fighting to restore the BRIC program. A federal judge made the right decision in ordering the Administration to reinstate the program, calling this out for what it was – an unlawful money grab. We applaud the efforts by Attorney General Brown and others to hold the Trump Administration accountable to the law and ensure Maryland can better prepare for disaster before it strikes,” said Senators Van Hollen and Alsobrooks. Millions of dollars of federal funding have been withheld from disaster mitigation projects in Maryland due to the Trump Administration’s unlawful cancellation of the BRIC program. This includes $26.7 million for the Middle Branch Resiliency Initiative in South Baltimore, an effort to rebuild wetlands that were damaged or lost due to industrialization and pollution while protecting the nearby coastal communities from rising waters and flooding; and $36 million for flood mitigation and resilience work in the City of Crisfield.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-fetterman-reintroduce-legislation-to-bolster-public-transit-across-the-country,"Van Hollen, Fetterman Reintroduce Legislation to Bolster Public Transit Across the Country",2025-12-11,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and John Fetterman (D-Pa.) reintroduced their Moving Transit Forward Act, legislation to boost federal funding for state and local transit to improve service, safety, and reliability for riders. The lawmakers’ bill creates a new federal funding program under the U.S. Department of Transportation to provide state and local transit agencies with additional resources to cover the costs of adding new routes, increasing service frequency, preventing cuts to current services, and improving safety for customers and workers, among other investments to improve rider experiences. In addition to Senators Van Hollen and Fetterman, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). “Public transit connects our communities and boosts our economy while creating jobs and reducing congestion on our roads. That means there’s a lot riding on these systems to run at their best,” said Senator Van Hollen. “This bill will help ensure that transit agencies have the resources they need to provide consistently safe and efficient service to the millions of Americans who depend on public transit every day.” “Like I’ve said before, public transit is the backbone of our communities. Hundreds of thousands of Pennsylvanians in both red and blue counties rely on these services every day to get where they need to go,” said Senator Fetterman. “As transit agencies like SEPTA and PRT are being forced to divert critical capital improvement and maintenance funds just to keep trains and buses running, it’s more important than ever that we step up to provide them with the support and reliable funding they need to deliver for our communities. I’m proud to join Senator Van Hollen once again in leading the Moving Transit Forward Act, which will help our public transit systems avoid service cuts, add new routes, and improve safety on board.” “Marylanders rely on public transit – whether it's our buses, Metro, Amtrak, planes, and more – it’s how we stay connected. The Moving Transit Forward Act provides the resources our communities need to keep our transit system operating efficiently – adding routes, increasing service, and improving safety. Let’s get this bill passed so we can keep moving,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “The Moving Transit Forward Act boosts federal funding for state and local transit agencies—helping travelers get where they need to go on time,” said Senator Blumenthal. “By providing transit agencies with the additional resources they need to add new routes, increase frequency, and bolster public safety, our measure will strengthen overall service and improve rider experiences across the board.” “Hundreds of thousands of New Jerseyans rely every day on public transit to get to school, work, doctors’ offices, and more,” said Senator Booker. “This legislation will ensure that transit agencies in our state get the resources they need to improve reliability, expand service, and get New Jerseyans to their destinations safely and on time.” “Americans deserve access to efficient public transit options to help them get to school, get to work or wherever they need to go,” said Senator Duckworth. “Investing in our public transit systems is critical to improving access and expanding opportunities, and this legislation would do exactly that. I’m proud to help introduce this important bill with Senators Van Hollen and Fetterman and I’ll continue working to help make sure our transit works for everyone.” “Millions of New Yorkers rely on public transit to get to school, work, doctor’s appointments, and more. Ensuring that transit agencies have the resources they need to operate safely and reliably is crucial to give New Yorkers the mobility they deserve,” said Senator Gillibrand. “The Moving Transit Forward Act will provide transit agencies with the federal dollars necessary to help prevent cuts to current services, cover the costs of adding new routes, and improve safety, allowing public transit riders to get where they need to go in a safe and timely manner. I’m proud to support this legislation, and I will do everything I can to get it passed.” “More transit means lower costs, cleaner air, and fewer road fatalities,” said Senator Markey. “The lack of robust transit service in many communities is one reason why transportation is the second largest household expense, the top contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, and the second leading cause of death among children. The Moving Transit Forward Act finally provides communities the resources they need to tackle all these problems at once—making daily travel more affordable, driving down emissions, and saving lives.” “Our communities thrive when good public transportation is available, and residents suffer when trains and buses run infrequently, or services are reduced. The Moving Transit Forward Act is a new direction for public transportation in our nation’s cities: it provides investment for transit agencies to operate more buses and trains on existing routes, add new routes and improve safety, and it provides more flexibility to transit agencies, helping prevent service cuts when economic headwinds stretch local budgets,” said Senator Warren. “Transit agencies, the transit workers who deliver service every day, and Americans who use transit all support this bill – Congress should take it up.” Many transit providers are struggling with a self-defeating cycle of service cuts and declines in ridership because they cannot afford to make the necessary investments in their operations. Existing federal funding sources for large state and local transit agencies are not fully available for operational purposes; they are generally eligible only for capital expenses such as construction and state-of-good-repair maintenance in larger metropolitan areas. By creating a new fund for service expenses and safety and security improvements, the Moving Transit Forward Act will ensure agencies can enhance the consistency and reliability of service for transit customers, even in the event of budget shortfalls resulting from declines in fare revenue – ultimately helping spur an increase in ridership and recovery of revenue. This legislation does not permit state and local governments to substitute their existing funding with the provided federal resources. The recipient of the new federal funding must maintain the same level of non-federal funding as the most recent fiscal year to ensure that service is expanded or previously cut services are restored. The text of the legislation is available here. The Moving Transit Forward Act is endorsed by the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), the National Campaign for Transit Justice, the SMART Transportation Division, the Transportation Trades Department-AFL-CIO, and the Transport Workers Union (TWU), the Maryland Department of Transportation, the Central Maryland Transportation Alliance, the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME). “Transit systems are struggling to keep service on street and service cuts have unfortunately become commonplace, especially for people of color and low-income families. Through a transformational bill reintroduced by Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), our transit systems could see substantial investments in operations funding through the Moving Transit Forward Act,” said John Costa, International President of the Amalgamated Transit Union, the largest organization representing transit workers in North America. “Operations funding is critical to getting people safely and on time to work, school, and other destinations. We urge Congress to pass this bill immediately to ensure we keep our communities moving.” “This bill is a gamechanger for transit agencies across the country. Transit is not just important, it is essential. It is essential to our communities, local economies, and the lives of millions of people across the country. Essential workers rely on and operate transit, small businesses depend on transit, and historically marginalized communities depend on transit. Transit is not just a key component of economic recovery, it's the lifeline to a more environmentally sustainable society and a road to equity for disconnected communities, rural, urban and suburban. And this bill will help ensure that transit is well funded,” said LeeAnn Hall, Director of the National Campaign for Transit Justice. “SMART-TD strongly supports Senator Van Hollen in this effort to make federal transit funding work for the people on the front lines of our nation’s transportation systems. The Moving Transit Forward Act empowers communities to direct essential safety funding where it’s needed most: protecting operators, passengers, and the public by making transit systems safer and more secure for everyone,” said Jared Cassity, National Safety & Legislative Director, SMART Transportation Division “As America's largest transportation labor federation, representing transit workers across the country, we know federal funding is essential to keep public transportation programs going,” said Greg Regan, President of the Transportation Trades Department, AFL-CIO. “At a time when mass transit agencies are confronting a funding death spiral, we must allow greater flexibility for federal funding to support operating expenses in addition to capital expenses. We commend Senators Van Hollen and Fetterman for reintroducing the Moving Transit Forward Act to allow for this flexible funding use and better sustain public transit services.” “Funding the day-to-day operation of transit is critical for the traveling public and hardworking Transport Workers Union members. Right now, the federal government can fund new equipment for transit agencies but can’t pay transit workers to operate that equipment. This bill fixes a funding structure that doesn’t make sense,” said TWU International President John Samuelsen. “Congress needs to make a change or else transit agencies will have brand new trains and buses sitting empty without anyone to operate or maintain them."" State and local transit leaders from Maryland also expressed support for boosting federal funding for transit operations. “Everyday millions of Marylanders across the state depend on buses and trains to take them to work, school, medical appointments and life’s opportunities. As a state that supports the Maryland Transit Administration and the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority — two of the country’s largest transit agencies— as well many high-quality local transit systems throughout Maryland, there is a great need for federal operating assistance to help maintain and expand access to frequent and reliable transit,” said Maryland Department of Transportation Acting Secretary Samantha J. Biddle. “The Moving Transit Forward Act will provide the critical investment needed to further connect Americans and create economic growth nationwide.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-judge-ordering-release-of-kilmar-abrego-garcia,Van Hollen Statement on Judge Ordering Release of Kilmar Ábrego García,2025-12-11,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on today’s ruling by U.S. District Court Judge Paula Xinis ordering the immediate release of Kilmar Ábrego García from custody: “For months the Trump Administration has sought to deny Kilmar Ábrego García his rights to due process and fair treatment by our justice system. Today’s ruling by Judge Xinis – requiring the government to immediately release him – is a clear repudiation of those attempts and a forceful stand for our Constitution and the rights of all those in our nation.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-introduce-bill-to-protect-aid-workers-in-conflict-zones,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Protect Aid Workers in Conflict Zones",2025-12-10,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, on Human Rights Day, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) introduced legislation to protect humanitarian aid workers operating in conflict zones. The lawmakers’ legislation, the Commitment to Aid Workers Act, would strengthen U.S. efforts to safeguard those who risk their lives to deliver humanitarian assistance. The bill creates new oversight and enforcement mechanisms to hold foreign militaries accountable for actions that endanger humanitarian workers as they deliver American aid. U.S. Representative Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) has previously introduced companion legislation in the House. “Humanitarian workers do some of the most vital but dangerous jobs in the world as they come to the aid of civilians caught in the middle of armed conflict. After two extremely deadly years for these workers, we must do more to protect them. This bill will employ U.S. leverage to help ensure the safety of humanitarian workers as they conduct their lifesaving missions,” said Senator Van Hollen. “When conflict or disaster strikes, humanitarian aid workers are the first line to deliver food, water, medicine, and shelter,” said Senator Merkley. “Our top priority must be to support and protect those who serve on the frontlines of crisis, and the Commitment to Aid Workers Act does just that.” “Humanitarian aid workers put their lives on the line to deliver food, water, medicine, and shelter to civilians caught in the crossfire of conflict. Their work is guided by a basic principle: that even in war, human dignity must be preserved,” Representative Pingree said. “Tragically, we are seeing aid workers targeted like never before. This year, 326 have been killed—and last year was the deadliest on record, with over 370 killed across the globe. These are attacks on the very foundation of humanitarian law. The United States cannot stand by while those delivering life-saving assistance are treated as collateral damage. The Commitment to Aid Workers Act ensures accountability, advocacy, and limits U.S. military assistance to countries found to be targeting aid workers deliberately. We must support those who serve on the frontlines of humanitarian crises.” The Commitment to Aid Workers Act: Establishes a Special Envoy to investigate deaths, injuries, or detentions of aid workers; advocate for improved interagency and international coordination; promote best practices; and submit annual reports to Congress on security risks and UN coordination effectiveness. Strengthens accountability by amending the Foreign Assistance Act to bar military aid and arms sales subject to the Arms Export Control Act to countries that repeatedly target aid workers and obstruct U.S. inquiries, with assistance resuming only after certified safeguards are in place. Creates an Aid Worker Independent Inquiry Group, led by the Special Envoy, to investigate any aid worker death during U.S.-supported missions and report to Congress on circumstances, any use of U.S.-origin munitions, and legal assessments under U.S. and international law.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/ranking-member-merkley-trump-administration-weaponizing-us-park-police-to-further-its-authoritarianism,Ranking Member Merkley: Trump Administration Weaponizing U.S. Park Police to Further Its Authoritarianism,2025-12-08,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) — the top Democrat overseeing funding for the National Park Service — and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) in sounding the alarm over President Trump’s proposed plans to turn the U.S. Park Police into a federal police force under his direct control for deployment across Washington, D.C. rather than following its mission of safeguarding national monuments and visitors. The Senators launched their probe in response to a report from The Washington Post, which outlined the unprecedented and dangerous nature of Trump’s plans to transform the U.S. Park Police. The Senators wrote to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, “The administration is on a deliberate hiring spree to exploit the U.S. Park Police’s jurisdiction and turn it into a tool of the President for him and his ideological extremists to impose their will on the streets of D.C.” “Commandeering the U.S. Park Police is not an earnest effort to help protect the Lincoln Memorial or improve motorists’ safety on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway,” the Senators stated. “According to a strategy memo obtained by The Washington Post, a goal for the force is to ‘establish the U.S. Park Police as the premier law enforcement agency in DC, capable of keeping DC safe regardless of inaction by MPD [Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia] or inaction by the DC City Council.’” “There is no evidence of an uptick in crime on park service land or increased threats to national monuments – this haste in both a hiring spree and waiving of [critical testing and standards for new officers] are clear signs that the administration is hijacking this federal police force for its own authoritarian purposes. And the administration may seek other mechanisms (legal or otherwise) to further expand the U.S. Park Police, increasing this authoritarian threat,” the Senators strongly emphasized. The Senators concluded their inquiry by demanding the Trump Administration suspend its plans and swiftly answer urgent questions about its planned weaponization of the Park Police. Full text of the letter can be found here and below: Dear Secretary Burgum: We are alarmed that the National Park Service is currently in the process of doubling the number of U.S. Park Police officers in Washington, D.C. with the goal of transforming it into a federal police force to be deployed across the city rather than following its mission of safeguarding national monuments, icons, and visitors. The administration is on a deliberate hiring spree to exploit the U.S. Park Police’s jurisdiction and turn it into a tool of the President for him and his ideological extremists to impose their will on the streets of D.C. Commandeering the U.S. Park Police is not an earnest effort to help protect the Lincoln Memorial or improve motorists’ safety on the Baltimore-Washington Parkway. According to a strategy memo obtained by The Washington Post, a goal for the force is to “establish the U.S. Park Police as the premier law enforcement agency in DC, capable of keeping DC safe regardless of inaction by MPD [Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia] or inaction by the DC City Council.” In fact, the administration is in such a hurry to get these new officers on board that it is offering $70,000 hiring bonuses and a promise of a “streamlined, virtual hiring process with quick turnaround”. There is no psychological testing or physical fitness testing. In fact, applicants are allowed to submit a “self-attestation” in place of an in-person physical fitness test, an affront to the gold standard of federal law enforcement hiring – and standards that MPD itself follows in its hiring practices. There is no evidence of an uptick in crime on park service land or increased threats to national monuments – this haste in both a hiring spree and waiving of critical testing and standards are clear signs that the administration is hijacking this federal police force for its own authoritarian purposes. And the administration may seek other mechanisms (legal or otherwise) to further expand the U.S. Park Police, increasing this authoritarian threat. Amassing what is effectively a new federal police force is yet another Trump administration effort to consolidate and centralize his power as he continues to intimidate protestors, threaten free speech, and desensitize Americans to military presence on the streets. Reshaping the U.S. Park Police into a police force with a mission to carry out the President’s policy priorities hands President Trump a cadre of his own armed officers with widespread jurisdiction at his fingertips. Continuing to amass more armed forces – police and military – under direct control of President Trump in Washington D.C. is unprecedented and dangerous. We demand you suspend the hiring process and provide full and complete responses to the following questions no later than December 19, 2025: How do the jurisdictions and authorities of the U.S. Park Police and MPD differ in Washington, D.C.? Please provide a specific detailed explanation of your concurrent jurisdictions with federal, state and local law enforcement in the Washington, D.C. area and the role each agency plays in taking law enforcement actions. MPD and the U.S. Capitol Police have an agreement that MPD cannot enter the U.S. Capitol Building and Congressional office buildings. Does the U.S. Park Police abide by that same limitation, and will they continue to do so? What agreement does Park Police have with MPD and USCP? Does the Park Police have an interagency or other type agreement with MPD? If so, please provide that document. Does the Park Police have an interagency or other type agreement with any other federal, state or local law enforcement agency in the National Capital Region? If so, please provide those documents. Will the U.S. Park Police be used as a general police force or will deployments – regular and occasional – be limited to those involving National Park Service property? If general policing activities will be routinely performed, please provide a specific explanation of the authority, scope and schedule for such activities. Does the National Park Service have a workforce planning analysis for this hiring increase? If so, please provide a copy. What hiring standards are being revised, eliminated, or added for the recruiting and selection of these new hires? Please provide a copy of the current hiring standards for new law enforcement officers within the Service. Reporting indicates that the agency is seeking 300 new officers. Please provide a justification for the number that includes rationale for what the duties of each of these new officers will be. What operational objective is being achieved within the Service by hiring and deploying these new officers? Please describe what structure exists in the National Park Service for overseeing the USPP for communicating and enforcing, including disciplinary action, the code of conduct and use-of-force policy? How many new staff will be hired for these activities given that staffing in the District will double? Is there an independent body that reviews complaints and internal affairs investigations? How will the 300 new officers, in addition to the current officers on board, be dispatched across the National Park Service’s jurisdiction? Will they be deployed consistent with U.S. Park Police’s primary operational mission to protect national icons and monuments? What will the cost be for hiring, training, equipping, and employing 300 new officers in fiscal year 2026? What is the planned source of funding? What new contracts, such as for recruiting or other portions of the hiring process, will be required to meet this hiring goal and to whom are these contracts being awarded? If new contracts are required, will they be competitively awarded or sole source? What will the cost be in fiscal year 2027? What is the planned source of funding? Beyond the current hiring expansion announcement, what is the Service’s plan within the next year for personnel hiring in D.C.? Is there a plan for the U.S. Park Police to grow in Washington, D.C. beyond hiring the 300 additional officers? Are there plans to hire additional officers in New York City (Statue of Liberty/Ellis Island National Historic Site and Gateway National Recreation Area) or San Francisco (Golden Gate National Recreation Area and the Presidio), where there are currently other U.S. Park Police officers deployed? If so, please provide a detailed explanation of the plans. Are there plans to hire additional U.S. Park Police officers in other parts of the United States, and if so, where? Please provide a detailed explanation of the plans. What is the source of funding and funding authority for the $70,000 hiring bonus advertised on the website of the National Park Service? What service agreements, if any, are new hires expected to perform for these bonuses? Do the agreements include loyalty pledges, or similar commitments, to the President or this administration? If agreements are required, please provide a copy of the agreement, to include the terms and conditions. Given the new “streamlined, virtual hiring process with quick turnaround,” please describe in detail each step of the new hiring process for these officers and what requirements potential officers need to meet in order to qualify for this position. Has the National Park Service used a “streamlined, virtual hiring process with quick turnaround” to hire U.S. Park Police officers in the past? What is the justification for this process? Which hiring standards have been eliminated to meet this hiring objective and why were they eliminated? Because law enforcement officers are empowered with taking an individual’s constitutional rights away from them during the course of their duties, why is standard psychological testing not part of the hiring evaluation process to ensure the best candidates are selected? How is the Service ensuring that new hires do not have pre-existing mental health issues that would preclude them from carrying out the essential functions of being a law enforcement officer? Why are applicants allowed to submit a “Self-Attestation” form for physical fitness instead of an in-person physical fitness test? How is the Service ensuring that new hires can carry out the essential functions of the position? Are any of the interviews conducted in person, or is the entire hiring process conducted on Microsoft Teams as is described on the National Park Service website? ###",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-welch-bonamici-bicameral-lawmakers-in-call-to-provide-additional-funding-for-the-federal-public-defender-program-in-fy26-budget,"Van Hollen Joins Welch, Bonamici, Bicameral Lawmakers in Call to Provide Additional Funding for the Federal Public Defender Program in FY26 Budget",2025-12-08,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined U.S. Senator Peter Welch (D-Vt.), a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the Senate’s only former Public Defender, U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-01), and a group of over 40 bicameral lawmakers in calling on the Senate and House Appropriations Committees to provide additional funding to the Federal Defender Services program in the upcoming Fiscal Year 2026 (FY26) Financial Services and General Government Appropriations bill, beyond the recently released Republican budget proposal. In their letter, the lawmakers urge committee leaders to fully fund the program at $1.76 billion, as requested by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, to maintain baseline constitutional requirements for federal public defense instead of the lower amounts in House and Senate Republicans’ appropriations bills. “As you are aware, in FY24, an inadvertent failure to account for the federal defender program’s carryforward funding structure resulted in initial funding levels that were more than $100 million less than what the program needed. In response to those marks, the program implemented a set of cost-savings measures, including a hard hiring freeze, suspension of most in-person training opportunities, and deferral of other programmatic needs such as cybersecurity upgrades. In FY25, the Defender Services budget was frozen at the artificially low FY24 levels, leaving the program with a critical shortfall woefully inadequate to meet its identified needs,” wrote the lawmakers. “As a result of two years of underfunding because of a calculation error, Defender Services began FY26 significantly in the red. The current funding level, based on the recent anomaly, is still $194 million short of what is required to fund the program.” The lawmakers continued: “We are very appreciative of your inclusion of a $1.564 billion anomaly for Federal and Community Defenders in the Continuing Resolution. This is an important step in addressing the underfunding. Now we must fully fund the program as soon as possible. Full funding for the program to staff Federal Defender offices, pay the panel deficit for missed payments last fiscal year, and avoid missed payments to panel attorneys throughout FY26 requires $1.76 billion. Without full funding, Federal Defender Services will face more extreme shortfalls in FY26.” “The Defender Services program has a history of bipartisan support. This essential funding supports the more than 4,000 attorneys, investigators, paralegals, and other personnel throughout 83 federal defender organizations serving 92 of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well as approximately 12,000 private CJA panel attorneys. Criminal defense funding is non-partisan, and federal defenders represent everyone regardless of political affiliation. Currently, more than ninety percent of federal cases are handled by public defense lawyers,” wrote the lawmakers. “The inevitable cascading consequences of underfunding public defense will delay prosecutions, create backlogs in U.S. Attorneys Offices, compromise convictions and sentences, and deny witnesses and victims their day in court.” The lawmakers concluded: “In short, a fully funded federal defender system is necessary to promote public safety and the rule of law. We respectfully urge you to fully fund the Federal Defender Services program at $1.76 billion to maintain baseline constitutional requirements for federal public defense and appreciate the unprecedented challenges of the current appropriation process.” The Federal Defender Services program serves as an integral part of the federal judicial system by securing access to counsel and providing other necessary defense services for those who cannot afford counsel. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, and the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) provides that courts appoint counsel from Federal public and community defender organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established by the court. The court must employ private attorneys, often at a higher cost, to meet their constitutional duty to appoint counsel for individuals who cannot afford counsel. As the Executive Branch pursues increased federal prosecutions, including capital cases, it is important that constitutionally adequate counsel is provided. Federal Defender organizations have now entered their third year in a hard hiring freeze, resulting in more than 500 positions below what the Judicial Conference-approved staffing formula dictates. Additionally, CJA panel attorneys face another devastating year of months-long payment delays. In FY25, money to pay CJA panel attorneys for work performed in federal court ran out beginning in July 2025 and did not restart until the government shutdown ended this November, resulting in over four months without pay. Trials across the country were delayed because of the nonpayment, and at least one case was dismissed. In the Senate, the letter is cosigned by Sens. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). The letter is cosigned in the House by Reps. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Stephen Lynch (D-MA-08), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Hank Johnson (D-GA-04), Kevin Mullin (D-CA-15), Seth Moulton (D-MA-06), Jesús ""Chuy"" García (D-IL-04), Bobby Scott (D-VA-03), Shontel Brown (D-OH-11), Glenn Ivey (D-MD-04), Val Hoyle (D-OR-04), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Emanuel Cleaver, II (D-MO-05), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL-01), Becca Balint (D-VT-AL), Maxine Dexter (D-OR-03), Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24), Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16), Cleo Fields (D-LA-04), Scott Peters (D-CA-50), Summer Lee (D-PA-12), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX-29). Read the lawmakers’ full letter to Senate and House Appropriations Committee leadership here and below: Dear Chairman Hagerty, Chairman Joyce, Ranking Member Reed, and Ranking Member Hoyer, Thank you for your ongoing attention and work to restore the Federal Defender Services. We respectfully request that Congress fully fund the Federal Defender Services program at $1.76 billion requested by the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts for Fiscal Year (FY) 2026. The Federal Defender Services program serves as an integral part of the federal judicial system by securing access to counsel and providing other necessary defense services for those who cannot afford counsel. The Sixth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to an attorney in criminal proceedings, and the Criminal Justice Act (CJA) provides that courts appoint counsel from Federal public and community defender organizations or from a panel of private attorneys established by the court. As the Executive Branch pursues increased federal prosecutions, including capital cases, it is important that constitutionally adequate counsel is provided. As you are aware, in FY24, an inadvertent failure to account for the federal defender program’s carryforward funding structure resulted in initial funding levels that were more than $100 million less than what the program needed. In response to those marks, the program implemented a set of cost-savings measures, including a hard hiring freeze, suspension of most in-person training opportunities, and deferral of other programmatic needs such as cybersecurity upgrades. In FY25, the Defender Services budget was frozen at the artificially low FY24 levels, leaving the program with a critical shortfall woefully inadequate to meet its identified needs. As a result of two years of underfunding because of a calculation error, Defender Services began FY26 significantly in the red. The current funding level, based on the recent anomaly, is still $194 million short of what is required to fund the program. We are very appreciative of your inclusion of a $1.564 billion anomaly for Federal and Community Defenders in the Continuing Resolution. This is an important step in addressing the underfunding. Now we must fully fund the program as soon as possible. Full funding for the program to staff Federal Defender offices, pay the panel deficit for missed payments last fiscal year, and avoid missed payments to panel attorneys throughout FY26 requires $1.76 billion. Without full funding, Federal Defender Services will face more extreme shortfalls in FY26. Federal Defender organizations just entered their third year in a hard hiring freeze, resulting in more than 500 positions below what the Judicial Conference-approved staffing formula dictates. Without a sufficient number of federal defenders, the court may need to hire private attorneys from a panel to meet the constitutional requirement that indigent defendants be represented by counsel. This often increases the cost. Additionally, CJA panel attorneys face another devastating year of months-long payment delays. In FY25, money to pay CJA panel attorneys for work performed in federal court ran out beginning in July 2025 and did not restart until the government shutdown ended this November, resulting in over four months without pay. More than eighty percent of CJA panel attorneys are local small business owners who rely on CJA funds to pay overhead, staff, and travel costs. The failure to pay these lawyers had devastating consequences. Some attorneys had to take out loans, incur large credit card debt, or deplete their retirement funds in order to keep themselves afloat. Experienced attorneys are leaving the CJA panel or refusing to take more cases. Others asked to withdraw from or delay cases because they could not engage necessary experts and investigators, leaving clients in an untenable position. A group of 52 panel attorneys, paralegals, investigators, and mitigation specialists in New Mexico wrote to the Federal District Court stating that they could no longer accept new appointments. Trials across the country were delayed because of the nonpayment, and at least one case was dismissed. Even with funding at the level provided in the anomaly, this problem will repeat— even more significantly—this year. It is unsustainable for Federal and Community Defenders to continue operating without sufficient pay. The Defender Services program has a history of bipartisan support. This essential funding supports the more than 4,000 attorneys, investigators, paralegals, and other personnel throughout 83 federal defender organizations serving 92 of the 94 federal judicial districts, as well as approximately 12,000 private CJA panel attorneys. Criminal defense funding is non-partisan, and federal defenders represent everyone regardless of political affiliation. Currently, more than ninety percent of federal cases are handled by public defense lawyers. The inevitable cascading consequences of underfunding public defense will delay prosecutions, create backlogs in U.S. Attorneys Offices, compromise convictions and sentences, and deny witnesses and victims their day in court. In short, a fully funded federal defender system is necessary to promote public safety and the rule of law. We respectfully urge you to fully fund the Federal Defender Services program at $1.76 billion to maintain baseline constitutional requirements for federal public defense and appreciate the unprecedented challenges of the current appropriation process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-mfume-introduce-legislation-to-designate-the-museum-of-the-blind-peoples-movement-as-a-national-museum,"Van Hollen, Mfume Introduce Legislation to Designate the Museum of the Blind People's Movement as a National Museum",2025-12-08,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Last week, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Congressman Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.-07) announced their joint introduction of legislation to designate the new Museum of the Blind People's Movement in Baltimore as the official National Museum of the Blind People's Movement. Once established, this museum will be the first to be blind-owned, operated, and led. “We can all learn from stories of the pioneering blind Americans who have organized and led the movement that reshaped our nation in the direction of equality. With this legislation, we are working to honor eight decades of leadership and ensure this history is preserved, shared, and celebrated not just locally, but nationally as well. As a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, I’ve been proud to support this mission with $301,000 in direct federal funding, and, now, to team up with Congressman Mfume on this legislation to designate it as the National Museum of the Blind People’s Movement,” said Senator Van Hollen. ""Blind Americans have long faced discrimination and low expectations, but that has never stopped them from making vital contributions to our society that are far too often under-recognized,"" said Congressman Kweisi Mfume. ""By acknowledging this institution as the National Museum of the Blind People's Movement, Congress honors an important American story and supports a first-of-its-kind, blind-owned and blind-led cultural institution that will serve students, researchers, veterans, workers, families, and visitors from every corner of these United States of America."" ""The introduction of this legislation marks a historic moment in our movement's journey. The National Museum of the Blind People's Movement will be the first blind-led and blind-centered museum that authentically preserves and shares our stories of advocating, innovating, and transforming society. This museum will be about the people who have demonstrated that with proper training and opportunity, we achieve equality and full participation in all aspects of American life,” said Mark A. Riccobono, President of the National Federation of the Blind. “We are grateful to Congressman Kweisi Mfume and Senator Chris Van Hollen for championing this recognition. This museum will serve as a national platform for dialogue, education, and inclusion—connecting our rich history with action that makes a difference.” “We are proud to support this effort to uplift and honor the blind community with a museum here in Baltimore,” said Mayor Brandon M. Scott. “Our city prides itself on celebrating the history of those who shaped our nation, especially folks whose stories are not often told. We look forward to supporting the best federal delegation in the country as they work to advance this bill.” The National Federation of the Blind (NFB), founded in 1940, has preserved a great number of artifacts, documents, and literature that chronicle both the struggle and progress of blind people across the United States. The NFB has committed to the collection, preservation, and curation of the history of the blind through the establishment of a museum to house these artifacts. The museum will serve as a national platform to explore these stories, foster understanding, and spark dialogue today. Recognizing the Museum of the Blind People's Movement as the National Museum of the Blind People's Movement would be a significant step towards providing long-overdue national recognition to the many contributions to our nation and its collective history that have been made by blind Americans.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-cassidy-announce-senate-passage-of-bipartisan-resolution-recognizing-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-individuals-with-disabilities-education-act,"Van Hollen, Cassidy Announce Senate Passage of Bipartisan Resolution Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act",2025-12-05,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) announced the unanimous passage of their resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act by the United States Senate. The bipartisan resolution, introduced earlier this week by Senators Van Hollen and Cassidy, recognized the historic step IDEA took 50 years ago by mandating that every child in America, including those with disabilities, be given equal access to a free, appropriate public education. The resolution was cosponsored in the Senate by Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), 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.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Glenn Thompson (R-Penn.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), and John James (R-Mich.) introduced companion legislation in the House of Representatives. “The Senate’s passage of this resolution honors all those who fought to make IDEA a reality. As we celebrate the anniversary of this landmark legislation and the opportunities it created for millions of students with disabilities across the country, I remain committed to the fight to fully fund IDEA – fulfilling the promise made 50 years ago to provide every student in America equal access to a high-quality education,” said Senator Van Hollen, who has also introduced the IDEA Full Funding Act. “All children deserve an education that gives them the resources they need to reach their full potential,” said Dr. Cassidy. “By empowering parents to partner in their child’s education and equipping teachers with resources, IDEA ensures children with disabilities have the opportunity to succeed in the classroom.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-urge-action-from-trump-administration-to-end-violence-promote-stability-in-burma,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Urge Action from Trump Administration to End Violence, Promote Stability in Burma",2025-12-05,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and eight of his Senate colleagues urged U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio to take strong actions in response to escalating violence and human rights violations committed by the Burmese military junta as well as the junta’s upcoming sham elections. Pointing to increasing instability and a worsening humanitarian crisis fueled by the junta’s mass killings, forced displacement of civilians, and persecution of minorities – as the country is still reeling from the destruction caused by a historic earthquake earlier this year – the Senators urged Secretary Rubio in a letter to focus on diplomatic efforts to restore stability in Burma while countering the growing influence of China and Russia in the region. To that end, they outlined specific steps the Trump Administration should take to reassert U.S. leadership on human rights, help end the violence, and support a path toward inclusive governance and democracy in Burma. Senator Van Hollen was joined on this letter by Senators Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.). “We write to express our profound concern regarding the ongoing bloodshed and oppression in Burma, which has lasted far too long. The systematic persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, including Muslims, Christians, and other vulnerable communities, requires urgent attention and decisive leadership from the United States. The upcoming sham elections in December and January further damage Burma’s democracy, rule of law, and further consolidate the junta’s repressive power,” the Senators began. “We urge you to prioritize addressing the escalating violence and human rights abuses in Burma, condemn the junta’s planned elections, and champion justice, accountability, and the protection of basic human dignity. We ask this not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also in our core national interest to achieve stability in Southeast Asia and push back on malign People’s Republic of China (PRC) influence in the region,” they stressed. “The junta’s ruthless campaign has devastated all of Burma’s people, but religious and ethnic minorities remain especially at risk. […] These abuses demand a robust U.S. response rooted in moral leadership and strategic interest,” they continued. The Senators went on to urge the Administration to take several actions in order to address these concerns, including to: promote accountability for atrocities committed by the military junta; appoint a Special Coordinator for Democracy in Burma; fully implement the BURMA Act and resume foreign assistance to the nation; and extend and redesignate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma. “These measures are not only consistent with our nation’s values, but also critical to restoring stability in the broader Indo-Pacific region. Continued chaos in Burma creates further openings for increased PRC influence that could gain it strategically valuable access to the Indian Ocean. Both Russia and the PRC have provided almost $1 billion in weapons to the junta,” the Senators added. “The only solution to these challenges to U.S. interests is to work with regional partners to end the violence and place Burma on a path to inclusive governance and democracy.” Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Secretary Rubio, We write to express our profound concern regarding the ongoing bloodshed and oppression in Burma, which has lasted far too long. The systematic persecution of ethnic and religious minorities, including Muslims, Christians, and other vulnerable communities, requires urgent attention and decisive leadership from the United States. The upcoming sham elections in December and January further damage Burma’s democracy, rule of law, and further consolidate the junta’s repressive power. We urge you to prioritize addressing the escalating violence and human rights abuses in Burma, condemn the junta’s planned elections, and champion justice, accountability, and the protection of basic human dignity. We ask this not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is also in our core national interest to achieve stability in Southeast Asia and push back on malign People’s Republic of China (PRC) influence in the region. The Burmese military junta’s ongoing campaign of violence and oppression has resulted in countless atrocities, including mass killings, sexual violence, forced displacements, and the destruction of entire villages. Alarmingly, by the end of August 2025, the civilian death toll surpassed 7,100, a grim reminder of the international community's insufficient response. More than four years of conflict since the 2021 military coup have displaced 3.6 million people and left 11.8 million facing acute food insecurity. The crisis has deepened following a once-in-a-century earthquake in March that killed at least 3,800 people and left 6.3 million in urgent need. Though the military regime’s grip on power may be weakening, its violence has intensified. In the six weeks following the earthquake, the State Administrative Council (SAC) launched at least 741 airstrikes—including on schools, killing at least 22 children, and on churches on Palm Sunday—most after a declared ""ceasefire"" in early April. On October 6, a military aerial paramotor bombed a peaceful candlelight vigil during a Buddhist holiday, killing at least 24 people, including children. The vigil was for the release of arbitrarily detained prisoners and opposition to the upcoming elections. The BBC reported that the junta has increasingly used paramotors as sanctions have made it harder to procure aircraft and jet fuel. The junta now controls just 21 percent of Burma’s territory, as resistance forces continue gaining ground despite support for the regime from the PRC and Russia. The junta’s ruthless campaign has devastated all of Burma’s people, but religious and ethnic minorities remain especially at risk. The Rohingya continue to face genocidal violence reminiscent of 2017. Christians have endured church burnings, arrests, and worship restrictions, particularly in Chin State. The regime has barred non-Buddhist teaching outside of state-approved religious buildings. Other ethnic minorities—Kachin, Karen, Karenni, and Shan—face forced displacement, military assaults, and systemic repression. These abuses demand a robust U.S. response rooted in moral leadership and strategic interest. To that end, we urge you to take the following actions: Promote accountability for atrocities committed in Burma: We urge you to continue U.S. support for international accountability mechanisms, including the Independent Investigative Mechanism for Myanmar (IIMM) and The Gambia's legal case against Myanmar in the International Court of Justice. The United States should also continue its vital support for civil society organizations inside and outside of Burma that are working to document and prevent atrocities, support victims, and help protect witnesses who testify in legal proceedings to the junta's appalling crimes. We urge you to follow up on the State Department's 2022 Rohingya genocide determination by initiating a new atrocity determination process to assess whether the Tatmadaw has committed genocide, war crimes, or crimes against humanity against Burma's other ethnic and religious minority groups following the 2021 coup. Make Burma a diplomatic priority: Ultimately, the horrors faced by the people of Burma can only end if the United States prioritizes diplomatic efforts to end the violence. The United States must press the PRC at all levels to reach a common understanding on a way forward to end the conflict and to warn against any action by the PRC to legitimize or provide diplomatic cover for the junta. We urge you to appoint a Special Coordinator for Democracy in Burma to coordinate U.S. diplomatic efforts and to interface with the UN, ASEAN, PRC, and other high-level representatives on Burma. If the junta moves forward with its plans for sham elections, it is vital that you use every authority at your disposal to hold accountable any person or entity that helped facilitate those elections -- whether through sanctions, visa restrictions, or other measures. Fully implement the BURMA Act and resume foreign assistance to Burma: The Trump Administration’s decision to end aid to Burma has cut off access to food, healthcare, and shelter for countless civilians, worsening suffering and regional instability. After the March earthquake, you fired the USAID staff responding to the disaster, while the PRC immediately sent rescue crews with heavy machinery and to dig through the wreckage for survivors. You terminated $1.1 billion dollars in foreign assistance grants to Burma, including $181 million dedicated to the democracy movement. These cuts contravene the express purposes of the BURMA Act and will deal a severe blow to Myanmar’s democracy movement and civil society. They also serve as a gift to the Myanmar military and its authoritarian allies, including China and Russia, whose influence will now expand. Recommend DHS extend and redesignate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Burma: On November 24, the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced her determination that Burma no longer meets the conditions for a TPS designation. The announcement stated that the termination of TPS for Burma will be effective on January 26, 2026. Junta violence against the people of Burma has, however, continued unabated. Ending TPS for Burma endangers the 3,969 people who currently hold this status in the United States should they be forced to return, and it is inconsistent with our values. These measures are not only consistent with our nation’s values, but also critical to restoring stability in the broader Indo-Pacific region. Continued chaos in Burma creates further openings for increased PRC influence that could gain it strategically valuable access to the Indian Ocean. Both Russia and the PRC have provided almost $1 billion in weapons to the junta. Instability in Burma also continues to generate refugee outflows, destabilizing Bangladesh, Thailand, India, Malaysia, and Indonesia. Transnational criminal organizations have found safe haven in Burma to engage in human trafficking, cyber fraud, the drug trade, and other illicit activities that directly harm Americans. The only solution to these challenges to U.S. interests is to work with regional partners to end the violence and place Burma on a path to inclusive governance and democracy. We stand ready to work with you in pursuing these goals and reaffirming American leadership in defending human rights and democratic principles worldwide.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-kelly-blumenthal-markey-in-introducing-legislation-to-protect-airline-passengers-from-flight-cancellations-and-delays,"Van Hollen Joins Kelly, Blumenthal, Markey in Introducing Legislation to Protect Airline Passengers from Flight Cancellations and Delays",2025-12-04,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senators Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in introducing the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act, new legislation that will protect passengers by requiring airlines to provide cash compensation and free rebooking for passengers facing significant delays or cancellations caused by the airline. The bill would also direct the Department of Transportation (DOT) to mandate airlines reimburse passengers for hotels, meals, and transportation to lodging as a result of flight disruptions, regardless of the cause of the delay. The Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act comes in response to the Trump administration’s cancellation of a popular consumer protection rule in the making that would have required airlines to compensate passengers for preventable travel cancellations or delays. It is also cosponsored by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Wash.). “The Trump Administration’s decision to abandon commonsense consumer protections and force passengers to pay the price for flight delays and cancellations they didn’t cause is a major giveaway to the big corporations at the expense of everyone else. This legislation will put travelers first and ensure they get the reimbursements and accommodations they deserve when their flights are disrupted,” said Van Hollen. “Flying is already stressful and expensive. Airlines have to be accountable when they cost the American people money and travelers are left stranded,” said Kelly. “We’re working to make sure that passengers are protected so that cancellations and delays don’t cost them money out of their own pockets.” “This commonsense legislation holds airlines accountable and properly compensates passengers when their flight is delayed or cancelled—protecting Americans from losing their hard-earned paychecks to flight disruptions beyond their control and alleviating the burden of chaotic travel days. The Trump Administration’s senseless backtracking on airline passenger protections only serves the airline industry, padding their pocketbooks and leaving Americans stranded without help. With the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act, we put the traveling public first and bolster cost-saving consumer protections,” said Blumenthal. “Airlines that cancel and significantly delay flights due to their own mistakes can costs flyers thousands of dollars in secondary costs and lost income. In other words, the traveling public covers the costs of the airlines’ mistakes,” said Markey. “Instead of protecting family budgets, the Trump administration is choosing to protect the airlines’ bottom line. I’m proud to partner with Senator Kelly and Senator Blumenthal to introduce the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act, an important step to hold airlines accountable, enact cost-saving protections, and prioritize consumers instead of CEO billionaires and corporations at the top of the airline industry.” “American consumers deserve to have protections, especially when it comes to expensive flights. This Administration has made their agenda clear: protect billionaires and corporations over hardworking Americans. That agenda is wrong. We need to pass the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act so Marylanders – and airline passengers across the country – can receive cash compensation for their delayed or cancelled flights,” said Alsobrooks. “Amid record cancellations, delays, and safety concerns at airports across the country, travelers deserve compensation for these disruptions to their lives,” said Bennet. “The Trump Administration’s decision to undo previous consumer protections only worsens the chaos travelers are experiencing. This legislation would reinstate these protections and put travelers' wellbeing over the airline industry’s bottom line.” “When airline delays and cancellations leave us hanging, passengers shouldn’t be forced to pay the price,” said Fetterman. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this commonsense legislation to reinstate critical consumer protections for Pennsylvanians and airline passengers across the nation.” “Right before millions of Americans began traveling for the holidays this year, Trump’s transportation department ripped up the rule that forced airlines to compensate passengers when flights are delayed or cancelled. The Trump administration is once again siding with airline CEOs instead of everyday working families. I’m proud to back this legislation so families aren’t left stranded with the bill when airlines screw up,” said Gallego. “From Day One, President Trump has made it clear that he doesn’t care about consumers. His decision to scrap a proposal to hold airlines accountable for delays is the latest example. Passengers impacted by delays and cancellations should get the compensation they deserve,” said Welch. “I’m proud to join this legislation which will do just that.” “The biggest winners under Donald Trump’s presidency are corporations and the ultra-rich, and airlines are no exception. On top of his costly government shutdown that left travelers hamstrung and airports woefully understaffed by safety and air traffic controllers, now Trump is going out of his way to make flying more expensive for travelers. This legislation would restore much-needed consumer protections and financial relief during one of the busiest holiday travel seasons on record,” said Wyden. See what consumer and air traveler advocates are saying in support of the legislation: “Delays and cancellations are far and away the Number 1 complaint of airline passengers. Most are due to causes within airline control such as lack of airworthy equipment, flight personnel or not enough paying passengers, not weather or air traffic control. FlyersRights, the largest airline passenger organization, believes delay compensation is essential to improve air travel reliability and endorses the subject legislation. Delay compensation is the norm outside the US. Recent studies show major increases in lengthy delays is accelerating,” said FlyersRights President Paul Hudson. ""At a time when this DOT appears to be abandoning the public, it's critical for Congress to step up,"" said National Consumers League Senior Public Policy Manager Eden Iscil. ""This bill would bring consumer protections for flying into the 21st Century and in line with those found in many international jurisdictions. There's no reason an American airline should provide better care for its passengers when departing from Frankfurt while still denying those same basic accommodations for flights out of Phoenix."" Under the Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act, the DOT would be required to issue regulations that: Require the DOT to establish an Aviation Rulemaking Committee (ARC) that includes consumer protection groups to develop recommendations for how to implement rules that would require air carriers to provide consumers experiencing significant flight disruptions cash compensation, free rebooking, and reimbursements for passenger care needs such as meals, lodging for overnight delays, and transportation to and from lodging; Require the ARC to develop recommendations for passenger compensation in alignment with foreign standards, including the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA) Air Passenger Protection Regulations and Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council; Set a baseline standard of compensation of at least $300 for a delay of more than 3 hours but less than 6 hours; and at least $600 for a delay of 6 hours or more; Direct DOT to undertake a rulemaking to implement the ARC recommendations within 90 days after the ARC report is submitted; and Establish a stricter interim final rule that will go into effect 18 months after the bill is enacted, to prevent DOT from dragging its feet and ensuring the rulemaking takes place. Background: On November 15, 2025, the Trump administration officially withdrew a planned Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPRM) that the previous Administration’s Department of Transportation had initiated in December 2024 to require airlines to compensate passengers and cover their expenses for lengthy delays or cancellations caused by carriers. The ANPRM is the first part of the federal rulemaking process, meant to solicit public comment on the policies proposed by the agency. This ANPRM sought public comment on a rulemaking to “ensure consumers experiencing significant flight disruptions are taken care of and protected from financial losses.” The Flight Delay and Cancellation Compensation Act builds on the FAA Reauthorization Act of 2024 language and the proposed Biden-era ANPRM to expand consumer protections for impacted air passengers. This bill requires that the rulemaking process be restarted and that the FAA Reauthorization Language be implemented by establishing an Aviation Rulemaking Committee to develop recommendations to implement the requirements of the FAA Reauthorization Act and expand those recommendations to include reimbursement in the form of cash compensation and free rebooking. If the DOT fails to do so, the bill establishes an interim final rule with the force of law that establishes various minimum standards as outlined above.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-merkley-kaine-no-funds-for-war-against-venezuela,"Van Hollen, Merkley, Kaine: No Funds for War Against Venezuela",2025-12-04,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senators Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tim Kaine (D-Va.) in introducing the Prohibiting Unauthorized Military Action in Venezuela Act of 2025 to prohibit the use of federal funds for any use of military force in or against Venezuela without explicit Congressional authorization. “The Trump Administration has amassed the largest naval buildup in the Caribbean in decades and committed extrajudicial killings in international waters amounting either to murder or war crimes. Congress has not authorized this Administration to take these offensive actions, and with good reason – the American people do not want to start another war. We must put a stop to this by passing this simple measure to prevent U.S. taxpayer dollars from funding the Trump Administration’s manufactured conflict with Venezuela,” said Van Hollen. “Congress cannot stand by while Donald Trump wages war without authorization,” said Merkley. “Nicolás Maduro is a brutal dictator, but that does not provide justification for the Trump Administration to ignore U.S. law to carry out these unconstitutional military strikes. Donald Trump cannot be trusted, and we must say no to another endless war, reckless regime change, and lethal operations—which are essentially extrajudicial killings—and do nothing to make the American people safer.” “We shouldn’t stumble into an unnecessary war with Venezuela—risking U.S. servicemembers’ lives—with no congressional authorization and incomplete information about the Administration’s objectives, its legal rationale, and the potential consequences of a long-term conflict that could drive migration and irreparably fracture Venezuela,” said Kaine. “This legislation would prevent us from doing that, and I urge my colleagues to support it and reclaim the solemn responsibilities on matters of war and peace assigned to Congress by the Constitution.” The Senator's bill does not prevent the United States from acting to defend itself or its citizens from an armed attack or threat of an imminent armed attack, pursue lawful counternarcotics operations, or provide humanitarian assistance to the Venezuelan people.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-schiff-vargas-in-introducing-bill-to-prevent-inexperienced-temporary-immigration-judge-appointments-close-loopholes-exploited-by-trump-administration,"Van Hollen Joins Schiff, Vargas in Introducing Bill to Prevent Inexperienced Temporary Immigration Judge Appointments, Close Loopholes Exploited by Trump Administration",2025-12-03,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in introducing the Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act, legislation to prevent inexperienced temporary immigration judge appointments in light of the Trump administration’s abuse of loopholes in current regulations. U.S. Representative Juan Vargas (D-Calif.-52) is introducing companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives. Following the Trump administration’s mass firing of immigration judges and authorizing of up to 600 military lawyers to serve as temporary immigration judges, the bill aims to close the loopholes the administration has been utilizing to speed up their mass deportation agenda – such as the lack of due process protections for individuals in immigration court proceedings. “Everyone who comes before an immigration court has a right under our Constitution to a fair trial – but the Trump Administration is undermining that right as they replace scores of qualified judges with temporary judges who have little to no immigration law experience. Enacting stronger qualification and training standards for temporarily appointed judges will help ensure due process rights are upheld in our immigration courts,” said Senator Van Hollen. “The Trump administration’s willingness to fire experienced immigration judges and hire inexperienced or temporary “deportation judges,” especially in places like California, has fundamentally impacted the landscape of our justice system. Given the administration’s unlawful terminations of qualified judges, and their plan to leverage the power of temporary positions to speed up their mass deportation agenda, the risks of grave injury to families, fairness, and due process have expanded. The administration’s unlawful mass firing of immigration judges at an alarming rate is their latest aggressive enforcement tactic that jeopardizes our judicial workforce. Amidst the growing number of pending cases in immigration courts, this legislation will ensure that only experienced and trained temporary immigration judges will have the privilege of adjudicating cases that have permanent consequences for millions of people,” said Senator Schiff. “After purging over 100 permanent immigration judges from the DOJ, the Trump Administration is now looking to push attorneys with limited to no prior immigration law experience into these roles,” said Representative Vargas. “Anyone facing the life-altering consequences of deportation deserves to have their case heard in front of a judge who is trained and experienced in immigration law. We need guardrails now as the Trump Administration continues to attack our immigrant communities and due process rights.” The bill would: Cap temporary immigration judge appointments at four consecutive six-month terms: 2-year maximum service limit with at least a 3-year break in between services; Prevent military attorneys and Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) from being appointed as temporary immigration judges; Authorize appointments of attorneys at the Department of Justice (DOJ) who meet the eligibility requirements; Establish basic training requirements. The bill is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai'i), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “The Trump Administration has engaged in an unprecedented attack on due process and the rule of law. The only plausible explanation for firing qualified and experienced immigration judges and placing even greater strain on already overburdened immigration courts is a political one. This Administration is dismantling our immigration court system to pursue deportations at any cost,” said Senator Durbin. “I’m joining my colleagues in introducing the Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act to ensure that immigration judges are fully qualified to make decisions that profoundly impact the lives of immigrants in America.” “The Trump Administration's inhumane immigration policies are only made worse by its mass firing of immigration judges, creating an even greater backlog of immigration cases,” said Senator Bennet. “As families and community members languish in detention centers, our immigration courts are unable to efficiently enforce due process rights. This bill addresses this crisis created by the administration and puts qualified judges back on the bench to ensure our courts fulfill their duty.” “The Trump Administration’s immigration policy focuses on one thing: deportation,” said Senator Booker. “They have even rebranded immigration judges as ‘deportation judges.’ Congress must act swiftly to ensure a fair and just immigration process that reflects our values of freedom, dignity, and the rule of law. The Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act will ensure due process for all noncitizens—as required by the Constitution—and reaffirm that any immigration judge must be impartial, qualified, and committed to upholding the rule of law.” “The Trump Administration’s unlawful ousting of experienced, qualified immigration judges and disregard for due process are yet more moves straight out of an authoritarian’s playbook that jeopardize Americans’ civil rights—and its decision to use servicemembers as political pawns in its mass deportation agenda exploits our troops’ sacrifices,” said Senator Duckworth. “As the number of pending immigration cases continues to skyrocket, using military lawyers as temporary—and unqualified—immigration judges only adds further chaos to our immigration system, and I’m proud to help Senator Schiff introduce this legislation to stop it, honor our troops’ sacrifices and the Constitutional right to due process.” “The Trump Administration’s decision to lower eligibility requirements for immigration judges and reassign 600 military lawyers, including JAGs, threatens the readiness of our military forces and is an injustice to the millions of noncitizens who deserve to have their cases heard by a qualified immigration judge,” said Senator Hirono. “Not only will this legislation help to ensure that temporary immigration judges meet specific experience and training requirements, but it will also help to protect the readiness and function of our military justice system.” “By forcing a mass exodus of experienced immigration judges and replacing them with temporary judges who have no experience with immigration law, Trump has thrown our already broken system into more chaos,” said Senator Murphy. “Our bill codifies a basic principle: immigration law judges should know immigration law. President Trump doesn’t get to exploit a crisis he created to sidestep the rule of law and push his anti-immigrant agenda.” “The Trump administration has already fired or forced out over 100 immigration judges across the country as part of their callous anti-immigrant crusade, and now they are allowing attorneys with zero prior immigration law experience to serve as temporary judges in immigration cases, making hugely consequential decisions about families’ futures,” said Senator Murray. “Every person deserves a fair hearing. The Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act is about making sure anyone serving as a judge in an immigration hearing has the basic qualifications to do the job, and that the Trump administration can’t keep unqualified temporary judges in place indefinitely.” “By firing over 100 immigration judges — including five in San Francisco last week — and replacing them with inadequately trained temporary immigration judges, this Administration is worsening the case backlog across the country and undermining due process by deporting immigrants without a fair hearing,” said Senator Padilla. “This bill will ensure that even temporary immigration judges are qualified, properly trained, and held to a six-month term.” “Everyone deserves to have their fair day in court before an immigration judge who knows and understands our complex immigration laws. But as a result of the Trump Administration’s continued attempts to steamroll our judicial system, we now have judges with no prior immigration law experience making decisions that have permanent consequences on people’s lives,” said Senator Welch. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in reaffirming our commitment to a just, independent, and humane immigration system.” “Trump is weaponizing our immigration courts and torching due process rights by replacing experienced judges with unqualified lawyers who will rubberstamp his mass deportation agenda,” said Senator Wyden. “Congress needs to ensure that judges hearing these critical and complex cases have the knowledge to give immigrants the fair hearings that they deserve.” The bill is endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Immigration Council (AIC), American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA), Brennan Center for Justice, and the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ). “Across the country, our friends, neighbors, and family members attend immigration court hearings where judges make high-stakes decisions in their cases,” said Kate Voigt, Senior Policy Counsel, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). “Each and every person deserves to have their cases heard by an immigration judge who is well-versed in this complex area of law and who can make fair decisions. The Temporary Immigration Judge Integrity Act is an important step towards ensuring due process in our immigration courts, and the ACLU thanks Senator Schiff for his commitment to reform.” “The Trump administration has exploited its ability to improperly influence immigration judges’ decisions, further eroding the integrity of the immigration court system. This year alone, the administration has fired or pushed out more than a hundred permanent judges while simultaneously taking steps to hire hundreds of unqualified temporary judges. The American Immigration Council supports this bill because it would prevent future administrations from replacing permanent immigration judges with temporary appointees who lack immigration law experience and are vulnerable to political pressure. Noncitizens are entitled to fair and impartial hearings, and this bill is a critical step toward protecting the independence and credibility of immigration courts,” said Adriel D. Orozco, Senior Policy Counsel, American Immigration Council (AIC). “Everyone should have their fair day in court, but the Trump administration is firing massive numbers of judges and hiring in their place temporary judges who have barely a few weeks of training and no immigration law experience whatsoever. The administration’s watered-down standards for temporary judges are undermining the fairness and integrity of America’s courts. That is why AILA endorses this important bill led by Sen. Schiff to ensure every judge is qualified and well-trained before they make decisions that can change someone’s life,” said the American Immigration Lawyers Association (AILA). “The bill is a common-sense approach that ensures temporary immigration judges have sufficient expertise and training to allow them to handle immigration cases. The Supreme Court has recognized immigration law as a complex legal specialty, and minimum requirements are needed to make sure immigrants' due process rights are respected,” said Brennan Center for Justice. “Strengthening appointment criteria to emphasize credentials, judicial temperament, and commitment to due process reinforces public trust that decisions are based on law and evidence—not politics. Further, implementing rigorous vetting, training, and performance evaluation standards, with safeguards against political influence, promotes judicial excellence and consistency across both permanent and temporary appointments,” said the National Association of Immigration Judges (NAIJ).",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-cassidy-huffman-thompson-scholten-james-introduce-bipartisan-bicameral-resolution-recognizing-the-50th-anniversary-of-the-individuals-with-disabilities-education-act,"Van Hollen, Cassidy, Huffman, Thompson, Scholten, James Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Resolution Recognizing the 50th Anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act",2025-12-02,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.) and U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Glenn Thompson (R-Pa.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), and John James (R-Mich.) introduced a bipartisan, bicameral resolution recognizing the 50th anniversary of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and the historic step this legislation took by mandating that every child with a disability in America be given equal access to a free, appropriate public education. This resolution is cosponsored in the Senate by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), 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 Lujan (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). In the House, it is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Alma Adams (D-N.C.-12), Don Bacon (R-Neb.-02), Dina Titus (D-Nev.-01), Emily Randall (D-Wash.-06), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.-01), Gabe Evans (R-Colo.-08), Kevin Hern (R-Okla.-01), Jack Bergman (R-Mich.-01), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.-05), Kevin Kiley (R-Calif.-03), Kimberlyn King-Hinds (R-Northern Mariana Islands), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.-08), Doug LaMalfa (R-Calif-01), Julie Fedorchak (R-N.D.) Laura Friedman (D-Calif-30), John Mannion (D-N.Y.-22), James Moylan (R-Guam), Maria Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.-27), Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.-24), David Valadao (R-Calif.-22). “Since its passage fifty years ago, IDEA has opened the doors to a quality education for millions of students with disabilities across America. On IDEA’s anniversary, we honor all those who fought to make IDEA a reality and celebrate the dedicated educators who support students with disabilities in and out of the classroom. While we take stock of the progress that has been made because of this landmark legislation, I remain committed to the fight to fully fund IDEA – to move us closer to delivering greater, more equal access to high-quality education for every student in this country,” said Senator Van Hollen, who has also introduced the IDEA Full Funding Act. “All children deserve an education that gives them the resources they need to reach their full potential,” said Dr. Cassidy. “By empowering parents to partner in their child’s education and equipping teachers with resources, IDEA ensures children with disabilities have the opportunity to succeed in the classroom.” ""Every child – no matter their zip code, race, disability, or any other factor –deserves the education they need to succeed,"" said Rep. Huffman. ""50 years ago, Congress passed IDEA to transform classrooms for kids with disabilities and finally make that happen. Now, we won't stop pushing for full funding and fighting to ensure Congress delivers on this promise."" “Fifty years ago, Congress passed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act to ensure that every child with a disability has access to a high-quality education. IDEA opened classroom doors, expanded opportunities, and transformed education for millions of students with disabilities. Today, we celebrate half a century of inclusive education that provided every child the opportunity to thrive,” said Rep. Thompson. “Since President Ford signed it into law 50 years ago, IDEA has opened doors for millions of children with disabilities,” said Rep. Scholten. “I represent the same West Michigan seat that President Ford once held, and as the proud daughter of a special education teacher, I have seen how this law has transformed classrooms and strengthened opportunity for every child. It has allowed students to learn alongside their peers, participate fully in their communities, and pursue futures that were once out of reach. As we mark this anniversary, we must recommit to President Ford’s vision of investing in special education and ensuring every student has what they need to learn and thrive.” The Senators’ resolution is endorsed by The School Superintendents Association (AASA), Association of School Business Officials International (ASBO), Council for Exceptional Children, the National Center for Learning Disabilities, and National PTA. “IDEA’s promise has always been about more than access – it's about opportunity. It opened doors to possibility, respect, and belonging for millions of students who had long been denied access to public education. It transformed what families could expect and reshaped what our schools could provide. But opportunity demands resources. As we reflect on 50 years of IDEA, we thank members of Congress for recognizing this important milestone and urge them to put forward the resources so we can continue to implement the law with fidelity,” said David R. Schuler, Executive Director of AASA, The School Superintendents Association. “Fifty years ago, Public Law 94 142 ignited a culture shift that affirmed the inherent potential and rights of children with disabilities. CEC's members have led the charge- opening school doors, designing curriculum and supports, and translating research into practice across the country. This week we honor that legacy and look forward with determination to building on that progress to improve education and outcomes for infants, toddlers, children, and youth with disabilities,” said Chad Rummel, Executive Director, Council for Exceptional Children. “Fifty years of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act is an incredibly important milestone and on behalf of the students, families, and educators we serve, I am privileged to remark on the tremendous progress that has been made in educating students with disabilities,” said Dr. Jacqueline Rodriguez CEO of the National Center for Learning Disabilities. “We commend the bipartisan leadership in celebrating this anniversary and upholding the importance and significance of this federal law that ensures a free appropriate public education in the United States.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-ossoff-colleagues-in-launching-inquiry-into-dhs-obstruction-of-congressional-oversight,"Van Hollen Joins Ossoff, Colleagues in Launching Inquiry into DHS’ Obstruction of Congressional Oversight",2025-12-01,2025,2025-12,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.) and their colleagues in launching an inquiry with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) pressing the administration for answers about obstruction of Congressional access to detention facilities. Since the beginning of 2025, there have been numerous, publicly reported examples of members of Congress and their staff facing obstructed access to ICE facilities nationwide, including to ICE field offices where people are being detained. Sen. Ossoff is joined by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Reverend Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.). “Obstructing Congressional access to immigration detention facilities violates Federal law and undermines Congress’s inherent authority to conduct oversight that ensures detained individuals’ human rights and protects Americans from agency waste, fraud, and abuse,” the Senators wrote. “Members of Congress and their staff must be allowed, pursuant to Congress’s inherent oversight authority and as required by Federal law, to access any facility where individuals are held in federal custody to monitor and prevent these abuses and ensure accountability and compliance with standards for detention,” they continued. The text of the letter is available here and below: Dear Secretary Noem: We write with alarm regarding the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) arbitrary and illegal obstruction of Congressional access to detention facilities. Obstructing Congressional access to immigration detention facilities violates Federal law and undermines Congress’s inherent authority to conduct oversight that ensures detained individuals’ human rights and protects Americans from agency waste, fraud, and abuse. The Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 requires DHS and its component and partner agencies to allow members of Congress to inspect detention facilities without notice, and for their staff to enter if at least 24 hours’ notice is given. Even so, Members of Congress and their staff have been denied access to multiple detention facilities this year. Members from across the country have reported being denied access for unannounced inspections of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities. In the course of Sen. Ossoff’s ongoing investigation of human rights abuses in federal immigration detention, ICE arbitrarily required seven-day notice for Congressional staff to inspect a facility, postponing an urgent inspection of conditions for children held in a “family” detention center. Congressional offices have also been informed that ICE will no longer accommodate “mixed groups,” preventing members and their staff from being accompanied by doctors, attorneys, or other experts as they tour detention facilities. DHS’s latest changes to ICE policies on Congressional detention facility visits violate Federal law. Despite statutory access requirements, ICE issued a new guidance memo in June, which, while re-stating these statutory requirements, purported to require 72-hour notice for a visit for members and staff alike. The memo, which DHS has since removed from ICE’s website, was paired with a press statement from DHS claiming to require seven calendar days’ notice for visits to DHS detention facilities. The memo also purported to exclude ICE Field Offices, which are reportedly holding hundreds of detainees, from Congressional oversight. This runs counter to statute, which clearly contemplates Congressional access to any facility where individuals are detained by or for DHS, even if only temporarily. Congressional oversight protects detainees’ human rights and delivers transparency and accountability to Americans. As of the end of July, Sen. Ossoff’s office had received or identified 510 credible reports of human rights abuse against individuals in federal immigration custody, including deaths in custody, physical and sexual abuse, mistreatment of pregnant women and children, medical neglect, overcrowding and unsanitary living conditions, denial of adequate food and water, exposure to extreme temperatures, denial of access to attorneys, and family separations. Members of Congress and their staff must be allowed, pursuant to Congress’s inherent oversight authority and as required by Federal law, to access any facility where individuals are held in federal custody to monitor and prevent these abuses and ensure accountability and compliance with standards for detention. We urge you to follow the law and grant full access to detention facilities to members of Congress and their staff, and ask that you respond to the following questions in writing by December 15, 2025. 1. How many visits to DHS facilities or other any other place where detainees are being held, requested either by Members of Congress or their staff, did DHS and its component or partner agencies block or delay since January 20, 2025? Please indicate how many Member visit requests and how many Congressional staff visit requests were delayed or blocked, whether temporarily or permanently. 2. How many Members of Congress or Congressional staff members have been turned away since January 20, 2025, at DHS facilities or any other place where detainees are being held? Please indicate how many Members and how many Congressional staffers were temporarily or permanently denied entry into facilities or denied interviews with staff, contractors, or detainees. a. How many visits were allowed, meaning the Member or Congressional staff was able to enter the facility without delay, as requested, and interview staff, contractors, or detainees? Please provide a breakdown by facility, facility operator, month, and, if requested by a Member of Congress, whether the visit was announced or unannounced. b. Where visits were ultimately allowed, please provide the dates that each visit was initially requested, the date when the visit ultimately took place, and whether the visit involved Members of Congress or Congressional staff. 3. Please provide a copy of the most recent guidance to members of Congress and their staff with regard to Congressional access to facilities where individuals are held by or for DHS, including ICE and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) facilities, as well as facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Defense, and other federal, state, and local partners. 4. Please provide a copy of the most recent guidance to facility operators with regard to Congressional access to facilities where individuals are held by or for DHS, including ICE and CBP facilities, as well as facilities operated by the Bureau of Prisons, Department of Defense, and other federal, state, and local partners. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T20:09:11Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-elfreth-olszewski-announce-72-million-authorized-to-rehabilitate-the-piney-run-watershed-dam,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Elfreth, Olszewski Announce $7.2 Million Authorized to Rehabilitate the Piney Run Watershed Dam",2025-11-26,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Sarah Elfreth and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) announced the authorization of up to $7,229,850 in federal funding to support the rehabilitation of the Piney Run Watershed Dam to mitigate the risk of breaches. Piney Run Dam is classified by the Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) Dam Safety as “High Hazard” – meaning that the county and MDE take extra precautions to ensure it is inspected annually and well-maintained. A breach of Piney Run Dam would put hundreds of lives and properties at risk and potentially damage critical transportation infrastructure, including an interstate highway and a freight railroad. This investment will address key dam safety concerns, reduce the risk of loss of life in the event of a structural failure, enhance flood protection capabilities, and ensure it meets all current federal and state safety criteria for a “high” hazard potential dam. The upgrades to the dam include widening the auxiliary spillway, installing a concrete weir spillway structure, raising the dam crest, and installing roller-compacted concrete along the auxiliary spillway exit channel – critical measures to prevent rising waters from flowing over the crest. “Piney Run Park is a beloved piece of the Sykesville community, and maintaining the Piney Run Dam is critical to ensuring Marylanders can continue to enjoy it for years to come. This federal investment will help bolster the safety of the dam so folks can keep experiencing all Piney Run Park has to offer,” said the lawmakers. The federal investment comes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Watershed Rehabilitation (REHAB) Program, which Federal Team Maryland fought to fund at $118 million through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The FY25 government funding bill included an additional $1 million for the REHAB program, and the FY26 funding bill for the Department of Agriculture included an additional $3 million. Carroll County is expected to apply for these funds as the project continues through the design phase and into construction.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-reed-lead-colleagues-in-pressing-rubio-for-accounting-of-hundreds-of-potential-violations-of-us-human-rights-law-in-gaza,"Van Hollen, Reed Lead Colleagues in Pressing Rubio for Accounting of Hundreds of Potential Violations of US Human Rights Law in Gaza",2025-11-26,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the Senate Appropriations and Foreign Relations Committees, U.S. Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a member of the Appropriations Committee, and their colleagues are pressing Secretary of State Marco Rubio for an accounting of the hundreds of reported potential violations of U.S. human rights law in Gaza. The Senators were joined in sending the letter by Senators Jeff Merkley, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Peter Welch, Brian Schatz, Tim Kaine, Patty Murray, Tina Smith, and Ed Markey. “The U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General (State OIG) issued a report in September 2025 titled ‘Classified Review of the Department of State’s Implementation of Leahy Non-Traceable Assistance Requirements.’ While the report itself is classified, the Washington Post recently cited an unclassified section describing that State OIG ‘found that Israeli military units committed “many hundreds” of potential violations of U.S. human rights law in the Gaza Strip that would take the State Department “multiple years” to review.’ Given these findings, we urge you to quickly implement the OIG’s recommendations and adjudicate these cases in a timely manner in order to ensure compliance with U.S. law,” the Senators begin. “As you know, Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act, also known as the Leahy Law, prohibits the U.S. Government from providing assistance to any unit of a foreign security force when the Secretary of State has credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). […] The aforementioned OIG report examined the Department’s implementation of the Leahy law and, for select countries, Leahy vetting practices where the assistance’s ultimate recipient is not known before transfer,” they continued. “According to the Washington Post, State OIG further found that ‘the protocol, known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum, involves higher-level U.S. officials and a lengthier process than reviews for other countries.’ This confirms earlier reports that have previously found the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum follows a different process and requires more burdensome consultation that allows the review to drag on, perhaps indefinitely. Additionally, an April 2025 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on ‘Human Rights: State Can Improve Response to Allegations of Civilians Harmed by U.S. Arms Transfers’ found that State has not completed a single investigation into the hundreds of reported cases of civilian harm using U.S. weapons, despite State’s own finding of numerous credible reports,” the Senators note. “The findings from this September 2025 State OIG report are deeply concerning. But even more troubling is the fact that this review is simply the latest confirmation from a series of different reports that have each described failures to uphold American human rights laws and policies governing the use of U.S. weapons and other assistance globally. Without effective enforcement mechanisms, these laws and policies become meaningless. Therefore, by December 9, 2025, please respond to this letter with your plans to adjudicate potential Leahy law violations by Israeli security force units and other foreign military partners receiving this category of security assistance in a timely manner in order to ensure compliance with U.S. law. In your response, please describe what additional staff and resources are needed to address these cases and how you plan to revise the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum protocol to ensure a uniform process is followed for every country,” the Senators wrote in closing. The text of the letter is available here and below. Dear Secretary Rubio: The U.S. Department of State Office of Inspector General (State OIG) issued a report in September 2025 titled “Classified Review of the Department of State’s Implementation of Leahy Non-Traceable Assistance Requirements.” While the report itself is classified, the Washington Post recently cited an unclassified section describing that State OIG “found that Israeli military units committed “many hundreds” of potential violations of U.S. human rights law in the Gaza Strip that would take the State Department “multiple years” to review.” Given these findings, we urge you to quickly implement the OIG’s recommendations and adjudicate these cases in a timely manner in order to ensure compliance with U.S. law. As you know, Section 620M of the Foreign Assistance Act, also known as the Leahy Law, prohibits the U.S. Government from providing assistance to any unit of a foreign security force when the Secretary of State has credible information implicating that unit in the commission of gross violations of human rights (GVHR). Furthermore, in 2022, Congress enacted updates to the Leahy Law to address cases in which the specific unit(s) that will ultimately receive assistance cannot be identified prior to the transfer of assistance. For these cases, the law requires a written agreement with the recipient government that it will not provide assistance to ineligible units. The aforementioned OIG report examined the Department’s implementation of the Leahy law and, for select countries, Leahy vetting practices where the assistance’s ultimate recipient is not known before transfer. According to the Washington Post, State OIG further found that “the protocol, known as the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum, involves higher-level U.S. officials and a lengthier process than reviews for other countries.” This confirms earlier reports that have previously found the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum follows a different process and requires more burdensome consultation that allows the review to drag on, perhaps indefinitely. Additionally, an April 2025 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) on “Human Rights: State Can Improve Response to Allegations of Civilians Harmed by U.S. Arms Transfers” found that State has not completed a single investigation into the hundreds of reported cases of civilian harm using U.S. weapons, despite State’s own finding of numerous credible reports. It is important to note, however, that the Leahy Law prohibits assistance to a foreign security force unit that has committed a GVHR, irrespective of whether U.S. weapons were involved in such an act. Therefore, the challenge of determining involvement of U.S. weapons should not delay adjudication of these Leahy law cases. The findings from this September 2025 State OIG report are deeply concerning. But even more troubling is the fact that this review is simply the latest confirmation from a series of different reports that have each described failures to uphold American human rights laws and policies governing the use of U.S. weapons and other assistance globally. Without effective enforcement mechanisms, these laws and policies become meaningless. Therefore, by December 9, 2025, please respond to this letter with your plans to adjudicate potential Leahy law violations by Israeli security force units and other foreign military partners receiving this category of security assistance in a timely manner in order to ensure compliance with U.S. law. In your response, please describe what additional staff and resources are needed to address these cases and how you plan to revise the Israel Leahy Vetting Forum protocol to ensure a uniform process is followed for every country.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-announce-over-670-million-for-maryland-military-installations,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Announce Over $670 Million for Maryland Military Installations",2025-11-25,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) announced $676,800,000 for military installations across Maryland within the fiscal year 2026 Senate Appropriations Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies appropriations bill – which was enacted into law as part of the government funding agreement passed earlier this month. These projects – funded at the Senators’ request – support infrastructure upgrades for Maryland’s National Guard and at construction projects at U.S. military installations across the state. This legislation also makes important nationwide investments in housing for servicemembers and their families, veterans’ health care, and more. “Maryland is the proud home to critical military installations as well as hundreds of thousands of servicemembers, civilian employees, and veterans. We fought to secure federal investments in this legislation to advance important military projects across our state, boost health care and other services for our veterans, and more. As the appropriations process for next year moves forward, I will continue to do all I can to ensure our funding bills meet the needs of Maryland, our active-duty servicemembers and veterans, and our nation as a whole,” said Senator Van Hollen, a member of the Appropriations Committee. “I am proud to announce essential funding for Maryland included in the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Funding Bill. This funding includes building a contained burn facility at Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head to support our environmental goals as well as critical funding for veterans, especially those experiencing homelessness in our state. This funding reminds us of our duty to support our veterans, to fight for those in active service, and to maintain and protect the military facilities across our state,” said Senator Alsobrooks. The Senators worked to secure these funds and provisions, but ultimately voted against the larger package they were included within given its failure to prevent health care costs for millions of Americans from skyrocketing and its lack of safeguards to prevent more lawlessness from the Trump Administration. Highlights for Maryland in the Fiscal Year 2026 Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Funding Bill Congressionally Directed Spending Project Name: Contained Burn Facility at Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Applicant: Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head Project Description: Funds will be used to build a contained burn facility at Naval Surface Warfare Center Indian Head to responsibly dispose of unexploded ordnance, reducing environmental impacts of disposal. Project Location: Charles County Amount Included: $18,700,000 Project Name: Edgewood Vehicle Maintenance Shop Design Applicant: Maryland Army National Guard Project Description: Funds will be used to design a 40,000 square-foot vehicle maintenance shop in Edgewood, MD to support the military vehicles and other ground equipment of the Maryland Army National Guard. Project Location: Harford County Amount Included: $3,250,000 Project Name: Hagerstown Vehicle Maintenance Shop Design Applicant: Maryland Army National Guard Project Description: Funds will be used to design a 22,894 square-foot vehicle maintenance shop in Hagerstown, MD to support the military vehicles and other ground equipment of the Maryland Army National Guard . Project Location: Washington County Amount Included: $3,250,000 Additional priorities secured bythe Senators Funding for critical military construction projects across Maryland, including: $100 million for the Suitland Foreign Materials Exploration Lab $70 million for construction at the Bethesda Naval Hospital $455 million for NSAW East Campus Building #5 construction at Fort Meade $26.6 million for NSAW Venona Road Widening at Fort Meade $3.46 billion for veterans homelessness programs, a $250 million increase over FY25. This funding includes: $659 million for the Supportive Services for Veteran Families (SSVF) Program, $276.8 million for the Grant and Per Diem (GPD) Program, $702.8 million for case management administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) under the Housing and Urban Development-Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing (HUD-VASH) Program, and $173.7 million for the Veterans Justice Outreach Program and Legal Services for Veterans grants.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-announce-protections-for-barc-and-over-25-million-in-direct-funding-for-local-projects-supporting-economic-development-emergency-response-veterans-infrastructure_more,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Announce Protections for BARC & Over $25 Million in Direct Funding for Local Projects Supporting Economic Development, Emergency Response, Veterans, Infrastructure, & More",2025-11-25,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and U.S. Senator Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) announced $25,076,500 in direct federal funding for community-led projects throughout Maryland within the fiscal year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies appropriations bill – which was enacted into law as part of the government funding agreement passed earlier this month. These projects – funded at the Senators’ request – support first responders, economic development, agricultural research, and more for local communities across Maryland. Also critical for Maryland, the Senators secured provisions to support the continued operations of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Prince George’s County – which has been targeted for closure under the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) reorganization plan – along with $6 million to modernize aging buildings on its campus. “In partnership with community leaders across our state, we fought to secure direct federal investments in this legislation to advance local priorities – from better equipping our first responders to spurring economic development. Within this bill, we also worked to ensure BARC can continue its vital efforts to bolster the success of America’s farmers, halting this Administration’s misguided attempts to shutter this crown jewel of agricultural research – while also providing additional resources to support conservation in and around the Chesapeake Bay. As the appropriations process for next year moves forward, I will continue to do all I can to ensure our funding bills meet the needs of Maryland and our nation,” said Senator Van Hollen, a member of the Appropriations Committee. “I am so proud to have worked alongside Senator Van Hollen in pushing back against this Administration to ensure the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) – a hub for agricultural research that supports 1,000 jobs in our state – was fully funded in Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Funding Bill. In addition, I am proud we were able to secure funding for mental health and substance use services, STEM-related equipment for our public libraries, support for our fire departments, additional funding to address Maryland's nurses shortage, and a radiation department and on-site radiation treatment services for cancer patients in Garrett County, MD,” said Senator Alsobrooks. The Senators worked to secure these funds and provisions, but ultimately voted against the larger package they were included within, given its failure to prevent health care costs for millions of Americans from skyrocketing and its lack of safeguards to prevent more lawlessness from the Trump Administration. Highlights for Maryland in the Fiscal Year 2026 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and Related Agencies Funding Bill Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) BARC is the largest USDA Agricultural Research Service facility in the country and a hub for key agricultural research that supports farmers throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed and across the nation. It supports 1,000 jobs in Maryland. The funding bill includes $6 million for BARC facility upgrades and capital improvements, including $3 million in direct federal funding requested and secured by the Senators. The bill report also includes language in support of the continued operation of BARC, which has been targeted for closure under the USDA’s reorganization plan. Congressionally Directed Spending Project Name: Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Infrastructure Applicant: USDA BARC Project Description: Funds will be used to make essential upgrades to continue agricultural research at BARC, including to finish steam system repairs from power plant to endpoints, repair water towers and the water treatment plant, and repair wastewater main lines. Project Location: Prince George’s County Amount Included: $3,000,000 Project Name: Berlin Community Center at Historic Flower Street School Site Applicant: Town of Berlin Project Description: Funds will support the construction of a multigenerational community center that will house the SHORE UP! Head Start Center, programs for kids and families, computer labs, and recreational spaces at the site of the historic Flower Street School. Project Location: Worcester County Amount Included: $1,400,000 Project Name: Carroll County Youth Service Bureau Building Addition Project Applicant: Carroll County Youth Service Bureau Project Description: Funds will support an addition to the Carroll County Youth Service Bureau Building to expand mental health and substance use services for individuals and families. Project Location: Carroll County Amount Included: $1,000,000 Project Name: City of Cambridge Fire Engine Replacement Applicant: Commissioners of Cambridge - City of Cambridge Project Purpose: Funds will be used to purchase a new fire and rescue truck for Dorchester County’s Rescue Fire Company to replace the oldest in their fleet, which is 13 years past its service life. Project Location: Dorchester County Amount Included: $715,000 Project Name: Crisfield Fire Department & Emergency Shelter Applicant: City of Crisfield Project Purpose: Funds will be used to construct a new fire department and emergency shelter for the City of Crisfield, which will replace the existing 65-year-old station that is not suitable for modern needs and emergencies. Project Location: Somerset County Amount Included: $1,357,500 Project Name: Doctor of Veterinary Medicine Program Applicant: University of Maryland Eastern Shore Project Purpose: Funds will be used for specialized equipment, vehicles, and supplies to support the new Doctor of Veterinary Medicine program at UMES. This program is essential to address the nationwide veterinarian shortage, particularly in rural areas. Project Location: Somerset County Amount Included: $1,000,000 Project Name: Expanding Nursing Education and Workforce Development Technology Applicant: McDaniel College Project Description: Funds will equip a new state-of-the-art facility to educate nursing students and address Maryland’s nursing shortage. Project Location: Carroll County Amount Included: $830,000 Project Name: Garrett Regional Medical Center Radiology Department Planning and Design Applicant: Garrett Regional Medical Center Project Purpose: Funds will be used for a comprehensive radiation department and on-site radiation treatment services for cancer patients in Garrett County, MD and surrounding communities which currently lack convenient access to this care. Project Location: Garrett County Amount Included: $1,000,000 Project Name: Kent County EMS Headquarters Enhancement Project Applicant: Kent County Board of County Commissioners Project Description: Funds will support the purchase and installation of a backup emergency power generator for the Kent County emergency medical service headquarters, ensuring that power loss or disruption events do not interrupt the continuity of emergency services provided to Kent County residents. Project Location: Kent County Amount Included: $45,000 Project Name: Kent County for Millington Wastewater Treatment Plant Applicant: Kent County Board of County Commissioners Project Description: Funds will support construction of a new, relocated Wastewater Treatment Plant serving the town of Millington. The existing plant is aging and needs to be relocated from a floodplain, where there is risk of environmental damage. Project Location: Kent County Amount Included: $6,200,000 Project Name: Potomac Fire Company Engine Replacement Applicant: Potomac Fire Company No.2 Inc. Project Description: Funds will be used to replace a 33-year-old fire engine to better serve and protect the Town of Westernport. Project Location: Allegany County Amount Included: $675,000 Project Name: Mount St. Mary's University for Water Treatment Plant Applicant: Mount St. Mary's University Project Description: Funds will be used to construct a water treatment plant serving the campus community, patients at Frederick Health Urgent Care, and the rural Town of Emmitsburg. The project will improve drinking water infrastructure and address elevated levels of PFAS. Project Location: Frederick County Amount Included: $1,000,000 Project Name: San Mar Children’s Home, Inc. Facility Construction Applicant: San Mar Children's Home, Inc. DBA San Mar Family and Community Services, Inc. Project Purpose: Funds will be used to renovate buildings to provide supportive services and housing for young people to prevent homelessness. Project Location: Washington County Amount Included: $1,015,000 Project Name: Shore Regional Medical Center Applicant: University of Maryland Shore Regional Health Project Purpose: Funds will be used to support construction of a new Regional Medical Center in Easton that would promote greater access to urgent healthcare by serving as the Mid-Shore’s hub for acute hospital based services. Project Location: Talbot County Amount Included: $2,500,000 Project Name: STEM Makerspace at the New La Plata Library Applicant: Charles County Public Library Project Description: Funds will be used to outfit a makerspace at the new La Plata branch library with STEM-related equipment such as 3D printers and laser cutters to encourage educational opportunities and support local entrepreneurship. Project Location: Charles County Amount Included: $67,000 Project Name: The Foxie G Foundation Horses Helping People Center Applicant: The Foxie G Foundation, Inc Project Description: Funds will be used to support the construction and development of an equine-assisted therapy center to provide mental health services to veterans, first-responders, dementia patients and their caregivers, and at-risk youth. Project Location: Charles County Amount Included: $428,000 Project Name: Town of Barclay Community Center and Town Hall Applicant: Town of Barclay Project Description: Funds will support construction of a community center and town hall to increase access to resources and information for residents and visitors. Project Location: Queen Anne's County Amount Included: $1,044,000 Project Name: Town of Eagle Harbor Community Revitalization Applicant: Town of Eagle Harbor, Inc. Project Description: Funds will support expansion and renovation of the Eagle Harbor Community Center and new downtown outdoor amenities to support residents as well as local economic growth opportunities, including a park, an outdoor pavilion, and performance space. Project Location: Prince George's County Amount Included: $800,000 Project Name: Veterans Freedom Center Applicant: Carroll County Veterans Independence Project, Inc. Project Description: A Veterans Freedom Center (VFC) would provide a community hub for community engagement, employment assistance, education assistance, and support services that would empower Veterans from around the region to transition successfully back to civilian life. Project Location: Carroll County Amount Included: $1,000,000 Additional priorities secured by the Senators in the FY26 Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies funding bill, in addition to the $6 million for BARC facility upgrades and capital improvements: $850 million for Natural Resource Conservation Service Conservation Operations – this funding allows Natural Resources Conservation Service staff to provide assistance and work one-on-one with farmers to conserve resources and prevent run-off. The bill also includes language expressing the Committee’s view that additional Conservation Technical Assistance should be provided to Critical Conservation Areas like the Chesapeake Bay Watershed because a lack of planning capacity can slow down projects in our region. Funding for programs at historically Black 1890 Land-Grant institutions like the University of Maryland Eastern Shore: Research: $89 million Extension Services: $72 million Education Grants: $30 million Facility Improvements: $21.5 million Scholarships: $10 million Centers of Excellence: $10 million Other highlights:",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-introduce-bill-to-rename-post-office-in-olney-after-beloved-employee-edward-ramsey,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Introduce Bill to Rename Post Office in Olney After Beloved Employee, Edward Ramsey",2025-11-24,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) introduced legislation to name the U.S. Post Office located at 3570 Olney Laytonsville Road in Olney, Maryland, after Sergeant Edward Lawrence Ramsey, an Army veteran and 27-year employee of the U.S. Postal Service (USPS) who passed away in 2022. Ramsey served honorably in the United States Army for over 20 years, His service included time in Panama, Louisiana, Walter Reed Medical Center in Washington, D.C., and Fort Sam Houston, in San Antonio, Texas. During his 27-year USPS career, he served as a clerk in at the Olney Post Office, where he became a beloved fixture of the Olney community. “Ed Ramsey was a public servant through and through, joining the Army to defend our nation then going on to serve his community in the local post office for many years. During those years, he was the welcoming and genuinely friendly presence that his neighbors looked forward to finding when they walked through the doors of the Olney Post Office – so much so that many of those who came to know him launched a grassroots effort to rename it in his memory after his passing. I’m honored to stand with them and lead this charge in the Senate – it’s a fitting tribute for a good man who made a lasting impact on his community,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Ed Ramsey spent 20 years serving our country in the Army followed by another 27 years working for USPS. He is a patriot and a public servant who served with courage, kindness, and conviction. At Olney Post Office, every member of our community became a quick friend of Ed’s. It is most appropriate that we rename the Olney Post Office in his honor, so every day, we can all be reminded of his great service and continue to cherish his memory,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “Ed never sought recognition; he simply cared deeply about the customers. Knowing this post office could soon carry his name means the world to our family. It’s a beautiful reminder of the patience, kindness, and quiet generosity he shared with everyone he met. May these ideals exist well into the future at this Post Office,” said Sharon Mosley-Ramsey, wife of the late Ed Ramsey.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-maryland-congressional-delegation-announce-over-60-million-to-modernize-maryland-bus-systems,Maryland Congressional Delegation Announce Over $60 Million to Modernize Maryland Bus Systems,2025-11-21,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Glenn Ivey, Jamie Raskin, Sarah Elfreth, and April McClain Delaney (all D-Md.) announced $60,322,396 in federal funding to upgrade the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority’s (WMATA) bus transit system and to support the construction of a new transit maintenance and operations facility in Charles County. WMATA will receive $50,322,380 to purchase 50 40-foot diesel-electric hybrid replacement buses, an investment that is expected to cut the system’s fuel consumption by 51,000 gallons each year. Charles County will receive $10,000,016 to build its modernized maintenance and operations facility that will better support bus operators and riders. “Upgrading our public transit with cleaner, more efficient buses and improved bus infrastructure will help provide greater reliability for the thousands of Marylanders who ride WMATA and VanGO every day. Through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, we are continuing to invest in public transportation that supports our growing communities while producing fewer emissions and keeping the region’s economy moving forward,” said the lawmakers. The funds are provided through the U.S. Department of Transportation’s Low or No Emission Grant Program and Buses & Bus Facilities Program, which Federal Team Maryland fought to fund under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-king-colleagues-in-introducing-bipartisan-bill-to-track-benefits-of-preventive-health-care-legislation,"Van Hollen Joins King, Colleagues in Introducing Bipartisan Bill to Track Benefits of Preventive Health Care Legislation",2025-11-21,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Angus King (I-Maine) and thier colleagues in introducing bipartisan legislation to better measure the cost savings that come with improved investments in preventive health care for Maine people. The Preventive Health Savings Act would instruct the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to fully study the costs and benefits that could be seen with proposed preventive health care legislation. CBO analyses are essential benchmarks that members of Congress use to determine the cost of legislation to the American taxpayer. By taking a longer-term view into consideration past the current 10-year window and incorporating prevention interventions into CBO scoring, Congress could make more informed decisions and better measure the return on investment of Americans getting ahead of health problems before they get more serious and costly. “Preventive care and early detection can help patients live longer and healthier lives while also saving on long-term costs for everything from treatments to hospital visits,” said Senator Van Hollen. “By accounting for preventive care, we can make smarter health care policy decisions that work better for patients and taxpayers alike.” “I often say, ‘an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.’ Preventive care is one of the most effective ways to keep Maine people healthy and save money for patients and taxpayers alike, and as we work to expand this care, we must first learn how we can best measure it,” said Senator King. “The bipartisan Preventive Health Savings Act will allow Congress a more complete view of how preventative healthcare legislation can help patients stay healthy and cut costs. The cheapest surgery or treatment is the one that we avoid by getting ahead of the issue, and this bill is a simple step to reduce health care expenses, save taxpayer dollars and support Americans’ long-term health.” “It is important we have a clear, long-term picture of the return on investment from preventive health care measures,” said Senator Crapo. “Removing current CBO limitations benefits any future health care reform and helps pave the way for additional preventive measures that save lives and reduce costs.” “Preventive health care measures allow Americans to live longer, healthier lives and substantially lower the costs passed along to the taxpayer,” said Senator Cramer. “Our bill updates existing CBO rules to better allow Congress to account for long-term savings generated by investments in preventive care.” “This bipartisan legislation brings together budget policy and health policy to reflect the benefits of tackling chronic disease,” said American Medical Association President Bobby Mukkamala, M.D. “Not only will our patients live longer and healthier because of federally funded health initiatives, but taxpayers will benefit from savings resulting from treating chronic diseases. Allowing CBO to assess long-term savings from prevention legislation is a prescription for bending the health care cost curve.” Chronic diseases are a leading cause of death and disability in the United States, and treating affected patients accounts for over 90 percent of America’s $3.3 trillion annual medical expenditures. Many of these diseases — including heart disease, diabetes, and obesity — are easily detected and largely avoidable through screenings, routine testing, and early interventions. Under current law, however, the CBO does not take into account the long-term cost-savings associated with preventive health initiatives. The Preventive Health Savings Act would direct the CBO to more accurately reflect the cost-savings of preventive health care legislation by allowing Congressional Committees to request additional analyses of the budgetary impact of preventive healthcare legislation. By allowing the CBO to widen its budget window to better capture the costs-savings from preventive care, the legislation encourages a sensible review of health policy in order to promote public health and incentivizes Congress to invest in proven methods of saving lives and money.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-markey-colleagues-in-urging-trump-administration-to-take-action-to-protect-armenian-prisoners-of-war,"Van Hollen Joins Markey, Colleagues in Urging Trump Administration to Take Action to Protect Armenian Prisoners of War",2025-11-21,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and 25 colleagues in writing to Secretary of State Marco Rubio, urging the United States take immediate action to halt the human rights abuses and war crimes being committed by the Republic of Azerbaijan against the Armenian Population of Nagorno-Karabakh. For the past two years, Azerbaijan has committed what international legal experts characterize as ethnic cleansing. The United States can no longer adopt a path of inaction in the face of these war crimes and instead must demand that Azerbaijan release unjustly detained Armenian prisoners and usher in an era of regional peace. In the letter, the lawmakers write, “It is now two years since Azerbaijan’s blockade and military assault on Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) forcibly displaced the region’s 120,000 Christian Armenians in what international legal experts have characterized as ethnic cleansing. Azerbaijan’s September 2023 assault on the region marked the culmination of a pattern of aggression following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, during which Azerbaijan perpetrated egregious war crimes. These included the summary execution of civilians; the destruction of schools, homes, and hospitals; the deliberate targeting of churches and other Armenian Christian heritage sites; and the arbitrary detention of dozens of Armenian prisoners of war.” The lawmakers continue, “To this day, Azerbaijan continues to illegally detain at least 23 known Armenian prisoners of war captured during and after the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Rather than face consequences, Azerbaijan has begun politically motivated sham trials under false pretenses, targeting captives solely based on their Armenian identity. Among those detained are former presidents, foreign ministers, and parliamentary leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh.” The lawmakers urge the following actions: Demand the immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian political prisoners and prisoners of war. Press Azerbaijani authorities to allow international observers and independent media outlets to monitor proceedings against Armenian political figures. Impose sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act on Azerbaijan officials responsible for gross human rights violations against Armenian prisoners. This letter was cosigned by Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I), Jack Reed (D-R.I), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), and John Fetterman (D-Pa.). The full text of the letter is available here and below: Dear Secretary Rubio, The Republic of Azerbaijan, which has a history of perpetrating grave human rights abuses and war crimes against the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh, continues to detain and abuse Armenian prisoners of war and political captives. The responsible Azerbaijani officials must be held to account. We write to urge you to demand the release of all Armenian political prisoners, to insist that Azerbaijani authorities open to the press and international observers the legal proceedings against those individuals, and to immediately exercise your authority to impose sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act. Continued U.S. inaction in the face of Azerbaijan’s authoritarian aggression is unacceptable and will have grave ramifications for U.S. credibility throughout the region, particularly as Armenia seeks to strengthen its ties with the West. It is now two years since Azerbaijan’s blockade and military assault on NagornoKarabakh (Artsakh) forcibly displaced the region’s 120,000 Christian Armenians in what international legal experts have characterized as ethnic cleansing. Azerbaijan’s September 2023 assault on the region marked the culmination of a pattern of aggression following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh War, during which Azerbaijan perpetrated egregious war crimes. These included the summary execution of civilians; the destruction of schools, homes, and hospitals; the deliberate targeting of churches and other Armenian Christian heritage sites; and the arbitrary detention of dozens of Armenian prisoners of war. To this day, Azerbaijan continues to illegally detain at least 23 known Armenian prisoners of war captured during and after the blockade of Nagorno-Karabakh. Rather than face consequences, Azerbaijan has begun politically motivated sham trials under false pretenses, targeting captives solely based on their Armenian identity. Among those detained are former presidents, foreign ministers, and parliamentary leaders of Nagorno-Karabakh. Reports indicate these political hostages, including former officials Ruben Vardanyan, Davit Manukyan, Davit Babayan, Levon Mnatsakanyan, Arkadi Ghukasyan, Bako Sahakyan, Arayik Harutyunyan, and Davit Ishkhanyan, have suffered abuse and degrading treatment in custody, while secrecy and irregularities surrounding proceedings in Baku’s military court cast significant doubt on the fairness and legitimacy of these proceedings. The Azerbaijani government’s recent expulsion of the International Committee of the Red Cross — the only organization authorized to visit Armenian detainees — further endangers the safety and security of these Armenian political prisoners. The sham trials of high-profile Armenian figures undermine confidence-building measures necessary for a durable peace. Releasing political prisoners and prisoners of war is a critical step toward achieving a just and lasting resolution. Therefore, we urge you to take the following actions in your engagements with the government of Azerbaijan: demand the immediate and unconditional release of all Armenian political prisoners and prisoners of war; press Azerbaijani authorities to allow international observers and independent media outlets to monitor proceedings against Armenian political figures; and impose sanctions under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act on Azerbaijan officials responsible for gross human rights violations against Armenian prisoners. Although we are cautiously hopeful that the recent negotiations between Armenia and Azerbaijan may usher in a more peaceful future for the region, Azerbaijan’s ongoing hostage diplomacy and unreasonable preconditions jeopardize that progress. The draft agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan omits any provision for releasing Armenian prisoners, Magnitsky Sanctions remain a critical tool to secure the release of POWs and deter further aggression against Armenia. It is both a moral and strategic imperative for the United States to take bold action to compel Azerbaijan to release unjustly detained Armenian prisoners and ensure regional peace is predicated on accountability, justice, and the fundamental right of return for NagornoKarabakh’s displaced Armenian population. We stand ready to work with you to ensure that U.S. policy aligns with our country’s commitment to justice and stability in the region. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-durbin-press-bondi-patel-for-answers-on-unprecedented-political-purge-of-doj-employees,"Van Hollen, Durbin Press Bondi, Patel for Answers on Unprecedented Political Purge of DOJ Employees",2025-11-20,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member on the Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, and U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, are pressing Attorney General Pam Bondi and Federal Bureau of Investigation Director Kash Patel for answers on the unprecedented political purge of career Department of Justice employees. “It appears your unprecedented political purge of career Department of Justice (DOJ) employees is continuing at a rapid pace. Multiple public reports, including a statement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association (FBIAA), suggest that DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have disregarded the law and fired even more FBI agents out of political spite over the past weeks. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) and the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversee and direct funding for both the DOJ and the FBI, we are writing to express our continued objections to such unprecedented and blatantly political actions. Your actions are having a direct and detrimental effect on FBI’s ability to maintain its national security mission. We urge you to stop the purges—our nation’s security is too important to be sacrificed for political games,” the Senators begin. They go on to cite examples of employees being targeted, and note, “All indications suggest these are illegal actions, which will undoubtedly have severe consequences for DOJ and FBI when these terminated employees join their other former colleagues in lawsuits against the agencies you are entrusted with protecting.” The Senators press for answers, stating, “In addition, we request that DOJ and FBI provide the Senate CJS Subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee the following information along with a follow-up briefing: 1) A full accounting on the scope of the FBI firings that occurred between October 27 and November 4, 2025; 2) The authority under which DOJ/FBI acted to terminate those employees; and 3) The precedent that exists for DOJ/FBI to terminate employees related solely to their case assignments.” “As Ranking Member of the Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we will continue to work to ensure the Department is following the letter of the law and the will of Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your response no later than December 3, 2025,” they close. The full text of the letter is available here and below. Dear Attorney General Bondi and Director Patel: It appears your unprecedented political purge of career Department of Justice (DOJ) employees is continuing at a rapid pace. Multiple public reports, including a statement from the Federal Bureau of Investigation Agents Association (FBIAA), suggest that DOJ and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) have disregarded the law and fired even more FBI agents out of political spite over the past weeks. As the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS) and the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, which oversee and direct funding for both the DOJ and the FBI, we are writing to express our continued objections to such unprecedented and blatantly political actions. Your actions are having a direct and detrimental effect on FBI’s ability to maintain its national security mission. We urge you to stop the purges—our nation’s security is too important to be sacrificed for political games. Notably, earlier this month, the FBIAA said in a statement that “Director Patel has disregarded the law and launched a campaign of erratic and arbitrary retribution. FBI Agents deal in facts, and we urge Director Patel to do the same.” Assuming the reporting is true, the facts here are as staggering as they are inexplicable. In the last week of October, at least two FBI agents were fired who had worked on Special Counsel Jack Smith’s “Arctic Frost” investigation, which was initiated to investigate efforts to overturn the 2020 Presidential election results. The purge continued when at least four additional FBI agents who had worked on Smith’s team or had worked on cases related to the January 6, 2021, attack on the United States Capitol were fired. However, those agents were reinstated the same day, apparently after U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro intervened. Reporting suggests that on the following day, the agents were—again—abruptly fired. The FBI, as our nation’s top investigative agency, played a critical role in investigations related to both 2020 election interference and the January 6 attack. For example, many of the Bureau’s 38,000 dedicated staff—with no personal agendas—were assigned to investigate the assaults on U.S. Capitol Police officers and District of Columbia law enforcement in accordance with the law and FBI policy. Agents and support staff around the country dedicated time and resources to these investigations, which as of November 2024 had yielded 1,561 defendants federally charged with crimes associated with the attack on the U.S. Capitol. This is a prime example of how our system of law and order should still be working. We will continue to remind you that the FBI and its workforce are critical to our nation’s security. The FBI’s rank-and-file agents, intelligence analysts, and support staff help keep our country safe. As the FBIAA put it, “[a]n agent simply being assigned to an investigation and conducting it appropriately within the law should never be grounds for termination.” We wholeheartedly agree with the FBIAA’s position. These actions appear to flout long-standing procedures to protect FBI employees. These protections were put in place to guard against the very conduct that DOJ and FBI leadership is employing. At best, it is unclear whether these procedural protections were followed; at worst, they were flagrantly ignored. We will—again—reiterate to you our demand that you halt efforts to target the dedicated public servants in the FBI, and DOJ writ large, to fulfill President Trump’s partisan political revenge agenda. All indications suggest these are illegal actions, which will undoubtedly have severe consequences for DOJ and FBI when these terminated employees join their other former colleagues in lawsuits against the agencies you are entrusted with protecting. In addition, we request that DOJ and FBI provide the Senate CJS Subcommittee and the Senate Judiciary Committee the following information along with a follow-up briefing: 1) A full accounting on the scope of the FBI firings that occurred between October 27 and November 4, 2025; 2) The authority under which DOJ/FBI acted to terminate those employees; and 3) The precedent that exists for DOJ/FBI to terminate employees related solely to their case assignments. As Ranking Member of the Senate CJS Appropriations Subcommittee and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, we will continue to work to ensure the Department is following the letter of the law and the will of Congress. Thank you for your attention to this matter and we look forward to receiving your response no later than December 3, 2025.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-congressional-delegation-holds-meeting-to-discuss-protecting-the-chesapeake-bay,Maryland Congressional Delegation Holds Meeting to Discuss Protecting the Chesapeake Bay,2025-11-19,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Yesterday, members of Maryland’s Congressional Delegation met to discuss continued federal efforts to support Bay restoration and the goals of the revised “Beyond 2025” watershed agreement. The lawmakers were joined by Maryland Department of Natural Resources Secretary Josh Kurtz; Maryland Department of Environment Secretary Serena McIlwain; Maryland Department of Agriculture Secretary Kevin Atticks; State Senator Sara Love, Chair of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; Anna Killius, Executive Director of the Chesapeake Bay Commission; and Hilary Falk of the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. In the meeting, members of the federal delegation discussed the health of Chesapeake Bay, how the revised watershed agreement will allow for reaching Bay restoration goals, and the importance of continued federal partnership with states. Members heard from panelists about the importance of continued federal funding for the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program as well as for the other programs across the federal government that support Bay restoration and provide the technical and scientific information needed for efficient investment of public resources. “The Chesapeake Bay is an economic and environmental lifeline in our state. Over the past few years, we’ve made progress in our efforts to preserve the Bay, but we’ve also faced setbacks – including in the failure to meet the goals of the 2014 Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement. Today’s meeting was an opportunity to discuss the challenges and opportunities ahead, including the new Beyond 2025 Agreement. I’m encouraged that the latest agreement includes recommendations proposed by members of our delegation and other Bay state representatives in Congress, including ensuring that pollution-reduction and water-quality improvement goals are better defined and adaptable to the latest science. And while I believe the agreement could have set a more aggressive timeline for achieving the outlined goals, I recognize that it reflects compromise. Going forward, we will continue working together to support the full implementation of the agreement and these commitments to make meaningful progress towards a stronger, healthier Chesapeake Bay,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen. “The Chesapeake Bay is the heart of Maryland. For that reason, the final Beyond 2025 must be comprehensive and include clear, ambitious, and achievable targets. Team Maryland is committed to doing all we can to conserve and restore our Bay as it is one of our state’s key economic drivers – supporting the tourism industry, our watermen, farmers, and access to clean drinking water. I will continue to fight for strong federal funding for Chesapeake Bay programs. Together, we will meet our restoration goals, and our state will continue to benefit from our bay,” said Senator Angela Alsobrooks. “The Chesapeake Bay is the beating heart of Maryland. It is central to our state not only geographically but also economically and culturally. That's why Team Maryland has worked so hard to protect the Bay. Our delegation had a meaningful discussion today about how we can best advance that mission in Congress in the years to come,” said Congressman Steny Hoyer. “I was glad to meet with the relevant stakeholders and learn more about their efforts to protect the health of the Chesapeake Bay,"" said Congressman Kweisi Mfume. ""As a steadfast supporter of environmental conservation, preserving the Bay's vitality is critically important to all of us. I look forward to continuing these discussions and fighting to safeguard our precious natural resources,” said Congressman Kweisi Mfume. “The Chesapeake Bay is a treasured natural resource and a cornerstone of our local environmental and economic ecosystem,” said Congressman Jamie Raskin. “Team Maryland will work to ensure the Trump Administration honors the watershed agreement which is essential to sustaining our progress in restoring these precious waters.” “The Chesapeake Bay is one of Maryland’s greatest environmental and economic treasures, a living symbol of our natural beauty and maritime heritage. The Maryland Federal Delegation and I are fighting to uphold the protections and restoration goals set out in the Chesapeake Watershed Agreement and the Beyond 2025 Agreement. We will not allow polluters or poachers to treat the nation’s largest estuary as their private dump or domain. The Bay belongs to all Marylanders, and its future depends on clean water and sustainable, resilient fisheries. My team and I will keep pushing to ensure Maryland families can enjoy this irreplaceable treasure for generations to come,” said Congressman Glenn Ivey. “Having dedicated the majority of my career to preserving the Chesapeake Bay, I know the hours of tireless negotiation and deliberation that went into this Bay Agreement to guide the next decade of collaboration. I’m grateful to Secretary Kurtz, Secretary Atticks, Secretary McIllwain, the Chesapeake Bay Commission, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and the EPA Chesapeake Bay Program for their continued commitment. The Bay is the cornerstone of our state’s economy and culture, and together, we are moving the ball forward to improve water quality, combat pollution, protect against invasive species, and ultimately make sure future generations can enjoy the Bay for years to come,” said Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth. “The Chesapeake Bay is a lifeline to communities across Maryland — a symbol of our state's natural beauty and a cornerstone of commerce. I’m grateful to my colleagues in Congress and our partners across the Chesapeake region for their shared commitment to restoring the Bay and advancing the new watershed agreement. Further, it is vital that we retain federal funding for the data collection, research, and innovation that underpin this work for our state. Together, we’re building a healthier, more resilient Chesapeake Bay for generations to come,” said Congresswoman April McClain Delaney.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-beyer-raskin-introduce-legislation-to-improve-atf-crack-down-on-bad-apple-gun-dealers,"Van Hollen, Beyer, Raskin Introduce Legislation to Improve ATF, Crack Down on “Bad Apple” Gun Dealers",2025-11-19,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and U.S. Representatives Don Beyer (D-Va.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) reintroduced the ATF Improvement and Modernization (AIM) Act, legislation to strengthen the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives’ (ATF) ability to combat gun crime in our communities. The lawmakers’ effort comes as the Trump Administration seeks to undermine the ATF, including by working to eliminate it as a standalone agency – merging it with the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) – and proposing a nearly 30 percent decrease in its budget. In the face of these actions, the lawmakers’ legislation would reassert the ATF’s authority to keep our communities safe, including by removing irresponsible statutory restrictions that stand in the way of the ATF’s mission to protect the public from violent offenders, criminal organizations, and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms. “Too many American lives have been torn apart by gun violence in our country – yet gun industry hardliners have conspired to put up roadblocks that hamper law enforcement efforts to combat this deadly scourge. Our legislation eliminates these barriers and strengthens the ATF’s ability to crack down on gun crime and illegal firearm trafficking that allows deadly weapons to fall into dangerous hands. This is a common-sense way to tackle the gun violence epidemic and save lives,” said Senator Van Hollen. “The gun violence epidemic continues to take a huge toll on our country, killing nearly 50,000 Americans every year,” said Rep. Don Beyer. “We cannot accept Trump’s efforts to stop law enforcement from addressing gun violence, which includes mass transfers of agents away from the ATF. Congress owes it to American families to take decisive action to ensure the ATF has the tools it needs to make American communities safer, and our AIM Act would do just that by removing barriers that hamper the ATF’s mission. I appreciate Senator Van Hollen, Ranking Member Raskin, and the gun violence prevention leaders who worked with us to craft this important bill, and I urge my colleagues to support it.” “The AIM Act will revitalize the ATF’s ability to crack down on gun traffickers and ‘bad apple’ gun dealers and overhaul outdated regulations that hinder the Bureau’s ability to protect our communities,” said House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin. “I’m proud to join this important effort to combat gun trafficking and violent crime.” The AIM Act removes irresponsible statutory restrictions that impede ATF’s mission to protect the public from violent criminals, criminal organizations, and the illegal use and trafficking of firearms, as well as its ability to support law enforcement and other public safety partners in communities nationwide. The bill modernizes ATF processes to help law enforcement officials in tracing firearms involved in crimes. Permitting ATF to consolidate and centralize the records it receives from firearms dealers will improve its current non-searchable system, which unnecessarily stalls criminal investigations. With a centralized, searchable digital database, law enforcement will be better able to detect patterns that indicate gun trafficking. The AIM Act also allows the FBI to maintain background check information longer than the current 24-hour limit. This change helps to deter fraud and facilitate firearms retrieval actions if the agency learns, after the fact, that a gun sale was improper. This legislation also enhances ATF’s capability to crack down on “bad apple” gun dealers. Permitting stricter compliance requirements and reforming the rules governing federal license revocation will ensure that firearms dealers comply with laws and regulations that protect the public from dangerous weapons. Lastly, the AIM Act will make ATF more responsive to the public, including journalists, researchers, and potential litigants, whose access to ATF gun trace data is currently restricted. The text of the AIM Act is available here. The AIM Act is supported by March For Our Lives, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence, GIFFORDS, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, Newtown Action Alliance, Everytown for Gun Safety, and Enough of Gun Violence. “The gun industry has enjoyed decades of special protections at the expense of public safety – and young people are paying the price. The ATF Improvement and Modernization Act is a critical step toward accountability. By giving the ATF the tools it needs to trace crime guns, hold reckless dealers accountable, and modernize outdated systems, this bill helps protect communities from the daily toll of gun violence. We’re proud to support this legislation and grateful to Senator Van Hollen and Representative Beyer for continuing to lead with urgency and moral clarity,” said Jaclyn Corin, Executive Director, March For Our Lives. “For far too long, the agency charged with overseeing gun laws in this country has been underfunded and hamstrung by antiquated systems. This was by design, preventing the ATF from adequately overseeing critical components of the gun industry. We applaud Senator Van Hollen and Representative Beyer for reintroducing The ATF Improvement and Modernization Act (AIM) Act this session. This much needed Act will help bring the ATF into the 21st century,” said Karen Herren, Executive Director, Marylanders to Prevent Gun Violence. “For too long, ATF has been forced to operate with one hand tied behind its back, unable to fully enforce our country's gun laws and hold bad actors accountable. The AIM Act would change that, reversing outdated restrictions and ensuring ATF has the authority and resources it needs to crack down on illegal gun trafficking, shut down rogue gun dealers, and modernize systems that hinder efforts to trace crime guns. We commend Senator Van Hollen and Representative Beyer for their leadership in strengthening this critical agency and improving public safety,” said Vanessa Gonzalez, Vice President of Government & Political Affairs at GIFFORDS. “One of the major causes of American gun violence is the unique and unprecedented protections from oversight that the gun industry has been provided,” said Brady President Kris Brown. “The ATF Improvement and Modernization Act will allow ATF to more effectively and efficiently oversee the corporate firearms industry and hold accountable those actors who are engaging in negligent, irresponsible, or illegal business practices which fuel the criminal gun market. Brady is proud to endorse this legislation and applauds Sen. Van Hollen and Rep. Beyer for their leadership on this issue.” “As a neighbor of the Sandy Hook shooter and someone who has spent more than a decade working with families devastated by gun violence, I know the deadly cost of tying law enforcement’s hands. For too long, reckless restrictions have stopped the ATF from protecting the public from gun traffickers and bad-apple dealers. Senator Van Hollen’s AIM Act removes those barriers—modernizing gun tracing, strengthening background checks, and restoring transparency—so law enforcement can save lives and protect our children and families,” said Po Murray, Chairwoman of Newtown Action Alliance.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-press-administration-for-answers-on-reported-changes-at-nasa-goddard,Maryland Delegation Members Press Administration for Answers on Reported Changes at NASA Goddard,2025-11-13,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) pressed National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Acting Administrator Sean Duffy, to provide detailed answers on reported consolidation and reorganization activities at the NASA Goddard Spaceflight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland. In their letter, the delegation members highlighted Goddard’s legacy of groundbreaking achievements over the years – including its leadership in the development of GPS technology as well as the Hubble and James Webb telescopes – and expressed grave concern that recent operational changes will impact its research capabilities, undermine Goddard’s workforce, and threaten to drive top scientists to space programs abroad. The lawmakers requested answers to a series of questions around recently reported changes and urged acting Administrator Duffy to safeguard Goddard’s status as a world-leading space and earth science institution by keeping its workforce stable and sustaining its world-class research capacity. “The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland is the premiere Space and Earth Science research center in the world. Goddard’s research and innovation has helped us answer questions about our planet, the Sun, the solar system, and the Universe. The dedicated civil servant scientists, engineers, and contractors who work at Goddard’s facilities from Greenbelt, to the Wallops Flight Facility in Wallops, Virginia, to the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas have pushed scientific boundaries. Decades of pathbreaking work mean that today, the Global Positioning System (GPS) that we all rely on daily for navigation, the satellites that help us map fires for large scale firefighting, and telescopes in outer space are all being operated by the experts at the Goddard Space Flight Center. We urge you to support the patriotic Americans that do this essential work on behalf of our country and the world and ensure that they have the resources they need to lead the United States to new frontiers,” the lawmakers wrote. “Unfortunately, actions taken during the last nine months threaten the workers at Goddard and their ability to lead the world in this science and exploration. Between unnecessary voluntary separations, deferred resignations, reductions in force, and other pressure, thousands of civil servants and contractors are no longer working at GSFC,” they continued. “Other countries with space programs from our political allies to our adversaries have been recruiting our top scientists and researchers with massive salaries, research budgets, and the promise of stability. Where the US has considered stepping back, China has made clear they are eager to step in. We can and must re-invest in the people and centers that make America the global space leader and that starts with Goddard. “To that end, we have heard from employees and read reports about activities taking place on the Greenbelt campus that have raised questions among the workforce about the motivations and timing of building consolidations and such moves may affect institutional research capabilities,” the lawmakers wrote, going on to list a series of questions for the acting Administrator’s response regarding the building consolidations, the impact on the Center’s technological capabilities, plans to ensure readiness for future scheduled missions, and the number of employees tasked with carrying out these operational changes during the government shutdown, among others. The lawmakers’ questions follow: When did NASA finalize plans to consolidate buildings on Goddard’s Greenbelt campus and what is the justification for the GSFC Greenbelt campus consolidation? Was a cost/benefit analysis performed before finalizing any plans? If so, please provide any such analysis. How much is Goddard expecting to save in utility and deferred maintenance costs by the consolidation? How much will the consolidation cost? How do the moves align with the 20-year master plan for the GSFC Greenbelt campus? What facilities changes have taken place at GSFC Greenbelt campus in 2025? Please include a list of affected buildings and explanation of the changes. What facilities changes have taken place at GSFC since October 1, 2025? What is the justification for moves occurring since October 1, 2025, during the lapse of appropriations? Are any further moves planned for 2025? If so, when are they expected to start? Have any technological capabilities been impacted by moves at Goddard’s Greenbelt campus? If yes, what capabilities? Has any operable equipment been modified, recycled, or destroyed? What plans does NASA have for the Goddard ElectroMagnetic Anechoic Chamber (GEMAC) that had been housed in Building 19? Have any capabilities necessary for the completion of the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope been impacted, including by the closure of the propulsion laboratory in Building 11? How is Goddard going to mitigate these losses for design and construction of future missions? Please provide all analysis performed by NASA to determine what technological capabilities Goddard will require going forward to execute future missions, such as the Habitable Worlds Observatory. How many civil servants at NASA Goddard have been called back to campus since October 1, 2025, during the lapse of appropriations for the purposes of packing up their offices or laboratories? Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Acting Administrator Duffy: The Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC) in Greenbelt, Maryland is the premiere Space and Earth Science research center in the world. Goddard’s research and innovation has helped us answer questions about our planet, the Sun, the solar system, and the Universe. The dedicated civil servant scientists, engineers, and contractors who work at Goddard’s facilities from Greenbelt, to the Wallops Flight Facility in Wallops, Virginia, to the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility in Palestine, Texas have pushed scientific boundaries. Decades of pathbreaking work mean that today, the Global Positioning System (GPS) that we all rely on daily for navigation, the satellites that help us map fires for large scale firefighting, and telescopes in outer space are all being operated by the experts at the Goddard Space Flight Center. We urge you to support the patriotic Americans that do this essential work on behalf of our country and the world and ensure that they have the resources they need to lead the United States to new frontiers. The Space program in the United States has always been driven by curiosity and ambition to discover more about ourselves and the galaxy around us. From Project Mercury, our first human spaceflight program, to the Artemis Campaign that seeks to establish a sustained American presence on the Moon, Goddard has been involved at every turn. Scientific instruments developed at GSFC have been sent to every planet in our solar system. The Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope, two of the most significant technological advancements in space imaging in human history, were developed and continue to be operated out of Goddard. This historic work provides the foundation for upcoming missions like the Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope and the Habitable Worlds Observatory, which will serve to advance American leadership and global understanding of deep space, dark energy, and the search for planets capable of sustaining life. Unfortunately, actions taken during the last nine months threaten the workers at Goddard and their ability to lead the world in this science and exploration. Between unnecessary voluntary separations, deferred resignations, reductions in force, and other pressure, thousands of civil servants and contractors are no longer working at GSFC. Other countries with space programs from our political allies to our adversaries have been recruiting our top scientists and researchers with massive salaries, research budgets, and the promise of stability. Where the US has considered stepping back, China has made clear they are eager to step in. We can and must re-invest in the people and centers that make America the global space leader and that starts with Goddard. We believe that any consolidation on the Greenbelt campus must sustain the world-class capabilities of Goddard for future science and exploration missions and comply with all applicable laws. Because we lack clarity as to what moves are currently taking place on campus, what technological capabilities are being impacted, and what these changes mean for the workforce, we request you provide answers to the following questions by November 17, 2025.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-wasserman-schultz-lead-over-120-members-in-filing-amicus-brief-urging-court-to-uphold-temporary-protected-status-for-venezuela,"Van Hollen, Wasserman Schultz Lead Over 120 Members in Filing Amicus Brief Urging Court to Uphold Temporary Protected Status for Venezuela",2025-11-12,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and U.S. Representative Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) were joined by 125 members of Congress in submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in the case of National TPS Alliance et al. v. Noem, urging the reversal of the Trump Administration’s baseless decision to vacate and terminate the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation for Venezuela. First granted for Venezuela in 2021, TPS has provided approximately 600,000 Venezuelans in the U.S. refuge from economic turmoil and humanitarian crisis in their home country, and authorization to live and work legally in America. A District Court ruled in September that the Trump Administration’s decision to vacate and terminate Venezuela’s TPS designation was unlawful. After the Trump Administration appealed the decision to the Supreme Court to request a stay of that ruling, Senator Van Hollen, Representative Wasserman Schultz, and their colleagues filed an amicus brief calling for the District Court decision to be upheld. The Supreme Court later sided with the Administration – allowing the Department of Homeland Security to continue stripping Venezuelans of their protections to remain lawfully in the U.S. while the case is fully considered in the Ninth Circuit. As they argued in their amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, the lawmakers again stressed to the Ninth Circuit that the District Court correctly ruled in alignment with the intent of Congress – that the Executive Branch is to determine humanitarian protections such as TPS according to set criteria as opposed to political preferences. “The Northern District of California properly determined that the plain text of the TPS statute does not support the Secretary’s argument that her actions are unreviewable. Nor does it support the Secretary’s actions with respect to Venezuelan TPS. Instead, the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the TPS statute essentially rewrites the statute to claim a power that Congress did not delegate to the Executive Branch,” they wrote in the brief’s introduction. They also pointed to Congress’ tradition of bipartisan support for TPS and for protecting law-abiding individuals from being sent into harm’s way, writing, “the Secretary’s actions not only violate the TPS statute but also contradict the bipartisan opposition to terminating Venezuela TPS. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long supported temporary protected status for Venezuelans who fled dangerous conditions in their country – conditions that persist today.” Senator Van Hollen and Representative Wasserman Schultz have been leaders in the fight to protect TPS as the Trump Administration and the right-wing Supreme Court push to undermine it. Senator Van Hollen has introduced the SECURE Act, legislation to provide qualified Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and Deferred Enforced Departure (DED) recipients a path to legal permanent residency. Representative Wasserman Schultz co-authored the bipartisan Venezuela TPS Act of 2025, which would restore lawful status to Venezuelans deprived of protections by the Trump Administration, as well as the bipartisan Venezuelan Adjustment Act, which would allow Venezuelan TPS and parole recipients to become lawful permanent residents. Joining Senator Van Hollen and Representative Wasserman Schultz on this brief are Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); and Representatives Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Nanette Diaz Barragán (D-Calif.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Wesley Bell (D-Mo.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), Shontel Brown (D-Ohio), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Janelle Bynum (D-Ore.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Troy Carter (D-La.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Sean Casten (D-Ill.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-Fla.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Herb Conaway (D-N.J.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Angie Craig (D-Minn.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Madeleine Dean (D-Pa.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Lois Frankel (D-Fla.), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Chuy Garcia (D-Ill.), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), Bill Keating (D-Mass.), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), John Larson (D-Conn.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.), Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Rob Menendez (D-N.J.), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.), Jared Moskowitz (D-Fla.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Stacey Plaskett (D-Virgin Islands), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Emily Randall (D-Wash.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Linda Sanchez (D-Calif.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Brad Schneider (D-Ill.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Lori Trahan (D-Mass.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Nydia Velazquez (D-N.Y.), James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Nikema Williams (D-Ga.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.). Text of the lawmakers’ argument is below, and the full brief can be viewed here. Introduction Amici, as members of Congress, are keenly aware of the critical role that separation of powers plays in our constitutional democracy as a means to safeguard against the concentration of power within a single government branch. Separation of powers requires that the Executive Branch not usurp Congress’s power to make laws; it mandates that the Executive Branch not override the Judiciary’s power to declare what the law is; and it obligates the Judiciary to not shy from its duty to prevent Executive Branch overreach that upsets the carefully calibrated role each co-equal branch plays in our constitutional democracy. The Northern District of California properly determined that the plain text of the TPS statute does not support the Secretary’s argument that her actions are unreviewable. Nor does it support the Secretary’s actions with respect to Venezuelan TPS. Instead, the Executive Branch’s interpretation of the TPS statute essentially rewrites the statute to claim a power that Congress did not delegate to the Executive Branch. The Secretary’s actions not only violate the TPS statute but also contradict the bipartisan opposition to terminating Venezuela TPS. Members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have long supported temporary protected status for Venezuelans who fled dangerous conditions in their country—conditions that persist today. Amici Members of Congress join Plaintiffs in urging the Court to affirm. Argument On September 5, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California granted partial summary judgment to Plaintiffs, setting aside: (1) Secretary Noem’s vacatur of Venezuela’s TPS extension, and (2) Secretary Noem’s decision to terminate Venezuela’s TPS status. (N.D. Cal., Dkt. 279 at p. 69). The district court denied the Secretary’s request for a stay. Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, No. 25-CV-01766-EMC, 2025 WL 2617231, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 10, 2025). This Court has twice rejected the Secretary’s jurisdictional arguments, and it has twice concluded that the Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the merits. See Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, --F. 4th--, No. 25-5724, 2025 WL 2661556 (9th Cir. Sept. 17, 2025) Nat’l TPS All. v. Noem, 150 F.4th 1000 (9th Cir. 2025). This Court should affirm the grant of summary judgment. I. The Executive Branch’s erroneous claim of “inherent” power to assert its novel TPS interpretation usurps Congressional authority. Although the power to vacate a TPS extension is not mentioned in the statute, the Secretary contends that she “has inherent authority to revoke or reconsider a TPS designation.” (Sec.’s Br. at 39-44). But this claim of “inherent” power must be assessed against the will of Congress. When the action taken—here by the Secretary—is “incompatible with the expressed or implied will of Congress, . . . [the Executive Branch’s] power is at its lowest ebb.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 637 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring). Instead of granting unfettered authority, Congress enacted the TPS statutory framework to limit the Executive Branch’s discretion in making decisions related to temporary protected status, aiming to “replac[e] . . . ad hoc, haphazard regulations and procedures.” 135 Cong. Rec. H7501 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 1989) (statement of Rep. Bill Richardson). Congress wanted to ensure that migrants are not “subject to the vagaries of our domestic politics,” id. (statement of Rep. Sander Levin), and that factors “other than purely political ramifications be considered when granting this status to a nation’s people,” 133 Cong. Rec. (House) 21334 (1987) (statement of Rep. Mario Biaggi). The Executive Branch incorrectly interprets the TPS statute to grant itself a power that is neither authorized by Congress nor consistent with the regulatory structure that Congress enacted. And “[w]hen the separation of powers is at stake,” the court does not “just throw up [its] hands.” Gundy v. United States, 588 U.S. 128, 168 (2019) (Gorsuch, J. dissenting). This Court must continue to guard against the Executive Branch’s attempt to rewrite the TPS statute under the guise of “inherent authority.” Contrary to any claim of “inherent power,” the Executive Branch does not have the “power to revise clear statutory terms that turn out not to work in practice.” Utility Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 327 (2014). As discussed below, the TPS statute is clear: if a foreign state’s designation is terminated, such termination “shall not be effective earlier than 60 days after the date the notice is published or, if later, the expiration of the most previous extension under subparagraph (C).” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(B). The Secretary cannot avoid that statutory scheme by granting itself a new power to vacate an extension. See infra Part II. And only the Secretary’s “determination[s]” as to designations, terminations, or extensions are excluded from judicial review, 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A), not the question of statutory interpretation implicated by the Secretary’s novel reading of the TPS statute. See infra Part II.A. Allowing the Secretary to rewrite the TPS statute to expand her powers beyond those granted by Congress “would deal a severe blow to the Constitution’s separation of powers[,]” Utility Air, 573 U.S. at 327, and upend precedent governing the Congress-Executive relationship that pre-dates the Civil War, see Morrill v. Jones, 106 U.S. 466, 424–25 (1883) (“The secretary of the treasury cannot by his regulations alter or amend a revenue law. All he can do is regulate the mode of proceeding to carry into effect what congress has enacted.”); United States v. Williamson, 90 U.S. 411, 416 (1874) (“It is not in the power of the executive department, or any branch of it, to reduce the pay of an officer of the army. The regulation of the compensation . . . belongs to the legislative department of the government.”). Even the Supreme Court cannot “rewrite clear statutes”—such as the TPS statute—to address “policy concerns.” Azar v. Allina Health Servs., 587 U.S. 566, 581 (2019). Rather than act unilaterally, the executive “must take its complaints” to Congress. Azar, 587 U.S. at 581. II. The Executive Branch intrudes further on congressional and judicial power by contending, contrary to the TPS statute, that the Secretary’s decision is unreviewable. The Executive Branch argues that 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A) bars judicial review of the Secretary’s vacatur of Venezuelan TPS. But as the district court, Nat’l TPS All., 2025 WL 2578045, at *1, and this Court, Nat’l TPS All., 2025 WL 2661556, at *2, correctly concluded, that is incorrect. Instead, the Executive Branch’s position further violates the separation of powers because it claims an authority to prevent judicial review that was never granted to it by Congress. “Congress expects courts to handle technical statutory questions.” Loper Bright Enters. v. Raimondo, 603 U.S. 369, 402 (2024). “Courts interpret statutes, no matter the context, based on the traditional tools of statutory construction, not individual policy preferences.” Id. at 403. The Supreme Court “recognize[s] a ‘strong presumption in favor of judicial review” in interpreting statutes, “including statutes that may limit or preclude review.” Cuozzo Speed Techs. v. Com. for Intell. Prop., 579 U.S. 261, 273 (2016). This presumption may be overcome only “by ‘clear and convincing indications, drawn from ‘specific language,’ ‘specific legislative history,’ and ‘inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole,’ that Congress intended to bar review.’” Id. (quoting Block v. Cmty. Nutrition Inst., 467 U.S. 340, 349–50 (1984)). The crux of the Executive Branch’s argument is that the Secretary’s vacatur is encompassed in the determination of whether to extend a designation, such that judicial review of its interpretation of the TPS statute is barred. But that tautology presumes the answer to the question at hand: namely, does the TPS statute allow the Secretary to vacate a previous determination to extend a designation? That question—apart from any particular “determination” of a designation, termination, or extension—is one of statutory construction. It therefore falls within the province of judicial review. Proper analysis of a statute must defer to principles of statutory construction, including legislative intent, not the self-serving interpretation of an Executive Branch officer. A. The plain language of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) does not bar judicial review of the Secretary’s vacatur. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) states, “There is no judicial review of any determination of the [Secretary] with respect to the designation, or termination or extension of a designation, of a foreign state.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). The Executive Branch argues that the statute unambiguously gives the Secretary unreviewable authority such that her decision to vacate the 2023 Designation extension is unreviewable. But Congress drafted the bar on judicial review narrowly. First, the word “vacatur” was excluded from the types of determinations the Secretary makes, indicating that the Secretary’s vacatur is outside of the scope of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A). Cf. Leatherman v. Tarrant Cnty. Narcotics Intel. & Coordination Unit, 507 U.S. 163, 168 (1993) (applying the principle of expressio unius est exclusion alterius or expression of one is the exclusion of the other). Second, the Executive Branch has asserted that the word “any” has an expansive meaning and captures “determinations of whatever kind.” This argument ignores the principle that courts “must give effect to every word of a statute wherever possible,” Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 12 (2004) (emphasis added), and ignores that “any” will mean “different things depending on the setting,” Nixon v. Missouri Mun. League, 541 U.S. 125, 132 (2004). Here, Congress expressly included a qualification: “with respect to designations, or terminations or extensions.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). These are categorical limitations—the statute does not extend to “determinations of whatever kind,” but rather any determinations to designate, terminate or extend TPS. Any other interpretation renders the remaining words of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) superfluous. See, e.g., TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 31 (2001) (“[It is] a cardinal principle of statutory construction that a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or insignificant.”). Third, the phrase “with respect to” does not have the “broadening effect” that the Executive Branch asserts. “[T]he words of a statute must be read in their context and with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme,” Davis v. Michigan Dep’t of Treasury, 489 U.S. 803, 809 (1989). Here, the subject of “with respect to” is “any determination” of a “designation, or termination or extension of a designation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(5)(A). But the Executive Branch wants to extend the bar on judicial review to whether the TPS statute includes the unenumerated action, “vacate,” not to matters relating to the determination of designation, termination, or extension. Accepting the Executive Branch’s interpretation of “with respect to” means that Congress’s qualification of “any determination” would necessarily submit to the whims of whatever the Executive Branch says is encompassed by the text of the statute. Cf. United States v. Miller, 145 S. Ct. 839, 853 (2025) (rejecting a broad reading of “with respect to” when doing so defied the principle “that sovereign-immunity waiver must be construed narrowly”). Finally, a narrow reading of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) to allow limited judicial review is consistent with the understanding that “Congress acts intentionally and purposely.” Russello v. United States, 464 U.S. 16, 23 (1983). If Congress intended to limit judicial review in all instances, Congress could “easily have used broader statutory language.” McNary v. Haitian Refugee Ctr., Inc., 498 U.S. 479, 494 (1991) (holding 8 U.S.C. § 1160(e)(1) barred judicial review only to “direct review of individual denials of SAW status” and not collateral challenges to unconstitutional practices); see also Reno v. Catholic Soc. Servs., Inc., 509 U.S. 43, 53–56 (1993) (finding 8 U.S.C. § 1255a(f) only barred judicial review of “the denial of an individual application” while broader challenges not tied to such denials were not barred from judicial review); cf. Ramos v. Wolf, 975 F.3d 872, 888–92 (9th Cir. 2020), aff’g, Ramos v. Nielsen, 321 F. Supp. 3d 1083 (N.D. Cal. 2018), vacated, 59 F.4th 1010 (9th Cir. 2023) (agreeing with lower court that section 1254a(b)(5)(A) only barred judicial review of inquiries “into the underlying considerations and reasoning employed by the Secretary in reaching her country-specific TPS determinations” but challenges to unconstitutional practices and policies considered collateral were reviewable). Because the plain reading of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) supports a narrow interpretation, the Court is not barred from reviewing the Secretary’s vacatur of the 2023 Designation extension. B. Legislative history supports a narrow interpretation of the bar on judicial review. Beyond the statutory text, a narrow interpretation of Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) is supported by this Court’s “well-settled” and “strong presumption” favoring judicial review of administrative actions. McNary, 498 U.S. at 496. The Supreme Court has long held that “when a statutory provision is reasonably susceptible to divergent interpretation, we adopt the reading that accords with traditional understandings and basic principles: that executive determinations generally are subject to judicial review.” Guerrero-Lasprilla v. Barr, 589 U.S. 221, 229 (2020) (citing Kucana v. Holder, 558 U.S. 233, 251 (2010)) (internal quotations marks omitted). This presumption can only be overcome by “clear and convincing evidence” of congressional intent to preclude judicial review. Abbott Labs. v. Gardner, 387 U.S. 136, 141 (1967). Despite the Executive Branch’s argument that it has long exercised inherent authority in this arena, Congress expressly enacted TPS to address prior concerns about the lack of criteria guiding the Executive Branch and the lack of transparency in the then-existing ad hoc process. Although Congress recognized the Executive Branch’s unique role in matters of foreign policy, it understood that the Executive Branch could not have unfettered discretion in TPS determinations. As Representative Richardson explained in discussion over a predecessor safe haven bill in 1989, the goal was to “establish an orderly, systematic procedure for providing temporary protected status for nationals of countries undergoing civil war or extreme tragedy, because we need to replace the current ad hoc, haphazard regulations and procedures that exist today.” 135 Cong. Rec. H7501 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 1989) (statement of Rep. Bill Richardson). The Executive Branch’s position amounts to an assertion that Congress created a detailed statutory scheme but then eliminated any mechanism to ensure the process was followed. That is not the best reading of either the text or the relevant history. Instead, in Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) Congress preserved the Secretary’s authority in matters uniquely within her purview while preserving judicial review on procedural issues arising under the TPS statute. Section 1254a(b)(5)(A) only bars judicial review of the Secretary’s specific “determination” to designate, extend, or terminate designation of a particular foreign state based on the enumerated statutory framework. But acknowledgment of Executive authority in one respect does not equal an abdication of judicial authority in all. Where “Congress has made its intent clear, the Court must give effect to that intent.” Miller v. French, 530 U.S. 327, 328 (2000). Barring judicial review of the Secretary’s vacatur ignores the congressional intent behind creating the TPS statute in the first place: to eliminate ad hoc designations and ensure the Executive follows a statutorily prescribed procedure. Because there are no “‘clear and convincing indications, drawn from ‘specific language,’ ‘specific legislative history,’ and ‘inferences of intent drawn from the statutory scheme as a whole,’ that Congress intended to bar review,’” the presumption favoring judicial review controls. Cuozzo Speed Techs., 579 U.S. at 273. III. The TPS statute does not allow for vacatur. The plain language of the TPS statute does not authorize the Secretary to vacate designations or extensions of designations. “Statutory interpretation must ‘begi[n] with,’ and ultimately heed, what a statute actually says.” Groff v. DeJoy, 600 U.S. 447, 468 (2023) (quoting Nat’l Assn. of Mfrs. v. Dep’t of Def., 583 U.S. 109, 127 (2018)). This Court “must presume that [the] legislature says in a statute what it means and means in a statute what it says there.” Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 357 (2005) (quoting Conn. Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 253–54 (2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). “Federal agencies are creatures of statute. They possess only those powers that Congress confers upon them.” Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. FDA, 3 F.4th 390, 399 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Where, as here, there exists a question requiring statutory interpretation, “as in any field of statutory interpretation, it is [the Court’s] duty to respect not only what Congress wrote but, as importantly, what it didn’t write.” Virginia Uranium, Inc. v. Warren, 587 U.S. 761, 765 (2019) (emphasis added). Here, the plain text and purpose of the TPS statute demonstrates that Congress did not authorize the Secretary to vacate an already-granted TPS extension or designation. The TPS statute describes a detailed process and time frame for the Secretary to implement designations, extensions, and terminations. It says nothing, however, about vacatur of extensions or designations that have already been granted. Even though the statute says nothing of vacatur, the Executive Branch argues that the Secretary has “inherent authority” to reconsider past decisions. Although it is true that administrative agencies possess “some” inherent authority to revisit their prior decisions, this argument oversimplifies the law and fails to recognize that “any inherent reconsideration authority does not apply in cases where Congress has spoken.” Ivy Sports Med., LLC v. Burwell, 767 F.3d 81, 86 (D.C. Cir. 2014). Careful review of the Immigration and Nationality Act’s (“INA”) statutory framework belies any argument that the TPS statute impliedly authorizes the Secretary to vacate prior designations and extensions. The TPS statute meticulously describes how the Secretary may designate, extend, and terminate temporary protected status, when such determinations take effect, and provides specific time periods that apply to each. For example, an initial designation “take[s] effect upon the date of publication of the designation” and “shall remain in effect until the effective date of the termination of the designation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(2). The TPS statute is similarly prescriptive with respect to extensions and terminations. “At least 60 days before the end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation,” the Secretary “after consultation with appropriate agencies of the Government, shall review the conditions in the foreign state . . . and shall determine whether the conditions for such designation under this subsection continue to be met.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(A). The Secretary must “provide on a timely basis for the publication of notice of such determination . . . in the Federal Register.” Id. If the Secretary determines “that a foreign state . . . no longer continues to meet the conditions for designation,” the Secretary “shall terminate the designation by publishing a notice in the Federal Register.” Id. § 1254a(b)(3)(B). Without such a determination, the designation “is extended.” Id. § 1254a(b)(3)(A) & (C) (emphasis added). Extensions take effect immediately, and last for the length of time specified in the notice, up to 18 months. Id. In contrast, a termination “shall not be effective earlier than 60 days after the date the notice is published or, if later, the expiration of the most recent previous extension.” Id. § 1254a(b)(3)(B) (emphasis added). Against this backdrop, the Executive Branch’s claim that Secretary Noem had inherent authority to vacate the extension of the 2023 Designation is plainly at odds with this statutory framework. As noted, the statute expressly provides that termination of the TPS designation cannot occur earlier than the expiration of the “most recent previous extension”—that is, the 18-month extension that former Secretary Mayorkas granted on January 17, 2025. Although the Executive Branch complains that former Secretary Mayorkas extended the 2023 Designation before the statute required action, nothing in the TPS statute requires the Secretary to wait until the last second to review and grant extensions. Indeed, to the extent the Secretary seeks to extend an expiring designation extension, the TPS statute requires the Secretary to act “[a]t least 60 days before end of the initial period of designation, and any extended period of designation.” 8 U.S.C. § 1254a(b)(3)(a) (emphasis added). That is, while the TPS statute sets the minimum amount of time before the expiration of a designation or extension to act (at least 60 days), it does not dictate how far in advance the Secretary may act. Secretary Noem’s vacatur thus operates as an end-run around the statutory framework adopted by Congress because it effectively terminates a designation before its “most recent previous extension” in violation of the TPS statute. The lack of implied or inherent authority to vacate TPS designations or extensions is further confirmed by the language that Congress used to grant the Secretary revocation authority elsewhere in the INA. “Where Congress includes particular language in one section of a statute but omits it in another section of the same Act, it is generally presumed that Congress acts intentionally and purposely in the disparate inclusion or exclusion.” Russello, 464 U.S. at 23 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Leatherman, 507 U.S. at 168. Other sections of the INA demonstrate that Congress granted the Secretary the authority to revisit and revoke prior approvals in more narrow circumstances. Under 8 U.S.C. § 1155, the Secretary “may, at any time, for what he deems to be good and sufficient cause, revoke the approval of any petition approved by him under section 1154 of this title.” 8 U.S.C.A. § 1155. Congress could have, but did not, include similar language in the TPS statute. Exclusion of similar language in the TPS statute evinces Congress’s intent to limit the Secretary’s ability to revoke or vacate a prior approval outside of the termination procedure prescribed by Section 1254a(b)(3)(B). B. Congress created the TPS statutory framework to limit the Executive Branch from making arbitrary decisions and shield TPS from domestic politics. The TPS statute’s prohibition against the type of ad hoc vacatur attempted by Secretary Noem is further supported by the legislative history leading up to the TPS statute’s passage. As discussed above, Congress’s rationale behind passing TPS was to eliminate the Executive Branch’s prior practice of granting humanitarian protection on an ad hoc basis through the practice of “extended voluntary departure.” See supra (discussing statement of Rep. Bill Richardson); see also 136 Cong. Rec. (House) 8686 (statement of Rep. Mary Rose Oakar) (“An orderly, systematic procedure for providing temporary protected status for nationals of countries undergoing war, civil war, or other extreme tragedy is needed to replace the current ad hoc haphazard procedure.”). Specifically, Congress recognized the need to regularize the process of awarding humanitarian protection based on enumerated criteria to protect the decision from political pressures. As is evident from the legislative history of the TPS statute, Congress anticipated the current political situation, where the current Secretary seeks to vacate TPS for a class of Venezuelan migrants even though the previous Secretary found, following the statutory framework of the TPS statute, that extending the designation of Venezuela was warranted. Venezuelans covered by the TPS extension are thus subject to the changing political winds and arbitrary action by the Executive Branch. This is precisely what Congress sought to avoid by passing the TPS statute. For example, Representative Levin stated, “Perhaps the most important aspect of this bill is that it will standardize the procedure for granting temporary stays of deportation. Refugees, spawned by the sad and tragic forces of warfare, should not be subject to the vagaries of our domestic politics as well. . . . Our recent domestic political squabble over the relative merits of Salvadorans and Nicaraguans as political refugees should never be repeated.” 135 Cong. Rec. H7501 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 1989) (statement of Rep. Sander Levin) (emphasis added). Similarly, Representative Brennan warned that the prior process of “extended voluntary departure” potentially sent migrants “mixed messages which result from a vague or arbitrary policy.” 135 Cong. Rec. H7501 (daily ed. Oct. 25, 1989) (statement of Rep. Joseph Brennan). These contemporaneous statements of various members of Congress reflect clear legislative intent to constrain executive discretion and replace the prior practice of providing nationality-based humanitarian protection on an ad hoc and opaque basis. The Executive Branch asks this Court to defer to its judgment and allow it to reinterpret the TPS statute in a way that will effectively negate it and return to the pre-TPS era. In the Secretary’s view, the outcome of the last election justifies her ability to vacate her predecessor’s extension decision, which if upheld, would result in the immediate termination of TPS for the approximately 472,000 individuals previously subject to the 2023 Designation. See 88 Fed. Reg. 68130, 68134 (Oct. 3, 2023). Overnight, these individuals’ lives would be completely upended. That is precisely the kind of “haphazard” process the TPS statute was designed to prevent from occurring to individuals deserving of humanitarian protection. IV. Venezuela TPS has long enjoyed bipartisan congressional support. Members on both sides of the Congressional aisle have long recognized the ongoing interest in maintaining the Venezuela TPS designation. On March 7, 2019, for example, then-Senator Marco Rubio, alongside Senators Durbin, Menendez, and Schumer, led a bipartisan group of 24 senators urging President Trump to designate Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status, highlighting the country’s deteriorating security and humanitarian conditions. Not long afterward, on July 25, 2019, the U.S. House of Representatives passed H.R. 549, the Venezuela TPS Act of 2019. See H.R. 549, 116th Cong. (2019). Rep. Mario Diaz-Balart commented, “Today, the House of Representatives was able to gather the strong, bipartisan support needed to pass [the Act which would grant] temporary protected status in the United States until it is safe for them to return to Venezuela.” Unfortunately, despite several efforts, the Senate was unable to pass the Act, and it was left to President Trump on his last day in office to provide temporary legal status through a different pathway, the Deferred Enforced Departure program. Memorandum on Deferred Enforced Departure for Certain Venezuelans, 86 Fed. Reg. 6845 (Jan. 19, 2021). In March 2021, the Department of Homeland Security granted TPS eligibility to Venezuelans. This grant received bipartisan acclaim, including from then-Senator Rubio, who underscored that it was President Trump who had first offered Venezuelans protection from deportation. Then-Senator Rubio further stated he was “glad the Biden administration share[d] that commitment” to Venezuelans. Along with then-Senator Bob Menendez, in March 2022 then-Senator Rubio urged Secretary Mayorkas to “redesignate Venezuela for Temporary Protected Status,” explaining that “[e]xtending this designation is absolutely essential for eligible Venezuelans currently in the United States who are unable to return to their homeland due to the dire conditions in that country.” Since then, members of Congress from both sides of the aisle have continued to support Venezuela TPS and the communities in this country where many Venezuelans have found temporary refuge. Shortly after President Trump took office in January 2025, three Republican representatives from Florida, Representatives Mario Díaz-Balart (FL-26), Carlos A. Giménez (FL-28), and María Elvira Salazar (FL-27), released a joint statement in support of Venezuela TPS, observing that, as a result of the TPS designation, “many Venezuelans have arrived in our country and have integrated into our communities, respecting our laws and contributing to the prosperity of our great country.” That support has continued during this litigation. Following the Northern District of California’s March 31, 2025, order postponing Secretary Noem’s attempted vacatur of Venezuela TPS, Representative Salazar posted about the Secretary’s preliminary loss on X: “GREAT NEWS! @DHSgov and @SecNoem will be extending TPS status for Venezuelans for another 18 months. I’ve led the fight on this and been asking for MONTHS! Thank you to the Administration for doing the right thing.” After the Supreme Court’s May 21, 2025, ruling on the Secretary’s first stay application, Representatives Díaz-Balart, Giménez, and Salazar issued another joint statement in support of Venezuela TPS, emphasizing that they “will continue . . . working with the Trump administration on a permanent solution.” Rep. Giménez has even written directly to Secretary Noem “to address the urgent situation regarding the decision to end the Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for roughly 600,000 Venezuelans living here in the United States,” urging the Trump Administration to find a solution. And in May 2025, a bipartisan group of members of the House of Representatives introduced the Venezuela TPS Act of 2025, which proposed to designate TPS for Venezuelans to “protect approximately 600,000 Venezuelans in the United States from deportation.” This bipartisan support is so strong because not much has changed in Venezuela since then-Senator Rubio wrote in March 2022, that extending Venezuela TPS was “absolutely essential . . . due to the dire conditions” there. As of May 12, 2025, the State Department’s Level 4: Do not Travel warning for Venezuela states: “Do not travel to or remain in Venezuela due to the high risk of wrongful detention, torture in detention, terrorism, kidnapping, arbitrary enforcement of local laws, crime, civil unrest, and poor health infrastructure.” Amici Members of Congress have a strong interest not only in preserving the benefits that Venezuela TPS affords their constituents’ communities but also in protecting the designation and termination process that is enshrined in the TPS statute and that guards against the type of arbitrary and political vacatur that took place here. Amici urge this Court to affirm the district court’s ruling. Conclusion Amici Members of Congress ask this Court to affirm.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-intent-to-vote-no-on-funding-bill,Van Hollen Statement on Intent to Vote No on Funding Bill,2025-11-09,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on his intent to vote against the government funding bill that is expected to be considered on the Senate floor this evening: “I have voted seven times for a responsible funding agreement to end the shameful Republican shutdown, hold the president accountable to the law, and prevent health care costs from skyrocketing for tens of millions of Americans. I am prepared to work toward a compromise, but this funding bill before us tonight does not come close to meeting those terms. Not only does it fail to address the impending explosion in working Americans’ health insurance costs, it also lacks the necessary guardrails to stop President Trump from ignoring the law and withholding funds for important priorities. That is why I am voting NO. “Should this bill become law, the Administration must follow the law that Senator Cardin and I passed after the first Trump shutdown to ensure all federal employees receive the full backpay they are owed once the government reopens. We must also continue working to pass my legislation guaranteeing backpay to federal contractors – from maintenance and custodial staff to construction and security workers. Like federal civil servants, these workers had nothing to do with causing this Republican shutdown, and likewise do not deserve to bear the brunt of it. I will continue working to support our federal workers and stand up to this Administration’s attacks on our communities and their disregard for the unacceptable rising costs Americans are facing.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-statement-on-republicans-inadequate-proposal-to-pay-federal-workers-during-shutdown,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Statement on Republicans’ Inadequate Proposal to Pay Federal Workers During Shutdown",2025-11-07,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) released the following statement regarding their vote against Republicans’ inadequate proposal to prevent federal workers, servicemembers, and contractors from financial harm during Trump’s shutdown: “Every federal worker, servicemember, and federal contractor should get paid as they do not deserve to endure the harm of this Republican shutdown they had no role in causing. Our True Shutdown Fairness Act ensures all federal workers, servicemembers, and contractors get their paychecks while shielding employees from the threat of this Administration’s mass firings, but Republicans rejected it for a proposal that still leaves our federal workforce exposed to an Administration that wants to inflict ‘trauma’ on them. Their bill fails to prevent the president from further slashing the federal workforce during this shutdown – allowing Donald Trump free rein to pick winners and losers. “The continuing Trump shutdown harms our constituents in the federal workforce and contracting community, and deprives the American public of the services they deserve. The most straightforward way to stop this pain is by reopening the government altogether – and we have voted seven times to do just that in a responsible way, while reining in Trump’s lawlessness and preventing health care costs from skyrocketing for millions of Americans. This shutdown is now the longest in history, and still Trump refuses to negotiate. It’s long past time for him to come to the table to make a deal to end his shameful shutdown.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-welcome-maryland-attorney-general-and-prince-georges-county-lawsuit-to-keep-fbi-hq-project-in-greenbelt,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Welcome Maryland Attorney General and Prince George’s County Lawsuit to Keep FBI HQ Project in Greenbelt",2025-11-06,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) welcomed Maryland Attorney General Anthony Brown and Prince George’s County Executive Aisha Braveboy’s lawsuit to stop the Trump Administration from canceling the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters project in Greenbelt, Maryland and diverting Congressionally appropriated funds for its construction to another site. “A thorough and transparent selection process concluded that Greenbelt, Maryland, is the site best for a new FBI headquarters that meets the Bureau’s security and mission needs. The Trump Administration has no grounds to ignore this selection, or redirect even one penny that Congress specifically appropriated for construction of the competitively selected site. Yet the Administration clearly intends to do just that, while refusing to answer basic questions around the costs to taxpayers and security of the new site, or provide additional details on their plans. That’s why we’re glad the State and Prince George’s County are challenging this Administration in court—not only to hold them accountable to the intent of Congress, but also to ensure we fulfill our promise to the men and women of the FBI to deliver a new, secure headquarters so they can do their work without compromising their safety or our national security,” said Senators Van Hollen and Alsobrooks.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-beyer-colleagues-urge-power-grid-operator-pjm-to-prioritize-consumers-access-to-reliable-affordable-electricity-over-large-corporate-interests,"Van Hollen, Beyer, Colleagues Urge Power Grid Operator PJM to Prioritize Consumers’ Access to Reliable, Affordable Electricity Over Large Corporate Interests",2025-11-06,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and U.S. Representative Don Beyer (D-Va.) were joined by 10 of their colleagues in urging PJM Interconnection, LLC (PJM), the grid operator responsible for coordinating electricity transmission in the region, to take steps to protect the reliable supply of electricity and prevent skyrocketing costs for consumers amid rapid growth in data center energy demand. In their letter to PJM Board of Managers Chair David Mills, they expressed serious concerns over PJM’s handling of mounting affordability and reliability challenges, pointing out that data centers have already resulted in over $16 billion in additional capacity costs to consumers in the past two years – with total capacity costs alone potentially reaching $163 billion by 2033 if new energy capacity is not added to the grid fast enough to meet soaring demand. They also criticized PJM for favoring corporate interests over consumers by weakening a proposed reform that would have required large energy users such as data centers to limit their usage during capacity shortages, which threatens to worsen existing electricity affordability and reliability issues. The lawmakers urged the grid operator to put forward strong protections and implement reforms that prevent customers from bearing the costs of increasing data center energy consumption. Joining Senator Van Hollen and Congressman Beyer on this letter are Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.). Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.); and U.S. Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), and Dwight Evans (D-Pa.). “We write as Members of Congress representing tens of millions of Americans in states within the PJM Interconnection (PJM) territory to express our concern with PJM’s proposed approach to managing rapidly increasing energy demand and skyrocketing electricity costs for our constituents. The projected increase in energy demand within PJM in the near future, driven almost entirely by new large data center loads, is a serious concern for future grid reliability, and our constituents are already feeling the impacts on their wallets,” the lawmakers began. “Therefore, it is critical that PJM put forward innovative proposals to ensure that it can continue to fulfill its mission to provide affordable and reliable electric service that our constituents depend on, while charting a responsible pathway for data center grid interconnection that does not force our constituents to shoulder the financial and risk burden for wealthy megacorporations.” “PJM must swiftly address the fact that data center energy demand is threatening to overwhelm the grid,” they wrote, going on to stress that there are steps that PJM can take to mitigate these risks – such as improving the process for connecting new energy generation sources to the grid and implementing strong “mandatory backstop” rules to prevent data centers from overwhelming the grid during periods of high demand. To that point, the lawmakers criticized PJM for weakening a key mandatory backstop rule it had proposed, favoring corporate interests that stand to profit from the increase in data center development at the expense of everyday consumers. “Mandatory backstop rules that apply to all new large loads would help shield other users of the grid – including residential homes, schools, and businesses – from higher prices and interruptions in service. PJM, however, has since updated its draft proposal to remove this important mandatory backstop, opting instead for a system that will rely on the willingness of data centers to voluntarily curtail their demand for a certain number of hours per year,” they continued. “Without a strong system in place to manage data center load growth, PJM itself has warned that the result could be rolling blackouts affecting all grid users. These interruptions in service would not only be completely unacceptable given they are foreseeable, but also potentially dangerous for our constituents and severely detrimental to the overall economic security of our states. PJM should be doing everything in its power and utilizing all available tools to avoid such drastic measures as its foremost priority.” In addition to urging PJM to reinstate a strong mandatory backstop in the grid operator’s proposed reforms, they called on PJM to also create a “large load queue” to ensure that facilities demanding large amounts of energy are connected to the grid only when they can be served reliably in order to ensure affordability for all consumers; improve its load forecasting and ensure accuracy in demand projections; and prioritize adding new energy generation capacity to the grid. “It is not unduly discriminatory to identify and manage demand from new data centers given their incomparably large energy demands, how quickly data centers can come online, and their unique potential to impact the reliability of the electric grid as a collective class and to increase rates for all other customers. Conversely, it is unduly discriminatory to force our constituents to subsidize data center development through astronomical rates and costs. It is likewise unduly discriminatory to ask our constituents to tolerate interruptible electric service if PJM does not take action to address the impending imbalance of energy demand and capacity due to new data center loads,” they stressed. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Chair Mills: We write as Members of Congress representing tens of millions of Americans in states within the PJM Interconnection (PJM) territory to express our concern with PJM’s proposed approach to managing rapidly increasing energy demand and skyrocketing electricity costs for our constituents. The projected increase in energy demand within PJM in the near future, driven almost entirely by new large data center loads, is a serious concern for future grid reliability, and our constituents are already feeling the impacts on their wallets. Therefore, it is critical that PJM put forward innovative proposals to ensure that it can continue to fulfill its mission to provide affordable and reliable electric service that our constituents depend on, while charting a responsible pathway for data center grid interconnection that does not force our constituents to shoulder the financial and risk burden for wealthy megacorporations. Data center energy demand has added over $16 billion in costs for our constituents in the last two PJM capacity auctions, and capacity costs alone could amount to $163 billion through 2033 as new data center demand growth exceeds available capacity, keeping prices at the market’s price cap. Capacity costs are only one component of what influences the price our constituents pay for energy; data center energy demand will also drive up wholesale costs in energy markets, and the costs from increased electric transmission buildout to serve data centers are already being passed onto our constituents. These troubling trends will continue unless PJM takes action to hold existing customers harmless from data center-related costs and ensure that reliability is not diminished. PJM must swiftly address the fact that data center energy demand is threatening to overwhelm the grid. The CEO of the North American Electric Reliability Corporation recently characterized mounting challenges in the power sector, including the influx of new large loads, as “a five-alarm fire when it comes to reliability.” While PJM has been rightly pursuing solutions to better manage the changing power system – including implementing reforms to its interconnection queue and load forecasting process, improving its compliance with FERC Order 2023, and pursuing greater collaboration with states to ensure adequate generation is coming online to meet demand – more immediate reforms are necessary. Firstly, it is critical that PJM continue to improve its generation interconnection queue process and finally eliminate the queue backlog, instead of continuing to rely on queue jumping proposals that undermine business certainty and the generation interconnection queue system as a whole. At the same time, given real-world time constraints on building and interconnecting new generation, it is clear that immediate demand-side solutions are key to addressing the reliability and affordability crisis. PJM’s Critical Issue Fast Path (CIFP) process on large load additions has the potential to leverage such solutions to address this critical issue. PJM’s initial CIFP proposal put forward a mandatory backstop to prevent new large loads, primarily data centers, from potentially causing rolling blackouts by 2030. In this proposal, new large loads would have been forced to curtail their energy usage if there was insufficient capacity to serve said loads in order to avoid load shed events, or blackouts, on the grid under times of high demand on the system. Mandatory backstop rules that apply to all new large loads would help shield other users of the grid – including residential homes, schools, and businesses – from higher prices and interruptions in service. PJM, however, has since updated its draft proposal to remove this important mandatory backstop, opting instead for a system that will rely on the willingness of data centers to voluntarily curtail their demand for a certain number of hours per year. Voluntary curtailment has a role to play in managing PJM’s rapid load growth, but we are gravely concerned that PJM’s current draft proposal will be inadequate to ensure the reliability and affordability of the electric grid. Without a strong system in place to manage data center load growth, PJM itself has warned that the result could be rolling blackouts affecting all grid users. These interruptions in service would not only be completely unacceptable given they are foreseeable, but also potentially dangerous for our constituents and severely detrimental to the overall economic security of our states. PJM should be doing everything in its power and utilizing all available tools to avoid such drastic measures as its foremost priority. Furthermore, we are concerned that PJM decided to deprioritize its mandatory backstop proposal as a result of assigning far greater weight to the perspectives of a small group of influential and well-resourced stakeholders than to the reliability and affordability concerns of the over 67 million Americans PJM serves. PJM has cited stakeholder feedback in its decision to amend its CIFP proposal, and it is clear from the public comments PJM received in response to its initial proposal that the vast majority of identifiable opposition came from organizations with direct economic incentives tied to rapid data center development. This includes opposition from data center and digital infrastructure developers, energy companies, and utilities – all of whom stand to profit from soaring data center investment and energy demand. In contrast, PJM received comments from at least four statewide consumer protection advocates expressing significant concerns that PJM is not adequately considering affordability and reliability impacts on general ratepayers within the CIFP process. These concerns do not appear to have been addressed in any material way in PJM’s current proposal. Given that billions of dollars of increased electricity costs and reliable grid service for our constituents are on the line, we urge PJM to immediately change course on its CIFP proposal. Instead, PJM must put forward solutions that prioritize grid reliability and affordability for residents and small businesses. A serious solution to this problem must at least include an enforceable backstop to prevent data center demand from bringing about a resource adequacy shortfall and an extension of the current capacity market price collar while the new rules take effect. We recommend that PJM explore proposals that include some combination of the following and hold existing customers harmless from energy cost increases driven by data centers: A mandatory backstop to ensure that resource adequacy is maintained for users of the grid that are not new large loads. Creating a “large load queue” to ensure that the interconnection of new large loads can be served reliably and keep prices affordable for all users. Improved load forecasting to ensure that PJM is not over-estimating the amount of new data center load or double counting mutually exclusive data center load. Ensuring prioritization for projects that bring their own new, additional capacity resources to the grid, such as new generation, battery energy storage systems, and demand response, so that they do not impact reliability and energy prices for other grid users. If necessary, PJM should initiate a filing at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under Section 205 of the Federal Power Act (FPA) to request that the Commission clarify PJM’s authority to enforce these provisions. The Commission’s consideration of the recent advanced notice of proposed rulemaking put forward by the Secretary of Energy related to large load interconnection may also provide PJM with additional clarity. Nonetheless, we believe PJM already has the necessary authority to implement these changes to its tariff because PJM is responsible for the reliable operation of the system, including transmission and generation adequacy, provided at “just and reasonable” rates that are not “unduly discriminatory.” It is not unduly discriminatory to identify and manage demand from new data centers given their incomparably large energy demands, how quickly data centers can come online, and their unique potential to impact the reliability of the electric grid as a collective class and to increase rates for all other customers. Conversely, it is unduly discriminatory to force our constituents to subsidize data center development through astronomical rates and costs. It is likewise unduly discriminatory to ask our constituents to tolerate interruptible electric service if PJM does not take action to address the impending imbalance of energy demand and capacity due to new data center loads. We will be closely monitoring the next steps and outcome of the CIFP process and appreciate the Board’s attention to these critical issues, which are inextricably linked to the energy reliability and affordability our constituents both expect and deserve. As the ultimate decisionmakers within the CIFP process, we urge the Board to give full and fair consideration to the reliability and affordability implications of any final proposal, and to place the public interest at the forefront of its decision-making. Thank you again for your consideration in this process.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-rsf-agreement-to-humanitarian-truce-in-sudan,Van Hollen Statement on RSF Agreement to Humanitarian Truce in Sudan,2025-11-06,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement regarding the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) agreement to a humanitarian ceasefire in Sudan: “For more than two years, death and destruction have torn apart Sudan, largely fueled by the Rapid Support Forces (RSF), who have been armed by the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Amidst a surge in violence in the last few weeks, today I was preparing to call on the Senate to pass my Stand Up for Sudan Act, legislation to pause arms sales to the UAE until it ceases supplying weapons to the RSF. With the RSF’s agreement to a humanitarian truce today, I will instead continue to closely monitor the situation on the ground in Sudan. While their agreement to a ceasefire is welcome news, it remains to be seen whether the RSF is truly willing to halt its attacks on the people of Sudan, and the Sudanese Armed Forces have yet to agree to this proposal. The United States must continue to use all its leverage to end this war and stop the heinous violence that has devastated the people of Sudan.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-warner-colleagues-act-to-bar-mass-layoffs-during-government-shutdown,"Van Hollen, Warner, Colleagues Act to Bar Mass Layoffs During Government Shutdown",2025-11-06,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Mark R. Warner (D-Va.) along with Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) in introducing the Securing Assurance for Federal Employees (SAFE) Act, legislation to explicitly prohibit the federal government from carrying out reductions in force (RIFs) during a lapse in appropriations. The bill would also reverse RIF actions taken during the current government shutdown. The SAFE Act comes in response to recent efforts by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to initiate thousands of RIFs during the ongoing shutdown – an unprecedented step that a federal judge has already said appears “politically motivated,” illegal, and “arbitrary and capricious.” More than 4,000 federal employees have received RIF notices since early October. While the court has temporarily blocked these actions, the threat remains for many other federal employees serving the American public without pay during this shutdown. Current law does not permit agencies to conduct RIFs during a lapse in appropriations. This bill reaffirms and makes explicit Congress’s intent that no administration may use a shutdown as a pretext to initiate layoffs. The SAFE Act makes clear that such actions have no legal force and ensures federal workers cannot be targeted for job cuts during a funding lapse. “Donald Trump and Russ Vought have been deliberately inflicting trauma on our patriotic civil servants since day one, jeopardizing the important work they do on behalf of the American people. This legislation will stop this Administration from weaponizing their shameful shutdown to further their lawless agenda while playing politics with the lives and livelihoods of civil servants and the vital services they provide,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Our civil servants take an oath to serve the American people, not a political party or a president. Weaponizing a shutdown to push out career professionals is not only wrong, it’s unlawful and dangerous for our democracy,” said Senator Warner. “This bill makes clear that no administration can use manufactured chaos as a backdoor way to purge the federal workforce. “Despite court orders and legal precedent, the Trump administration continues to play politics with Americans’ lives during the Republican shutdown,” said Leader Schumer. “The erratic slash-and-burn approach to the federal workforce has already caused chaos—firing dedicated public servants one week, only to rehire them the next. It’s reckless, it’s cruel, and it’s illegal. The SAFE Act will put an end to these politically motivated firings during a shutdown once and for all and make Congress’s intent unmistakably clear: no president can weaponize a shutdown to punish federal workers.” “Trump is using RIFs as a political tool to punish hardworking federal workers and their families during this Republican shutdown, sowing chaos for hundreds of thousands of people,” said Senator Hirono. “I’m proud to join my colleagues in introducing this legislation to combat this Administration’s lawlessness and protect the jobs and livelihoods of crucial federal employees.” “Since day one, the Trump Administration has fired thousands of federal employees,” said Senator Kaine. “Our dedicated federal workers—and Americans across the country who rely on their service and expertise—deserve better, and that’s why I’m introducing legislation to prevent any administration from laying off federal employees during a shutdown.” “This President and his Administration have spent the last 10 months attacking our patriotic civil servants – laying off swaths of federal workers, canceling grants and funding that their work relies on, and now shutting down our government, leaving federal workers without pay. Russell Vought has said he wants our federal workers to feel trauma. It’s cruel, callous, and un-American. That’s why I’m proud to introduce the SAFE Act to prevent mass firings and stop this President from inflicting even more trauma on our federal workers, and the people they serve – the American people,” said Senator Alsobrooks. The bill is also sponsored by Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), and Andy Kim (D-N.J.). The legislation is endorsed by the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), National Education Association (NEA), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), and Service Employees International Union (SEIU). “NTEU strongly supports the Securing Assurance for Federal Employees Act which would ban mass layoffs of federal employees during a government shutdown. The SAFE Act would be a strong compliment to the court-ordered injunction now in place against such layoffs. To be furloughed without pay and receive a layoff notice is devastating to federal employees who simply want to do the job they were hired to do and serve their country,” said Doreen Greenwald, National President of the National Treasury Employees Union. “IFPTE wholeheartedly backs the SAFE Act, sponsored by Senator Warner, which would stop the Trump Administration from laying off federal workers during a shutdown. Simply stated, initiating Reductions in Force (RIFs) during a shutdown is unprecedented, illegal, and immoral. The SAFE Act is necessary to rein in the callous and unlawful effort to RIF federal workers, and IFPTE asks all Senators to support this legislation,” said Matt Biggs, President of the International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE).",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-press-for-update-on-states-army-corps-infrastructure-projects-following-administrations-threat-to-withhold-funding,Maryland Delegation Members Press for Update on State’s Army Corps Infrastructure Projects Following Administration’s Threat to Withhold Funding,2025-11-04,2025,2025-11,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) pressed the Trump Administration for answers regarding the status of infrastructure projects in Maryland led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers following Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought’s announcement via social media that Army Corps projects in several states, including Maryland, would be paused and potentially canceled. Despite Vought saying in the same post that more information would come from the Army Corps, the lawmakers have yet to receive any further details. Writing to Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Adam Telle, they stressed that the Army Corps’ projects in Maryland – which are carried out by funding authorized by Congress – are essential to the safety of Maryland’s coastal communities and the strength of our economy. They pointedly asked which projects have been impacted and how much funding is being withheld. “We are writing today to request detailed information on the recent announcement by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought that President Trump plans to pause or cancel $11 billion in previously appropriated funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects across the country. As you know, these funds were provided by Congress with bipartisan support and communities in our state and across the country depend on these infrastructure investments to fortify coastal communities, keep our ports competitive, and prevent flooding,” the lawmakers began. Outlining the importance of the Army Corps’ work in Maryland, they wrote, “In Maryland, we have wastewater infrastructure projects addressing needs in Western Maryland, flood risk management projects on our coasts, and navigation projects essential to the functioning of the Port of Baltimore and interstate commerce along the entire East Coast. “We respectfully request that you immediately provide our offices with a list of projects from the Army Corps’ Baltimore District that to date have been impacted by this announcement, whether any of these projects that were paused have been resumed, how long the projects have been paused and the amount of funding impacted by the pause of each project,” they concluded. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Assistant Secretary Telle: We are writing today to request detailed information on the recent announcement by Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought that President Trump plans to pause or cancel $11 billion in previously appropriated funding for Army Corps of Engineers projects across the country. As you know, these funds were provided by Congress with bipartisan support and communities in our state and across the country depend on these infrastructure investments to fortify coastal communities, keep our ports competitive, and prevent flooding. It has been over two weeks since Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought’s X post announcing this action. Congressional Committees, the Maryland Congressional Delegation, and the State of Maryland still have not received any notification as to which projects in our state may be impacted. Despite numerous attempts to receive an update and any details on this list, the Administration has provided no information on projects that may be included despite the fact that Baltimore was specifically named. Every Army Corps project that received federal funding has been authorized by Congress. This reflects many steps of due diligence as the need and urgency of projects are determined along with years of planning. In turn, a timely notification for any change must be made as communities depend on these federal resources. In Maryland, we have wastewater infrastructure projects addressing needs in Western Maryland, flood risk management projects on our coasts, and navigation projects essential to the functioning of the Port of Baltimore and interstate commerce along the entire East Coast. We respectfully request that you immediately provide our offices with a list of projects from the Army Corps’ Baltimore District that to date have been impacted by this announcement, whether any of these projects that were paused have been resumed, how long the projects have been paused and the amount of funding impacted by the pause of each project. Please provide this information no later than close of business on Wednesday, November 12, 2025. We appreciate your cooperation in this matter.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:52:45Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-warren-colleagues-press-for-transparency-on-secretive-ice-air-operations-raise-human-rights-concerns-over-reports-of-improper-treatment-of-detainees,"Van Hollen, Warren, Colleagues Press for Transparency on Secretive ICE Air Operations, Raise Human Rights Concerns Over Reports of Improper Treatment of Detainees",2025-10-30,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) were joined by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) in pressing the Trump Administration for answers regarding its use of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Air Operations (IAO) as part of its mass deportation agenda. In their letter to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, the Senators raised concerns with the “near-total secrecy” under which IAO operates in light of a series of troubling immigration enforcement actions that this Administration has taken – pointing to examples and credible reports of violations of detainees’ rights and inhumane treatment while in ICE custody. They pressed Secretary Noem and acting Director Lyons for responses to a series of questions in the interest of providing much-needed transparency for Congress and the American public on these issues, including around the costs of operations, treatment of deportees, fleet and operations, carriers and contracting, flight data and destinations, and voluntary returns. “We write to express our concerns regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Air Operations’ (IAO) severe lack of transparency. IAO has been at the center of troubling actions ICE has taken under this administration but provides no public data on its operations,” the Senators began. “IAO has been centrally involved in facilitating several concerning immigration enforcement actions under the second Trump Administration,” they wrote, pointing to the wrongful deportation of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the relocation of university student Rumeysa Ozturk before a judge could rule on her case, and the attempted deportation of unaccompanied minors to Guatemala without due process. “These cases paint a troubling picture of IAO attempting to shortcut due process rights and avoid or defy judicial authority. “IAO operates in near-total secrecy. ICE does not provide any publicly accessible data on its flights, destinations, costs to taxpayers, or passengers,” they continued. “The ICE Flight Monitor August 2025 report finds that flight volume is also trending upward, as the number of IAO flights has steadily increased throughout the year, with the months of May through August reaching higher figures than ever previously recorded.” “Additionally, the conditions on board IAO flights have been described as ‘dehumanizing’ and even ‘dangerous,’” they added. “A recent lawsuit alleges that ICE put several detainees on a military cargo plane wearing straitjackets for 16 hours and did not tell them where they were going. […] Detainees have reportedly made hundreds of allegations of verbal, physical, and even sexual abuse by IAO personnel since 2010. In addition, numerous public accounts report medical emergencies and systemic limitations on access to critical care on board deportation flights. These reported conditions raise serious human rights concerns.” “Given the complete opacity of IAO, the troubling actions the division has taken under this Administration, and the impending escalation of activities as ICE implements its newly-inflated budget and requests ever-more resources from Congress, ICE must provide greater transparency,” they concluded, going on to list a series of questions for response by Secretary Noem and acting Director Lyons regarding the costs of operations, treatment of deportees, fleet and operations, carriers and contracting, flight data and destinations, and voluntary returns. Text of the letter, including the questions that the Senators pose to the Administration officials, can be viewed here and below. Dear Secretary Noem and Acting Director Lyons, We write to express our concerns regarding Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Air Operations’ (IAO) severe lack of transparency. IAO has been at the center of troubling actions ICE has taken under this administration but provides no public data on its operations. The only public data shared on its website is that “IAO stages a total of 12 aircraft at its operational locations in Arizona, Texas, Louisiana, and Florida” which has not been updated since August 8, 2023. According to ICE’s website, IAO is the agency’s primary air transportation division, responsible for conducting the removal of noncitizens with final orders of removal to their countries of origin, as well as the transfer of detained noncitizens domestically to ICE-managed detention facilities. IAO also conducts “Special High Risk Charter flights” to deport noncitizens subject to final orders of removal to third countries. Notably, ICE does not own any planes—it uses contracted or chartered planes or purchases seats on commercial flights. IAO has been centrally involved in facilitating several concerning immigration enforcement actions under the second Trump Administration. It transported Kilmar Abrego Garcia from Maryland to Louisiana to Texas, before illegally deporting him to El Salvador’s infamous CECOT prison over a period of just three days. The same day Kilmar was unlawfully deported, IAO took hundreds of immigrants to El Salvador without due process despite a judge’s order that the planes not take off, or if they had taken off, to return to the United States. IAO also swiftly flew students being targeted by ICE for exercising their free speech rights, such as Rumeysa Ozturk, out of their local court’s jurisdiction in what has appeared to be an attempt to remove them before their local judge can issue an order in their case. Additionally, ICE attempted to deport at least 76 unaccompanied minors to Guatemala in the middle of the night, requiring a judge to issue a temporary restraining order at approximately four a.m. preventing their deportation without due process. By the time the temporary restraining order was put in place, several of the children had already boarded planes. These cases paint a troubling picture of IAO attempting to shortcut due process rights and avoid or defy judicial authority. IAO operates in near-total secrecy. ICE does not provide any publicly accessible data on its flights, destinations, costs to taxpayers, or passengers. Human Rights First’s ICE Flight Monitor project, which uses publicly available aviation data to monitor IAO’s flights, estimates that between January 20, 2025, and the end of August 2025, IAO has flown at least 7,454 total immigration enforcement flights to at least 66 different countries—a 34 percent increase over the same time period last year and the highest since tracking began in 2020. Public reporting notes that at least 180,000 people have been deported since January 20, 2025. The ICE Flight Monitor August 2025 report finds that flight volume is also trending upward, as the number of IAO flights has steadily increased throughout the year, with the months of May through August reaching higher figures than ever previously recorded. In August 2025 alone, the ICE Flight Monitor tracked the highest monthly total of at least 1,393 U.S. immigration enforcement flights—averaging 45 flights a day. This tracks with reporting that earlier this year ICE modified its contract with CSI Aviation, its primary air charter company, to increase the number of flights and has been expanding its network of airline partners—including budget retail airline, Avelo, which appears to be the first retail airline to sign a long-term contract flying for ICE. The Trump Administration has also been using U.S. military planes to carry out deportation flights, for which there is even less transparency, including logistical and financial coordination between ICE and the Department of Defense (DOD). Military flights can fly where no other planes can and provide less public information to protect operational security. The ICE Flight Monitor reports that the Trump Administration has used military planes to carry out at least 85 deportation flights since January 2025. They have primarily used C-17 and C-130 Air Force cargo planes, which are significantly more expensive than standard IAO charter flights, with the C-17 flights reportedly costing $28,500 an hour. Additionally, the conditions on board IAO flights have been described as “dehumanizing” and even “dangerous.” According to the “ICE Air Operations Handbook,” dated February 2024, which was released as part of a Freedom of Information Act request, IAO requires that every detainee “be fully restrained by the use of… handcuffs, waist chains, and leg irons” during their flight. Under “special circumstances,” IAO may restrain detainees with “spit masks, mittens, leg braces, cargo straps, the WRAP,” or other such restraint. The “WRAP” is a full-body restraint device used to completely immobilize a person, and its use by local law enforcement has reportedly contributed to at least a dozen deaths in the last decade. Multi-country flights have reportedly left some individuals shackled for as long as 50 hours. A recent lawsuit alleges that ICE put several detainees on a military cargo plane wearing straitjackets for 16 hours and did not tell them where they were going. Once the detainees landed outside of the U.S. they reported that U.S. officials told local officials of the third-party country to send the detainees to their countries of origin, circumventing court orders against deportation to those countries. Additionally, recent filings in another lawsuit allege that ICE officials beat detainees in an effort to forcibly remove them from one of the planes that landed in El Salvador back in March. Detainees have reportedly made hundreds of allegations of verbal, physical, and even sexual abuse by IAO personnel since 2010. In addition, numerous public accounts report medical emergencies and systemic limitations on access to critical care on board deportation flights. These reported conditions raise serious human rights concerns. The Trump Administration reportedly intends to significantly increase the volume of deportations with the $75 billion provided for ICE in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act over the next four years. DHS has also requested nearly $11 billion for ICE in discretionary appropriations for fiscal year 2026. Given the complete opacity of IAO, the troubling actions the division has taken under this Administration, and the impending escalation of activities as ICE implements its newly-inflated budget and requests ever-more resources from Congress, ICE must provide greater transparency. We request the following documents and information by November 12, 2025: Costs of Operations How much taxpayer money has been spent on IAO flights since January 20, 2025? Please provide the total cost. What has been the total cost of each of these three categories: domestic flights, removal flights, and military flights since January 20, 2025? Does DHS reimburse DOD for all costs when military flights are used? What has been the total cost incurred by DHS and DOD, respectively, since January 20, 2025? Treatment of Deportees Are all of the processes, procedures, and rules in the IAO Handbook applicable and followed for deportations on military planes, including, but not limited to, medical support, meals, restraints, and hygiene accommodations? If not, what are the variances? What procedures does ICE have in place to document, track, and publicly report any serious medical events or fatalities involving noncitizens that may occur during in-transit domestic or removal flights? When there are violations of the guidelines in the IAO Handbook, how are they reported and adjudicated? The ICE Air Operations Handbook does not include any guidelines on procedures to prevent, detect, and respond to incidents of sexual harassment and sexual assault during air transport. What written policies or procedures govern the prevention, monitoring, and response to allegations of sexual harassment and assault during IAO operations? What reporting mechanisms exist for noncitizens to report allegations of sexual harassment and assault? What measures are taken to ensure that detainees are screened prior to flight to identify those at risk of being victims or perpetrators of sexual abuse? Based on flight tracking done by Human Rights First’s ICE Flight Monitor and Tom Cartwright, it appears that there are more multi-stop routes now than in years prior. Is that a strategy change? If so, what is the rationale for this change? Are any extra accommodations made with respect to meals and restraints on the longer flights, which have been as long as 50-hour journeys? For example, is there a meal at least every 8 hours and are restraints removed at some times? DHS’s Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties stated in its FY2023 annual report that “ICE does not have sufficient policies or operational guidance governing its use of the WRAP, contributing to concerns in the way it was used” and issued a recommendation that ICE develop “a policy governing use of the WRAP, documentation, and new expanded and specific training.” Has ICE fulfilled this recommendation? Please provide the policy governing the use of the WRAP, the training requirements, and the training documents for DHS employees and contractors who may use it. Which ICE employees and contractors are trained to use the WRAP? Are all ICE employees and contractors who have used or can use the WRAP trained to do so? Is ICE tracking the WRAP’s use as required by federal law when officers use force? Please provide records documenting ICE’s use of the WRAP. Fleet and Operations How many planes does IAO currently have in its chartered fleet, and how many more are available to IAO in its reserve fleet? Do you plan to increase the size of the IAO charter and reserve fleets, and if so, by how much? Which domestic airports are being used by ICE for these flights? Please provide a list of the airports and the number of domestic and removal flights, respectively, to and from each. How is it determined if a deportation mission will use traditional IAO planes or military planes? Which agency makes that decision? Are Military Police, or any other DoD service members, providing security or other services on ICE Air commercial charter flights? Do you anticipate a higher or lower percentage of future deportations will be carried out on military planes with anticipated volume changes and funding availability? How do you make the determination to use commercial flights? What percentage of people deported by air are via commercial flights? What percent of these returns include escorts and what percent are not escorted returns? Are people in restraints on escorted flights? Carriers and Contracting Please provide any requests for proposal and resulting executed contracts with any brokers or carriers, including CSI Aviation. Are you actively in contract discussions with CSI or other carriers, even if exploratory, about augmenting contract carriers and planes for daily and high-risk flights? Flight Data and Destinations Please provide a list of destination countries, number of deportees, nationalities of deportees, and whether the flight was on a military plane or other IAO-chartered plane by domestic or removal flight since January 20, 2025. For removal flights, please also list whether the flight was removing the deportees to their countries of origin or to a third country. If the flight was to a third country, please list the percentage of the deportees who were considered security risks or other rationale for their being removed to a third country. If the flight was to a third country, please clarify if that country was directed or authorized to deport the individuals to their countries of origin. Voluntary Returns If an individual in ICE custody agrees to voluntary removal, must the individual then await scheduling for a return flight arranged by ICE? Are individuals in ICE custody, who have previously agreed to voluntary departure, permitted to arrange and pay for their own travel out of the U.S.? ICE reportedly has a $950 million contract with Salus Worldwide to effectuate voluntary returns. What services will they provide? Please detail the bidding process for this contract, including any deviations from prior bidding processes for flight contracts. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-unprecedented-partisan-committee-action-on-fbi-headquarters,"Van Hollen Statement on Unprecedented, Partisan Committee Action on FBI Headquarters",2025-10-29,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Republicans’ decision to override years of precedent and approve a wholly partisan prospectus for the relocation of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) headquarters without the support of the Democratic members of the Committee. “After a decades-long thorough, transparent, and competitive selection process, Greenbelt, Md. was chosen as the site of the new FBI Headquarters based on its ability to meet the mission requirements of the men and women of the Bureau – including their security needs. Yet today, after the Trump Administration has presented minimal planning and provided zero transparency, Republican members of the Environment and Public Works Committee approved on a party-line basis a prospectus with few details, no completed security plan, and an incomplete cost assessment for a new FBI Headquarters located in DC. “The prospectus passed by Republicans today fails to address the glaring security issues presented by a headquarters located in the Ronald Reagan building on Pennsylvania Avenue. This is underscored by the prospectus’ failure to even mention Level 5 security requirements – requirements that were developed following the 9/11 attacks on our nation and were included in prior Congressional directives. “In taking this unprecedented step to overrule the Committee’s minority in this decision, Republicans are undermining the mission and safety of the men and women of the FBI and also setting a dangerous precedent for future Committee decisions. They have become rubber stamps for a lawless president. They should be ashamed.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-beyer-walkinshaw-over-60-lawmakers-press-administration-to-reinstate-furloughed-federal-workers-at-agencies-unaffected-by-republican-shutdown-resume-their-pay,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Beyer, Walkinshaw, Over 60 Lawmakers Press Administration to Reinstate Furloughed Federal Workers at Agencies Unaffected by Republican Shutdown, Resume Their Pay",2025-10-24,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) and U.S. Representatives Don Beyer and James Walkinshaw (both D-Va.) were joined by more than 60 of their colleagues in the Senate and House urging the Trump Administration to immediately reinstate any furloughed employees of agencies funded entirely by collected user fees and to resume their paychecks. In their letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought, the lawmakers pointed out that fee-funded agencies are unaffected by the lapse in appropriations caused by this Republican-driven shutdown, and that they should continue to deliver services to the American people uninterrupted as they have during past shutdowns. The members stressed that OMB’s directive to temporarily lay off and withhold pay from federal workers whose agencies continue to bring in revenue is unjustified and unnecessarily punitive – and must be reversed. “We are deeply concerned by reports of federal employees whose jobs are fee-funded being furloughed or denied pay while working during the current government shutdown at the direction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These moves are unprecedented during a government shutdown and have no legal or financial justification. They are clearly designed simply to inflict pain on the federal workforce and to deprive the American people of the services these federal employees provide,” the lawmakers began. For example, they took issue with furloughs and withholding of paychecks of employees at the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs, noting that the Bureau is funded through fees collected for visa and passport processing. “There is no legal or financial reason to deny compensation to these employees as the money necessary to pay them is still being collected for services that are still being rendered,” they wrote. “Passport Services did not suffer any disruption to its operations or payroll during either of the government shutdowns during President Trump’s first term. The only rationale here seems to be needlessly inflicting maximum pain on federal workers who are serving the American people.” “There is no legal, financial, or historical reason to furlough or withhold pay from any federal employees whose wages do not rely on appropriated funds. These employees are non-partisan Americans who work hard to ensure the safety, security, and prosperity of their fellow Americans day in and day out. As such, we urge the immediate reinstatement of and resumption of pay for all federal employees who do not rely on appropriations for their work or wages,” they continued, going on to list a series of questions for response by Director Vought – including the number of federal employees who have been furloughed and denied pay, the anticipated impact on the public services that those employees provide, and the legal justification for this directive. Joining Senators Van Hollen and Alsobrooks and Representatives Beyer and Walkinshaw on the letter are Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.); and Representatives André Carson (D-Ind.), Troy Carter (D-La.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Cleo Fields (D-La.), Bill Foster (D-Ill.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Maggie Goodlander (D-N.H.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Bill Keating (D-Mass.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Jim McGovern (D-Mass.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Raul Ruiz (D-Calif.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.), and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.). Text of the letter, including the questions that the Senators pose to the Administration officials, can be viewed here and below. Director Vought: We are deeply concerned by reports of federal employees whose jobs are fee-funded being furloughed or denied pay while working during the current government shutdown at the direction of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). These moves are unprecedented during a government shutdown and have no legal or financial justification. They are clearly designed simply to inflict pain on the federal workforce and to deprive the American people of the services these federal employees provide. The General Services Administration (GSA) has reportedly furloughed employees working in functions that do not rely on congressional appropriations, like those funded through the Acquisition Service Fund or carryover funds. These employees have typically been exempt from furloughs and been paid during shutdowns. Rather than determining a furlough plan based on availability of funds and job functions, a GSA department was reportedly “given a number to hit” for total furloughs. Likewise, we have learned that employees in the Department of State’s Bureau of Consular Affairs (CA) have been furloughed, including employees in Passport Services, at OMB’s direction. However, these CA employees’ wages do not rely on appropriated funds. Instead, the salaries are paid with the fees that are collected to carry out services such as visa and passport adjudication. A lapse in appropriations should have no bearing on these employees’ work status, as they and their operations are fully fee-funded. We have also been made aware that those CA employees who have been excepted are continuing to work without pay, despite the availability of funds and past precedent that has allowed fee-funded employees to continue to receive pay during a shutdown. There is no legal or financial reason to deny compensation to these employees as the money necessary to pay them is still being collected for services that are still being rendered. The State Department’s own documentation supports these conclusions. On September 29th, 2025, the Department issued lapse guidance, which notes that “Consular operations domestically and abroad will remain operational as long as there are sufficient fees to support operations,” that, as a category 4 entity, CA is “generally expected to operate normally,” and that, for these excepted “entities, no new obligations should be made except for payroll, to protect life and property, and for reasons essential to national security” [emphasis added]. Moreover, OMB has allowed these entities to continue operations and to pay employees during previous shutdowns. Passport Services did not suffer any disruption to its operations or payroll during either of the government shutdowns during President Trump’s first term. The only rationale here seems to be needlessly inflicting maximum pain on federal workers who are serving the American people. There is no legal, financial, or historical reason to furlough or withhold pay from any federal employees whose wages do not rely on appropriated funds. These employees are non-partisan Americans who work hard to ensure the safety, security, and prosperity of their fellow Americans day in and day out. As such, we urge the immediate reinstatement of and resumption of pay for all federal employees who do not rely on appropriations for their work or wages, and we also request urgent answers to the below questions within 7 days:",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-leads-bill-to-pay-all-federal-employees-servicemembers-and-contractors-during-shutdown-on-senate-floor,"Van Hollen Leads Bill to Pay All Federal Employees, Servicemembers, & Contractors During Shutdown on Senate Floor",2025-10-24,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Yesterday, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) spoke on the Senate Floor and called for unanimous consent to pass his legislation to pay all federal employees – both those excepted and furloughed – as well as our servicemembers and federal contractors during the current Republican-led shutdown. The Senators’ bill, the True Shutdown Fairness Act, would also prevent the Administration’s attempts at mass firings (Reductions in Force or RIFs) while the government is shut down. The True Shutdown Fairness Act is cosponsored by Senators Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). Video of Senator Van Hollen’s remarks can be viewed here, and a transcript is below: SENATOR CHRIS VAN HOLLEN (D-Md.): I want to thank my colleague from Virginia, Senator Warner, and other colleagues who are joining together to support the proposal that we are putting forward today. But I think we should all say that the best way to make sure that federal employees, all federal employees, get paid and that the American people get the benefit of their services is to reopen the federal government and do it now. Which is why I and my Democratic colleagues have voted seven times now, seven times now, to reopen the government without giving Donald Trump a blank check and while making sure that we prevent a health care crisis in this country when people's health care premiums and costs go through the roof. Because when Republicans passed their so-called ‘big beautiful bill,’ they extended the tax breaks for billionaires and very wealthy people. The one tax cut they did not extend was the one that allows middle-class families to afford health insurance. And so, they left in place a ticking time bomb that's going off. Now, we'd like to defuse that time bomb. Instead of negotiating on that the president has been AWOL. He has been engaged in discussions overseas regarding the Middle East. He’s been on the phone a lot with Vladimir Putin. That's all good. But you would think the United States could carve out just a little time to help reopen the government – to have a negotiation on reopening the federal government. Instead, he's bringing down Republican members of the House and Senate to the White House and wining and dining them and patting them on the back and saying, “good job, for, you know, keeping this government shut down and not entering into a negotiation to bring it to a close.” And, of course, our House colleagues – the Speaker of the House, Speaker Johnson, has essentially got the House on a five-week now, I don't know if we’re on six weeks, paid vacation. I mean, they are AWOL here in the middle of this shutdown. What is the president focused on? He's asking the Justice Department to pay him $230 million for legal bills, right, directly into his pocket. He's talking about giving his buddy in Argentina a $20 billion taxpayer bailout while farmers across the country are getting hit hard because they can't sell their soybeans to China. And he's demolishing the east wing of the white House, which is a metaphor for what he is doing to the country and people who worked for him to get him elected. I mean, he's betraying the very people he said he was going to stand up for when he said he was going to focus on prices and costs. And yet, when it comes to trying to just prevent this huge spike in health care costs that people are experiencing, the president doesn't want to talk about it. So, we should not be punishing federal employees for something they had nothing to do with. They're not responsible. They're innocent bystanders. They all want to get back on the job and provide services to the American people. And I'll be putting forth a proposal to say that they should not be punished, and they should be paid. Now, we'll hear later today – we're going to be taking up here in the Senate a piece of legislation from Senator Johnson. And that proposal would pay federal employees who are currently working right now. Our proposal doesn't discriminate among federal employees. And here's the really dangerous part, I would argue, about Senator Johnson's proposal. We have a president, President Trump, who along with Russ Vought, who’s his, you know, guy in the cockpit at OMB – this is the guy who said publicly that he wanted to inflict “trauma,” that's his word, not mine, inflict trauma on the federal workforce. If you allow them to decide who they're going to keep on the job in the federal government and who they're going to pay, you're giving them also a blank check as to who they're going to send home and who they're going to punish by not paying. That's what they've been doing. Much of what they've been doing is illegal. In fact, we have a federal court in California that's already said that their layoffs of some of the federal employees and some of the agencies are illegal. But if you just let them decide who is going to get paid and who's not, you weaponize that illegality – you weaponize the federal government. And by the way, and I think we all know this, if President Trump gets to keep the folks he wants on the job and pay the folks that he wants who are on the job and nobody else, he'll have even less incentive to end the government shutdown. He'll have the government he wants, not the one that has been supported on a bipartisan basis by the United States Congress. So, giving the President a blank check to decide which federal employees to punish and which ones not to punish is a very dangerous thing at this moment. That's why the proposal I'm putting forward – and Senator Peters will have an even narrower version that he will put forward if our Republican colleagues don't support the one that I'm advancing, along with Senator Warner, Senator Kaine, Senator Alsobrooks, and others. These proposals say that federal employees should not be punished. Now, we've already made that decision. We've already made that decision as a Congress in the past. During the first Trump shutdown – that was the 35-day Trump shutdown. During that shutdown, Senator Cardin, myself, and others – we passed a piece of legislation that was signed by the president that says at the end of a shutdown federal employees get fully paid. They're held harmless. Why did we decide to do that? Because we collectively made the right decision that federal employees who have nothing to do with the government shutdown should not be the ones punished for something they were not culpable in. That was the right decision. What my proposal and our proposal will do is based on that idea – that no federal employee should be punished for something they had nothing to do with. And not only should they get repaid at the end of this, but why would we say to them that you can't have enough pay to make your electric bills, or pay your water bills, or provide for your family? Why should federal employees be the ones who are punished for the government shutdown? Why should they be the ones that have to overdraft their bank accounts – be penalized for that? That's not fair. So, the proposals that we're putting forward say that in this government shutdown, federal employees and, yes, certain federal contractors who have nothing to do with this political situation that we face – they should not be the ones to bear the burden. And we certainly shouldn't set up a system where the President of the United States gets to decide what agencies to shut down, what they can open, who to pay and who not to pay, who to punish, who not to punish. That just gives him a blank check to put in place political cronies and pay them, and send home hardworking civil servants who perform important functions. So, that's what our proposal will do. And for any of our colleagues, regardless of the side of the aisle, who agree that federal employees should not be the ones who are punished for something they got nothing to do with, I hope you'll all agree to support this measure. Now, I don't know if, Mr. President, Senator Peters wants to talk at all on this particular proposal. He's going to be talking on the next proposal. I know that some of my colleagues are on the way to the floor, as we speak. Senator Kaine, and others – and I will, when they arrive, I will return the floor to them to say their piece. But at this time, Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S3039 introduced earlier today, that the bill be considered, read a third time and passed, and the motion to reconsider be considered, made and laid upon the table.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-administrations-intent-to-send-kilmar-abrego-garcia-to-liberia,Van Hollen Statement on Administration’s Intent to Send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia,2025-10-24,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on reports that the Trump Administration intends to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Liberia: “The Trump Administration has been desperately shopping for faraway countries they can ship Kilmar Abrego Garcia to in order to deny his constitutional due process right to defend himself against the charges they have brought. Clearly, Trump’s cronies want to avoid answering for the claim that they are engaged in a vindictive prosecution against Abrego Garcia, after a federal judge concluded earlier this month that his prosecution ‘may stem from retaliation by the DOJ and DHS due to Abrego’s successful challenge of his unlawful deportation in Maryland.’ Kilmar must be allowed his day in court to fight for his rights.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-call-out-trump-administrations-dismantling-of-education-offices-responsible-for-supporting-people-with-disabilities,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Call out Trump Administration’s Dismantling of Education Offices Responsible for Supporting People with Disabilities",2025-10-23,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and colleagues called out the Trump Administration’s efforts to dismantle U.S. special education with its decision to illegally fire the Department of Education workers who provide education services and resources for people with disabilities and their families. In a letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, the Senators stressed that firing nearly all of the employees of the Department of Education’s Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services (OSERS) – in addition to their earlier moves to cancel dozens of special education grants – will leave the Administration unable to meet its legal obligation to ensure access to a quality education for people with disabilities. The Senators press Secretary McMahon and Director Vought to provide answers to critical outstanding questions around these issues. Senator Van Hollen was joined in sending the letter by Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) “We write today with outrage at your reported decision to fire nearly everyone at the Department of Education (the Department) dedicated to delivering services and resources to infants, toddlers, children, youth, and adults with disabilities. A federal judge has paused all of the illegal reductions-in-force issued during the government shutdown, noting that they appear to be ‘the epitome of hasty, arbitrary, and capricious decision-making.’ We call on you to immediately end your illegal effort to fire these workers and ensure the offices are restored so that the staff can effectively implement statutorily required responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Education,” the Senators began. Emphasizing the Administration’s legal obligation to carry out education programs for Americans with disabilities, they wrote, “Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), every student in America is legally entitled to a free, appropriate public education and yet you have decimated, without justification, the federal offices that help make that happen for children with disabilities and their families. By effectively closing these offices, you have sent a clear message: the Trump Administration does not believe that children with disabilities deserve an equal education.” The Senators added that the Administration’s latest attempted mass firings follow a pattern of undermining legally mandated special education programs, noting that the Administration has previously fired staff that oversee the implementation of IDEA and canceled investments in improving accessibility for students. “Your actions to undermine the rights and protections guaranteed by IDEA and the Department’s ability to enforce them compounds that wrong. We must do more, not less, to support children with disabilities and their families,” they continued. “We have already heard from families across the country who are fearful of losing services given the Department’s actions. We demand you reverse the firing of the staff at these critical offices,” the Senators wrote, going on to list a series of questions for response by Secretary McMahon and Director Vought – including the number of workers who have received RIF notices since the shutdown began, the impact of the expected loss of these workers’ collective experience, and how the Administration expects to fulfill its responsibility to administer critical special education programs. Text of the letter, including the questions that the Senators pose to the Administration officials, can be viewed here and below. Dear Secretary McMahon and Director Vought, We write today with outrage at your reported decision to fire nearly everyone at the Department of Education (the Department) dedicated to delivering services and resources to infants, toddlers, children, youth, and adults with disabilities. A federal judge has paused all of the illegal reductions-in-force issued during the government shutdown, noting that they appear to be “the epitome of hasty, arbitrary, and capricious decision-making.” We call on you to immediately end your illegal effort to fire these workers and ensure the offices are restored so that the staff can effectively implement statutorily required responsibilities assigned to the Secretary of Education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), every student in America is legally entitled to a free, appropriate public education and yet you have decimated, without justification, the federal offices that help make that happen for children with disabilities and their families. By effectively closing these offices, you have sent a clear message: the Trump Administration does not believe that children with disabilities deserve an equal education. Providing education and services for students with disabilities requires expertise, resources, time, and collaboration across the family, educator, service provider, school, district, state, and federal government. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) provides over $15 billion in formula and discretionary grants to assist states and other eligible entities in meeting the costs of providing special education and related services for children with disabilities and to improve personnel preparation and professional development related to early intervention, educational, and transition services that improve outcomes for children with disabilities. Further, Congress has directed the Secretary to lead and direct activities to fund technical assistance, model demonstration, parent training and outreach, the dissemination of information to families and schools, and the evaluation and implementation of scientifically-based research activities designed to support children with disabilities, beginning and current special educators, general educators, specialized instructional support personnel and state and district leaders. OSEP also plays a critical role in ensuring states’ compliance with IDEA through conducting monitoring and oversight. This multi-faceted work is not just the right thing to do – it is required by law. Firing the workers who are responsible for supporting children with disabilities and their families is just the latest action taken by an Administration that is bent not on returning such responsibilities to the states, where they already reside, but on taking it away from American families completely. Removing the expert staff responsible for implementation of IDEA’s oversight follows the gutting of half of the Department’s entire workforce that has taken place over the last six months. Despite IDEA requiring that the Secretary of Education provide certain monitoring, technical assistance, reporting and support, the Administration has pushed to illegally shift that responsibility to other federal agencies. Moreover, last month the Administration cancelled 34 grants administered by OSERS because supporting accessibility for students with disabilities purportedly conflicts with the Administration’s priorities. These changes follow the Administration’s budget proposal to roll up several IDEA funding programs set in law into one block grant and eliminate others, which would weaken accountability and effectively eliminate support for personnel preparation, parent information and training, and more. This proposal was rejected on a bipartisan basis by the Senate Committee on Appropriations and a partisan basis by the House Committee on Appropriations. Despite the damage that has already been done, there is still an opportunity to reverse course and prevent further harm. November 2025 marks the 50th anniversary of IDEA’s predecessor law. It’s a bittersweet milestone as IDEA requires that states protect students with disabilities from discrimination while also pledging that the federal government will support them by providing 40 percent of the cost of publicly educating students with disabilities. Although the essential protections of IDEA are in force, the federal government has never fulfilled its promise of providing 40 percent of the necessary funding. Your actions to undermine the rights and protections guaranteed by IDEA and the Department’s ability to enforce them compounds that wrong. We must do more, not less, to support children with disabilities and their families. We have already heard from families across the country who are fearful of losing services given the Department’s actions. We demand you reverse the firing of the staff at these critical offices. To better understand the decision-making process and the Department’s upcoming plans, we request answers to the following questions by October 30, 2025.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-introduce-legislation-to-pay-all-federal-employees-servicemembers-and-contractors-during-shutdown,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Introduce Legislation to Pay All Federal Employees, Servicemembers, & Contractors During Shutdown",2025-10-23,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) led over 20 Senators in introducing legislation to pay all federal employees – both those excepted and furloughed – as well as our servicemembers and federal contractors during the current Republican-led shutdown. The Senators’ legislation, the True Shutdown Fairness Act, would also prevent the Administration’s attempts at mass firings (Reductions in Force or RIFs) while the government is shut down. Senator Van Hollen will be calling for a vote on the legislation today. The legislation is cosponsored by Senators Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). The Senators’ legislation is endorsed by American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), International Federation of Professional and Technical Engineers (IFPTE), Partnership for Public Service, and The American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO). “No federal worker or servicemember should be punished for this shutdown that was brought on through no fault of their own. Republicans are hell-bent on letting Trump pick winners and losers here, but every federal worker, servicemember, and federal contractor deserves to get paid. Our legislation would ensure just that, and if Republicans are serious about supporting our federal employees, they will support it. We must keep pressing to reopen the government with a responsible agreement that holds the President accountable to the law, protects federal workers and our servicemembers, and prevents massive spikes in Americans’ health care costs,” said Senator Van Hollen. “As we urge our colleagues to come to the table and work on a bipartisan agreement that reopens the government, our servicemembers and federal workers are paying the price,” said Senator Peters. “This bill would ensure military personnel and civil servants receive the compensation they depend on to support themselves and their families while we continue working toward a bipartisan funding deal.” “Every day federal workers are out there keeping us safe, keeping our food supply secure, enforcing our laws, and caring for our veterans. They are the backbone of the services Americans count on. But from the start, this administration has treated the federal workers not as partners in serving the American people, but as adversaries to be traumatized, punished and politicized. Now, Senate Republicans want to give President Trump even more authority to decide which of these workers get paid and which get punished. I’m proud to stand with my colleagues to introduce this bill to make sure every federal employee, and every contractor who works by their side in serving the American people, gets treated with the respect they deserve during this cruel Republican shutdown,” said Senator Warner. ""Maryland is home to 494,000 patriotic federal workers and federal contractors — they have spent their lives to serving their fellow Americans — ensuring our food and water are safe, making sure our parents and grandparents get their Social Security checks, researching cures to cancer. It is our duty to ensure they are paid. We must pass legislation that ensures all federal workers receive the paychecks they earned. These workers cannot be faulted for Republicans shutting down our government. They are not political pawns, they are patriots,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “Since day one, the Trump Administration has enacted policy after policy to traumatize, politicize, and hollow out the federal workforce that delivers essential services to the American people. Now, Senate Republicans want to give President Trump more power to decide which of these workers get paid, and which get punished. Nothing about that is fair, and I’m proud to stand with my Democratic colleagues in proposing alternative legislation to ensure that America’s entire workforce of dedicated and patriotic federal employees is treated equally,” said Senator Kaine. “In New Mexico and across the country, our federal workers, servicemembers, and contractors dedicate their lives to serving the American people. These hardworking Americans should not bear the brunt of the pain Republicans are inflicting through this shutdown. That’s why I’m joining my colleagues to introduce legislation ensuring every federal employee, servicemember, and federal contractor is paid during the ongoing Republican shutdown. This legislation would also block the Trump administration’s attempts to carry out mass firings while the government remains shut down,” said Senator Luján. “It defies common sense and anyone’s definition of fairness to say that only certain federal employees should get paid during a shutdown, or that federal employees should be laid off during a shutdown. While the President may insist that he had ‘no choice’ but to lay off federal workers during the shutdown, let’s be clear: he’s been doing this since day one. We need to do everything we can to end this shutdown and get these folks paid and back to work,” said Senator Welch. “Our legislation pushes back against the President’s lawless rampage and ensures all of our federal workers are paid for doing their jobs.” “No federal worker should miss a pay-check because of the Republican shutdown. Our legislation would ensure that any employee, whether exempted or furloughed, would receive the compensation they rightly deserve. But instead of working with Senate Democrats to make government employees whole, Senate Republicans have decided to advance a piece of legislation that would give Donald Trump and Russell Vought control over which federal workers get paid. This isn’t the way to protect our federal employees, and it isn’t the way to re-open the government,” said Durbin. “As we work to reopen the government and fight to lower skyrocketing health care costs, federal workers and their families should not have to struggle without pay because of this Republican shutdown. This legislation will restore fairness to federal worker pay, prevent Russ Vought from firing more workers, and ensure families don’t suffer because Trump and his Republican allies want thousands of Delawareans to go to work each morning without collecting a check at night,” said Senator Coons. “While House Republicans are on a paid, monthlong vacation in the middle of a shutdown, federal employees and contractors – who have bills to pay and families to take care of – are being forced to go weeks on end without a paycheck. Our bill ensures that federal workers and servicemembers are not punished because of the Republicans’ refusal to show up to work and negotiate an agreement that prevents health care costs from skyrocketing,” said Senator Schatz. “Our legislation would ensure that every federal employee receives what they deserve, while we continue to work on reopening the government and protecting affordable health care. This legislation holds the Trump Administration accountable and provides federal workers, servicemembers and contractors peace of mind,"" said Senator Blumenthal. ""Our nation’s servicemembers and federal workers should not be collateral damage in this shutdown imposed by President Trump and congressional Republicans. Trump wants to pick and choose who gets paid—an attempt to augment his power and show favor to those who support him. We want fairness for all workers, not just Trump’s personal favorites.” “Donald Trump has made it his mission to fire thousands of public servants, including more Veterans than any other President in history, and he’s using the shutdown he caused as pretext to fire even more of them—and now Senate Republicans want to give Trump even more power to pick and choose who he thinks deserves a paycheck for their work,” said Senator Duckworth. “This is despicably cruel. Federal employees, servicemembers and federal contractors should not suffer the consequences of a shutdown they did not cause. Rather than cheer Trump on as he builds his extravagant and unnecessary $300 million ballroom at the White House, Senate Republicans should get back in touch with reality and help us protect workers who have been worried about how they’ll pay rent or put food on the table as the Republican shutdown continues to block their paychecks. It’s the fair and right thing to do.” Background on the True Shutdown Fairness Act: The True Shutdown Fairness Act would immediately restart pay for all excepted and furloughed federal workers, servicemembers, and federal contractors during the current shutdown. The Senators’ legislation also includes a prohibition on Reductions In Force while the federal government is shut down. Federal employees are ensured retroactive pay after a shutdown ends due to the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act – legislation that Senators Van Hollen, Cardin, Kaine, and Warner worked to pass in 2019 and that was then signed into law by President Trump.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-secures-foreign-relations-committee-passage-of-taiwan-international-solidarity-act-key-critical-minerals-provisions,"Van Hollen Secures Foreign Relations Committee Passage of Taiwan International Solidarity Act, Key Critical Minerals Provisions",2025-10-23,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) secured Senate Foreign Relations Committee passage of his bipartisan Taiwan International Solidarity Act and of key provisions he authored within the Critical Minerals Partnership Act. Senator Van Hollen introduced the Taiwan International Solidary Act in July with Senator John Curtis (R-Utah). Companion legislation was introduced in the House by former Representative Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) and Young Kim (R-Calif.), where it passed in May. The lawmakers’ bill supports Taiwan’s ability to participate in international organizations as China continues working to curtail Taiwan’s influence in global affairs. In addition to the passage of this bill, Senator Van Hollen worked to include key provisions he authored within the Committee’s Critical Minerals Partnership Act, legislation led by Senators Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.) and John Curtis and passed by the Committee today to bolster our critical mineral supply chains. Critical minerals play a central role in American innovation and national security, and the Senator’s provisions would: Create a report on priority critical minerals which includes assessments of their importance to national security, cases where their supplies are highly concentrated in or controlled by one country, and existing global initiatives and institutions focused on critical mineral issues Require the development of a diplomatic strategy for securing the supply chains of a diverse set of critical minerals Establish a mechanism to support US private sector critical mineral projects abroad “As a thriving democracy with a strong economy, Taiwan brings an important perspective to global affairs. But the People’s Republic of China is working to prevent Taiwan from participating in the international forums where key global issues are discussed. Our bipartisan bill uses American leverage to counter Beijing’s efforts to silence Taiwan on the world stage and ensure it can play a robust role in shaping international affairs. Today’s Committee passage of our legislation is an important step forward, and I will continue working to move this bill across the finish line,” said Senator Van Hollen on the passage of his Taiwan International Solidarity Act. “For too long, Beijing has worked to isolate Taiwan and distort history,” said Senator Curtis. “The United Nations must not become a platform for that distortion. I’m pleased to see this bipartisan bill advance through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, strengthening our commitment to Taiwan’s dignity and right to self-determination. This is an important step toward ensuring the United States and our allies push back against efforts to erase Taiwan’s rightful place in the international community.” “Protecting our critical mineral supply chain is central to American innovation and our national security. Today’s Committee passage of the Critical Minerals Partnership Act includes key provisions I authored to ensure we’re taking an all-encompassing approach to this issue and that we’re using all the tools available to us to tackle it. This is an important measure to address the challenges we face in safeguarding critical minerals and bolstering our national security, and I’m glad the Committee took action on it today,” said Senator Van Hollen on the passage of his critical minerals provisions. Additional Background on the Taiwan International Solidarity Act This legislation strengthens the TAIPEI Act of 2019 to clarify that U.N. General Assembly Resolution 2758 does not preclude the United States from using its vote, voice, and influence to resist the reckless campaign against Taiwan’s place on the world stage. The legislation further instructs the United States to use its voice, vote, and influence to resist Beijing’s efforts to distort the decisions, language, policies, or procedures of international organizations regarding Taiwan. This bill also encourages the U.S. to work with allies and partners to oppose the People’s Republic of China’s efforts to undermine Taiwan’s diplomatic relationships and partnerships globally. Additionally, it expands reporting requirements to include information relating to any prior or ongoing attempts by the People’s Republic of China to undermine Taiwan’s participation in international organizations as well as its ties and relationships with other countries. Text of the legislation can be viewed here. Additional Background on the Senators’ Critical Mineral Provisions Report Assessing Critical Mineral Supply Chains and Diplomatic Tools: Directs the Secretary of State to submit a report identifying critical minerals based on their importance as inputs into products critical to national security or where the supply of the mineral is high concentrated in or controlled by one country. The report will also include an assessment of existing bilateral and multilateral initiatives and institutions working on critical mineral issues. U.S. Diplomatic Strategy for Securing Critical Minerals Supply Chains: Directs the Secretary of State, in consultation with other Federal agencies to submit a diplomatic strategy to secure adequate supplies of critical minerals. The strategy will review current offices and positions engaged in securing critical minerals, coordinate utilization of U.S. tools and resources to advance critical minerals, describe engagement plans, leverage multilateral institutions, and ensure coordination of U.S. diplomatic and commercial advocacy.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-merkley-castor-frost-lead-colleagues-in-pressing-trump-administration-on-detention-of-16-year-old-us-citizen-by-israel,"Van Hollen, Merkley, Castor, Frost Lead Colleagues in Pressing Trump Administration on Detention of 16-year-old U.S. Citizen by Israel",2025-10-22,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and U.S. Representatives Kathy Castor (D-Fla.) and Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.) are leading 13 Senators and 10 House members in pressing the Trump Administration on the detention of Mohammed Zaher Ibrahim, a 16-year-old American citizen who has been held in Israel’s custody since February 16, 2025. The lawmakers begin, “We write with grave concern regarding the detention without trial of Mohammed Zaher Ibrahim. Mohammed is a U.S. citizen from Florida who was reportedly blindfolded, handcuffed, and arrested on February 16th, 2025 when Israeli forces reportedly entered his family home in al-Mazra'a ash-Sharqiya at 3 a.m. He was detained when he was 15 years old and turned 16 in prison. He has been accused of throwing rocks at Israeli settlers, but no evidence has been publicly provided to support this allegation.” They continue, “While U.S. embassy officials have been able to conduct visits, Mohammed has been denied all other contact with the outside world and his family has not been able to contact him since his detention. Senators Van Hollen and Merkley met with Mohammed’s family in the West Bank, and Rep. Castor, Rep. Frost, and other members also met with his family separately. His family has received updates from U.S. embassy staff and former detainees who described his alarming weight loss, deteriorating health, and signs of torture as his court hearings continue to be routinely postponed. His family reports that Mohammed has lost nearly a quarter of his body weight and contracted scabies after being detained in Megiddo Prison and now in Ofer Prison.” “We are concerned about reports of the mistreatment of Palestinians in Israeli detention facilities and prisons, including both of the prisons that have held Mohammed. The mistreatment of Palestinians in Israeli prisons was recently corroborated in Israel’s September 7th Supreme Court ruling, which stated the Israeli government has deprived Palestinian detainees of even a minimum subsistence diet and ordered authorities to increase the amount and quality of food served to inmates,” they go on to note. “As we have been told repeatedly, ‘the Department of State has no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad.’ We share that view and urge you to fulfill this responsibility by engaging the Israeli government directly to secure the swift release of this American boy. We request a response to this letter by November 3rd, including what efforts you have made on Mohammed's case,” the lawmakers conclude. Senators Van Hollen and Merkley and Representatives Castor and Frost were joined in sending the letter by Senators Schatz, Warnock, Sanders, Welch, Schiff, Wyden, Murray, Kaine, Warren, Markey, Luján, Heinrich, and Duckworth and Representatives Dexter, Casar, McGovern, Moore, Tlaib, García, Jayapal, Nadler, Smith, and Ramirez. The text of the letter is available here and below. Dear Secretary Rubio and Ambassador Huckabee, We write with grave concern regarding the detention without trial of Mohammed Zaher Ibrahim. Mohammed is a U.S. citizen from Florida who was reportedly blindfolded, handcuffed, and arrested on February 16th, 2025 when Israeli forces reportedly entered his family home in al-Mazra'a ash-Sharqiya at 3 a.m. He was detained when he was 15 years old and turned 16 in prison. He has been accused of throwing rocks at Israeli settlers, but no evidence has been publicly provided to support this allegation. As you know, Palestinians are subject to military law in the West Bank and are tried in military courts where there have been well-documented concerns about Palestinians not receiving fair due process. Mohammed is also the first cousin of Saifullah Kamel Musallet, the 20-year-old U.S. citizen who was reportedly beaten to death by Israeli settlers in July 2025. To date, no one has been arrested concerning his killing. While U.S. embassy officials have been able to conduct visits, Mohammed has been denied all other contact with the outside world and his family has not been able to contact him since his detention. Senators Van Hollen and Merkley met with Mohammed’s family in the West Bank, and Rep. Castor, Rep. Frost, and other members also met with his family separately. His family has received updates from U.S. embassy staff and former detainees who described his alarming weight loss, deteriorating health, and signs of torture as his court hearings continue to be routinely postponed. His family reports that Mohammed has lost nearly a quarter of his body weight and contracted scabies after being detained in Megiddo Prison and now in Ofer Prison. We are concerned about reports of the mistreatment of Palestinians in Israeli detention facilities and prisons, including both of the prisons that have held Mohammed. The mistreatment of Palestinians in Israeli prisons was recently corroborated in Israel’s September 7th Supreme Court ruling, which stated the Israeli government has deprived Palestinian detainees of even a minimum subsistence diet and ordered authorities to increase the amount and quality of food served to inmates. In a disturbingly similar case, and underscoring our urgency concerning Mohammed’s continued pre-trial detention, 17-year-old Palestinian Walid Ahmad collapsed and died in Megiddo Prison on March 22nd, 2025 after also being detained for six months without charges or trial for allegedly throwing rocks. Walid’s post-mortem examination indicates that he died from a combination of abuse and mistreatment that led to him collapsing and hitting his head, including extreme malnutrition, torture, scabies, and the denial of medical intervention. It is the responsibility of the U.S. government to ensure that this recent tragedy does not repeat itself with Mohammed. As we have been told repeatedly, “the Department of State has no higher priority than the safety and security of U.S. citizens abroad.” We share that view and urge you to fulfill this responsibility by engaging the Israeli government directly to secure the swift release of this American boy.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-statement-on-administrations-lawless-mass-firings,Maryland Delegation Members Statement on Administration’s Lawless Mass Firings,2025-10-10,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) released the following statement on the reports that the Trump Administration has initiated mass firings of federal workers amid their government shutdown: “The Trump Administration is not only maliciously attacking our patriotic federal employees, but also the vital public services they provide to the American people. Republicans have been weaponizing the Office of Management and Budget to illegally fire federal workers since day one, and now they’re using this shutdown of their own making to inflict even more trauma on the nonpartisan civil servants who have nothing to do with it. Working Americans will ultimately bear the brunt of these actions. We stand in solidarity with those fighting these illegal actions in the courts. It’s critical that we protect our dedicated civil servants and the vital work they do for us while we continue pushing Republicans to reopen the federal government with a responsible funding agreement that stops this lawlessness and prevents a major rise in health care costs for millions of Americans.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-colleagues-take-action-to-protect-federal-workers-financial-health-as-shutdown-threatens-economic-hardship,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Colleagues Take Action to Protect Federal Workers’ Financial Health as Shutdown Threatens Economic Hardship",2025-10-09,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) were joined by several of their colleagues to introduce the Shutdown Guidance for Financial Institutions Act, legislation to require federal financial industry regulators to issue guidance encouraging financial institutions to work with federal employees and small businesses impacted by a government shutdown – including offering flexible financial arrangements to prevent them from facing additional financial hardship brought on by penalties for late payments, overdraft fees, and credit damage. The Senators also today sent a letter, co-led in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), to the heads of the federal financial regulatory agencies calling on them to immediately issue such guidance as federal workers, contractors, and small businesses face the prospect of struggling to make ends meet due to a crisis that was not of their doing. In the letter that Senators Van Hollen and Alsobrooks and Congressman Mfume sent today with 21 of their colleagues, the lawmakers called on the federal financial regulators to immediately take the steps that would be required under the legislation, noting that similar actions were taken during past shutdowns and financial institutions need clear regulatory assurance to act swiftly. The letter was sent to Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) Acting Chair Travis Hill, Federal Reserve System Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould, National Credit Union Administration Chair Kyle Hauptman, Russell Vought in his capacity as acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and Conference of State Bank Supervisors Chair Tony Salazar. “No federal workers or contractors deserve to face economic ruin because of a shameful Republican shutdown that they have nothing to do with. That’s why we’re pushing to ensure that they have ways to safeguard their financial futures while we work to reopen the government. And we will keep fighting for a responsible government funding agreement – one that holds this lawless president accountable and prevents a massive spike in health care costs for families across America,” said Senator Van Hollen. “While President Trump continues his callous witch hunt against federal workers, I am proud to partner with Senator Van Hollen to protect our civil servants, contractors, and small businesses here in Maryland. Federal financial industry regulators must immediately issue guidance so financial institutions can work with all those impacted by this Republican Shutdown to get them the support they need. Our civil servants deserve better,” said Senator Alsobrooks. Additional cosponsors of the Shutdown Guidance for Financial Institutions Act are Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). “Hundreds of thousands of federal workers and contractors in Virginia and across the country have been furloughed or are working without pay because of a government shutdown that is out of their control,” said Senator Warner. “This bill will protect federal workers and advise financial regulators and institutions to work with those impacted by the shutdown.” “Federal workers, government contractors, and small businesses are often forced to make tough decisions about their finances during a shutdown,” said Senator Kaine. “A number of Virginian credit unions and community banks have stepped up to provide flexibility and support affected individuals and businesses. This legislation would require federal financial regulators to issue guidance to encourage this flexibility.” “Government shutdowns exacerbate the burden on federal workers, contractors, and small businesses, making it harder for individuals who rely on federal funding to make ends meet,” said Senator Gillibrand. “Helping these individuals navigate the uncertainty of a shutdown that is no fault of their own is the least we can do. By requiring federal financial regulators to issue guidance promptly, this commonsense legislation will do just that, and I encourage my colleagues in the Senate to support it.” “This shutdown is a tsunami of Donald Trump’s own making, and Congress must act to shield impacted federal workers, contractors, and small businesses from it,” said Senator Booker. “Hardworking Americans shouldn’t suffer or see their credit scores impacted because of a shutdown, leaving them without paychecks through no fault of their own. This legislation would ensure that financial regulators act quickly to provide basic guidance in the event of a shutdown and would help families and small businesses stay afloat.” “Federal workers and contractors are regular, hard-working Americans who have bills to pay and financial obligations to meet,” said Congressman Kweisi Mfume. “They should not be forced into financial hardship because Republicans in the Congress refuse to take the action necessary to re-open the government while preventing American healthcare premiums from skyrocketing.” Text of the bill can be viewed here. Joining Senators Van Hollen and Alsobrooks and Congressman Mfume on the letter are Senators Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.); and U.S. Representatives Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), and James Walkinshaw (D-Va.). Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Acting Chairman Hill, Vice Chair Bowman, Comptroller Gould, Chairman Hauptman, Acting Director Vought, and Chair Salazar: As Americans across the country face the consequences of a government shutdown, we write to you to address concerns about how this may impact our nation’s government employees, and how this can be addressed through your oversight. While federal law mandates that federal employees and the military receive back pay when the government reopens, the lapse in pay creates serious challenges for families. We hope that you will encourage and support banks and credit unions in efforts to provide flexible financial arrangements for their customers who endure temporary financial hardship due to a government shutdown beyond their control. This government shutdown will cause pay interruptions for millions of federal employees, servicemembers, and federal contractors. Unexpected income shocks are a key driver of penalty fees, such as credit card late fees, overdraft fees, and minimum balance fees. Customers facing a temporary income shock could easily fall below the standard minimum balance required to uphold the terms of free checking accounts, triggering account maintenance and penalty fees. Unexpected fees further strain government employees and servicemembers already struggling to cope with not being paid through no fault of these employees. Expenses continue even as income is halted, forcing even the most financially responsible federal employees and servicemembers to use savings to cover short-term expenses. Federal employees and servicemembers may be forced to utilize credit to make ends meet, adding to the concerningly high level of consumer credit card debt held nationwide. The monthly cost of holding credit card balances has increased as Annual Percentage Rates (APRs) have risen in tandem with the Federal Funds Rate, causing the overall cost of credit to rise significantly for those who use it. This will compound the harm that Americans are feeling right now from rising inflation fueled by tariffs, a declining labor market, and the possibility of healthcare becoming increasingly unaffordable – efforts that we are fighting for in our work to fund the government. We urge you to issue updated guidance encouraging your regulated institutions to work with individuals and small businesses impacted by the government shutdown. We hope that financial institutions will recognize the temporary hardship caused by unexpected gaps in pay and respond by taking steps to prevent adverse information from being reported in a manner that harms consumers affected by a shutdown. Institutions can proactively work with customers to provide modified credit arrangements in order to prevent derogatory information from being reported to consumer reporting agencies. We ask that you work with, and encourage, your regulated institutions to provide flexible alternatives to financial arrangements that put their customers in a temporarily compromising financial position, recognizing that this is temporary and not reflective of the customer’s true risk profile. Institutions that work with their customers to provide flexible financing arrangements and place loans in forbearance need reassurance that these actions will be taken into consideration in supervisory practices. We ask that you consider encouraging banks and credit unions to temporarily waive minimum balance, overdraft fees, and late fees for any individual or small business impacted by the shutdown. These actions would mirror steps financial regulators made in past shutdowns. However, since the last shutdown in 2019, the financial system has faced increased stress due to interest rate risk, and the bank failures in 2023 have highlighted a stronger need for focused, concerted balance sheet management. As institutions may be reluctant to take proactive steps to assist customers, it is critical that joint guidance be issued to reduce uncertainty and empower institutions to provide flexibility to federal employees and servicemembers while mitigating any clear risk factors. The economic cost of a shutdown is not isolated to just workers in the District of Columbia and surrounding regions. Data from the Census Bureau and the Office of Personnel Management demonstrates that federal workers reside in every Congressional District in America, meaning that local economies across the country will be harmed by federal worker furloughs. We will make every effort to reopen the government quickly. In the meantime, we urge you to work with financial institutions to reduce burdens on federal employees and servicemembers who experience a lapse in pay through no fault of their own.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-ceasefire-deal,Van Hollen Statement on Ceasefire Deal,2025-10-09,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on the ceasefire agreement between Israel and Hamas: “This is the first hopeful moment in a long time. At last, we have an agreement for a ceasefire in Gaza, the release of all the hostages, and a surge of desperately needed aid to the people of Gaza. Pressure from the U.S. and others has always been necessary to reach this moment— something that could have been achieved much earlier and prevented the staggering loss of civilian life, starvation, and devastation in Gaza. U.S. leadership will be essential to enforce this plan and convert this moment into real progress toward lasting peace – which can only be achieved by sidelining the extremists on all sides and committing to security, dignity, human rights, and justice for all.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-national-defense-bill-vote,Van Hollen Statement on National Defense Bill Vote,2025-10-09,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on his vote against the fiscal year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA): “Every year, the national defense bill offers us an opportunity to re-evaluate our investments in our national security to ensure we stay ahead of the emerging threats we face around the world. As the home to important military installations and tens of thousands of military personnel and civilian defense workers, Maryland plays an important role in these missions. That is why I worked to support our state’s installations along with the servicemembers who power them, our veterans, and their families within this legislation. “However, given the Trump Administration’s consistent actions to undermine the rule of law and use the U.S. military to advance Trump’s authoritarian actions, I could not support this year’s legislation. From missile strikes on boats in international waters that lack Congressional authorization, to the deployment of the National Guard to American cities for domestic law enforcement against the wishes of state and local leaders, it’s clear this Administration no longer respects our laws, including those around the use of the U.S. military. “I offered an amendment to block the President from deploying the National Guard to a state or the District of Columbia if that state’s governor, or the D.C. Mayor, objects – but Republicans once again acted as rubber stamps for this lawless President, and rejected it. “Taken together, these abuses of power reveal a lawless Administration that is misusing defense spending. These concerns only further my existing reservations around the continued growth in defense spending. That is why I voted against this legislation, a decision I do not make lightly. But we cannot and should not authorize almost a trillion dollars in defense spending for an Administration that is currently abusing its power and using the military to police American streets. “We deploy a strong military to protect our democracy and freedom from foreign threats and adversaries. Sadly, today, the threats to our liberties and the rule of law are coming from our own Commander in Chief, and I will not vote to give him a blank check.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-urge-major-utility-companies-against-imposing-penalties-service-shutoffs-on-federal-workers-amid-shutdown,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Urge Major Utility Companies Against Imposing Penalties, Service Shutoffs on Federal Workers Amid Shutdown",2025-10-08,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) was joined by eight colleagues in sending letters to 22 major energy, water, and broadband utility companies urging them to avoid imposing service shutoffs and other penalties for late or missed payments on federal government employees who are not receiving pay during the government shutdown. While noting that many states have laws that protect residents facing economic challenges from utility disconnections, they called on the companies to extend these protections to federal employees nationwide – to prevent them from facing additional financial hardship or dangerous conditions in their homes amid a government shutdown caused through no fault of their own. They also point out that affected workers will receive back pay under the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act, legislation led by Senator Van Hollen and signed into law by President Trump in 2019 – thus allowing any suspended payments to ultimately be repaid. Joining Senator Van Hollen on this letter are Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), and John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.). “We write to urge you to suspend all utility shutoffs imposed on federal workers who are involuntarily furloughed without pay due to the ongoing government shutdown. Without their paycheck, federal workers are at risk of having their electricity, water, and broadband services terminated due to temporary inability to pay. The families you serve must have uninterrupted access to these essential public utilities,” the Senators began. “A prolonged shutdown could make federal workers temporarily unable to pay their utility bills, they continued. “If a federal worker faces a utility shutoff, they are more likely to be exposed to dangerous conditions in their home due to a lack of safe temperature, drinking water, or broadband connectivity. “Suspending utility shutoffs for federal workers during a government shutdown is in line with statutory protections across the country,” the Senators wrote, going on to stress the importance of extending utility disconnection protections nationwide. Pursuant to Maryland law, Exelon’s subsidiaries Pepco and Baltimore Gas and Electric Company (BGE) have already begun to offer flexibility to federal employees. “However, not all states or localities have such protections and federal workers impacted by the government shutdown live in every corner of our country, including in your service areas. As of July 1, 2025, there are over 2.2 million federal civilian workers, with at least 10,000 in 41 out of 50 states and at least 1,000 in each Congressional district. “Due to the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, affected federal employees will receive backpay after the shutdown concludes and at that time will be able to address any outstanding debts. Therefore, we urge you to forbear the collection of utility payments, late fees, interest accrual, or other fee collection for federal workers until their pay resumes,” they wrote. “Our patriotic, merit-based civil servants work on behalf of the American people every day, delivering essential public services for our country. They should not have to bear the brunt of a political dispute they have nothing to do with. While we will continue to do everything in our power to swiftly reopen the government, we urge you to support our federal workers and their families during this challenging time,” the Senators concluded. The Senators sent letters to executives of energy companies Exelon Corporation, Duke Energy, Southern Company, FirstEnergy Corporation, American Electric Power Company, Xcel Energy, Entergy Corporation, Dominion Energy, PPL Corporation, Public Service Enterprise Group, Ameren Corporation, and Berkshire Hathaway Energy; water utility companies American Water Works Company, American States Water Company, and Essential Utilities; and broadband utility companies Comcast, Charter Communications, AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, Cox Communications, and Lumen Technologies. Text of the letters can be viewed here and below. We write to urge you to suspend all utility shutoffs imposed on federal workers who are involuntarily furloughed without pay due to the ongoing government shutdown. Without their paycheck, federal workers are at risk of having their electricity, water, and broadband services terminated due to temporary inability to pay. The families you serve must have uninterrupted access to these essential public utilities. These dedicated public servants contribute to our communities daily by inspecting our food and water, discovering cures for diseases, maintaining our parks, processing retirement benefits, caring for our veterans, and so much more. These civil servants have nothing to do with the ongoing political and policy disputes that have brought us to the government shutdown, but they will feel the acute impact of the loss of their paycheck. A prolonged shutdown could make federal workers temporarily unable to pay their utility bills. Research shows that financially strained households tend to forgo paying for other essential needs, such as food and health care, in order to avoid utility shutoffs. Moreover, if a federal worker faces a utility shutoff, they are more likely to be exposed to dangerous conditions in their home due to a lack of safe temperature, drinking water, or broadband connectivity. Suspending utility shutoffs for federal workers during a government shutdown is in line with statutory protections across the country. Over two-thirds of the states have statutes on the books to protect vulnerable populations from utility shutoffs. In Maryland specifically, state law prohibits public utilities from shutting off service to involuntarily furloughed federal workers. However, not all states or localities have such protections and federal workers impacted by the government shutdown live in every corner of our country, including in your service areas. As of July 1, 2025, there are over 2.2 million federal civilian workers, with at least 10,000 in 41 out of 50 states and at least 1,000 in each Congressional district. Due to the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, affected federal employees will receive backpay after the shutdown concludes and at that time will be able to address any outstanding debts. Therefore, we urge you to forbear the collection of utility payments, late fees, interest accrual, or other fee collection for federal workers until their pay resumes. When households are afforded utility disconnection protections, studies show that they are more likely to meet their basic expenses and less likely to rely on social networks and government agencies for assistance with their bills. By undertaking this small but meaningful action during a government shutdown, you can ensure that federal workers are not punished. Our patriotic, merit-based civil servants work on behalf of the American people every day, delivering essential public services for our country. They should not have to bear the brunt of a political dispute they have nothing to do with. While we will continue to do everything in our power to swiftly reopen the government, we urge you to support our federal workers and their families during this challenging time.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-reports-of-white-house-efforts-to-claw-back-federal-employee-pay,Van Hollen Statement on Reports of White House Efforts to Claw Back Federal Employee Pay,2025-10-07,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement regarding reporting that the White House and the Office of Management and Budget are attempting to violate the law and claw back federal employees’ pay for the period of the government shutdown. Senator Van Hollen worked alongside Senator Cardin in 2018 to pass the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act – which was signed into law by President Trump in 2019 – to ensure federal employees would automatically receive backpay for “any lapse in appropriations that begins on or after December 22, 2018.” “The law is the law. After the uncertainty federal employees faced in the 2019 Trump Shameful Shutdown, Senator Cardin and I worked to ensure federal employees would receive guaranteed back pay for any future shutdowns. That legislation was signed into law – and there is nothing this Administration can do to change that.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/amid-government-shutdown-van-hollen-alsobrooks-colleagues-introduce-bill-to-provide-back-pay-for-federal-contract-workers-including-food-service-and-custodial-staff,"Amid Government Shutdown, Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Colleagues Introduce Bill to Provide Back Pay for Federal Contract Workers, Including Food Service and Custodial Staff",2025-10-03,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Amid the Republican-driven federal government shutdown, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) joined Senator Tina Smith (D-Minn.) and Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) in introducing legislation to secure back pay for the thousands of federal contract workers who face furloughs and missed paychecks when the federal government is shut down. Unlike federal employees, the thousands of federal contract workers—including janitorial, food, and security services workers—have no assurances that they will receive back pay to make up for their loss of hours and pay during a shutdown. The?Fair Pay for?Federal Contractors Act?would ensure federal contract workers, including low-wage service workers providing security, food and janitorial services, are fairly compensated for the wages and benefits lost due to a lapse in appropriations, also known as a government shutdown.?It is estimated that more than 327,000 federal contractors make under $15/per hour. “From cafeteria workers and maintenance staff to security and construction workers, federal contractor employees do essential jobs for our government. These employees do not deserve to lose their paychecks due to a political dispute they had nothing to do with. That’s why we’re fighting to ensure that these hardworking people be made whole after this Republican-driven shutdown ends,” said Senator Van Hollen. “This Administration's witch hunt against our patriotic civil servants continues. Republicans control the White House, Senate, and House. They shut down of the government because of their own incompetence – they haven’t brought down grocery costs, they haven’t brought down housing costs, they haven’t brought down health insurance costs. It’s an absolute disgrace. This Republican shutdown hurts our federal workers – my constituents – all of whom this Administration has cruelly targeted. This Republican shutdown also hurts the contractors in Maryland and across the country that help provide critical services for Americans. And most of all, it hurts the people they serve: the American people. Just like civil servants, federal contractors working on behalf of their government must be paid,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “This is about fairness—contract workers and their families should not miss a paycheck because of a government shutdown they did nothing to cause,”?said Senator Smith.?“Many federal contractors work in jobs that are important for government operations, providing security, food service and janitorial work.? These are often lower-wage jobs, with many workers living paycheck to paycheck. These workers can’t afford to go without, and they shouldn’t have to. In past shutdowns, contract workers haven’t received back pay at the end of a government shutdown like regular government employees. And it’s time we right that wrong.” “Government shutdowns are destabilizing events with devastating consequences for everyone—especially for the thousands of low-wage service workers and their families. With Republicans choosing to shut down the government rather than work with Democrats to protect the lives and livelihoods of workers they represent, our bill would help ensure that federal contractors harmed by Republicans’ cruel games are made whole,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “As a former hospitality worker who knows what it is to live paycheck-to-paycheck, I’m proud to join my colleagues in pushing this bill forward.” “From taking care of our nation’s parks to keeping our office buildings safe, federal contractors play vital roles in keeping our government running,” said Senator Kaine. “I was proud to successfully lead legislation in 2019—the last time Trump closed our government—to secure back pay for federal employees during government shutdowns. As Americans find themselves in yet another Trump shutdown, I’m working with my colleagues on this legislation to provide our dedicated federal contractors peace of mind when it comes to their finances.” “Federal contractors often work side by side with federal employees, doing the same work but without the guarantee of back pay,” said Senator Warner. “While Republicans continue to block a bill that would both end the government shutdown and preserve essential health care tax credits, I’m proud to introduce this legislation to protect the livelihoods of our hardworking contractors.” The?Fair Pay for Federal Contractors Act?would: Provide contract workers, including low-wage service workers, with back pay (and restored paid leave benefits, if used), after a government shutdown, Cover costs associated with back pay for workers in an amount equal to their weekly compensation up to $1,442, (250% of the federal poverty level for a family of four), and Require the Office of Federal Procurement Policy to submit a report on federal contractors accessing back pay. The legislation is also cosponsored by Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.). The legislation is endorsed by the following organizations: Service Employees International Union (SEIU), AFL-CIO, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM), Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), Communication Workers of America (CWA), Iron Workers International, National Federation of Federal Employees (NFFE-IAM), American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), Laborers’ International Union of North America (LiUNA), International Union of Painters and Allied Trades (IUPAT), Transportation Trades Department (AFL-CIO), UNITE HERE and American Federation of Teachers (AFT). “A government shutdown hurts every community. Federally contracted workers may never see backpay when Washington politicians turn their backs on them, including security officers protecting our monuments and janitors keeping courthouses clean,” said SEIU International President April Verrett. “Our leaders need to respect the essential workers who keep this country running in good times and bad. Congress should pass the Fair Pay for Federal Contractors Act of 2025 now so every government worker doesn’t have their lives turned upside down during another government shutdown.” “The IAM Union represents tens of thousands of federal contract workers who will be furloughed or forced to work without pay in the event of a government shutdown. These men and women work side-by-side with federal workers performing jobs that are absolutely vital to the government and to the people of the United States,” said IAM Union International President Brian Bryant. “We applaud Senators Smith, Kaine, Warner, Van Hollen, and Alsobrooks for leading the Fair Pay for Federal Contractors Act to ensure federal contract workers are compensated for wages lost during a shutdown. The IAM Union is proud to join the fight to ensure these contract workers are made whole should a government shutdown become a reality.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-call-for-end-to-republican-government-shutdown,Maryland Delegation Members Call for End to Republican Government Shutdown,2025-10-02,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Yesterday, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, and Sarah Elfreth (all D-Md.) called on Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans to end their government shutdown. The lawmakers stood in solidarity with federal workers and pressed for a bipartisan agreement to reopen the federal government. Video of the lawmakers’ press conference is available here. “Trump and Republicans have driven the nation into a partisan government shutdown and are holding the American people and our federal employees hostage. Team Maryland will continue to stand with our dedicated federal civil servants and fight to restore government funding with a responsible agreement that holds the President accountable to the law and prevents massive spikes in Americans’ health care costs,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Republicans have the keys to the kingdom. They control the White House, and they have majorities in the Senate and House. Today was the first day of their shutdown, and already, we’re hearing from Marylanders who are hurting. The same Marylanders who have been hurting for nine months. This Administration’s cruelty, combined with their incompetence, has wrecked our economy, gutted our federal workforce, and soon, will drive up our health insurance costs. It’s shameful. We will keep fighting back to reopen the government and defend the middle class,” said Senator Alsobrooks. ""For more than eight months, Donald Trump and his Majority in Congress have tried to stop the federal government from functioning for the American people. It is no surprise that Republicans have shut down the government to allow Trump and his administration to continue decimating the federal workforce, disrupting the vital services our government provides, and gutting health care coverage for millions of Americans, many of whom are Marylanders in the Fifth Congressional District and beyond,"" Congressman Hoyer said. ""My colleagues in the Maryland Delegation and I will not sit silently as Trump devastates our state and the American people. We will keep fighting to open up the government and working to support Marylanders impacted by this Republican shutdown."" “Thousands of hard-working federal employees in Maryland's 7th Congressional District woke up yesterday to learn whether they were furloughed or required to work without pay. This shutdown was entirely avoidable. Democrats in Washington remain ready, willing and able to negotiate a bipartisan agreement to keep the government open and lower healthcare costs for Americans everywhere,” said Congressman Mfume. “Democrats are fighting to stop health care premiums from doubling for tens of millions of Americans,” said Congressman Raskin. “While Trump shuts down the government and funds the rich, Marylanders stand strong for Medicaid, Medicare and Social Security.” “This government shutdown shows a callous disregard for the more than 65,000 federal workers in Maryland’s Fourth Congressional District and thousands more across our state. These dedicated public servants work hard and show up every day to serve the American people; they deserve our support and expect us to protect their health care. I’m teaming up with our congressional delegation to protect health care, support working families, and get the government back open to better serve the public. From WIC and SNAP to clinical trials, severe weather preparedness at FEMA and NOAA, and our National Parks, essential services that millions rely on are at risk. Marylanders deserve better, and I’ll keep fighting to make sure they get it,” said Congressman Glenn Ivey. “I want everybody at home to know that we, the Maryland Delegation, are at work today. We were at work yesterday. We were at work Monday. We have been here every day trying to find a deal to keep government open, to reopen government today, but not at the expense of 20 million Americans who are due to have one of the largest increases in their health insurance costs on January 1st if Congress does not act,” said Congresswoman Elfreth. “This is an affordability crisis and 271 days into this Congress, we have yet to address it head-on. We cannot wait seven weeks to take a vote on the tax credits because insurance companies are sending their notices out for January today, on October 1st. We have to act and that's what we are standing for."" “My first priority is the health and well being of all those who live or work in my district, and I will work nonstop to end this shut down. Marylanders - including the 35,000 public servants in my district - deserve a trusted government which can work in all our best interests. Our federal delegation is standing against budget cuts which will make life harder or less affordable for working families or will take away health care coverage from our most needy. We must come together in bipartisan way to resolve these differences and end this shut down,” said Congresswoman McClain Delaney.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-release-statement-on-administrations-partisan-move-to-cancel-funding-for-maryland-energy-and-infrastructure-projects,Maryland Delegation Members Release Statement on Administration’s Partisan Move to Cancel Funding for Maryland Energy and Infrastructure Projects,2025-10-02,2025,2025-10,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today members of the Maryland Congressional delegation, including U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.)released the following statement regarding the Trump Administration’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) partisan move to cancel federal funding for infrastructure and energy projects across Maryland: “In a grossly partisan – and likely illegal – act, OMB Director Russell Vought and the Trump Administration have cancelled 12 projects totaling nearly $88 million across Maryland as well as other projects totaling $8 billion nationwide. Terminating these lawfully approved projects will raise energy prices for Maryland families, threaten good-paying American infrastructure jobs, and prevent local energy companies from enhancing grid flexibility and improving the resilience of the power system against extreme weather. Once again, the Trump Administration is telling American families and businesses: You’re on your own. “At a time when Marylanders are facing rising financial strain across the board, the Trump Administration is using the Republican-led government shutdown to further raise energy costs and hurt the security and resilience of our power grid. “Team Maryland will continue fighting back against the Trump Administration’s attempts to politicize this Republican shutdown and hurt Maryland families in the process. We are working to maintain these investments and lower energy costs for working families across our state. We will continue pushing Republicans to responsibly fund the government and end this shameful shutdown.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:32:54Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/transcript-van-hollen-joins-federal-workers-in-calling-for-trump-to-be-held-accountable-in-government-funding-bill,TRANSCRIPT: Van Hollen Joins Federal Workers in Calling for Trump to be Held Accountable in Government Funding Bill,2025-09-30,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Last night, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined current and former federal workers at a press conference calling for a government funding agreement with meaningful guardrails to stop the Trump Administration’s lawlessness. Video of the Senator’s remarks is available here and a transcript is available below: I want to start by thanking you and all these amazing, dedicated federal employees. Let's give it up for all the federal employees here. These are true patriots. These are the people who deliver important services to the American people every day. They're the people who care for our veterans. They're the people who help develop treatments and cures to diseases. They're the people who help keep our food supply safe. They're the people who respond in cases of national emergency. The list goes on and on. So, thank all of you for what you do for the American people. And thank you for being here to express your views – because as much as they like to do the work of the American people, they recognize that the people who will lose the most in a government shutdown are people all over America who are going to lose the benefit of their good work. I just met, last week, with a man from Atlanta, Georgia, who had been part of one of the clinical trials that had been disrupted. And for a little while, his life was put at risk. He was able to get back in, but he told me the story of a woman who had been part of his clinical trial who – while it was being disrupted because of actions of the Trump Administration – developed complications that disqualified her from continuing to be in that clinical trial on cancer. She's in hospice right now. So, what the Trump Administration has been doing to date has real consequences. They have disregarded and disrespected and gone after hardworking federal employees, and they've done it from day one. Elon Musk said he was going to take a chainsaw to important federal services. He went after federal employees at the Social Security Administration, Medicare, NIH, Department of Education – across the government. And so I think the point Mark made needs to be emphasized, which is this lawless behavior has been ongoing since day one of the Trump Administration. They have been shutting down the parts of the government that they don't like and beefing up the parts of the government that they want to focus on. So this has been going on since day one. Now, here we are, and Donald Trump is asking for a blank check from all of us to continue with this lawless activity. And this is a moment for members of Congress to say, “No – a lawless president does not get a blank check.” So, none of us want to see the government shut down. Apparently, Donald Trump's position is if he doesn't get a blank check, he will shut the government down. That's what he is saying. We have presented an alternative. The Democrats in the Senate have presented an alternative to keep the federal government open. But it does include guardrails and safeguards to protect us against the illegal withholding of funds that have been put forward by the Congress through the constitutional process and to put up other safeguards. It also turns off the ticking time bomb that Republicans left in place on Americans’ health care. Because at the end of this year, if we don't defuse that bomb, people are going to see their health care premiums go up in the Affordable Care Act exchanges. Four million Americans will lose health care altogether. Notices will start to go out in October – next week. And so, we want to keep the government open, but we want guardrails and safeguards, and we want to make sure we turn off this ticking time bomb. That's what we want. And when Russ Vought – who, as we all know, infamously said that his goal was to inflict trauma on federal employees – when he threatens to use a shutdown to fire more federal employees, I think we all understand that a shutdown gives this Administration no more power to do that than they do today. Today, they are engaged in lawless activities. In fact, they're very good arguments to say, legally that it's more difficult for them to accomplish those goals during a shutdown. They certainly should not be accepted activities in a shutdown. But we are dealing with a lawless administration. But the point is, they've been doing this from day one. We cannot be complicit in this ongoing assault on federal employees and ongoing assault on the American people – because these great patriotic Americans work for the American people. So when Donald Trump goes after them, he's going after the American public. That's what's happening here. We're here to say no more blank check. We need to make sure that what we do here in this Congress really does reflect the will of the American people. And so thank all of you for being here. Thank all the federal employees for exercising your First Amendment rights, which they are also trying to destroy. But we will persevere – because what they want us to do is shut up and go away. And all of you are here to say no. You're not going to shut up, and you're not going to go away. You're going to stand up for the Constitution. We're going to do what's right. Thank you all for being here.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-mfume-announce-28-million-to-support-baltimore-city-parks-and-trails,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Mfume Announce $2.8 Million to Support Baltimore City Parks and Trails",2025-09-30,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and Congressman Kweisi Mfume (all D-Md.) announced $2,875,000 in federal funding to expand access to parks and trails in Baltimore City. Baltimore City will receive $1,500,000 to build an ADA-accessible shared-use shoreline trail and picnic overlook in Reedbird Park in South Baltimore. The trail will connect residents to the adjacent Middle Branch Park and at the Middle Branch Fitness and Wellness Center. The City is also receiving $1,375,000 to create a contiguous park in East Baltimore from Johnston Square to Broadway East along Hoffman and Ellsworth Streets. “Access to public parks and trails makes our communities stronger and healthier. Through the Great American Outdoors Act, we are continuing to invest in our local parks, connect neighborhoods, and provide more opportunities for Baltimoreans to enjoy all the City has to offer,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Investing in accessibility, recreation, and beauty in Baltimore City makes our entire state stronger. I am proud to join Senator Van Hollen and Congressman Mfume in announcing over $2.8 million in federal funding focused on expanding access to parks and trails. I am fighting in Congress to make sure Maryland families have recreation spaces everyone can enjoy,"" said Senator Alsobrooks. “Every resident of Baltimore City, deserves access to parks, trails, and other green spaces where they can learn, grow, and thrive,” said Congressman Mfume. “These federal funds will make it even more possible for children to play, organizations to gather, and residents to enjoy the great outdoors in South and East Baltimore.” “We want all Baltimoreans to have access to safe, beautiful outdoor spaces—especially in areas like South Baltimore, which have suffered from disinvestment for decades,” said Baltimore Mayor Brandon M. Scott. “Together, we’re making sure these residents are among the first to benefit from projects like this one, which expands accessibility in Reedbird Park. I’m grateful to our federal delegation for their work to secure funding for this initiative, and their continued advocacy on behalf of the City of Baltimore.” These investments come from the U.S. Department of Interior’s Land and Water Conservation Fund (LWCF), which is permanently funded at $900 million annually. The LWCF’s permanent funding was authorized by Great American Outdoors Act, which Senator Van Hollen and Congressman Mfume fought to pass in 2020.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-urge-administration-to-preserve-historical-accuracy-at-harpers-ferry-national-park,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Urge Administration to Preserve Historical Accuracy at Harpers Ferry National Park",2025-09-30,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) urged the U.S. Department of the Interior to reverse any plans to whitewash American history at Harpers Ferry National Park. In their letter to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum, the lawmakers expressed serious concerns about reports that the Department directed signs to be removed or covered at Harpers Ferry in response to President Trump’s March 27 executive order demanding that federal museums, parks, and other historical sites minimize or remove references to slavery and other dark chapters in American history. “We are writing to express serious concern about reports that signs within Harpers Ferry National Historic Park will be removed or altered to comply with President Trump’s executive order to whitewash American history. We must face, seek to understand, and learn from our nation’s history in order to continue our pursuit of a more perfect union. Hiding key information about our nation’s history insults the memory of those who lived it and those who fought to uphold our American ideals,” the Senators began. “On September 15, it was reported that Interior Department officials have ordered the removal or covering up of more than 30 signs at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park,” they continued. “The signs reportedly include references to racial discrimination and racial animus toward formerly enslaved people. The National Park Service (NPS) has a record of providing Americans with unbiased information about American heritage, culture, and land. This decision to censor narratives about the darker side of American history—the ramifications of which are still felt today—contradicts NPS’s core mission to preserve historic places and accurately tell the story of American history and heritage.” The Senators concluded, “We urge you to immediately reverse course on any and all efforts to erase important components of American history and maintain the factual historic information included at Harper’s Ferry National Historic Park and all National Park sites.” Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Secretary Burgum, We are writing to express serious concern about reports that signs within Harpers Ferry National Historic Park will be removed or altered to comply with President Trump’s executive order to whitewash American history. We must face, seek to understand, and learn from our nation’s history in order to continue our pursuit of a more perfect union. Hiding key information about our nation’s history insults the memory of those who lived it and those who fought to uphold our American ideals. Harpers Ferry National Historic Park is the site where abolitionist John Brown led a raid on the town’s armory in 1859 with the goal of arming enslaved people to rebel against the institution of slavery. It is also the site of the Battle of Harpers Ferry, a significant battle during the Civil War—a war fought over the future of slavery in our nation. On September 15, it was reported that Interior Department officials have ordered the removal or covering up of more than 30 signs at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park, which is located on the southwestern border of Maryland, where our state intersects with Virginia and West Virginia. The signs reportedly include references to racial discrimination and racial animus toward formerly enslaved people. The National Park Service (NPS) has a record of providing Americans with unbiased information about American heritage, culture, and land. This decision to censor narratives about the darker side of American history—the ramifications of which are still felt today—contradicts NPS’s core mission to preserve historic places and accurately tell the story of American history and heritage. It also jeopardizes the public’s trust in NPS as an unbiased source of historic and cultural information. We urge you to immediately reverse course on any and all efforts to erase important components of American history and maintain the factual historic information included at Harpers Ferry National Historic Park and all National Park sites. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-senate-republicans-just-voted-to-shut-down-the-government,Van Hollen: “Senate Republicans Just Voted to Shut Down the Government”,2025-09-30,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following video on Republicans’ vote to shut down the government: A transcript of the video follows: “Senate Republicans just voted to shut down the government. They voted against our proposal to keep the government open without giving Donald Trump a blank check for his lawless activity, and our proposal, which would prevent huge spikes in health care costs for Americans. Because when Republicans passed their so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ – which was beautiful if you're a billionaire but really stunk if you're anyone else – they made big cuts in Medicaid, and they did not turn off this ticking time bomb that's going to explode on people's health care and increase costs ultimately for everybody in America. “So what they did in their ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ was they extended tax credits for the richest in America – for Elon Musk and other people across the country. The tax benefit they did not extend was for working Americans to help them better afford their health care. That's a tax benefit that they're letting die. We want to turn off that ticking time bomb. So we’re saying to Donald Trump, ‘let’s keep the government open, but you don’t get a blank check for your lawless activity.’ “I mean, think about what he's been doing since he was sworn in. He has actually been shutting down parts of the government every day. He brought in Elon Musk. They took a chainsaw to important government services. So they've been shutting down the parts of the government they don't like and simply funding the parts they do like. “That is a lawless president, and I'm not signing up for that. So, we want to keep the government open. We're not going to give Donald Trump a blank check. And we want to focus on what he claimed he was going to focus on, which was bringing down prices – including bringing down the price of health care and certainly preventing this big spike in health care costs that we're going to see very shortly if we don't do something about it.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-press-administration-for-answers-on-cancellation-of-federal-employee-survey-essential-for-government-oversight,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Press Administration for Answers on Cancellation of Federal Employee Survey Essential for Government Oversight",2025-09-29,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), along with Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) Ranking Member Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Representative James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, led 17 of their colleagues in pressing the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM) for answers on its cancellation of the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS), an important tool for understanding and improving the federal workforce. In their letter to OPM Director Scott Kupor, the lawmakers expressed concerns that the FEVS is being cancelled with no alternative method in place for federal agencies to meet their legal obligation to survey employees and that the loss of the data typically collected by the FEVS will result in less government efficiency and transparency. Senator Van Hollen, Senator Peters, and Representative Walkinshaw were joined on this letter by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), and Mark Warner (D-Va.), as well as Representatives Don Beyer (D-Va.), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.). “We write to express our deep concern regarding the recent announcement to cancel the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). As you know, the FEVS is a critically important tool for understanding and improving the federal workforce, which assists agencies in meeting a legal requirement to survey their employees and supports Congress in our work to oversee executive branch activities,” the Members began. “This year’s absence of FEVS means OPM will not collect or release governmentwide data on how federal employees currently view their jobs, supervisors, and organizational culture. This loss of transparency is troubling. The data not only aids internal agency improvement but also supports congressional oversight and holds leadership accountable,” they continued. “Congress uses this information to ensure that agencies are fulfilling their missions effectively, meeting statutory requirements, and upholding the values of a high-performance, merit-based civil service.” Given their concerns, the Members ask Director Kupor to answer a series of questions including how federal agencies will meet their legal requirement to survey their employees now that it will no longer be met by the FEVS; what the justification is for cancelling the FEVS, rather than simply delaying it to incorporate the changes OPM claims are necessary; and how the Administration plans to collect necessary data about employee experience to make administrative and management decisions. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Director Kupor, We write to express our deep concern regarding the recent announcement to cancel the 2025 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey (FEVS). As you know, the FEVS is a critically important tool for understanding and improving the federal workforce, which assists agencies in meeting a legal requirement to survey their employees and supports Congress in our work to oversee executive branch activities. For years, the FEVS has served as a vital workforce management tool that provides leaders with a real-time pulse of their organizations. The survey captures insights into employee engagement, organizational culture, leadership effectiveness, and workplace trust. Agency leaders have relied on this data to drive reforms and enhance performance. Removing this data in 2025 deprives agencies of an evidence-based method to assess and improve operations. This year’s absence of FEVS means OPM will not collect or release governmentwide data on how federal employees currently view their jobs, supervisors, and organizational culture. This loss of transparency is troubling. The data not only aids internal agency improvement but also supports congressional oversight and holds leadership accountable. Congress uses this information to ensure that agencies are fulfilling their missions effectively, meeting statutory requirements, and upholding the values of a high-performance, merit-based civil service. As such, we request by October 31, 2025 detailed answers to the following questions and a Congressional briefing to better understand the impact of the proposed cancellation of the 2025 FEVS. Section 1128 of Public Law 108-136 (5 U.S.C. 7101 note) requires that federal agencies conduct an annual survey of its employees to assess leadership and management practices that contribute to agency performance and employee satisfaction, pursuant to OPM regulations. Such regulations in Title 5 Part 250, Subpart C of the Code of Federal Regulations mandate that agencies conduct the annual workforce survey with 16 core questions before December 31 of each calendar year. With OPM’s announced cancellation of the 2025 FEVS, it is unclear how agencies will comply with this statutory obligation. Does this Administration plan to adhere to the statutory and regulatory requirements to complete the data collection of an annual employee survey by December 31, 2025? If so, how? What advice or guidance does OPM plan to give agencies for how they can meet the annual requirement to conduct a survey of their employees now that this requirement will not be fulfilled by FEVS? What process, operational, or bandwidth constraints have resulted in OPM making the decision to completely cancel the administration of this year’s FEVS rather than administer it on a delayed timeline? If the decision is not related to capacity, what other explanation justifies a cancellation rather than a delay? In an email to agency Chief Human Capital Officers and other HR leaders, OPM stated that it has decided not to administer FEVS this year “[i]n view of President’s Trump’s realignment of the federal workforce, and in order to thoughtfully recalibrate the FEVS to align with Administration objectives.” The email says OPM will instead update the FEVS questions before administering the survey next year. What specific changes to FEVS does OPM anticipate related to the realignment of the federal workforce and Administration objectives? How do these changes compare to the changes described in a February OPM guidance memo that discussed removing 13 specific questions and reinstating 1 additional question? When asked directly about delay of FEVS in April 2025 during your Senate confirmation process, you stated that you did not know the rationale behind the current delay, “but believe that employee engagement surveys are an important longitudinal view of the workforce.” What have you learned between when you responded to this question in April and OPM’s August 15 email to agency HR leaders about the rationale for delaying, and now cancelling, the FEVS for 2025? Earlier this year, while the U.S. Senate was considering your nomination to the position of OPM Director, you noted that: “In the organizations I have been affiliated with, I have always conducted regular employee engagement surveys (typically once per year, but sometimes more often when there are more changes happening in the organization).” What has shifted about your approach toward the frequency of employee engagement surveys as Director of OPM compared to the prior positions? Understanding the employee experience is an important part of ensuring high-level organizational performance. How does OPM intend to ensure agencies have adequate employee experience data to drive effective administration and management decisions? With gaps in data collection caused by the 2025 FEVS cancellation and changes to what information is collected through FEVS going forward, how will OPM and federal agencies gather data sufficiently consistent with data from prior years in order to analyze trends in employee engagement over time? Is OPM committed to preserving the integrity of this type of longitudinal data? OPM has indicated that the FEVS will return in FY2026. What is the timeline for next year’s FEVS survey (including the process for making changes to questions, collecting responses, and publishing results)? The suggestion that future survey administration could be completely decentralized across agencies raises significant concerns, particularly given the current state of many HR offices, which have been severely strained due to recent workforce reduction initiatives. How does the government plan to administer the survey given these new capacity constraints? Thank you for addressing our concerns regarding the cancellation of the 2025 FEVS and the impact it will have on federal employees, government management, and congressional oversight. Sincerely, ###",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-alsobrooks-elfreth-in-introducing-legislation-to-help-federal-workers-during-shutdowns,"Van Hollen Joins Alsobrooks, Elfreth in Introducing Legislation to Help Federal Workers During Shutdowns",2025-09-29,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chirs Van Hollen joined Senator Angela Alsobrooks and Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth (all D-Md.) in introducing the Help Federal Employees During Shutdowns (Help FEDS) Act. The bill ensures federal employees who are required to work during a government shutdown are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance (UI). “Our patriotic, merit-based civil servants work on behalf of the American people every day, delivering essential public services for our country. They should not have to bear the brunt of a political dispute they have nothing to do with, which is why we are fighting to provide them with an economic lifeline should Republicans force a government shutdown,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen. “President Trump, Elon Musk, and Russ Vought have shown us very clearly over the last 9 months that they do not care about our civil servants – the patriotic men and women that work on behalf of the American people under Democratic and Republican presidents alike. I will fight with all that I have to ensure our civil servants continue to be paid even if Republicans shut down the government because of their own incompetence,” said Senator Angela Alsobrooks. “Government funding runs out in less than 32 hours, and over half of Americans are living paycheck to paycheck. If Congress can’t avert a shutdown, that doesn’t mean our constituents should have to suffer. The Help Federal Workers During Shutdowns Act is a small but meaningful fix to allow essential federal workers to be eligible for unemployment insurance during shutdowns,” said Congresswoman Elfreth. “If we are asking these essential employees to go without pay and to keep providing their lifesaving services to the American people, the least we can do is provide them with some temporary financial support during these uncertain times.” When there is a government shutdown, federal employees who are deemed “excepted” or “essential” are required to work without pay. The President and OMB Director have wide discretion over how many federal employees may be deemed essential. During the last government shutdown, when the Trump Administration was in charge, 420,000 federal employees were deemed essential, meaning that 420,000 were forced to work without pay. The Help FEDS (Federal Employees During a Shutdown) Act ensures federal employees who are required to work during a government shutdown are eligible to apply for unemployment insurance (UI). Essential employees will receive back pay thanks to legislation that Congress passed after the 2018/2019 shutdown. Under this bill, employees would have to pay back the UI when they receive back pay, and states will be reimbursed for the additional UI they would have to pay out. Furloughed employees during a shutdown are already eligible for UI. Elfreth’s legislation closes a loophole and puts excepted employees in parity with furloughed employees. “Government shutdowns are deeply harmful to our country and to the civil servants who provide essential services the American people rely on. While our ultimate goal must be to prevent shutdowns entirely, Congress has a responsibility to shield public servants from the worst impacts when funding does lapse. Furloughed employees are already eligible for unemployment insurance, yet federal employees who are deemed essential and must still report to work face the same uncertainty of delayed paychecks – but with no safety net. Our legislation would extend unemployment insurance to these essential workers, ensuring they can continue paying their bills while serving the American people,” said Congressman Don Beyer. “The Trump Administration has waged a crusade against our federal workers since January, and Russell Vought is taking advantage of the looming shutdown in order to further villainize and traumatize the federal workforce,” said Congressman Steny Hoyer. “I have seen how government shutdowns put intense strains on our federal workers, which is why I am proud to co-sponsor a bill with my friend, Congresswoman Sarah Elfreth, to ensure essential federal civilian employees have the resources they need to stay afloat in the event of a shutdown.” In the House, the legislation is co-sponsored by Representatives Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.-03), Wesley Bell (D-Mo.-01), Don Beyer (D-Va.-08), Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.-05), Danny Davis (D-Ill.-07), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.-03), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.-13), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.-05), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.-04), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.-18), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.-06), Eleanor Norton (D-D.C.-AL), Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.-02), Emily Randall (D-Wash.-06), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.-08), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.-10), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.-13), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.-12), Eugene Vindman (D-Va.-07), James Walkinshaw (D-Va.-11), and George Whitesides (D-Calif.-27). “Federal employees, through no fault of their own, are caught in the middle of a political dispute that could force them to go to work without knowing when they will be paid. The Help FEDS Act would provide these nonpartisan civil servants with vital resources to help keep gas in their cars, provide food and necessary medicines for their family and give them peace of mind as they navigate a period of immense financial uncertainty while delivering essential services Americans depend on. I applaud Senator Alsobrooks and Rep. Elfreth for their efforts to help ease the burden placed on these dedicated public servants and for their leadership on this issue,” said Doreen Greenwald, NTEU National President.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-markey-lujan-welch-meng-condemn-fcc-effort-this-week-to-strip-internet-access-from-students,"Van Hollen, Markey, Luján, Welch, Meng Condemn FCC Effort This Week to Strip Internet Access from Students",2025-09-29,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senators Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Representative Grace Meng (NY-6) in leading 47 of their colleagues in a letter to Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr, decrying the FCC’s effort to roll back two decisions helping students and educators connect to the internet. On Tuesday, the FCC is scheduled to vote on two items: (1) Repeal of a rule allowing libraries and schools to use E-Rate funds to provide Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators, and (2) Reversal of the decision allowing E-Rate funds to support Wi-Fi on school buses. In an unusual move, Carr abruptly added these two items to the FCC’s meeting agenda last week, instead of giving the public the traditional three weeks’ notice ahead of Commission votes at an open meeting. In the letter, the lawmakers write, “We write in strong opposition to the items you have circulated at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to repeal the rule allowing libraries and schools to provide Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators and reverse the decision allowing E-Rate funds to support Wi-Fi on school buses. Rolling back the E-Rate hotspot and school bus decisions would undercut some of the most effective tools for addressing inequities in home connectivity and would reverse progress in closing the ‘Homework Gap.’ For millions of students, especially those from low-income households, internet access outside of school walls is not a luxury but a prerequisite for academic success. We urge the Commission to preserve the E-Rate hotspot program and Wi-Fi on buses to ensure that low-income students are not left behind.” The lawmakers continue, “As you know, the FCC typically announces items to be voted on at an open meeting three weeks before the meeting date, including releasing a draft of the proposed items. The public then has two weeks to discuss the proposal with commissioners and their staff before all advocacy with the Commission must cease in the week before the open meeting. That is exactly how the Commission proceeded when it adopted both the E-Rate hotspots final rule and declaratory ruling on school bus Wi-Fi. In advancing these repeals, however, you did not include either the E-Rate hotspots or school bus Wi-Fi items when the meeting agenda was announced on September 9. Instead, you abruptly included them on an updated agenda released one week before the September open meeting, depriving members of the public of an opportunity to weigh in on the draft order. This non-transparent, last-minute process on such important matters is unacceptable. The Commission should remove these items from the meeting agenda and follow standard Commission protocol at a future open meeting.” Other Senate signers of the letter include: Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Raphael G. Warnock (D-Ga.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). Other House signers of the letter include: Becca Balint (D-VT), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Judy Chu (CA-28), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Jesús “Chuy” Garcia (IL-04), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Robin Kelly (IL-02), Greg Landsman (OH-01), George Latimer (NY-16), Summer Lee (PA-12), Doris Matsui (CA-07), Sarah McBride (D-DE), Robert Menendez (NJ-08), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Brittany Pettersen (CO-07), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Haley Stevens (MI-11), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia Velázquez NY-07), and Eugene Vidman (VA-07). In February 2024, Senator Van Hollen, Senator Markey and Representative Meng led 64 of their colleagues in a letter to then FCC Chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel, supporting the Commission’s proposal to expand the E-Rate program. Senator Markey is the House author of the original E-Rate program, which has invested nearly $62 billion to connect schools and libraries to the internet across the country. Maryland has received nearly $670 million from the E-Rate program and over $145 million from the Emergency Connectivity Fund, a $7 billion program that Senators Van Hollen and Markey and Rep. Meng created within the American Rescue Plan to provide devices and connectivity for students and educators at home. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Chairman Carr, We write in strong opposition to the items you have circulated at the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to repeal the rule allowing libraries and schools to provide Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators and reverse the decision allowing E-Rate funds to support Wi-Fi on school buses. Rolling back the E-Rate hotspot and school bus decisions would undercut some of the most effective tools for addressing inequities in home connectivity and would reverse progress in closing the “Homework Gap.” For millions of students, especially those from low-income households, internet access outside of school walls is not a luxury but a prerequisite for academic success. We urge the Commission to preserve the E-Rate hotspot program and Wi-Fi on buses to ensure that low-income students are not left behind. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the stakes of connecting all students and educators to the internet at home and during their commutes. When classrooms shifted online, students without home internet were often unable to participate fully in lessons, complete assignments, or communicate with teachers. Studies have consistently shown that students lacking home connectivity perform worse academically than their connected peers. One study found that grade point averages were more than half a point lower for students without internet access, while Census data shows they spent less time learning outside the classroom. Moreover, providing Wi-Fi on the school bus gives students the opportunity to complete homework on their way to and from school. This connectivity is especially important in rural communities where daily commutes can be up to two hours each way. To that end, these programs reflect a simple truth: learning does not stop at the schoolhouse door, and neither should internet connectivity. The E-Rate hotspots and Wi-Fi on school bus programs are clearly needed. Before the pandemic, roughly 15 million students lacked access to the internet at home, creating serious risks to students when schools moved online. In response, Congress created the $7 billion Emergency Connectivity Fund (ECF), which helped connect more than 18 million students to the internet at home. Due to that overwhelming demand, however, the ECF ran short on funds in 2024. The FCC stepped up to fill that gap by allowing E-Rate to support Wi-Fi on buses in 2023 and passing its E-Rate hotspot rule last year. School districts and libraries have already relied on these programs to bring Wi-Fi to students. In fiscal year 2024, the FCC provided $48 million to fund Wi-Fi on buses. And in just the first application window for Wi-Fi hotspots, over 8,000 schools and libraries requested tens of millions of dollars for over 200,000 hotspot connections for students and educators, helping bridge the digital divide. Removing E-Rate support at this time would force cutbacks in service and impose abrupt costs on schools and libraries across the country. Critics of the decisions have repeatedly misled the Commission and public about their requirements. First, the hotspot and bus Wi-Fi programs do not put kids’ safety at risk. The Children’s Internet Protection Act applies to all E-Rate recipients, including recipients who choose to spend their E-Rate dollars on Wi-Fi hotspots or school buses. These requirements help ensure that children aren’t accessing obscene or otherwise harmful content online. If anything, students with E-Rate-funded hotspots are safer online than their classmates with their own home internet access that is not subject to the Children’s Internet Protection Act. Second, the programs are an efficient and targeted use of E-Rate funds. For example, the hotspot rule limits the amount of Wi-Fi hotspot support that can be requested by an applicant over three funding years, expressly prohibits using E-Rate support for hotspots funded through other sources, and requires the hotspots to be used for educational purposes and to be properly documented for compliance with these rules. Moreover, this program will not cost taxpayers any new money, as funding comes out of the existing E-Rate budget. Finally, the FCC has clear legal authority for the programs under Section 254 of the Communications Act, which directs the FCC to update the definition of universal service, including E-Rate, so that it evolves over time. Given the weaknesses in the critics’ arguments, and the clear success of these critical programs, efforts to repeal the decisions reflect an ideological crusade against E-Rate itself. Additionally, the Commission’s process for removing these programs has been deeply flawed and prevented public input. As you know, the FCC typically announces items to be voted on at an open meeting three weeks before the meeting date, including releasing a draft of the proposed items. The public then has two weeks to discuss the proposal with commissioners and their staff before all advocacy with the Commission must cease in the week before the open meeting. That is exactly how the Commission proceeded when it adopted both the E-Rate hotspots final rule and declaratory ruling on school bus Wi-Fi. In advancing these repeals, however, you did not include either the E-Rate hotspots or school bus Wi-Fi items when the meeting agenda was announced on September 9. Instead, you abruptly included them on an updated agenda released one week before the September open meeting, depriving members of the public of an opportunity to weigh in on the draft order. This non-transparent, last-minute process on such important matters is unacceptable. The Commission should remove these items from the meeting agenda and follow standard Commission protocol at a future open meeting. The Commission has both the authority and the responsibility to update the E-Rate program to meet the realities of modern education. We strongly urge the FCC to retain its hotspot rule and allow E-Rate funds to continue being used for Wi-Fi on school buses. If the Commission proceeds with overturning these decisions, however, it should ensure that E-Rate applicants that contracted for services with the expectation of reimbursement under both programs receive that reimbursement as promised. Thank you for your attention to this important matter. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-schiff-demand-answers-on-the-withholding-of-funds-from-the-national-oceanic-and-atmospheric-administration-critical-programs-put-in-jeopardy,"Van Hollen, Schiff Demand Answers on the Withholding of Funds from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Critical Programs Put in Jeopardy",2025-09-29,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) are demanding the Trump administration provide answers on why the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fiscal Year 2025 (FY25) spending plan is $246 million short of the funds Congress directed. In a letter to Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Russell Vought and Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick, the Senators raise concerns about the environmental and economic harms caused by the withholding of funds. “The NOAA spending plan cuts funding across multiple NOAA line offices, including the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. These cuts impact research labs, competitive research grants, cooperative institutes, and fisheries management programs,”the Senators wrote. “The administration and OMB must make apportionment decisions within the boundaries of laws enacted by Congress, and we expect you to provide NOAA with its full amount of congressionally appropriated funding. We are concerned that the decision to withhold and redirect funding for NOAA could undermine decades of work to ensure the safety of Americans and the economic security of the nation. This work produces economic and public safety benefits that far outweigh the investments Congress has provided for NOAA’s work,” the Senators concluded. The lawmakers emphasized how NOAA supports a variety of critical services including public safety during extreme weather events; providing accurate weather forecasts; supporting the fishing industry, maritime activities, and economic security; and protecting coastal and marine resources. The withholding or redirecting of funds puts these services in jeopardy. The full text of the letter can be found hereand below. Dear Director Vought and Secretary Lutnick: We write to express deep concern regarding the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) fiscal year (FY) 2025 spending plan, approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in August. This NOAA spending plan is $246 million short of the funds Congress appropriated to NOAA in the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119–4). Given this last-minute withholding of funding, we request information on why funding for NOAA is not being allocated and spent as congressionally directed. NOAA is mandated by Congress to support a variety of critical services for the nation, including public safety during extreme weather events, providing accurate weather forecasts, maritime activities, and economic security. The agency helps support a $183 billion seafood industry and manages fisheries to ensure sustainable and safe seafood for future generations. NOAA also works to protect coastal and marine resources that provide economic benefits for coastal communities through dollars directly spent on recreation and tourism. Conserving coastal places protects against flooding, enhances water quality, and helps coastal counties contribute $9 trillion to the U.S. economy. On March 15, 2025, Public Law 119–4 was signed into law, extending FY24 spending into FY25. The administration has not apportioned funding in accordance with the law. First, the administration illegally withheld $100 million that Congress classified as emergency funding for NOAA in FY25 continuing resolution (CR), as the Chair and Vice Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee have previously stated. Additionally, the Department of Commerce proposed a $19 million transfer out of NOAA to the Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) to cover shortfalls caused by OMB, which also denied $20 million in FY25 funding for BIS classified as emergency spending under the CR. Finally, OMB has not apportioned approximately $127 million for NOAA included in the FY25 CR. The Department subsequently proposed obligating some of this funding for the midlife repair upgrades of the NOAA Vessel Henry B. Bigelow. The NOAA spending plan cuts funding across multiple NOAA line offices, including the Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, the National Ocean Service, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the National Environmental Satellite, Data, and Information Service. These cuts impact research labs, competitive research grants, cooperative institutes, and fisheries management programs. For example, the National Oceans and Coastal Security Fund was eliminated, the Coastal Zone Management program was cut by $1.5 million, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System was cut by $4 million, the National Sea Grant and Aquaculture programs were cut by a combined $8.73 million, and climate research was cut by more than $58 million. Cuts to these NOAA programs will lead to environmental damage, economic loss, and social harm across the nation. For example, cuts to the National Sea Grant program mean that fishermen in Gulf states will lose the fishery management support that Sea Grant provides for commercially and recreationally important reef fish species like snapper, communities in the Great Lakes will no longer benefit from Sea Grant’s support to address aquatic invasive species or prepare for coastal storms, and shellfish growers in the Chesapeake Bay and beyond will lose critical resources to support their small aquaculture businesses. Furthermore, cutting Coastal Zone Management competitive research grants will impact coastal communities in Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Maine, Wisconsin, and New Hampshire, where FY25 research grants have been awarded but the funding may not be obligated. The administration and OMB must make apportionment decisions within the boundaries of laws enacted by Congress, and we expect you to provide NOAA with its full amount of congressionally appropriated funding. We are concerned that the decision to withhold and redirect funding for NOAA could undermine decades of work to ensure the safety of Americans and the economic security of the nation. This work produces economic and public safety benefits that far outweigh the investments Congress has provided for NOAA’s work. Thank you and we look forward to your response. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-omb-memo,Van Hollen Statement on OMB Memo,2025-09-25,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS), released the following statement on the Trump Administration OMB memo: “President Trump is engaged in mafia-style blackmail, with his threats ultimately harming the American people. He is threatening to double down on the failed actions of Elon Musk and his chainsaw — going after patriotic civil servants that provide Americans with critical services — despite having to rehire many of these workers after Americans experienced the negative impact of those cuts. These dedicated workers have nothing to do with the ongoing political and policy disputes that have brought us to the brink of a shutdown. These threats are not only an attack on Americans’ services and benefits, they’re also likely illegal. We’ll be fighting back with every tool we have.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-county-executive-fight-to-keep-beltsville-agricultural-research-center-open,"Maryland Delegation Members, County Executive Fight to Keep Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Open",2025-09-24,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON — Monday, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks, U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Glenn Ivey, Jamie Raskin, and April McClain Delaney (all D-Md.), and Prince George’s County Executive Aisha Braveboy visited the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) for a tour of the facilities and briefing from officials on its critical work, and underscored their commitment to keeping the center open as the Trump Administration plans to shutter it. Their visit followed the release of the USDA’s reorganization plan, which included a proposal to close the facility and relocate its workforce. Last month, the lawmakers submitted a letter for the USDA’s official comment period on the reorganization plan, warning that the proposal would irreparably undermine U.S. agricultural innovation and harm the countless farmers who depend on BARC’s research. “For over a century, BARC has been this country’s premier agricultural research facility – the source of important scientific breakthroughs that have strengthened American agriculture and helped put food on our tables. We saw firsthand that they need additional resources for critical maintenance – which we are actively working to provide. We also know that the dedicated researchers at BARC are engaged in essential work and studies that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Displacing this crown jewel of agricultural research and sidelining its talented scientists would prevent many future discoveries and block the development of new techniques that our farmers need to succeed. That’s why we will keep fighting to keep BARC open – and keep it in Prince George’s County,” said Senator Van Hollen. “BARC is a world leader in agricultural research, a model of American exceptionalism, and a standard we can’t afford to lose. The Trump Administration's attempt to close BARC is misguided and wrong. Team Maryland remains committed and united in saving BARC,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “BARC has been the leading engine of innovative agricultural research for decades,"" Congressman Hoyer said. ""Shuttering BARC and scattering its staff across the country would undermine its critical mission to protect the health and safety of the American people. In 1986, I introduced legislation that would prohibit the closure of BARC without Congressional approval and over the last 40 years I've worked to strengthen these protections so that our experts can continue developing solutions for issues including nutrition and food safety. My colleagues in the Maryland Delegation and I will keep fighting to protect BARC and will continue to stand up for the agricultural community and the American people.” “The federal government has invested a lot of money and human capital into BARC. These investments have continued the long standing world class agricultural research that talented and dedicated scientists perform on behalf of farmers and consumers. The proximity to NOAA and NASA and other federal agencies creates a dynamism and synergy unique to this facility. Moving it costs too much and destroys or delays the good work being done for taxpayers. I will continue, with my colleagues in the Maryland Federal Delegation, to fight for BARC to stay here in Beltsville,” said Congressman Ivey. “Shutting down the Henry A. Wallace Beltsville Agricultural Research Center would set our agricultural research gains back many years, perhaps decades,” said Congressman Raskin. “The Trump Administration’s attempts to strip federal facilities from the National Capital Region are not efforts to improve our government’s research capabilities, but to dismantle them. Farmers and ranchers depend on the cutting-edge research conducted by expert civil servant scientists right here in Maryland. Let’s not mess with success.” “As the only Marylander on the House Agriculture Committee, I’ve seen the impact BARC has made in production, food security, and innovation — not to mention the billions of dollars it brings into this economy. Today’s tour truly showcased why we’re fighting for its survival,” said Congresswoman McClain Delaney. “An efficient government is one that supports key centers like BARC, and I’m grateful to fight for its rightful place in Maryland alongside our devoted delegation.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-seek-answers-from-tv-broadcasters-after-pulling-kimmels-show,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Seek Answers from TV Broadcasters After Pulling Kimmel’s Show",2025-09-24,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) has joined Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in pressing broadcasters Nexstar and Sinclair for answers as to why Jimmy Kimmel was pulled off the air and why they are refusing to broadcast his show to their viewers now that it has returned. On September 17, 2025, following comments made by Jimmy Kimmel, Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr threatened that he would consider regulatory repercussions for broadcasters who did not take action against Kimmel’s show. Hours later, ABC, Nexstar, and Sinclair suspended Jimmy Kimmel Live!. ABC later announced that it would return Kimmel’s show to the network, but Nexstar and Sinclair are refusing to air the show on local ABC stations they own. Nexstar’s and Sinclair’s decisions to preempt Kimmel’s show come as both companies have business pending before the Trump administration. Nexstar — the nation’s largest owner of local television stations and owner of dozens of ABC affiliates — needs the FCC’s approval of its attempted mega-merger. Sinclair — the nation’s second-largest broadcaster and largest owner of ABC affiliates — is also waiting on FCC authorization for a broadcast deal, and is planning larger upcoming deals. “If you suspended a late-night comedian’s show in part to seek regulatory favors from the administration, you have not only assisted the administration in eroding First Amendment freedoms but also create the appearance of a possible quid-pro-quo arrangement that could implicate federal anti-corruption laws,” the Senators wrote. Notably, Nexstar’s plan to acquire rival broadcaster Tegna would expand its reach to U.S. households from 39% to an unprecedented 80% nationally. “If Nexstar or Sinclair traded the censorship of a critic of the administration for official acts by the Trump administration, your companies are not only complicit in an alarming trampling of free speech rights but also risk running afoul of anticorruption law,” they continued. The senators requested more information as to the possible existence of a quid-pro-quo arrangement by October 7, 2025. Full text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Mr. Sook and Mr. Ripley: We write to seek information about the decisions of Nexstar Media Group, Inc. (Nexstar) and Sinclair Broadcast Group (Sinclair) not to air the Jimmy Kimmel Live! show — and on how those decisions may relate to regulatory issues pending with the Trump administration. On September 15, 2025, Jimmy Kimmel, host of Jimmy Kimmel Live!, made a series of comments about the reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk. Two days later, after Mr. Kimmel had been criticized by “Pro-Trump websites and Fox News,” President Trump’s FCC Chair Brendan Carr said the companies airing Kimmel’s show “can find ways to take action on Mr. Kimmel, or there is going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.” Chairman Carr, in comments Senator Ted Cruz characterized as “right out of Goodfellas,” went on to state, “[w]e can do this the easy way or the hard way” — seemingly implying that the FCC could revoke broadcast licenses or impose other regulatory harm on broadcasters that did not comply. Hours after Chairman Carr’s remarks, ABC — which broadcasts Mr. Kimmel’s show and is owned by Disney — along with Nexstar and Sinclair — two major owners of ABC local stations — fell in line: Nexstar announced that it would “preempt Jimmy Kimmel Live! for the foreseeable future,” as did Sinclair, and ABC pulled the show “indefinitely.” President Trump praised the decision. While debating whether to suspend Mr. Kimmel’s show, multiple Disney executives reportedly “felt that Kimmel had not actually said anything over the line, . . . but the threat of Trump administration retaliation loomed.” Then on September 22, 2025, Disney announced that it would return Mr. Kimmel’s show to the network. Nevertheless, Nexstar and Sinclair said they would not resume airing the show on the more than 60 local ABC affiliates they own — meaning roughly 1 in 4 local ABC stations serving U.S. households will not air Kimmel’s show. Your announcements that you will prevent Mr. Kimmel’s show from airing on your stations come as your companies have business pending before the Trump administration: Nexstar — the nation’s largest owner of local television stations and owner of dozens of ABC affiliates — needs the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) approval of its attempted mega-merger with competitor Tegna, Inc. (Tegna). Sinclair — the nation’s second-largest broadcaster — is also waiting on FCC authorization for a broadcast deal, and is expected to engage in further TV station acquisitions, for which it would require FCC approval, if the FCC weakens media ownership regulations. This series of events raises serious questions about whether Nexstar and Sinclair responded to Trump officials’ warnings by removing Mr. Kimmel’s show, not only to avoid regulatory backlash from the FCC, but also to influence the Trump administration’s review of your pending deals. If you suspended a late-night comedian’s show in part to seek regulatory favors from the administration, you have not only assisted the administration in eroding First Amendment freedoms but also create the appearance of a possible quid-pro-quo arrangement that could implicate federal anti-corruption laws. Nexstar and Sinclair Are Seeking Trump Administration Approval for Key Business Deals Sinclair and Nexstar are in the process of finalizing massive deals, each of which requires signoff by Trump administration officials charged with reviewing the transactions’ compliance with federal antitrust law and the Communications Act of 1934. Nexstar has announced its plan to acquire rival broadcast owner Tegna for $6.2 billion. Nexstar is already the country’s largest TV broadcaster: it controls 201 stations in 116 TV markets, accounting for 39 percent of local TV households nationally. The proposed Nexstar-Tegna acquisition is an explicit test of the FCC cap, set by Congress, on national television station ownership. If the FCC approves this merger, Nexstar would stand to control stations that reach an unprecedented 80 percent of TV households in the United States — more than double the existing limit. In order for the deal to go through, Nexstar needs a change in media ownership rules or a waiver from FCC Chairman Carr — the same official who, after Nexstar’s decision to pull Mr. Kimmel’s show, tweeted: “I want to thank Nexstar for doing the right thing.” Chairman Carr similarly applauded Nexstar’s and Sinclair’s decision to keep Kimmel’s show off their stations even after Disney announced it would restore the show, posting on social media: “Notably, this is the first time recently that any local TV stations have pushed back on a national programmer like Disney. And that is a good thing because we want want [sic] empowered local TV stations.” Sinclair, which operates 178 TV stations in 81 markets, similarly has business before the FCC. Like Nexstar, Sinclair has pushed for the FCC to revise the television ownership cap, as part of its larger plans for potential acquisitions announced this August. As Sinclair CEO Chris Ripley said in making the announcement, “[s]cale wins in today’s broadcast industry, and we intend to lead that consolidation.” This slew of planned acquisitions would be contingent on FCC approval. In addition, Sinclair is currently awaiting FCC approval for a proposed TV station acquisition. Questions about Sinclair’s and Nexstar’s Decisions to Acquiesce to Trump Administration Demands Make no mistake: the statements from FCC Chairman Carr and President Trump represent an extraordinary abuse of power that jeopardizes all Americans’ First Amendment rights. These moves should be investigated to determine if they violate federal law. But Nexstar and Sinclair, which chose to immediately buckle under Trump administration pressure, also have questions to answer. If you used this incident as an opportunity to influence or appease President Trump or other administration officials as you seek federal approval of your mergers or other regulatory favors, that may raise questions about your compliance with federal anti-corruption law and the Communications Act’s requirement to broadcast in the “public convenience, interest, and necessity. Suspending the show of a comedian critical of the Trump administration clearly has value to President Trump, who has been critical of Mr. Kimmel for years. If Nexstar or Sinclair traded the censorship of a critic of the administration for official acts by the Trump administration, your companies are not only complicit in an alarming trampling of free speech rights but also risk running afoul of federal law. As the Wall Street Journal has noted, “anyone who thinks this is the free market at work is ignoring the ways government can punish companies. . . . All the more so given how Mr. Trump has pursued retribution against political opponents in his second term.” Teamsters Local 399 characterized Nexstar’s and Sinclair’s moves as part of “a dangerous trend of corporations trying to fast-track mergers through the back door,” with “corporations . . . selling out working families and our American freedoms to amass even greater wealth.” This is not the first such example of a media company appearing to appease the President in order to curry favor: in July 2025, Paramount cancelled The Late Show with Stephen Colbert three days after the comedian made a joke about Paramount’s $16 million settlement with President Trump — while Paramount awaited FCC approval of its merger with Skydance. President Trump took credit for the suspension on social media, and suggested Mr. Kimmel and other late night hosts should be next. President Trump’s calls for Mr. Kimmel’s suspension followed years of attempts to censor Mr. Kimmel: as early as 2018, President Trump reportedly “became so incensed at Kimmel that he had people in his administration call top Disney executives and urge them to rein him in,” and began targeting him again in early 2024. Following the suspension of Mr. Kimmel’s show, President Trump directed the same warning toward other late-night hosts, calling for the cancellation of two late-night comedians on NBC next and posting, “Do it NBC!!!.” He also suggested the FCC could revoke certain networks’ broadcast licenses, without which they could not operate, based on content critical of President Trump. Meanwhile, FCC Chairman Carr has gone on to warn that other television programs like ABC’s The View may face regulatory scrutiny. These events raise serious questions for your companies. So that the American people can understand the possible existence of a quid-pro-quo arrangement, we request answers to the following questions by October 7, 2025: Given that Disney has decided to return Mr. Kimmel’s show to the network, why have Nexstar and Sinclair decided not to restart airing the show on the stations you own? Which Nexstar executives were involved in discussions about preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live!? Please provide information regarding the timing, nature of, and participants in these discussions, including whether the pending transaction with Tegna was discussed. Which Sinclair executives were involved in discussions about preempting Jimmy Kimmel Live!? Please provide information regarding the timing, nature of, and participants in these discussions, including whether the pending transaction with Tegna was discussed. What actions are your companies taking to facilitate the Trump administration’s sign-off on your pending or future transactions? Have officials from your company discussed making other concessions with President Trump or Trump administration officials in the context of the transaction reviews? Did Nexstar, at any time in the context of its decisions to remove Mr. Kimmel’s show from its stations, have any conversation with Chairman Carr or any other Trump administration officials? If so, what was the nature of these discussions? Did you offer — or were you offered — any regulatory favors in exchange for your decision? Did Sinclair, at any time in the context of its decisions to remove Mr. Kimmel’s show from its stations, have any conversation with Chairman Carr or any other Trump administration officials? If so, what was the nature of these discussions? Did you offer — or were you offered — any regulatory favors in exchange for your decision? Do your companies have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures. Has Nexstar agreed to make changes to Nexstar’s distribution of content or Tegna’s distribution of content at the request of the Trump administration, to facilitate approval of the pending transaction? If so, please describe those requests. Thank you for your attention to this matter.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-details-objections-to-trump-dojs-spend-plan-rebukes-unlawful-funding-cuts-and-transfers,"Van Hollen Details Objections to Trump DOJ’s Spend Plan, Rebukes Unlawful Funding Cuts & Transfers",2025-09-24,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (CJS), expressed his strong opposition to a series of unlawful actions that the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken with Congressionally appropriated funding for fiscal year 2025. The Senator’s letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi today followed his initial June 13 letter regarding DOJ’s fiscal year 2025 spend plan and laid out in detail his objections to numerous reprogramming and funding requests that the Department carried out against the intent and without the input of Congress. The letter also highlighted the Senator’s objection to a subsequent DOJ proposal to siphon off $163 million in fiscal year 2025 state and local law enforcement and victims assistance grants for the Department’s pet projects, and make deeper cuts to critical resources intended for police and crime prevention organizations in communities nationwide. The Senator expressed his frustration that the DOJ has ignored Congressional authority and broken the longstanding precedent of seeking input and approval from the CJS Appropriations Subcommittee. Expressing his frustration that DOJ proceeded with funding reprogramming requests without bipartisan Congressional approval, the Senator wrote, “This is not normal. The Committee and the Department had, until this year, maintained a tradition of comity in which controversial spend plan proposals would result in a meaningful discourse between the Department and Congress. Most often, the interested parties would find an agreeable path forward. Instead, this Department has made clear that a notification is simply that—a notice of actions to be taken after 15 days have elapsed, regardless of the law and clear Congressional intent to do otherwise.” “I am disappointed by the deterioration of this relationship. I continue to urge the Department to engage with Congress on these spending plan proposals that seek to fundamentally change the makeup of this nation’s agency charged with upholding the rule of law. I remind you that when the Department ignored the Committee’s direction in the past, the outcome did not turn out well for the Department,” he continued. The Senator went on to outline his detailed objections to the DOJ’s fiscal year 2025 spend plan, which include: Eliminating INTERPOL Washington as a standalone component, folding it into the U.S. Marshals Service without approval Cutting $50 million from state and local law enforcement grants, including zeroing out programs for hate crime prevention, white collar crime enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and community violence prevention Dissolving the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF), shifting resources to Homeland Security and potentially leaving remaining DOJ law enforcement components underfunded Reorganizing litigating components, including eliminating the Tax Division, the Office for Access to Justice, and the Community Relations Service Senator Van Hollen also objected to a new proposal to transfer $163 million state and local grant programs to fund other unauthorized DOJ pet projects such as the INTERPOL-Marshals Service merger, reimbursements for federal agents deployed to D.C., and covering costs of office closures—on top of earlier, unilateral cuts made by the Department to previously awarded grants totaling over $860 million. “Grant funds should not be used as slush funds to cover the Administration’s political pet projects,” he wrote. “Enough is enough—the Department needs to stop its relentless raid on grant funding that is serving state and local law enforcement and victims of crime. “I respectfully note my continuing objections to the fiscal year 2025 Department of Justice Spending Plan and subsequent transfer proposal. I strongly urge you to drop these unnecessary transfer, reprogramming, and reorganizing proposals—which are also rejected in both the fiscal year 2026 Senate and House CJS Appropriations bills—and work with congressional leaders through regular order to restore transparency and confidence in the Department of Justice,” the Senator concluded. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Attorney General Bondi: This letter follows my preliminary letter, dated June 13, 2025, which was sent in response to the May 30, 2025, Department of Justice (the Department) fiscal year 2025 spend plan. That spend plan was submitted to the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies (the Committee) pursuant to Division A, Title I, Section 1113, and Title III of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025 (Public Law 119–4). In my initial spend plan response, I specifically objected to the Section 205/505 transfer notification proposing to transfer up to $10 million from INTERPOL Washington to the U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) in addition to any efforts to terminate INTERPOL Washington as a standalone component at the Department. Despite my clear objection, the Department executed the transfer and fully dismantled INTERPOL Washington and absorbed what was left into USMS. Given the complexity of the spend plan proposals, I also noted in my June 13 letter that I needed to continue my review of the proposals and thus did not approve of any of the Department’s fiscal year 2025 spend plan proposals, including reprogramming and transfer requests. Despite the clear lack of approval, the Department executed many controversial spend plan proposals anyway. This is not normal. The Committee and the Department had, until this year, maintained a tradition of comity in which controversial spend plan proposals would result in a meaningful discourse between the Department and Congress. Most often, the interested parties would find an agreeable path forward. Instead, this Department has made clear that a notification is simply that—a notice of actions to be taken after 15 days have elapsed, regardless of the law and clear Congressional intent to do otherwise. I am disappointed by the deterioration of this relationship. I continue to urge the Department to engage with Congress on these spending plan proposals that seek to fundamentally change the makeup of this nation’s agency charged with upholding the rule of law. I remind you that when the Department ignored the Committee’s direction in the past, the outcome did not turn out well for the Department. I respectfully note my objections to this Department’s actions as articulated in the FY 2025 spend plan, transmitted May 30, 2025. In particular, I find these changes to the Department most objectionable: Merging INTERPOL Washington into USMS—As stated above, the Department notified the Committee of its plan to eliminate INTERPOL Washington as a standalone component and transfer its responsibilities to the U.S. Marshals Service. I sent a letter objecting to that proposal on June 13. My office later received, confidentially, a USMS memo dated July 7, 2025, announcing that INTERPOL offices would be fully moving into USMS Headquarters in Crystal City starting that week. Despite my objection, the Department moved forward with this proposal, and worse, did not bother to engage my office about its intentions until after the move had already been executed. I note that both the Senate and House CJS FY 2026 marks keep INTERPOL Washington as a standalone component and provide no funding for it under USMS—a clear indication that neither the Senate nor the House approve of the Department’s proposal or actions. “Scrivener’s Error” $50 million cuts to grants—Due to an error in the FY 2025 Continuing Resolution, drafted alone by House Republicans, that appropriated $50 million less for State and Local Law Enforcement Agency (SLLEA) grants, DOJ was forced to “find” a missing $50 million from the numbered line-item carve outs within the SLLEA appropriation. The Department chose to zero out or greatly reduce critical grant programs related to hate crime prevention, in addition to law enforcement grants related to white collar crime, residential substance abuse treatment, and grants that prevent violence in communities. Dissolution of Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Forces (OCDETF)—The Department in recent months has moved forward with its plans to completely shutter the OCDETF, a program with broad bipartisan support that has existed the last 40 years. OCDETF is a coordinated multi-agency, prosecutor-led law enforcement operation that attacks and reduces the supply of illegal drugs in the United States and diminishes the violence and other criminal activity associated with the drug trade. I understand that by the end of this fiscal year, the Department will “transition select resources” to newly-established Homeland Security Task Forces (HSTFs), run through the Department of Homeland Security. Until this time, OCDETF funds provided critical staffing funding for many of the Department’s law enforcement components, who are now left in limbo with no guarantees that the funding will continue under this new HSTFs structure. The Department seems to have relinquished its role as the agency leading the country’s fight against illicit narcotics trafficking and the worst of the worst cartels and organized crime syndicates. Reorganization of Litigating Components, including the Tax Division—I understand that most of the reorganization proposals have been executed. Most notably, the Department has eliminated three critical offices, all moves to which I object: 1.) the Tax Division as a standalone component, transferring its civil enforcement work to the Civil Division and its criminal enforcement work to the Criminal Division; 2.) the Office for Access to Justice, and 3.) Community Relations Service, which has been existence for over 60 years and is funded in the fiscal year 2026 Senate mark. A separate issue has arisen since the spend plan proposals were originally transmitted. The original notification contained a Section 205/505 notification that proposed to transfer nearly $179 million from grant programs to the Bureau of Prisons ($138.8 million) in order to maintain solvency, in addition to a transfer to the Environment and Natural Resources Division ($10.8 million) and a transfer for a vaguely-described pot of money ($28.6 million) that will allow the Department to pay for “costs that arise as part of the proposed realignments.” Realignments, I may add, that were made under the guise of efficiency and actually saving, not spending more, taxpayer dollars. Thankfully, the Department found alternative sources for the Bureau of Prisons shortfall. However, despite alleviating the most pressing shortfall, the Department inexplicably decided to continue pursuing its plan to reduce grants. In a notification dated August 27, 2025, the Department proposed reducing fiscal year 2025 grants by $163 million. The list of “funding requirements,” which look more like the Department’s funding wish list, has notable inclusions such as $25 million to effectuate the absorption of INTERPOL Washington in USMS; $18 million to reimburse FBI, DEA, USMS, and ATF for expenses related to agents sent to Washington D.C. under this Administration’s manufactured crime emergency, a city in which violent crime levels are actually at a 30-year low; $13 million for an Operations Command Center System that, when pressed by staff, no one at the Department could articulate the specific reason the money was requested; and nearly $7 million to pay out lump sum leave balances for employees in litigating components either eliminated or significantly decreased under this Administration. None of these “funding requirements” are necessary expenditures of resources, and to be clear, the decision to cut critical funding from grant programs has typically been and should continue to be a solution of last resort. Grant funds should not be used as slush funds to cover the Administration’s political pet projects. But this is not the first time this Administration has attacked critical grant programs. This Administration is proposing to transfer $163 million in grants in addition to the $811 million in grant funding terminations made by the Department in April, and the $50 million cut from certain grants due to a “scrivener’s error.” Earlier this week, the Department notified my staff that it had decided to reinstate $31.1 million of the $163 million proposed for cuts in grant funding, but I maintain that every penny should be sent back to the intended grant recipients. Enough is enough—the Department needs to stop its relentless raid on grant funding that is serving state and local law enforcement and victims of crime. I respectfully note my continuing objections to the fiscal year 2025 Department of Justice Spending Plan and subsequent transfer proposal. I strongly urge you to drop these unnecessary transfer, reprogramming, and reorganizing proposals—which are also rejected in both the fiscal year 2026 Senate and House CJS Appropriations bills—and work with congressional leaders through regular order to restore transparency and confidence in the Department of Justice.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-whitehouse-merkley-probe-exxonmobils-guyana-offshore-oil-contract-and-the-companys-us-tax-liability,"Van Hollen, Whitehouse, Merkley Probe ExxonMobil’s Guyana Offshore Oil Contract and the Company’s U.S. Tax Liability",2025-09-23,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR) sent a letter today to ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods asking for information on the company’s accounting of its U.S. tax liability as a result of the 2016 Stabroek Block Petroleum Agreement. The letter raises questions about whether American taxpayers are subsidizing ExxonMobil’s foreign oil production in Guyana, which the company carries out in partnership with a Chinese state-owned company. Current U.S. tax rules offer a loophole for big multinational oil companies drilling in a foreign country to shrink their tax bills. Closing this loophole would save American taxpayers an estimated $71.5 billion over ten years. “We are concerned about the possibility that American taxpayers may be subsidizing ExxonMobil’s foreign oil production, which they do in partnership with a Chinese state-owned company,” wrote Whitehouse, Van Hollen, and Merkley. “Payments to a foreign government in exchange for an economic benefit [such as the right to extract oil and gas] are not considered taxes at all and thus cannot qualify for a U.S. foreign tax credit. However special rules allow ‘dual capacity’ taxpayers to divide up such payments into creditable taxes and non-creditable payments. While it is not difficult to distinguish between taxes and payments for economic benefits, current rules allow contracts to be structured in a way that blurs the distinction. This loophole is a particular boon to big multinational oil companies,”added the senators. According to a 2021 IMF report, U.S. effectively subsidizes Big Oil and the fossil fuel industry to over $600 billion annually. Congressional Republicans added even more subsidies with their Beautiful-for-Billionaires bill, which included a $167 billion tax giveaway to companies like ExxonMobil that ship jobs and profits overseas. In February, Whitehouse and Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) reintroduced the No Tax Breaks for Outsourcing Act which would reverse the special tax rate for offshore profits that’s half the domestic rate. Congressional Republicans also included a special $427 million carveout for the oil and gas industry to shirk the Corporate Alternative Minimum tax that Democrats included in the Inflation Reduction Act to prevent companies from lowering their liability by abusing tax loopholes. Whitehouse and other Senate Democrats sent a letter in early September to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent slamming Treasury’s decision to create new loopholes in the corporate alternative minimum tax for the largest and wealthiest corporations. The text of the letter is available here and below: Dear Mr. Woods: We write to you regarding how ExxonMobil’s payments to the Government of Guyana, governed by the 2016 Stabroek Block Petroleum Agreement (PA), have affected your company’s U.S. federal tax liability. As you know, after ExxonMobil discovered nearly 11 billion barrels of oil off the coast Guyana, your company signed a PA with the Government of Guyana. Since the initial Liza oil discovery in 2015, Guyana, a former climate leader, has embraced oil as a route to prosperity, even as sea level rise could claim its capital, Georgetown, by 2030. ExxonMobil partnered with a Chinese state-owned oil company—the China National Offshore Oil Corporation (CNOOC)—and Hess (now owned by Chevron) which together pump around 900,000 barrels of oil a day. Guyana now has the world’s highest expected oil production growth through 2035, despite elevated sea levels and other harms to forest ecosystems and local communities. The PA, which was only made public after significant public pressure on the Government of Guyana, stipulates that ExxonMobil can pocket 75 percent of the value of oil produced and sold until it has recouped its recoverable contract costs. The remaining 25 percent of production is split between ExxonMobil and its partners and the Government of Guyana. Under Article 15.4 of the PA, the Government of Guyana pays ExxonMobil’s Guyana income taxes out of the Government’s share of the oil profits. We are concerned about the possibility that American taxpayers may be subsidizing ExxonMobil’s foreign oil production, which they do in partnership with a Chinese state-owned company. Under Reg. 1.901-2(a)(ii)(B), ExxonMobil is considered a “dual capacity” taxpayer, as it is a multinational company that pays an income tax to a foreign country while also receiving a specific economic benefit from that foreign country, such as the right to extractoil and gas. In addition, the rules prohibiting U.S. companies from claiming foreign tax credits (FTCs) to lower their U.S. tax bill for payments that amount to subsidies from the foreign government should apply. ExxonMobil may not be entitled to shrink its U.S. tax bill through any FTCs for payments made by the Government of Guyana for its taxes. Further, payments to a foreign government in exchange for an economic benefit are not considered taxes at all and thus cannot qualify for a U.S. foreign tax credit (FTC). However special rules allow “dual capacity” taxpayers to divide up such payments into creditable taxes and non-creditable payments. While it is not difficult to distinguish between taxes and payments for economic benefits, current rules allow contracts to be structured in a way that blurs the distinction. This loophole is a particular boon to big multinational oil companies. A 2024 Treasury Department proposal would have closed this loophole by limiting the portion of a payment that would qualify for a U.S. FTC to the equivalent amount of tax that the dual capacity taxpayer would have owed the foreign government if it was a non-dual capacity taxpayer. In other words, it would prevent a company like ExxonMobil from shrinking its U.S. tax bill by claiming a larger U.S. FTC than any other company operating in the country that was not paying for the right to drill on land owned by Guyana. Closing this loophole would save U.S. taxpayers an estimated $71.5 billion over ten years. Big oil companies like ExxonMobil do not need any more government subsidies. According to a 2021 IMF report, U.S. effective subsidies to the fossil fuel industry are over $600 billion annually. Republicans added even more with their “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” which included a $167 billion handout to companies like ExxonMobil that ship jobs and profits overseas, as well as a special $427 million carveout for the oil and gas industry to limit oravoid the Corporate Alternative Minimum taxthat is intended to prevent companies from erasing their tax bill with special breaks. We would like to better understand whether U.S. tax dollars are subsidizing your partnership with China to drill for oil overseas. We ask that you answer the following questions about howthe 2016 PA with the Government of Guyana has affected ExxonMobil’s U.S. federal tax liability by no later than October 23, 2025: Based on Article 15.4 of the PA, did ExxonMobil provide income tax returns to the Government of Guyana, and for which years? Did ExxonMobil directly pay the Government of Guyana any income tax in 2024 and/or 2023, or did the Government of Guyana make such payments on ExxonMobil’s behalf out of the government’s share of profit oil? For any income tax payments to Guyana made by ExxonMobil or on its behalf, what portion, if any, did ExxonMobil claim as U.S. FTCs in 2024 and/or 2023? Did ExxonMobil claim any U.S. FTCs on any payments to the Government of Guyana in 2024 and/or 2023? If ExxonMobil claimed any U.S. FTCs in 2024 and/or 2023 on payments to the Government of Guyana, please explain what provisions of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code or regulations the company used to justify the claim and provide a model of how the calculation of creditable tax was made using illustrative numbers that are consistent with actual results. If U.S. FTCs were claimed on any payments to the Government of Guyana, how much did they lower the company’s U.S. federal tax bill for 2024 and/or 2023? Does the 2016 PA between ExxonMobil and Guyana make a distinction between taxes owed to the Government of Guyana and payments for economic benefits? If so, please provide the specific language and ExxonMobil’s interpretation of how it affects your U.S. federal tax liability under current rules. What was ExxonMobil’s rationale for including CNOOC as a partner in its 2016 PA with the Government of Guyana? Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-markey-colleagues-in-urging-trumps-epa-to-reverse-rollback-of-vehicle-emissions-standards-stop-attacks-on-clean-air,"Van Hollen Joins Markey, Colleagues in Urging Trump’s EPA to Reverse Rollback of Vehicle Emissions Standards, Stop Attacks on Clean Air",2025-09-22,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chirs Van Hollen joined Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) and 9 of their Senate colleagues wrote to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator Lee Zeldin, urging the agency to reverse course on the elimination of federal standards for greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and medium and heavy-duty trucks. The EPA’s move is enabled by the Trump EPA’s proposal to get rid of the 2009 finding that greenhouse gas emissions threaten our health and welfare by contributing to climate change, which is the underlying basis for EPA’s regulatory ability to address tailpipe climate pollution. The Trump administration’s proposed clean vehicles rollback would decimate regulations that reduce greenhouse gases and air pollution from cars; the current standards on the books are projected to prevent 2,500 premature deaths, as well as save drivers $6,000 over the next five years by cutting fuel costs. In the letter, the lawmakers write, “If the Trump administration persists with eliminating federal vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, it will be responsible for damaging the environment, hurting public health, costing drivers money, cutting American jobs and competitiveness, and increasing our dependence on foreign oil.” The lawmakers conclude, “Americans should be able to drive and share the road with cleaner, more efficient vehicles that help clean up our air, save families money at the pump, and strengthen American competitiveness and energy independence. We urge you not to destroy these life- and cost-saving vehicle emission standards on the basis of faulty science and unlawful attacks on the clean air statutes passed by Congress.” The letter is cosigned by Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.). The full text of the letter is available here and below: Dear Administrator Zeldin, To address the climate crisis, safeguard public health, and protect our economy, we write to urge the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Trump administration to reverse course on your ill-advised rollback of federal standards for greenhouse gas emissions from passenger cars and medium and heavy-duty trucks. By proposing to eliminate the 2009 endangerment finding on climate emissions from motor vehicles, the underlying basis for EPA’s regulatory ability to address tailpipe climate pollution, EPA is shirking its statutory responsibility to protect human health and the environment, violating the Clean Air Act and Supreme Court precedent, and ignoring the directives of Congress. If the Trump administration persists with eliminating federal vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards, it will be responsible for damaging the environment, hurting public health, costing drivers money, cutting American jobs and competitiveness, and increasing our dependence on foreign oil. Robust federal vehicle emission standards are a critical tool for addressing the climate crisis and protecting public health. In the United States, transportation is the leading source of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, accounting for 28 percent of total direct emissions. Cars and trucks contribute 80 percent of the emissions within the transportation sector. Dismantling clean vehicle regulations would leave GHG emissions unchecked, which will lead to worsening climate change and increasingly severe extreme weather events. These disasters hurt our communities and exact an astronomical cost in both public and private spending—over the past year alone, disaster-related spending cost the United States nearly $1 trillion. Transportation-related air pollution hurts public health. Climate change caused by GHG emissions has driven record temperatures across the nation, doubling the number of heat-related deaths in the United States since 1999. Transportation is a major source of particulate matter and other toxic air pollution, severely affecting communities’ ability to breathe clean air and causing asthma, cancer, and other chronic illnesses. Studies show that deaths increase on days with both high temperatures and poor air quality, relative to days during which only one factor is present. Removing clean car and truck safeguards would also increase costs for consumers. Studies show that strong clean vehicle standards have saved drivers more than $9,000 per vehicle in fuel since 2001, and if current policies are kept in place, drivers will save an additional $6,000 in fuel savings per vehicle over the next five years. Without standards, the next generation of American vehicles would become significantly more expensive to fuel, maintain, and repair, no longer saving drivers money at the pump. The world is transitioning to a zero-emission transportation system, and ignoring that reality puts the future of the American auto industry at risk. In 2024, 69 percent of U.S. vehicle exports went to countries with electric vehicle sales requirements, and 62 percent went to countries planning to ban internal combustion engine vehicles entirely. In 2024, the clean vehicles industry employed more than 410,000 Americans, a figure that includes workers manufacturing parts and components to make vehicles cleaner and more fuel-efficient. The clean vehicle job sector grew faster than the gas- and diesel-powered vehicle industry, adding about 60 percent more jobs between 2021 and 2024. Repealing vehicle emission standards would ruin the momentum and hand the future of the automotive industry to global competitors. Rolling back standards threatens American energy independence by deepening our reliance on foreign oil. Only 60 percent of the oil in U.S. fuel refineries is extracted in the United States. The remaining 40 percent is imported, making our system linked to volatile global markets. For instance, when Russia invaded Ukraine, gas prices jumped 50 cents a gallon in just one week—a reminder that dependence on oil leaves American drivers at the whims of foreign countries. Americans should be able to drive and share the road with cleaner, more efficient vehicles that help clean up our air, save families money at the pump, and strengthen American competitiveness and energy independence. We urge you not to destroy these life- and cost-saving vehicle emission standards on the basis of faulty science and unlawful attacks on the clean air statutes passed by Congress. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-statement-on-duffy-key-bridge-letter,Maryland Delegation Members Statement on Duffy Key Bridge Letter,2025-09-19,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks, and U.S. Representatives Kweisi Mfume, Steny Hoyer, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) released the following statement on U.S. Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy’s letter to Governor Wes Moore regarding the reconstruction of the Key Bridge: “The Key Bridge was bigger than Baltimore and Maryland – its collapse took away a vital transportation artery for the broader region and a gateway to the Port of Baltimore. As we have with other major infrastructure disasters with nationwide implications, Congress came together on a bipartisan basis to provide the full resources necessary for reconstruction to ensure it can be rebuilt as quickly and efficiently as possible. The federal government’s commitment to fund the rebuild is enacted into law, and the construction contract was awarded through a legal, competitive, transparent process.We will continue working with the Department of Transportation and our partners to keep delivering on this national priority and commitment.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-underscores-illegality-of-trump-action-to-end-collective-bargaining-agreements-for-nonpartisan-nasa-noaa-employees,"Van Hollen Underscores Illegality of Trump Action to End Collective Bargaining Agreements for Nonpartisan NASA, NOAA Employees",2025-09-19,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies, underscored the illegality of President Trump’s August 28 executive order to end collective bargaining agreements between public employee unions representing workers at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). In a letter to the President, the Senator criticizes the order as a continuation of the Administration’s illegal attacks on the rights of federal employees who work to track and predict severe weather, support our fishing industry, and enhance our understanding of earth and our universe, among other vital functions as part of the clear attempt to replace nonpartisan, merit-based workers with political cronies on a massive scale. “I write to express my continued outrage over your executive orders aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees,” the Senator began. “This executive order, which directs additional agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to cancel their collective bargaining agreements, is another escalation in your administration’s relentless attacks on patriotic and dedicated federal workers.” Stressing that this executive order amounts to serious overreach of presidential authority, the Senator wrote, “the Civil Service Reform Act allows the suspension of collective bargaining in very limited national security circumstances. Yet, your order extends far beyond legitimate national security concerns and threatens the rights of workers who serve in a wide range of critical public services, including providing reliable forecasting of severe weather, managing the health of our nation's fisheries, protecting and promoting American innovation, studying the earth and universe, and conducting cutting-edge research to advance technology. These services are important to American communities and advance our economy and innovation. Instead of safeguarding them, this action will only jeopardize them. “This expansion of the executive order simply advances your administration’s broader campaign to misuse executive power and dismantle the merit-based civil service. It is your administration’s latest attempt to strip workers of their rights, politicize the federal workforce, and replace dedicated career public servants with politically motivated appointees,” he continued. “I urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order. Every day that it remains in place, federal workers are left vulnerable to political retribution, undermining their ability to do their jobs effectively on behalf of the American people,” the Senator concluded. A copy of the letter is available here and below. Dear President Trump, I write to express my continued outrage over your executive orders aimed at ending collective bargaining rights for federal employees. Despite the ongoing litigation related to the initial executive order and the administration’s gross misinterpretation of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, the new order entitled Further Exclusions from the Federal Labor-management Relations Program further undermines the rights of federal workers across the country and their ability to serve the American people. This executive order, which directs additional agencies including the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to cancel their collective bargaining agreements, is another escalation in your administration’s relentless attacks on patriotic and dedicated federal workers. The Civil Service Reform Act allows the suspension of collective bargaining in very limited national security circumstances. Yet, your order extends far beyond legitimate national security concerns and threatens the rights of workers who serve in a wide range of critical public services, including providing reliable forecasting of severe weather, managing the health of our nation's fisheries, protecting and promoting American innovation, studying the earth and universe, and conducting cutting-edge research to advance technology. These services are important to American communities and advance our economy and innovation. Instead of safeguarding them, this action will only jeopardize them. Moreover, the White House’s own justification that these actions will ensure a more “responsive and accountable” civil service ignores the vital checks and balances that collective bargaining provides. Unions give federal employees the ability to stand up for their rights without fear of retaliation, which ensures that government services are delivered fairly and efficiently. This expansion of the executive order simply advances your administration’s broader campaign to misuse executive power and dismantle the merit-based civil service. It is your administration’s latest attempt to strip workers of their rights, politicize the federal workforce, and replace dedicated career public servants with politically motivated appointees. I urge you to immediately rescind this illegal executive order. Every day that it remains in place, federal workers are left vulnerable to political retribution, undermining their ability to do their jobs effectively on behalf of the American people. Sincerely,",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-whitehouse-markey-dingell-and-over-three-dozen-members-file-amicus-brief-urging-reversal-of-dc-appeals-court-panel-decision-allowing-clawback-of-greenhouse-gas-reduction-fund-grants,"Van Hollen, Whitehouse, Markey, Dingell & Over Three Dozen Members File Amicus Brief Urging Reversal of D.C. Appeals Court Panel Decision Allowing Clawback of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund Grants",2025-09-19,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), U.S. Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), and 36 of their Congressional colleagues have submitted an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in the case of Climate United Fund, et al. v. Citibank, N.A. et al, urging the reinstatement of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund (GGRF) grants. The lawmakers pressed the Court to grant a rehearing en banc, or hearing of the full active bench, and to overturn the erroneous ruling issued earlier this month by a three-judge panel of the Court. That poorly reasoned ruling allows the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to proceed with its efforts to illegally claw back GGRF awards that were appropriated by Congress and fully disbursed into private bank accounts. The GGRF is a $27 billion national climate financing network that facilitates investments in affordable clean energy deployment to spur economic development, lower energy costs, and reduce pollution. It was passed into law in the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and is based on the National Climate Bank Act, legislation authored by Senators Van Hollen and Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.). In the brief, the lawmakers argue that the D.C. Circuit panel’s two-judge majority – both Trump appointees – misapplied precedent and ignored the district court’s well-supported factual findings in a results-oriented bid to greenlight EPA’s unlawful efforts to claw back GGRF funds. Given that Congress mandated that the GGRF funds be spent as appropriated, and the funds were already distributed to private bank accounts, EPA’s cancellation of the program is clear executive overreach. The lawmakers stress that letting this decision stand jeopardizes Constitutional protections of the separation of powers, and would amount to a transfer of Congress’ power of the purse to the executive branch. The lawmakers outlined the thorough, transparent process by which the EPA under the Biden Administration awarded GGRF funds, writing, “Congress passed the IRA in 2022, which authorized and appropriated nearly $20 billion for the GGRF programs at issue here: the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA). Congress directed that these funds must be granted to specialized nonprofit financial organizations for projects that ‘reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of air pollution.’ Congress required that the EPA obligate GGRF funds by September 30, 2024. EPA met the deadline and entered into Financial Agent Agreements to ‘[convey] to the grantees legal title to the award funds’ while ‘affording EPA greater oversight of the grantees’ use of the funds than it would have had under the default disbursement system.’” “After President Trump took office, the new EPA Administrator and other officials began to make outrageous attacks on grantees – including attempts to fabricate criminal fraud allegations. EPA’s subsequent blanket termination of the NCIF and the CCIA programs willfully ignores Congressional spending power and puts $20 billion of community and clean energy investments at risk. This is not a prosaic contract dispute; this is a constitutional power grab,” they argued. The lawmakers pointed out that the panel Dalton v. Specter, which disallows judicial review in cases where a statute commits decision-making to the discretion of the President. They argued that Dalton does not apply in this case, writing, “but no statute gave the President, let alone EPA, discretion to terminate all previously obligated and disbursed funds allocated by Congress for two GGRF programs. Plaintiffs’ claims here do not depend on termination of a single contract, withholding of a disputed grant amount, or even administrative interpretation of a statutory provision. Finally, in sharp contrast with the discretion afforded to the President [by the] … statute at issue in Dalton, Congress could not have been clearer that the GGRF was enacted to ‘enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emission technologies,’ and that EPA had to obligate all grant funding by September 30, 2024. […] Dalton cannot sanction EPA nullifying clear statutory directives by terminating these programs.” They also criticize the panel for dismissing without basis key factual findings by the district court, writing, “The district court did not, as the panel writes, ‘simply declare’ that EPA was shutting down the GGRF program. […] Rather, the district court made well-supported findings of fact that EPA’s out-of-court words and actions contradicted the Agency’s representations in the litigation that the GGRF program would continue following termination of Plaintiffs’ grants.” “If the panel decision stands, it would set precedent that any agency can simply unwind any Congressionally-mandated program, unilaterally ending contracts without process, seizing money in private bank accounts, and clawing back already-disbursed funds. Congress’s exclusive power of the purse would be in name only. This Court should grant rehearing en banc,” the Senators concluded. Joining Senators Van Hollen, Whitehouse, Markey, and Representative Dingell in signing this amicus brief are Senators Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Mazie K. Hirono (D-Hawaii), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Tina Smith (D-Minn.) as well as U.S. Representatives Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.), Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), Sean Casten (D-Ill.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), Troy Carter (D-La.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Darren Soto (D-Fla.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Robert Menendez (D-N.J.), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), George Latimer (D-N.Y.), and Doris Matsui (D-Calif.). Text of the lawmakers’ argument is below, and the full brief can be viewed here. INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE AND RULE 29(a)(4)(E) STATEMENT Amici curiae include the original champions of Green Bank legislation and its passage as the GGRF; the Ranking Members of the Senate and House committees with jurisdiction over the GGRF (U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. House Committee on Energy and Commerce); the Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Committee subcommittee with jurisdiction over GGRF funding; and other Members of Congress with a particularized interest in preserving the separation of powers and ensuring that Congress’s plenary power over appropriations and spending is protected. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT Congress passed the IRA in 2022, which authorized and appropriated nearly $20 billion for the GGRF programs at issue here: the National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF) and the Clean Communities Investment Accelerator (CCIA). Congress directed that these funds must be granted to specialized nonprofit financial organizations for projects that “reduce or avoid greenhouse gas emissions and other forms of air pollution.” Congress required that the EPA obligate GGRF funds by September 30, 2024. EPA met the deadline and entered into Financial Agent Agreements to “[convey] to the grantees legal title to the award funds” while “affording EPA greater oversight of the grantees’ use of the funds than it would have had under the default disbursement system.” Climate United Fund v. Citibank, 2025 WL 2502881 at *16 (D.C. Cir. Sept 2, 2025) (Pillard, J. dissenting) (citing Bafford Decl. ¶ 33 (J.A. 372)). After President Trump took office, the new EPA Administrator and other officials began to make outrageous attacks on grantees – including attempts to fabricate criminal fraud allegations. EPA’s subsequent blanket termination of the NCIF and the CCIA programs willfully ignores Congressional spending power and puts $20 billion of community and clean energy investments at risk. This is not a prosaic contract dispute; this is a constitutional power grab. The panel errs in finding that Plaintiffs’ appropriations claims are prohibited by Dalton v. Specter, 511 U.S. 462 (1994). An agency’s failure to spend congressionally appropriated funds is illegal under In re Aiken County, 725 F.3d 255 (D.C. Cir. 2013). Yet the panel wrongly allows EPA to seize GGRF funds that were appropriated by Congress and fully disbursed into private bank accounts. Unlike in Dalton, which was not an appropriations case, here Congress mandated how, by when, and to whom appropriated funds should be granted. It is black letter law that Congress enjoys plenary appropriations power. As held by the Supreme Court in Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 464 (1998), the executive branch does not have the power to repeal a statute by withholding its funding. To hold otherwise would give the executive branch free rein to ignore Congressional appropriations decisions. This Court should grant rehearing, to consider the constitutional issues raised by EPA’s misdeeds. ARGUMENT EPA’s Actions Violate Congress’s Appropriations Power. The panel decision acknowledges that EPA terminated the full amount of all grants made under two GGRF grant programs, but discards the district court record and precedential case law to conclude that the grantees’ challenge “is not a constitutional claim at all” and is only a challenge to the IRA. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *10. This is exactly backwards: the existence of a potential statutory violation does not displace a constitutional claim, and the dispositive question is whether the Administration has exceeded its constitutional powers. Here, it has: Congress required EPA to spend the GGRF funds before September 30, 2024, and EPA would have been prohibited from refusing to do so. EPA’s efforts to terminate funding after disbursement are equally impermissible. Nor was there any basis to overturn the district court’s thorough analysis concluding that EPA terminated the grant programs wholesale. A. The Panel Erred in Rejecting the Constitutional Claim. The Court should grant en banc review and not allow an overly expansive interpretation of Dalton to nullify Congressional spending power. By stretching Dalton to reject Plaintiffs’ separation of powers claims, and shoehorning Plaintiffs’ remaining claims into contractual disputes under the ill-fitting Tucker Act, the panel swept constitutional questions under the rug. This case concerns EPA’s unilateral termination of all grants under two GGRF programs (in addition to at least eight other programs beyond this case, see infra note 4), after all the funds had been dispersed to private bank accounts. These brazen actions usurped power assigned to Congress by the Constitution. Under our Constitution, the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the President or his agents. U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 7 (Appropriations Clause); U.S. Const. art. I, § 8, cl. 1 (Spending Clause). Congress may employ that power “to further broad policy objectives” and as the dissent points out, “neither the President nor his subordinate executive agencies may decline to follow a statutory mandate or prohibit spending because of policy objections.” Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *14 (Pillard, J., dissenting). Dalton simply does not apply here. That case stands for the limited proposition that “[w]here a statute . . . commits decision-making to the discretion of the President, judicial review of the President’s decision is not available.” 511 U.S. at 477. But no statute gave the President, let alone EPA, discretion to terminate all previously obligated and disbursed funds allocated by Congress for two GGRF programs. Plaintiffs’ claims here do not depend on termination of a single contract, withholding of a disputed grant amount, or even administrative interpretation of a statutory provision. Finally, in sharp contrast with the discretion afforded to the President under the military base closure statute at issue in Dalton, Congress could not have been clearer that the GGRF was enacted to “enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy or benefit from zero-emission technologies,” and that EPA had to obligate all grant funding by September 30, 2024. 42 U.S.C. § 7434. Dalton cannot sanction EPA nullifying clear statutory directives by terminating these programs. Nor can the panel’s expansion of Dalton be reconciled with Supreme Court precedent that prohibits the executive from unilaterally refusing to spend appropriated funds – let alone claw back actually disbursed funds. In Clinton, the Supreme Court struck down the line item veto as unconstitutional, because Article I, § 7 of the Constitution makes clear that the President cannot cancel a law without Congress’s express authorization. Clinton, 524 U.S. at 446. Decided after Dalton, the Court’s opinion in Clinton specifically rejected the argument that cancellations of Congressionally appropriated programs were “merely exercises of discretionary authority granted to the President.” Id. at 442. Instead, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the bedrock principle that the Constitution does not permit “the President to enact, to amend, or to repeal statutes.” Id. at 438. The panel’s broad recharacterization of Dalton into the appropriations context effectively gives an unconstitutional line item veto to this Administration. It is similarly not possible to square the panel’s reading of Dalton with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Train v. New York, 420 U.S. 35, 42-47 (1975). There, the Supreme Court held that language in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act that the EPA “shall” allot funds by a date certain meant what it said. Train, 420 U.S. at 42-47. At the direction of President Nixon, the EPA Administrator allotted less than what the Act specified. Id. at 40. The Supreme Court ruled that the Administrator could not do so. Inclusion of the phrase “not to exceed” did not provide discretion to the EPA to refuse to spend the funds; it only preserved the possibility that approved applications for funds already allotted “would not total the maximum amount authorized to be appropriated.” Id. at 44. Here, the statutory directive is even clearer: Congress appropriated specific sums to carry out the GGRF programs, to be spent by a specific date, and to be provided to specified eligible entities. Meanwhile, on the correct factual record, Aiken County is indistinguishable. See Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *29 (“[A]bsent congressional authorization, the Administration may not redistribute or withhold properly appropriated funds in order to effectuate its own policy goals.”) (Pillard, J., dissenting, quotation and citation omitted). Under Aiken County, an agency may not refuse to spend appropriated funds in violation of a statutory obligation. Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d at 257-69. As then-Judge Kavanaugh wrote: “where previously appropriated money is available for an agency to perform a statutorily mandated activity, we see no basis for a court to excuse the agency from that statutory mandate.” Aiken Cnty., 725 F.3d at 260. The panel tries to avoid this precedent by discarding the district court’s well-supported findings and lending undue credibility to EPA’s inconsistent justifications for terminating the grants. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *11. As set out below, the district court’s factual conclusion that EPA had no intention of re-awarding the GGRF money was amply supported; thus, Aiken County should control. The district court correctly found that the Plaintiffs demonstrated a likelihood of success on this claim. B. The Panel Wrongly Substituted Its Own Inferences and Factfinding for That of District Court The panel avoids the clear dictates of Clinton and Aiken County only by rewriting the factual record in the case and overturning the district court’s factual findings. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *11. But this turns logic upside down, dispensing with the district court’s detailed factfinding while affording the government a presumption of regularity that strains credulity. Where “the district court’s account of the evidence is plausible in light of the record viewed in its entirety, the court of appeals may not reverse it even though convinced that had it been sitting as the trier of fact, it would have weighed the evidence differently.” Anderson v. City of Bessemer, 470 U.S. 564, 573-74 (1985). The district court did not, as the panel writes, “simply declare” that EPA was shutting down the GGRF program. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *11. Rather, the district court made well-supported findings of fact that EPA’s out-of-court words and actions contradicted the Agency’s representations in the litigation that the GGRF program would continue following termination of Plaintiffs’ grants. Specifically: The district court found that EPA initially claimed fraud and conflicts of interest in grant awards and enlisted the FBI to pressure Citibank to freeze funds, but then admitted the terminations were “based on reasons of policy” when it could produce no evidence of fraud. Climate United, 778 F.Supp.3d at 114-115. The district court found that EPA served Plaintiffs with identical information requests on the GGRF program’s oversight controls then terminated all the grants prior to receiving responses. Id. at 114. From this action, the district court reasonably inferred that the government’s reference to lack of oversight was a pretext. The district court found that EPA refused to provide any rationale for why it terminated the grants, why cancellation was necessary when EPA had begun to examine the grant programs to add oversight mechanisms, or “why it needed to cancel every single grant to review some aspects of the GGRF program . . . .” Id. The district court found that “[t]hroughout February and March 2025, Administrator Zeldin began to publicly express his desire to take control of the funds disbursed under the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) and to terminate the GGRF grants . . . and that EPA is ‘not going to rest’ until it recovered the grant funds.” Id. at 102. The district court was not “clearly erroneous” in concluding that these public statements by the EPA Administrator, alongside an executive order directing agencies to halt all IRA disbursements to “terminate the Green New Deal,” betrayed the actual, unlawful reason for the grant terminations and the intent to end the program. The panel erred further by faulting the district court for “ignor[ing]” the “gold bars” video. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *11 n.12. But of course the district court gave no evidentiary value to that video: it is patently irrelevant to the GGRF. The video concerns efforts to award different grant money after the November 2024 election. All the GGRF grants were awarded by September – months before. The panel also erred in holding that the district court should have afforded EPA’s unsupported and inconsistent representations a presumption of regularity. Climate United, 2025 WL 2502881 at *11. The “presumption of regularity” is a limited, rebuttable presumption that applies to authenticity of government documents and official acts. Latif v. Obama, 677 F.3d 1175, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The district court did not refuse to consider EPA’s evidence or account of its actions but rather determined – after significant factual analysis – that EPA’s representations were unsupported by the broader factual record. The district court found that EPA first sought to terminate grant funding through a criminal investigation, and when that failed, shifted its position to claim that the terminations were based on changed agency priorities. Climate United, 778 F.Supp.3d at 115. Although EPA claimed it conducted an “individualized assessment” of the grants, the district court found that EPA had not provided any rationale for the terminations. Id. at 115-116. The district court, as the finder of fact, concluded that EPA’s “public statements contradict its representations here regarding the future of the program.” Id. at 116. These factual conclusions were firmly grounded in the record and should not have been disturbed by the panel. CONCLUSION The stakes presented by this power grab are high. In the NCIF and CCIA programs under the GGRF, Congress directed EPA to grant nearly $20 billion to nonprofit financial organizations for the purpose of reducing pollution and energy costs for low-income and disadvantaged communities. There is considerable reliance on those grants, which were disbursed to private accounts nearly a year ago. If the panel decision stands, it would set precedent that any agency can simply unwind any Congressionally-mandated program, unilaterally ending contracts without process, seizing money in private bank accounts, and clawing back already-disbursed funds. Congress’s exclusive power of the purse would be in name only. This Court should grant rehearing en banc.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-introduce-department-of-defenses-cost-of-war-act,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Introduce Department of Defense’s Cost of War Act",2025-09-18,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (Both D-Md.) introduced the Department of Defense’s Cost of War Act (DoD COW), which if passed will require the costs for the renaming of the Department of Defense to be deducted from the Secretary of Defense’s travel budget. The cost of changing the name from Department of Defense to Department of War in all internal and external communications could rise to hundreds of millions of dollars. Rather than appropriating millions of more dollars and wasting Americans’ taxpayer money, this bill would force the department to take the money from the Secretary’s travel budget first and then from the travel budgets of the military service secretaries. “We should not be wasting taxpayer dollars to stroke Donald Trump’s ego and whims, but that’s what this latest dictate by the Administration would do – with zero benefit to our national security. That’s why our bill requires that this wasteful Trump Administration endeavor not come at the expense of America’s military readiness,” said Senator Van Hollen.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-merkley-colleagues-in-historic-call-for-us-recognition-of-palestinian-statehood,"Van Hollen Joins Merkley, Colleagues in Historic Call for U.S. Recognition of Palestinian Statehood",2025-09-18,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in introducing a historic resolution calling on the President to recognize a Palestinian state. The resolution—the first of its kind in the United States Senate—calls for U.S. recognition of a demilitarized Palestinian state alongside a secure Israel, in accordance with international law and the principles of a two-state solution. It underscores how urgent U.S. action would preserve the best chance for peace, helping give both Palestinians and Israelis a future grounded in freedom, security, and prosperity. The resolution is also cosponsored by U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), and Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii). “The most viable way to create some light at the end of the very dark tunnel in the Middle East, and assure security and self-determination for Israelis and Palestinians alike, is a two state solution. Given that the Netanyahu government has obstructed that goal and the Trump Administration has abandoned it, the Congress must make its position clear. Saudi Arabia and others in the region have stated that the establishment of a Palestinian state would result in normalization of relations with Israel and provide for long term peace and stability. For all these reasons, it is time for the United States to recognize a Palestinian state,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Recognition of a Palestinian state is not only a practical step the United States can take to help build a future where Palestinians and Israelis can live in freedom, dignity, and security, but it is the right thing to do. America has a responsibility to lead, and the time to act is now,” said Senator Merkley. “This resolution calls for a different course. First, an immediate ceasefire, return of all hostages, and influx of aid. But then, a foundation for peace and prosperity for the future—and the only viable path for that is two states for two peoples. The goal of a Palestinian state can’t be put off any longer if we want the next generation to avoid suffering from the same insecurity and affliction.” “The U.S. supported a historic United Nations resolution in 1947 to establish two states—Israel and Palestine. After nearly 80 years, the world has only kept one of those two promises and the lack of progress toward Palestinian autonomy has been a source of continuing tension in the region. Since July 2024 when the Israeli Knesset voted to deny a path to Palestinian statehood and made clear that Israel would not accept Palestinian autonomy, I have believed the U.S. should no longer condition recognition on Israeli assent but rather on Palestinian willingness to live in peace with its neighbors. We must redouble our efforts to work toward a future where Israelis and Palestinians alike can live in peace, security, and dignity,” said Senator Kaine. “For nearly two years, Prime Minister Netanyahu has undertaken a deliberate and brutal pursuit to make it as difficult as possible for a viable, independent State of Palestine to emerge. Recognizing a two-state solution is long overdue and the only way forward—something Republican and Democratic Administrations have agreed on for decades,” said Senator Welch. “This resolution signals Congress’ continued commitment for an enduring two-state solution for peace for the people of Israel and Palestine.” The resolution is endorsed by J Street. “Senator Merkley’s resolution is a vital step toward long-overdue U.S. recognition of a Palestinian state, and we urge every Senator to support it. Recognition sends a clear message that extremists on both sides—those seeking permanent occupation and annexation, or those seeking the destruction of Israel—cannot dictate the future,” said Jeremy Ben-Ami, J Street's President. “A real path to Palestinian statehood offers hope, rights, and self-determination for Palestinians, while strengthening the security and future of Israel.” The Senators' resolution comes as world leaders meet at the United Nations General Assembly in New York next week, where a number of U.S. allies are preparing to recognize a Palestinian state, joining more than 140 of the 193 UN member states who already do so—a reflection of the global consensus that Palestinian statehood must be part of any lasting peace. The Senators introduced this new resolution following Senators Van Hollen and Merkley's recent trip to the Gaza Border, Israel, West Bank, Jordan, and Egypt in August. A full report detailing their findings on the deteriorating humanitarian situation in Gaza is available by clicking here.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-lujan-reintroduce-the-democracy-in-design-act-to-democratize-federal-architecture-design,"Van Hollen, Luján Reintroduce the Democracy in Design Act to Democratize Federal Architecture Design",2025-09-18,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) reintroduced the Democracy in Design Act, legislation to preserve the Guiding Principles for Federal Architecture, which have been in place since the Kennedy Administration and allow state and local governments to design federal buildings reflecting the specific needs of their communities and the diverse cultures of their regions. The legislation comes following President Trump’s August 28 executive order, directing the General Services Administration to default to classical and other traditional architecture styles when remodeling or constructing federal buildings around the country. U.S. Representative Dina Titus (D-Nev.-1) introduced the companion legislation in the House earlier this year. “There should not be a one-size-fits-all mandate for the design of federal architecture. This legislation will help ensure that federal buildings reflect the diversity of our nation and the American people, and meet the needs of the communities they serve,” said Senator Van Hollen. “From our food to architecture, New Mexico is home to a rich history and culture that enriches our state,” said Senator Luján. “Whether it’s the adobe style architecture or the New Mexico State Capitol, our state’s architecture is distinctly New Mexican and reflects the cultures of our state. Federal buildings should be the same way. That's why I’m proud to reintroduce this legislation to help ensure architectural designs in federal buildings are community-centered."" This legislation is supported by the American Institute of Architects. “The Democracy in Design Act ensures that America’s public buildings reflect the people they serve rather than conforming to a single mandated style. We commend Senator Van Hollen, Senator Luján, and Congresswoman Titus for their leadership in preserving democratic values in the design process and recognizing the vital role architects play in creating spaces that are inclusive, functional, and representative of our nation’s character. By advancing this legislation, they are helping to ensure that architecture continues to tell the dynamic, inclusive, and authentic story of who we are as a nation,” said 2025 AIA President, Evelyn Lee, FAIA",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-urge-epa-not-to-abandon-efforts-to-combat-climate-change-pointing-to-threats-facing-maryland-communities,"Maryland Delegation Members Urge EPA Not to Abandon Efforts to Combat Climate Change, Pointing to Threats Facing Maryland Communities",2025-09-17,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) urged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to maintain its greenhouse gas emissions “endangerment finding,” a 2009 landmark determination that climate pollution endangers public health and welfare. This determination – which has stood for over 15 years – provides the legal basis for regulating greenhouse gas emissions. In their letter to EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin, the lawmakers called on the agency to preserve the endangerment finding in order to protect Marylanders from the increasing risks, costs, and chaos caused by climate change, pointing to the many related threats currently facing Maryland communities. “We are deeply concerned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to eliminate the 2009 Endangerment Finding and what that will mean for Maryland and our constituents’ health and safety. The Endangerment Finding requires the EPA to protect people from the pollution that causes climate change. Denying the danger cannot change the facts: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are heating our planet and endangering us all,” the lawmakers began. “The Endangerment Finding is based on settled science: decades of peer-reviewed scientific research have proven that rising global temperatures fuel stronger hurricanes, sea level rise, increased flooding, record-breaking heat waves, and other forms of extreme weather. The threats have never been more dire to communities across the country, including our constituents in Maryland,” they wrote. The lawmakers went on to highlight threats to Maryland communities, pointing out, “Coastal communities in the Chesapeake Bay region are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels; in this region, seas have already risen one foot over the past century, twice as fast as the worldwide average, and are projected to rise nearly 3 more feet by 2100. More than 100 Maryland communities are at risk of ‘nuisance flooding’ from sea level rise. Almost a third of those communities are socioeconomically disadvantaged and do not have the resources to adapt to or mitigate the local impacts. Annapolis and Baltimore are experiencing some of the most frequent nuisance flooding events in the country, which have increased more than 920 percent since 1960. Further, Maryland farmers are expected to lose between $39 million and $107 million annually in crop yields due to saltwater intrusion.” “Dangerous flooding also threatens Maryland communities further inland as heavy precipitation and severe storms have become more common. As of August 1st, Maryland has already recorded the most flash flood warnings in 2025 since 2020. Two years after Ellicott City was hit by a 1-in-1000 year catastrophic flash flood in 2016, which took the lives of two Marylanders, damaged over 100 businesses and 107 homes costing over $22 million in repairs, and reduced economic activity by $67.2 million, another flash flood once again destroyed the city’s Main Street and led to the death of one person. Recent flooding in the Mid-Atlantic led to the death of a child swept away by flood waters and over 200 children and students being evacuated from an elementary school in motorized boats in Western Maryland. The flood damaged drinking water systems and roads, highlighting the dangers facing all Marylanders as extreme weather wreaks havoc on the state’s infrastructure and local economies,” they continued. “We urge you to put the welfare of people over that of polluters and maintain the Endangerment Finding. Marylanders and communities across the country should not be left to foot the bill for the climate chaos caused by polluters,” they concluded. A copy of the letter is available here and below. Dear Administrator Zeldin: We are deeply concerned by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposal to eliminate the 2009 Endangerment Finding and what that will mean for Maryland and our constituents’ health and safety. The Endangerment Finding requires the EPA to protect people from the pollution that causes climate change. Denying the danger cannot change the facts: greenhouse gas emissions from fossil fuels are heating our planet and endangering us all. The Endangerment Finding is based on settled science: decades of peer-reviewed scientific research have proven that rising global temperatures fuel stronger hurricanes, sea level rise, increased flooding, record-breaking heat waves, and other forms of extreme weather. The threats have never been more dire to communities across the country, including our constituents in Maryland. Coastal communities in the Chesapeake Bay region are especially vulnerable to rising sea levels; in this region, seas have already risen one foot over the past century, twice as fast as the worldwide average, and are projected to rise nearly 3 more feet by 2100. More than 100 Maryland communities are at risk of ‘nuisance flooding’ from sea level rise. Almost a third of those communities are socioeconomically disadvantaged and do not have the resources to adapt to or mitigate the local impacts. Annapolis and Baltimore are experiencing some of the most frequent nuisance flooding events in the country, which have increased more than 920 percent since 1960. Further, Maryland farmers are expected to lose between $39 million and $107 million annually in crop yields due to saltwater intrusion. Dangerous flooding also threatens Maryland communities further inland as heavy precipitation and severe storms have become more common. As of August 1st, Maryland has already recorded the most flash flood warnings in 2025 since 2020. Two years after Ellicott City was hit by a 1-in-1000 year catastrophic flash flood in 2016, which took the lives of two Marylanders, damaged over 100 businesses and 107 homes costing over $22 million in repairs, and reduced economic activity by $67.2 million, another flash flood once again destroyed the city’s Main Street and led to the death of one person. Recent flooding in the Mid-Atlantic led to the death of a child swept away by flood waters and over 200 children and students being evacuated from an elementary school in motorized boats in Western Maryland. The flood damaged drinking water systems and roads, highlighting the dangers facing all Marylanders as extreme weather wreaks havoc on the state’s infrastructure and local economies. As temperatures continue to rise, Marylanders, along with much of the rest of the nation, are threatened by heat waves of ever greater length and magnitude. Since 1900, average temperatures in Maryland have risen by roughly 2.5 ?. During the 2024 heat season, there were 1,255 heat-related medical visits in Maryland – a 53% increase from the previous year – and 26 heat-related deaths. During the ongoing 2025 heat season, one heat wave alone in late June caused 472 people to go to urgent care or the emergency room, and resulted in 7 tragic deaths. In 2025, Maryland has already had more heat deaths than in the past 13 years, having reached 29 lives lost in mid-August. A failure to seriously curtail greenhouse gas emissions will lead to hotter average temperatures and more frequent days in which the heat index crosses 105 ?, threatening to increase heat-related illness and death even further. The EPA is tasked with protecting the public from air pollution that endangers health and welfare, and this politically motivated attempt to eliminate the Endangerment Finding flies in the face of that core mission. As you know, eliminating the Endangerment Finding will undermine other protections against climate pollution: clean car and truck standards, power plant rules, oil and gas rules, landfill rules, and more. This amounts to giving polluters a free pass to pollute at the expense of families in Maryland and across the country. It means our constituents will face more climate chaos and more pollution, more health harms, and higher costs – just so the corporations responsible for the climate crisis can continue to rake in record-breaking profit. We urge you to put the welfare of people over that of polluters and maintain the Endangerment Finding. Marylanders and communities across the country should not be left to foot the bill for the climate chaos caused by polluters.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-joins-welch-colleagues-in-introducing-bill-to-restore-noaas-extreme-weather-database-keep-americans-informed-of-natural-disasters,"Van Hollen Joins Welch, Colleagues in Introducing Bill to Restore NOAA’s Extreme Weather Database, Keep Americans Informed of Natural Disasters",2025-09-17,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Seantor Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Rural Development, Energy, and Credit, in introducing the Measuring the Cost of Disasters Act, legislation that would reverse the Trump Administration’s reckless decision to terminate the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)’s extreme weather database which has been vital to keeping families, researchers, and policy makers informed on the cost of natural disasters. The legislation would require NOAA to restore and maintain the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database, which collects and publishes information on natural disasters resulting in at least $1 billion in damage each year in the United States. The Measuring the Cost of Disasters Act is cosponsored by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). “The Trump Administration continues to block any transparency when it comes to the cost of extreme weather damage, but that doesn’t make the problem go away – instead it makes it harder for us to help communities prepare for the impacts of extreme weather and leaves them vulnerable when disaster strikes. Bringing this database back online is essential to our efforts to prepare for disasters and the work of rebuilding that comes after,” said Senator Van Hollen. “The Trump Administration is on the warpath to attack science and wreck any progress we’ve made to help fight climate change. That includes the President’s decision to terminate NOAA’s extreme weather tracker, which was vital in sharing information with Vermonters during and after the brutal floods in July of 2023 and 2024. And it’s not just Vermont–this database has been absolutely essential in providing information about the cost of building back homes, businesses, and towns across the country after major weather disasters. The reality is that without this tool, we’ll be worse off and less informed about how to help our communities recover when natural disasters hit,” said Senator Welch. “Our legislation will reverse the Trump Administration’s reckless decision and restore this database so crucial to emergency preparedness and reducing costs of natural disasters.” From 1980-2024, the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database recorded 403 weather and climate disasters resulting in at least $1 billion in damages. Combined, losses from these events exceed $2.9 trillion. Over the same time period, Vermont experienced 19 natural disasters with at least $1 billion in losses, including the catastrophic flooding in July 2023. “Climate disasters are surging—in frequency, in death tolls, and in costs to our country. Instead of helping families weather the storm, the Trump administration is ripping away funding for emergency response, for building resilient communities, and for FEMA. And instead of stopping the damage, the Trump administration is hiding the evidence. I’m supporting this bill because Americans have a right to know how much these climate-fueled disasters are costing our communities,” said Senator Markey. “Western Maryland suffered devastating flash flooding this year. I saw firsthand how advance warning systems and data-sharing can help communities act fast in an emergency. We need the capacity to collect and publish information on this natural disaster – and all others – to help better prepare for the next one. Funding the NOAA’s Weather and Climate Disasters databases saves Americans lives. Trump doesn’t care, but I do. We must restore this essential service,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “With catastrophic storms and other natural disasters becoming the new norm, the American public needs more transparency and better information. Restoring NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters Database is critical to understanding the costs of extreme weather. This vital tool helps families, businesses, and public agencies as they respond to emergencies and rebuild,” said Senator Blumenthal. “NOAA’s database on the impacts of severe weather events is essential. As climate change increases the severity, frequency, and cost of these events, we must do more to help our communities prepare and respond,” said Senator Reed. “This data has been instrumental in helping communities better understand the growing toll of extreme weather. The Trump Administration’s actions to significantly downsize NOAA leaves our communities less prepared and less informed about the dangers of severe weather events.” “Trump’s megadonors want to hide the skyrocketing costs of their decades-long fossil fuel disinformation campaign. That’s why the corrupt Trump Administration shut down data reporting on billion-dollar weather disasters. Hiding the cost of climate chaos—as extreme weather grows increasingly frequent—won’t protect families and communities, but it will enable Trump’s fossil fuel patrons to keep cashing in while the rest of us pay the price,” said Senator Whitehouse. “As wildfires, drought, and floods devastate communities in Colorado and across the country, the research at NOAA has never been more essential,” said Senator Bennet. “The Trump Administration's abrupt elimination of the billion-dollar disaster database undermines our preparedness, raises recovery costs, and puts communities at even greater risk from extreme weather disasters. The database must be restored immediately to protect lives, property, and affordability.” “Climate change is making extreme weather events more frequent and more severe,” said Senator Smith. “These disasters uproot lives, damage our property, and cost Americans billions of dollars. It’s critical that NOAA continues to accurately track these events and to keep this important data publicly available for local communities to use in their emergency preparedness efforts. This bill to reinstate NOAA’s Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database will save people money by helping us be better prepared for the costs when natural disasters strike.” “Whether it’s wildfires in Oregon or flooding in Texas hill country, deadly weather events have become a way of life for too many Americans,” said Senator Wyden. “While Donald Trump forces his anti-science agenda on the American people and kneecaps federal emergency response, I’m all in to help communities better prepare for and respond to natural disasters. I’m proud to cosponsor the Measuring the Cost of Disasters Act to restore critical information for states and communities to do just that.” “Climate change is making extreme weather and disasters more frequent and increasingly catastrophic. We need clear, accessible information about the costs and impacts of these disasters,” said Senator Heinrich. “I’m proud to cosponsor legislation that will require the Trump Administration to update and make government data on extreme weather and natural disasters free and more accessible for the American people. We deserve to know why costs are surging."" Since 1980, NOAA has maintained a database of all weather disasters in the United States totaling at least $1 billion in damage. The Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database has been essential in tracking how an exponential increase in climate-driven natural disasters over the last two decades has raised costs associated with disaster recovery. The database has also helped communities and lawmakers more effectively allocate resources before extreme weather events. In 2024, the United States experienced 27 individual weather and climate disasters over $1 billion in damages, totaling more than $182.7 billion—the fourth highest on record behind 2017, 2005, and 2022. As the severity and cost of natural disasters continue to rise, research tracking the type and frequency of extreme weather events is crucial to ensuring the efficient allocation of resources and effective resilience strategies. However, in May 2025, the Trump Administration discontinued the Billion Dollar Weather and Climate Disasters database as part of its efforts to destroy programs and research related to climate change. Cancelling this publicly available database threatens emergency preparedness, undercuts science research vital to fighting climate change, and weakens national and community-level efforts to reduce the cost of disasters. Learn more about the Measuring the Cost of Disasters Act.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-introduce-resolution-to-designate-community-school-coordinators-appreciation-week,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Introduce Resolution to Designate Community School Coordinators Appreciation Week",2025-09-16,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) introduced a resolution to designate September 14 through 20, 2025 as Community School Coordinators Appreciation Week to recognize the important role that Community School Coordinators and full-service community schools play in students’ education and well-being. Senator Van Hollen was joined in introducing the resolution by U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.). Representative Judy Chu (D-Calif.) will introduce companion legislation in the House of Representatives. Community schools are public schools that provide integrated student support systems, such as counseling, medical and dental services, and transportation. They also offer well-designed and expanded learning opportunities and active family and community engagement. Community school coordinators work with the community and non-profits to identify and source additional resources to benefit students and their families. The resolution recognizes the role community school coordinators play in helping students succeed in their academic years and beyond. There are more than 700 community schools serving students across all 24 of Maryland’s school districts. “Community school coordinators dedicate themselves to helping meet children’s needs both in and outside of the classroom. I’m grateful for their tireless efforts to foster the success of students and families across this country, which is why I’m proud to recognize their hard work with this resolution. Our local community schools are valued partners, and we should support their mission – along with those they serve – to help bring greater opportunity to our students and families,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Community schools create holistic, supportive learning environments for students while building relationships with their families and the surrounding communities,” said Senator Hirono. “I’ve visited community schools in Hawaii and seen firsthand the essential role community school coordinators play in ensuring the success of these schools. As we recognize Community School Coordinators Appreciation Week, I’m proud to join my colleagues in thanking the hard work and dedication of these coordinators, as they help to enable the provision of important resources to children across the country.” The full text of the resolution is available here.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-chesapeake-bay-watershed-region-lawmakers-push-for-new-bay-agreement-that-will-tackle-pollution-preserve-the-bay,"Van Hollen, Chesapeake Bay Watershed Region Lawmakers Push for New Bay Agreement that will Tackle Pollution, Preserve the Bay",2025-09-11,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) – along with 22 bipartisan Members of Congress representing the Chesapeake Bay watershed region – called for a new Chesapeake Bay agreement that sets ambitious, measurable, and achievable targets, especially for water quality improvement and pollution reduction, in order to restore and protect the Bay. The lawmakers’ letter comes as the Chesapeake Executive Council (CEC) seeks public feedback on its “Beyond 2025” Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Revision Draft. In their letter to the CEC, the lawmakers emphasize their commitment to continuing strong federal funding for Bay restoration while stressing that a robust agreement among the states in the watershed is needed to maximize the use of those resources to address the many factors putting strain on the health of the Bay. Senator Van Hollen was joined on this letter by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senators Mark Warner (D-Va.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), as well as Representatives Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Bobby Scott (D-Va.), Rob Wittman (R-Va.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Don Beyer (D-Va.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Jen Kiggans (R-Va.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), and Eugene Vindman (D-Va.). The lawmakers wrote, “As federal representatives for the Bay region, we are working hard to ensure that we maintain strong funding for the Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program as well as the other critical federal programs that support ecosystem restoration in the Bay watershed. While federal resources will continue to play an essential role in achieving our vision of a healthy Bay, we know that we cannot arrive at our many goals through such funding alone. A robust Watershed Agreement that sets measurable targets that are both ambitious and achievable is key to unlocking the full potential of federal support for the Bay and its watershed. Therefore, we are closely monitoring the PSC’s work to update the agreement to meet current and future challenges.” They also expressed appreciation that the draft revised agreement proposes a “holistic” approach to the many challenges to the Bay’s health, writing, “Today, the Bay and its watershed face numerous interrelated and pressing challenges, including falling populations of key fish and wildlife species, emerging pollutants of concern, agricultural land and forest depletion, shifting environmental dynamics, and the prevalence of invasive species. We appreciate that the draft revised Watershed Agreement addresses these issues in a holistic manner, maintaining strong water quality and habitat restoration goals at its core, while also pursuing outcomes to deliver healthy landscapes, vibrant living resources, and engaged communities throughout the Bay.” The lawmakers go on to urge the Principals’ Staff Committee (PSC) to set new restoration goals with clear targets and timelines, linked to the legally mandated total daily maximum load (TMDL) requirements; regularly engage the public to promote transparency and accountability for carrying out the agreement; and retain flexibility to adapt to evolving science and Bay conditions. “The PSC should also seek to ensure that the final Watershed Agreement lays out clear timelines for meeting its recommended targets, particularly in relation to its water quality and pollution reduction goals. Improving water quality by reducing excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, as well as other emerging contaminants, is essential to revitalizing the Bay’s living resources and supporting local economies and recreation opportunities. […] Additionally, we urge the PSC to clearly express the relationship between these deadlines, implementation plans, and the legally mandated Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements in the finalized agreement to maintain public confidence in our shared commitments to meet our water quality goals,” they wrote. “Improving the health of the Bay will require continued cooperation from all of us at the federal, state, and local levels of government, in partnership with tribal communities, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, landowners, academic experts, and the public. As we continue our work to deliver the federal resources for the Bay necessary to achieve our goals, we encourage the PSC to put forward a bold updated Watershed Agreement that will maximize the impact of these funds and demonstrate to our constituents the importance of our collective efforts,” the lawmakers closed. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Members of the Chesapeake Executive Council: We write as Members of Congress representing the Chesapeake Bay watershed to provide feedback on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Beyond 2025 Revision Draft. We appreciate this opportunity to provide input as the Principals’ Staff Committee (PSC) continues its important work to propose updates to the 2014 Watershed Agreement at this crucial moment in our collective efforts to restore the health of the Bay and the rivers and streams throughout its watershed. As federal representatives for the Bay region, we are working hard to ensure that we maintain strong funding for the Environmental Protection Agency Chesapeake Bay Program as well as the other critical federal programs that support ecosystem restoration in the Bay watershed. While federal resources will continue to play an essential role in achieving our vision of a healthy Bay, we know that we cannot arrive at our many goals through such funding alone. A robust Watershed Agreement that sets measurable targets that are both ambitious and achievable is key to unlocking the full potential of federal support for the Bay and its watershed. Therefore, we are closely monitoring the PSC’s work to update the agreement to meet current and future challenges. Today, the Bay and its watershed face numerous interrelated and pressing challenges, including falling populations of key fish and wildlife species, emerging pollutants of concern, agricultural land and forest depletion, shifting environmental dynamics, and the prevalence of invasive species. We appreciate that the draft revised Watershed Agreement addresses these issues in a holistic manner, maintaining strong water quality and habitat restoration goals at its core, while also pursuing outcomes to deliver healthy landscapes, vibrant living resources, and engaged communities throughout the Bay. In the final updated Watershed Agreement, the PSC should strive to put forward clearly defined targets that emphasize local ecosystem and quality of life benefits where they will be felt most by our constituents in the watershed. Stating the goals of the revised agreement without ambiguity will inspire accountability among stakeholders and promote transparency in efforts to monitor and communicate progress toward these targets. To that end, the PSC should also seek to ensure that the final Watershed Agreement lays out clear timelines for meeting its recommended targets, particularly in relation to its water quality and pollution reduction goals. Improving water quality by reducing excess nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment, as well as other emerging contaminants, is essential to revitalizing the Bay’s living resources and supporting local economies and recreation opportunities. We recognize that the updated Bay water pollution model is forthcoming and will inform the long-term targets that are set, and we appreciate that the draft revised Watershed Agreement sets a December 2030 deadline for revising pollution reduction targets and implementation plans based on the updated model. Additionally, we urge the PSC to clearly express the relationship between these deadlines, implementation plans, and the legally mandated Chesapeake Bay Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) requirements in the finalized agreement to maintain public confidence in our shared commitments to meet our water quality goals. Furthermore, public understanding of the goals and mechanisms of the updated Watershed Agreement will be crucial to its successful implementation. Therefore, in the final agreement, the PSC should strive to use specific but accessible language so that the public can hold the signatories accountable for making progress toward stated targets. We also encourage the agreement’s signatories and implementing partners to continue active public engagement after the updated agreement is finalized to ensure that our constituents can monitor its progress and have additional opportunities to provide feedback. Finally, we applaud the PSC for including mechanisms for adaptive management in the draft agreement, which are crucial to ensuring that the finalized Watershed Agreement is informed by the most up-to-date science and capable of responding to changing environmental conditions. Uncertainty caused by shifting ecological dynamics has complicated the task of restoring the Bay and exacerbated many of the fundamental challenges to our efforts. Ensuring flexibility to respond to new obstacles as they arise will be necessary to support the updated agreement’s continued success. Improving the health of the Bay will require continued cooperation from all of us at the federal, state, and local levels of government, in partnership with tribal communities, non-governmental organizations, private businesses, landowners, academic experts, and the public. As we continue our work to deliver the federal resources for the Bay necessary to achieve our goals, we encourage the PSC to put forward a bold updated Watershed Agreement that will maximize the impact of these funds and demonstrate to our constituents the importance of our collective efforts. We appreciate this opportunity to provide feedback on the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Agreement Beyond 2025 Revision Draft and look forward to reviewing the finalized document. Thank you for your consideration and ongoing partnership as we work toward a healthy Bay and watershed for all.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-merkley-release-report-detailing-findings-on-humanitarian-situation-in-gaza-following-recent-codel-to-gaza-border-israel-west-bank-jordan-egypt,"Van Hollen, Merkley Release Report Detailing Findings on Humanitarian Situation in Gaza, Following Recent CODEL to Gaza Border, Israel, West Bank, Jordan, Egypt",2025-09-11,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) released a report they have compiled detailing their findings on the humanitarian situation in Gaza, following their recent CODEL to the Gaza border, Israel, the West Bank, Jordan, and Egypt. The Senators returned last Tuesday from the region where they saw firsthand the challenges facing humanitarian aid efforts into Gaza and pressed for an immediate ceasefire and the return of all hostages. During their visit, the Senators witnessed the distribution of humanitarian aid, including at the Rafah and Kerem Shalom border crossings into Gaza and around the Jordan aid corridor. In their report, the Senators put forward their conclusion that the Netanyahu government is implementing a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians. The full report is available here. Footage of the Senators’ press conference on the release of the report is available here. “It’s clear that the Netanyahu government has gone far beyond targeting Hamas and is instead imposing collective punishment on all the people of Gaza. In this report, we detail key findings from our trip that support that conclusion and demonstrate that the Netanyahu government is now implementing a plan to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians and is using hunger as a weapon of war. We hope this report will draw greater attention to these facts both here and around the world. We will do everything in our power to end America’s ongoing complicity in this humanitarian disaster. The world must unite to stop it,” said Senator Van Hollen. “The goals of the Netanyahu government are clear: to ethnically cleanse Gaza of Palestinians through a campaign of destruction and deprivation,” said Senator Merkley. “Our report details what we saw during our recent trip to the region, including the destruction of Rafah that has reduced the city to rubble, and what we heard from experts in the field about how the Netanyahu government is systematically depriving Palestinians of the essentials needed to live - food, shelter, medicine, and water. It’s time for U.S. complicity in these atrocities to end.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-shaheen-statement-on-violence-and-unrest-in-nepal,"Van Hollen, Shaheen Statement on Violence and Unrest in Nepal",2025-09-11,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ranking Member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, issued the following statement on reports that hundreds of civilians have been injured and over 20 Nepali citizens killed in protests sparked by the government’s social media ban and citizens’ mounting frustration with economic inequality and corruption: ""The violence, loss of life and destruction that have taken place in Nepal in recent days are unacceptable, and our hearts go out to the victims and their families. We call on all parties to exercise restraint and urge full accountability for any disproportionate use of force against civilians. Nepal has made significant democratic gains over the past two decades, and those hard-fought achievements must be preserved, including the rights to peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. A peaceful, democratic and stable Nepal is in the interests of its people, the United States and the region. That requires addressing corruption and institutional weaknesses that continue to erode public trust in the Nepali government.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-colleagues-urge-administration-to-reinstate-fair-pay-rule-for-workers-with-disabilities,"Van Hollen, Colleagues Urge Administration to Reinstate Fair Pay Rule for Workers with Disabilities",2025-09-10,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and eight of his Senate colleagues urged the U.S. Department of Labor to reverse its July decision to cancel a proposed rule to end the subminimum wage program, which permits employers to pay American workers with disabilities far below the federal minimum wage. In their letter to U.S. Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, the lawmakers stress that the subminimum wage represents a denial of these workers’ rights to equal opportunity amid a decades-long expansion of initiatives that help equip people with disabilities with the tools and skills to compete in the workforce for fair pay. This letter comes after Senator Van Hollen in July introduced the Transformation to Competitive Integrated Employment Act, bipartisan, bicameral legislation to phase out the subminimum wage nationwide over five years and provide resources to facilitate this transition in the dozens of states that have not yet phased it out. Senator Van Hollen was joined on this letter by Senators John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.). “We write today to express our grave disappointment in your Department’s decision to withdraw the proposed rule that would phase out remaining special certificates under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As long as the subminimum wage program is allowed to continue, people with disabilities are denied their fundamental right to equal opportunity by being paid less than half the federal minimum wage on average with some making pennies per hour,” the Senators began. “In the past ten years alone, sixteen states have eliminated subminimum wages with more states taking steps toward meaningful reform. As you noted during a recent hearing, the subminimum wages for workers with disabilities is not a partisan issue. This is further reflected through the nearly 18,000 comments on the proposed rule with an overwhelming majority support for phasing out special certificates under Section 14(c),” they continued. “The Department of Labor’s decision to withdraw this rule will continue to curtail the economic potential of Americans with disabilities and stands at odds with a skilled workforce this Administration seeks to promote. We urge you to change course and take meaningful steps to end subminimum wages for workers with disabilities,” the Senators concluded. Text of the letter can be viewed here and below. Dear Secretary Chavez-DeRemer: We write today to express our grave disappointment in your Department’s decision to withdraw the proposed rule that would phase out remaining special certificates under Section 14(c) of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). As long as the subminimum wage program is allowed to continue, people with disabilities are denied their fundamental right to equal opportunity by being paid less than half the federal minimum wage on average with some making pennies per hour. In the past ten years alone, sixteen states have eliminated subminimum wages with more states taking steps toward meaningful reform. As you noted during a recent hearing, the subminimum wage for workers with disabilities is not a partisan issue. This is further reflected through the nearly 18,000 comments on the proposed rule with an overwhelming majority support for phasing out special certificates under Section 14(c). Since the FLSA’s enactment in 1938, opportunities and training have dramatically expanded to help people with disabilities obtain and maintain competitive integrated employment. The payment of subminimum wages no longer comports with modern disability policy, including the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act. The evolving workforce renders Section 14(c) obsolete as there are alternative programs that support the hiring of workers with disabilities, such as the Work Opportunity Tax Credit. The Department of Labor’s decision to withdraw this rule will continue to curtail the economic potential of Americans with disabilities and stands at odds with a skilled workforce this Administration seeks to promote. We urge you to change course and take meaningful steps to end subminimum wages for workers with disabilities.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-dacara-thompson,Van Hollen Statement on Da’Cara Thompson,2025-09-10,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) made the following statement on Da’Cara Thompson and law enforcement’s apprehension of her suspected killer: “Da’Cara Thompson’s murder is a horrific tragedy – as a father it is heart-wrenching to imagine the pain her family is feeling right now. My thoughts and prayers are with the family – and I am thankful to our state and local law enforcement, who have prioritized this investigation since she was reported missing and swiftly brought her suspected killer into custody. While nothing will heal the pain of Ms. Thompson’s loss, we must ensure that the perpetrator of this crime faces the full weight of the law and our justice system.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-congressional-delegation-members-announce-over-11-million-to-support-students-at-baltimore-area-community-colleges,Maryland Congressional Delegation Members Announce Over $1.1 Million to Support Students at Baltimore-Area Community Colleges,2025-09-05,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Kweisi Mfume and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) announced $1,127,448 in federal funding for community colleges in Baltimore City and Baltimore County to support low-income students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities as they pursue their degree. “A quality education opens doors to good-paying jobs and meaningful opportunities, but many still face unnecessary and unfair barriers to academic achievement – especially when it comes to college. These federal investments will enable Baltimore-area community colleges to provide students with the resources they need to overcome obstacles and succeed in school and beyond,” said the lawmakers. The federal grants have been awarded as follows: $712,158 to Community College of Baltimore County $415,290 to Baltimore City Community College The federal funding comes from the U.S. Department of Education's TRIO Student Support Services grant program, which supports preparation and guidance for students as they pursue education beyond high school. This program was funded at $1.91 billion through the FY25 government funding bill.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-norton-file-bills-to-grant-dc-full-control-over-its-national-guard-police,"Van Hollen, Norton File Bills to Grant D.C. Full Control Over Its National Guard, Police",2025-09-05,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"This week, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) reintroduced their legislation to grant the District of Columbia full control over the D.C. National Guard and the Metropolitan Police Department, as the Trump Administration has asserted federal control over the D.C. police department and kept its National Guard deployed in City streets for weeks. The formal introduction of these bills comes after the lawmakers announced in August their intention to do so in response to President Trump’s federalization of the Metropolitan Police Department and deployment of the National Guard. The urgent need for these measures has only grown as the Administration reportedly has extended the D.C. National Guard’s deployment through November 30 and Congressional Republicans plan more attacks on the District of Columbia’s self-governance. “In a raw power grab, Donald Trump has overtaken D.C.’s police and brought in the National Guard to satisfy his desire to play dictator in our nation’s capital. As he looks to extend his authoritarian control over D.C., it is urgent that we act now to ensure the District’s leaders have the same authority over its National Guard and police force as other states and territories – while we continue to fight for D.C. statehood. If Trump and Republicans actually cared about the people of D.C. and their safety, they’d get out of the way of D.C.’s leaders and residents and allow them to manage the District and their own funds. Trump and Republicans’ continued withholding of over $1 billion of those funds is unacceptable,” said Senator Van Hollen. The Senator introduced bipartisan legislation with Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) to unlock the over $1 billion of D.C.’s own funds that Republicans unnecessarily froze through their funding bill in March. Their bill passed the Senate unanimously, but House Republicans have still not brought it up for a vote – preventing D.C. from investing further in strengthening policing and other vital public services. “D.C. residents are Americans, fully capable of governing themselves, including having full control of their police force and National Guard like residents of the states,” Congresswoman Norton said. “President Trump's unprecedented federalization of the D.C. Police and his activation of the D.C. National Guard without D.C.'s consent underscore the necessity of D.C. statehood. Until we get the full protections that statehood would provide, our bills repealing the president's authority to federalize the local D.C. police department and to give D.C.'s mayor control over the D.C. National Guard, like governors of states have over their National Guards, would place D.C. closer to having control over some of its most vital affairs and equality with the states, as we deserve. Senator Van Hollen, thank you for being D.C.'s determined partner in the Senate and a vigorous advocate for D.C. home rule.” The District of Columbia Police Home Rule Act would repeal the provision in the Home Rule Act that gives the President the authority to federalize the Metropolitan Police Department. The Home Rule Act provides that, “whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the mayor to provide him, and the mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.” This bill is cosponsored by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-06T19:10:29Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-markey-meng-slam-fcc-proposal-to-rip-internet-access-away-from-students,"Van Hollen, Markey, Meng Slam FCC Proposal to Rip Internet Access Away from Students",2025-09-03,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee, and Representative Grace Meng (D-N.Y.) released the following statement after Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr announced the FCC would vote to overturn its rule allowing schools and libraries to use their E-Rate funds to loan Wi-Fi hotspots to students and educators. “With today’s announcement, the Trump FCC will rip internet access away from students and educators across the country. This decision ignores the needs of American families and instead advances a damaging ideological crusade, ultimately harming students, pushing them to fall further behind their connected classmates, and widening the Homework Gap. It’s unfair, unnecessary, and saves no money. This decision flies in the face of the FCC’s mission and hurts learners and library patrons across the country.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T15:07:37Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/-maryland-congressional-delegation-members-announce-726497-to-support-students-at-prince-georges-montgomery-county-community-colleges,"Maryland Congressional Delegation Members Announce $726,497 to Support Students at Prince George’s, Montgomery County Community Colleges",2025-09-02,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Steny Hoyer, Jamie Raskin, Glenn Ivey and April McClain Delaney (all D-Md.) announced $726,497 in federal funding for community colleges in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties to support low-income students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities as they pursue higher education. “A quality education opens doors to good-paying jobs and meaningful opportunities, but many still face unnecessary and unfair barriers to academic achievement – especially when it comes to college. These federal investments will enable community colleges in Prince George’s and Montgomery Counties to provide students with the resources they need to overcome obstacles and succeed in college and beyond,” said the lawmakers. The federal grants have been awarded as follows: $440,388 to Prince George's Community College $286,109 to Montgomery College The federal funding comes from the U.S. Department of Education's TRIO Student Support Services grant program, which supports preparation and guidance for students as they pursue education beyond high school. This program was funded at $1.91 billion through the FY25 government funding bill.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T15:07:37Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/senators-van-hollen-markey-congresswoman-dingell-slam-decision-on-national-green-bank-funding,"Van Hollen, Markey, Dingell Slam Decision on National Green Bank Funding",2025-09-02,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Senator Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.), and Congresswoman Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) slammed the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit that ruled in favor of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The court held that the district court lacked jurisdiction to decide whether the EPA could seize congressionally approved federal funds from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and that the awardees’ claims will have to be litigated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. This ruling dissolved the district court’s injunction ordering the EPA and Citibank to continue to fund the grants, opening the door for the EPA to proceed with its efforts to withdraw grant funding from the awardees’ accounts. These programs, which are part of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund, leverage private capital to cut energy bills for families and small businesses, improve resiliency against climate change-fueled disasters, and create local economic opportunity while combating climate change. “The EPA under the Biden administration managed the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund and awarded funds after a rigorous and transparent process. Taking the Trump EPA’s baseless arguments at face value, today’s D.C. Circuit decision allows the Administration to claw back this important funding and bestows yet another gift to fossil fuel special interests. We won’t stop fighting to ensure that our Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund can continue to work for the American people by lowering energy bills and strengthening our energy independence, despite the Trump administration’s attempt to unlawfully seize these important investments. This program is set to unleash American ingenuity, cut costs, and breathe clean air—we will not stand for Trump’s attempts to break the law to keep that from happening for his own political purposes,” said the lawmakers. The Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund is a $27 billion national climate financing network based on the National Climate Bank Act, authored by Senators Van Hollen and Markey and Congresswoman Dingell, provisions of which were included in the Inflation Reduction Act. Following the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act in 2022, Senators Markey and Van Hollen and Congresswoman Dingell—the House lead on the climate financing legislation—welcomed the launch of the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund in April 2023.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T15:07:37Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-trump-politicizing-federal-law-enforcement-in-baltimore,Van Hollen Statement on Trump Politicizing Federal Law Enforcement in Baltimore,2025-09-02,2025,2025-09,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) made the following statement on President Donald Trump’s threats to politicize federal law enforcement in Baltimore: “Trump should stop playing political games with federal law enforcement. We’ve already worked successfully to increase the presence of FBI, DEA, and ATF agents in Baltimore and, by working in coordination with the Mayor and local law enforcement, we have made important progress in strengthening public safety. There is certainly more work ahead and we always welcome additional federal resources to reinforce local efforts, but Trump’s threats to invade our cities are not the answer; they are designed to distract from his failures to put forward real solutions to these and other issues facing our communities, like rising prices and the increasing cost of living. Instead of politicizing our great City of Baltimore, Trump should stop bloviating and let federal, state, and local law enforcement do their jobs.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T15:07:37Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-announce-over-12-million-to-support-students-at-eastern-shore-colleges,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Announce Over $1.2 Million to Support Students at Eastern Shore Colleges",2025-08-29,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) announced $1,214,311 in federal funding for higher education institutions on the Eastern Shore to support low-income students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities as they pursue their degree. “A quality education opens doors to good-paying jobs and meaningful opportunities, but many still face unnecessary and unfair barriers to academic achievement – especially when it comes to college. These federal investments will enable the Eastern Shore’s colleges to provide students with the resources they need to overcome obstacles and succeed in school and beyond,” said Senator Van Hollen. “I believe every person should have access to a great education, which is why I am so proud to work alongside Senator Van Hollen to secure funding for our colleges on the Eastern Shore. Education unlocks opportunities to succeed. Not only will this funding help support students in need of additional resources, it will ultimately fuel our economy and create our next generation of leaders,” said Senator Alsobrooks. The federal grants have been awarded as follows: $669583 to Chesapeake College $272,364 to Wor-Wic Community College $272,364 to Salisbury University The federal funding comes from the U.S. Department of Education's TRIO Student Support Services grant program, which supports preparation and guidance for students as they pursue education beyond high school. This program was funded at $1.91 billion through the FY25 government funding bill.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/maryland-delegation-members-urge-usda-to-keep-beltsville-agricultural-research-center-open-detailing-harms-to-american-farmers-if-shuttered,"Maryland Delegation Members Urge USDA to Keep Beltsville Agricultural Research Center Open, Detailing Harms to American Farmers if Shuttered",2025-08-28,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representatives Glenn Ivey, Steny Hoyer, Kweisi Mfume, Jamie Raskin, Sarah Elfreth, April McClain Delaney, and Johnny Olszewski (all D-Md.) warned U.S. Department of Agriculture leadership that closing the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Prince George’s County, as proposed in its reorganization plan announced last month, would irreparably undermine U.S. agricultural innovation and harm the countless farmers who depend on BARC’s research. In their letter submitted for the USDA’s official comment period on its reorganization plan, the lawmakers urge the agency to keep BARC open, pointing out that the required Congressional approval has not been granted for the agency to carry out such a large-scale restructuring effort. They also outline how a move or relocation of BARC will waste taxpayer dollars while jeopardizing the success of American farmers in the immediate and long term – upending important research that can’t be replicated elsewhere. “We strongly oppose the USDA’s proposed reorganization plan which includes the closure of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland,” the lawmakers began. “For over 100 years, BARC has been an engine of agricultural research and innovation and the site of numerous research breakthroughs. BARC’s unique capacity has made it the nation’s premier agricultural research facility, and its closure would be deeply harmful to American farmers, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars. We also have significant concerns about the lack of transparency and the legality of USDA’s proposed plan. We urge you to keep BARC open and to provide a detailed accounting of the full impact of the proposed reorganization plan.” The lawmakers go on to lay out a thorough, detailed case for BARC and its employees to remain operational in the current location, stressing the following points: The plan to close BARC requires Congressional approval; moving forward without it would be illegal; The plan to close BARC would waste federal resources; BARC is a world leader in agricultural research – its closure will irreparably harm the United States’ leadership in agricultural production and research; BARC helps to train the next generation of agricultural researchers, on whom the future of American agricultural innovation depends; BARC’s geographic location provides unique benefits to American agricultural research that cannot be replicated elsewhere; BARC provides regionally-tailored research to the 83,000 farms throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the loss of which jeopardizes $10 billion in agricultural productivity; Key BARC research projects cannot be relocated, and decades of work may be lost completely if BARC closes; Closing BARC and relocating key research activities will not result in lower cost of living for USDA employees; and No USDA reorganization plan should move forward without a thorough benefit-cost analysis that includes a full accounting of the potential impacts of closing BARC. “BARC’s excellence in agricultural research is of enormous value to the nation, and so we urge you not to close this critical facility. We also urge USDA to ensure full transparency in any potential reorganization and to follow the letter of the law. We request an urgent meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss our concerns,” the lawmakers concluded. A copy of the letter is available here and below. Dear Secretary Rollins and Deputy Secretary Vaden, We strongly oppose the USDA’s proposed reorganization plan which includes the closure of the Beltsville Agricultural Research Center (BARC) in Beltsville, Maryland. For over 100 years, BARC has been an engine of agricultural research and innovation and the site of numerous research breakthroughs. BARC’s unique capacity has made it the nation’s premier agricultural research facility, and its closure would be deeply harmful to American farmers, as well as a waste of taxpayer dollars. We also have significant concerns about the lack of transparency and the legality of USDA’s proposed plan. We urge you to keep BARC open and to provide a detailed accounting of the full impact of the proposed reorganization plan. The plan to close BARC requires Congressional approval; moving forward without it would be illegal. Section 716 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 requires Congressional approval of USDA relocation and reorganization activities before any funding for such activity is obligated or expended through a reprogramming, transfer of funds, or reimbursement; no such approval has been requested or granted. Since any action to carry out the proposed reorganization will undoubtedly require the obligation or expenditure described in Section 716, we expect USDA to seek Congressional approval before taking any final action on the proposed reorganization plan. Furthermore, we caution you that Section 750 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024 prohibits USDA from moving any staff office from one mission area to another without enactment of specific legislation authorizing such a move. The plan to close BARC would waste federal resources. USDA has already invested more than $174 million in BARC facility upgrades and repairs; abandoning a facility right after USDA has made such significant upgrades to it is illogical and wasteful. As one of the world's largest agricultural research complexes, relocating personnel, as well as all the lab and research equipment, will undoubtedly be a major expense. Furthermore, existing law prevents USDA from selling, leasing, excessing, surplussing or otherwise disposing of BARC land without the specific approval of Congress. Lacking said Congressional approval, which USDA has not secured, the 6,500-acre facility must remain under USDA ownership and stewardship, even if USDA moves forward with the proposal to close BARC. Given USDA’s significant investment in BARC, and the lack of Congressional approval for disposing of the property, closing this critical research facility amounts to an incredible waste of taxpayer dollars. BARC is a world leader in agricultural research; its closure will irreparably harm the United States’ leadership in agricultural production and research. Established in 1910, BARC has been the site of numerous agricultural breakthroughs that have helped to make the United States an agricultural powerhouse – discoveries that have improved food safety, human health and nutrition, pest and disease control strategies, and agricultural production. As the largest and most diversified agricultural research center in the world, BARC’s agricultural research capacity is unparalleled. Just as capacity was lost at USDA research agencies the last time a reorganization took place, closing BARC, as USDA’s preeminent agricultural research center, will undoubtedly result in a level of lost talent and expertise that will negatively impact American agricultural research – as well as agricultural production. Agricultural research is the backbone of American agricultural production; the innovation occurring at facilities like BARC is what helps ensure the continued competitiveness of American agriculture on the global stage. We are especially concerned about what lost capacity and expertise at BARC will mean for the future of the agriculture industries that are actively served by BARC research, including the poultry, dairy, soybean, and honeybee industries among many others. BARC helps to train the next generation of agricultural researchers, on whom the future of American agricultural innovation depends.Maintaining a vibrant agricultural research workforce supports American agriculture. BARC already has an impressive track record of training new talent. As USDA itself has said: “Many laboratories in the Beltsville area have strong connections to nearby colleges and universities. In addition to forging research collaborations with scientists at these institutions, Beltsville advances STEM education by hosting numerous student interns throughout the year. In 2023, researchers at BARC, BHNRC, and USNA mentored over 240 trainees at the high school, undergraduate, graduate, and postdoctoral level, supporting the development of early career STEM professionals. Through coordination with academic institutions, the Beltsville location plays an important role in supporting the next generation agricultural science leaders.” BARC’s geographic location provides unique benefits to American agricultural research that cannot be replicated elsewhere. Located close to freshwater and saltwater, mountains and costal lowlands, and situated within the fertile Piedmont Plateau, BARC is within reach of diverse landscapes and a range of climatic conditions. This geography makes it an ideal location for an agriculture research station and its proximity to the nation’s capital allows BARC to take advantage of several key efficiencies. For example: BARC works closely with numerous federal agencies and universities in the Washington, D.C. area. BARC effectively leverages its own limited resources through collaborations and partnerships with these neighboring institutions, enabling the facility to cut costs and access a wide range of scientific expertise in a way that is not replicable outside of this region. Because of BARC’s proximity to so many other scientific institutions, as well as its long history in Beltsville, there exists an ecosystem of support services that helps BARC run efficiently. From equipment installation and calibration to maintenance and repair – BARC’s location allows it to easily access and share these types of support services that are already available in the greater Washington, D.C. area given the high density of scientific research that occurs there. In addition, the area has a large number of federal contractors who are skilled at supporting BARC’s day-to-day operations. BARC’s proximity to three major airports makes it accessible to collaborators and visitors from around the world and, as your own Department notes, “[BARC’s] proximity to Washington D.C. makes it an optimal destination for congressional visits and agricultural demonstrations. Beltsville can provide a window into the full scope of ARS research for policymakers, stakeholders, and diplomats, right in the nation’s capital. Strong ARS research capacity in the greater D.C. area brings food and agricultural issues to the forefront of federal policy and allows for improved coordination across agencies with related missions.” BARC provides regionally-tailored research to the 83,000 farms throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed, the loss of which jeopardizes $10 billion in agricultural productivity. One of the stated goals in the July 24, 2025 Secretary Memorandum regarding the Department of Agriculture Reorganization Plan is to “bring USDA closer to its customers by relocating resources outside of the National Capital region.” However, by eliminating BARC, what this plan actually does is eliminate the research hub serving the entire Northeast Region – from Virginia to Maine. Farmers in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed will feel this loss most acutely given BARC’s record of pursuing research topics specific to the watershed. According to USDA, there are around 83,000 farms in the Chesapeake Bay watershed with nearly 30% of the 64,000-square-mile watershed dedicated to farming. These farms collectively produce over $10 billion annually in agricultural sales per year and grow over 50 different commodities, from staple crops like corn, wheat, and soy to specialty crops like fruits and vegetables. The closure of BARC will leave this key agricultural region under-resourced. Key BARC research projects cannot be relocated, and decades of work may be lost completely if BARC closes. BARC carries out long-term, place-based research that takes place both in field sites on BARC’s grounds and in sites located in the surrounding area. Various research projects depend on these research sites remaining constant; this allows scientists to collect long-term data, observe changes and effectively isolate different variables over time by keeping the site environment constant. For example, BARC hosts the Lower Chesapeake Bay Long Term Agricultural Research Network (LCB-LTAR), which involves several major field experiments at BARC that would be impossible to physically relocate without compromising the experiments. This research has been and continues to be critical for informing agricultural conservation practices in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed and beyond. Closing BARC and relocating key research activities will not result in lower cost of living for USDA employees. In the Senate Agriculture Committee hearing titled “Review of the USDA Reorganization Plan” on July 30, 2025, Deputy Secretary Vaden stated that: “One of [USDA’s] principal considerations for where to put our regional hubs was cost of living. We want people to come to USDA for a career, to start a family, and to stay with us. And unfortunately, given the cost of living in the National Capital Region, [employees] can no longer do that in the District of Columbia.” However, BARC is located in Prince George’s County, Maryland – not the District of Columbia. The cost of living in Prince George’s County is significantly lower than in the District of Columbia, at an estimated at $121,972 per year for a two-parent, two-child family. The new hubs you propose are in counties that have costs of living that range from $124,856 in Larimer County, CO (Fort Collins) to $101,965 per year in Marion County, IN (Indianapolis). The cost of living in Prince George’s County clearly falls within the cost-of-living range of the proposed hub locations; if cost of living for USDA employees is truly a “principal consideration” of USDA’s proposed relocation plan, as Deputy Secretary Vaden claimed in the hearing, then USDA cannot credibly claim that BARC’s closure has anything to do with affordability concerns on behalf of USDA employees, especially when those employees have not even been consulted on the reorganization plan. No USDA reorganization plan should move forward without a thorough benefit-cost analysis that includes a full accounting of the potential impacts of closing BARC. In the Senate Agriculture Hearing, Deputy Secretary Vaden claimed that the proposed reorganization plan would save $4 billion. However, USDA has provided no credible information to back up this statement. Americans deserve an accurate, transparent assessment that analyzes both the costs and benefits of the proposed USDA reorganization plan before any action is taken to close BARC and the other National Capitol Region facilities. Such an assessment should be shared publicly after review by the Inspector General to ensure that it fully accounts for all major impacts of the proposed relocations and closures – including the specific impacts of closing BARC as well as any impacts to USDA’s ability to fulfill its mission areas. BARC’s excellence in agricultural research is of enormous value to the nation, and so we urge you not to close this critical facility. We also urge USDA to ensure full transparency in any potential reorganization and to follow the letter of the law. We request an urgent meeting with you at your earliest convenience to discuss our concerns.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-mcclain-delaney-announce-684537-to-support-students-at-western-maryland-colleges,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, McClain Delaney Announce $684,537 to Support Students at Western Maryland Colleges",2025-08-27,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks and U.S. Representative April McClain Delaney (all D-Md.) announced $684,537 in federal funding for higher education institutions in Western Maryland to support low-income students, first-generation students, and students with disabilities as they pursue their degree. “A quality education opens doors to good-paying jobs and meaningful opportunities, but many still face unnecessary and unfair barriers to academic achievement – especially when it comes to college. These federal investments will enable Frostburg State University and Allegany College of Maryland to provide students in Western Maryland with the resources they need to overcome obstacles and succeed in college and beyond,” said Senator Van Hollen. “Education is the great equalizer. This funding will support the talented students in Western Maryland to be our next generation of leaders, scientists, doctors, lawyers, and more. As one of the fastest-growing areas in Maryland, Western Maryland continues to spur innovation and change. Investing in our students will only continue to fuel the region and entire state,” said Senator Alsobrooks. “Every student in Western Maryland deserves the opportunity to reach their full potential,” said Congresswoman McClain Delaney. “This week, I had the privilege of visiting Allegany College of Maryland and witnessing firsthand the dedication and drive of its students and faculty. Investing in our students strengthens our local communities, fuels our regional economies, and keeps our nation competitive on the global stage. I’m proud to support our students as they pursue their dreams and build a brighter future for themselves and for all of Western Maryland.” The federal grants have been awarded as follows: $412,173 to Frostburg State University $272,364 to Allegany College of Maryland The federal funding comes from the U.S. Department of Education's TRIO Student Support Services grant program, which supports preparation and guidance for students as they pursue education beyond high school. This program was funded at $1.91 billion through the FY25 government funding bill.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-kilmar-abrego-garcia-being-taken-into-ice-custody,Van Hollen Statement on Kilmar Ábrego García Being Taken into ICE Custody,2025-08-25,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement on Kilmar Ábrego García being taken into custody by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): “While ICE is holding Kilmar Ábrego García and keeping his lawyers in the dark as to what is next for him, Administration officials continue to spread lies about the facts in his case. Instead of spewing unproven allegations in the press and social media, the Trump Administration needs to put up or shut up in court and allow Mr. Ábrego García the opportunity to defend himself. That is the right to due process that he and everyone else living in America is afforded by our Constitution, and we will keep fighting to ensure that right is honored.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-meeting-with-kilmar-abrego-garcia,Van Hollen Statement on Meeting with Kilmar Ábrego García,2025-08-24,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement after meeting virtually this morning with Kilmar Ábrego García and his wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura: “I was glad to have the opportunity to speak with Kilmar Ábrego García this morning and welcome him back to Maryland after what has been a long and torturous nightmare. It was the first time I have talked to him since our meeting in El Salvador. During our conversation, I shared with him that I and many others have been fighting for months to ensure that his constitutional due process rights were respected despite Trump’s efforts to deny them at every turn. The federal courts and public outcry forced the Administration to bring Ábrego García back to Maryland, but Trump’s cronies continue to lie about the facts in his case and they are engaged in a malicious abuse of power as they threaten to deport him to Uganda – to block his chance to defend himself against the new charges they brought. As I told Kilmar and his wife Jennifer, we will stay in this fight for justice and due process because if his rights are denied, the rights of everyone else are put at risk.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-reports-of-administrations-intent-to-send-kilmar-abrego-garcia-to-uganda,Van Hollen Statement on Reports of Administration’s Intent to Send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda,2025-08-23,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement regarding reports that the Administration intends to send Kilmar Abrego Garcia to Uganda: “Kilmar Abrego García deserves his day in court. But Trump Administration officials — who continue to make public statements about his case that have been expressly repudiated by the courts — would rather insult judges and circumvent our justice system than uphold people’s constitutional rights.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-alsobrooks-announce-over-1-million-to-support-eastern-shore-airports,"Van Hollen, Alsobrooks Announce Over $1 Million to Support Eastern Shore Airports",2025-08-22,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen and Angela Alsobrooks (both D-Md.) announced $1,088,658 in federal funding for infrastructure projects at local airports on the Eastern Shore. These investments are provided through the Airport Infrastructure Grant (AIG) program, which was created and funded at $15 billion through the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act passed by Congress in 2021, and the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), which also receives significant funding from Congress. “The Eastern Shore’s airports support regional commerce and bolster the local economy. That’s why we’ve worked to deliver investments in modernizing our local airports to ensure they can meet growing demands. This funding will support those efforts and help ensure our airports can continue to serve Marylander, visitors and businesses alike,” said Senator Van Hollen. “These regional airports help keep our Eastern Shore connected to the rest of the world, and it is our responsibility that they are functioning with the best infrastructure, most updated technology, and strongest structural integrity. We will keep investing in Maryland’s infrastructure to build a stronger, more resilient state,” said Senator Alsobrooks. The federal grants have been awarded as follows: $808,408 to Cambridge-Dorchester Regional Airport to rehabilitate about 4,500 feet of Runway 16/34 and 1,400 feet of Taxiway A to maintain the pavement’s structural integrity and keep the infrastructure up-to-date, and to improve lighting infrastructure on multiple runways and taxiways.",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases/van-hollen-statement-on-kilmar-abrego-garcia,Van Hollen Statement on Kilmar Abrego Garcia,2025-08-22,2025,2025-08,Democrat,Senate,MD,Chris Van Hollen,V000128,www.vanhollen.senate.gov,vanhollen,https://www.vanhollen.senate.gov/news/press-releases,scraper,"Today, U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) released the following statement regarding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from custody: “Despite the Trump Administration’s relentless efforts to defy our Constitution, our legal system has worked its will and is upholding Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s right to due process. Following the court’s ruling, I’m glad that he is being returned to his home and his family, where he rightly belongs. While I have no doubt the Administration will continue its attempts to undermine Mr. Abrego Garcia’s rights, we will continue fighting to see them maintained – because due process in this case does not end with his release. Mr. Abrego Garcia must continue to be allowed to defend himself in court, where the Trump Administration must make its case before taking any further action against him. This is a matter that’s greater than just this one case or one man – if one person’s rights are denied, then the rights of all of us are at risk.”",1,2026-03-30T01:40:41Z,2026-04-07T14:57:50Z