WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Steve Daines (R-MT) today introduced the bipartisan “Access to Fair Financing for Opportunity and Resilient Development (AFFORD) Act.” The AFFORD Act will provide added transparency over CDFI Fund operations and strengthen its role in improving capital access and economic development in rural, tribal, and other underserved communities in Montana, Virginia, and across the country. Additionally, the bill would extend and enhance the CDFI Bond Guarantee Program to enable participation by smaller CDFIs, reauthorizes the CDFI liquidity enhancement program to increase CDFI lending capacity and reach more communities, and bolsters the role of Native CDFIs by expanding a USDA CDFI relending program that partners with Native CDFIs to deploy mortgage loans to eligible Native borrowers.

“CDFIs are critical in bringing capital and financial services to rural, tribal, and underserved communities, and they can be significant partners for local governments to battle rising costs and affordability. I’m proud to be introducing the AFFORD Act, which will expand the capacity of CDFIs so they can reach more communities across Virginia,” said Sen. Warner.  

“CDFIs help hardworking families and small business owners in Montana gain access to the opportunities and capital they need for financial success, especially in Montana’s rural and tribal communities. It’s critical we improve transparency surrounding the operations of the CDFI Fund to ensure its programs continue to serve the vital role of increasing economic development and helping Montana communities thrive. I’m glad to introduce the AFFORD Act, which will do just that,” said Sen. Daines.

U.S. Sens. Mike Crapo (R-ID), Tina Smith (D-MN), Mike Rounds (R-SD), Jim Risch (R-ID), Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Jim Justice (R-WV), Deb Fischer (R-NE), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Roger Wicker (R-MS), Kristen Gillibrand (D-NY), Chris Coons (D-DE), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Gary Peters (D-MI), Dan Sullivan (R-AK), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Cindy Hyde-Smith (D-MS), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Katie Britt (R-AL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Kevin Cramer (R-ND), John Boozman (R-AR) and Martin Heinrich (D-NM) joined Sens. Warner and Daines in introducing the bill.

Read the bill text here.

Background:

Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs) play a critical role in bringing capital and financial services to a wide range of small businesses and families across Montana.  The “CDFI Fund Transparency Act” would require the Secretary of the Treasury to testify annually before the Senate Banking and House Financial Services Committees regarding the operations of the CDFI Fund during the previous fiscal year.

Sen. Warner leads the bipartisan Senate CDFI Caucus. In March, he led his colleagues in sending a letter to Secretary of Tresury Scott Bessent emphasizing the bipartisan support for the CDFI Fund and highlighting the Fund’s critical role in providing capital to underserved communities.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine, a member of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, (both D-VA) joined Senate colleagues in urging the Department of Education to immediately reverse the Trump Administration’s harmful decision to unilaterally halt federal funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). In the letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the senators criticized the Department of Education’s use of a Department of Justice (DOJ) determination that these programs are unconstitutional. The Trump Administration’s halt of mandatory and discretionary funding for MSIs, which have previously been authorized on a bipartisan basis, threatens the institutions’ ability to serve students of all backgrounds and help them complete their degrees. There are over 800 federally recognized MSIs, including nine in Virginia.

“This decision is yet another example of this Administration attempting to circumvent Congress and its obligations to follow the law,” wrote the senators. “Unilaterally deciding that long-standing programs are unconstitutional, absent a ruling from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent and disrupts needed support that colleges and students rely on.”

“We urge you to allocate Title III and V discretionary and mandatory funds as Congress intended so that these institutions, which educate millions of working-class Americans, can continue to successfully serve every student they enroll and continue to be economic engines for the communities they serve across this nation,” continued the senators.

In the letter, the senators blasted DOJ’s legal justification for declaring that both discretionary and mandatory MSI grant funding is unconstitutional, citing DOJ’s reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College that discusses race-based admissions policies, not race-based funding allocations. The senators emphasized that the factors a college or university can consider when evaluating a student for admission, as addressed in the Supreme Court decision, are unrelated to whether a school should be considered an MSI and that relying on that precedent is an “inappropriate subversion of duly-enacted federal law.” MSIs are evaluated for consideration of federal funding based on the student population they serve, not their admission policies.

MSIs enroll over 5 million students, many of whom are first-generation college students. The nine MSIs in Virginia include Hampton University, Norfolk State University, Virginia State University, Virginia Union University, Virginia University of Lynchburg, Virginia Commonwealth University, Virginia Tech, Northern Virginia Community College, and Marymount University.

The letter is led by U.S. Sens. Alex Padilla (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA). In addition to Warner and Kaine, the letter is cosigned by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to express our strong opposition to the Administration’s decision to unilaterally halt federal funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) based on a unilateral determination by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that these programs are unconstitutional. These longstanding programs have been authorized and funded by Congress for decades, and the Administration’s baseless decision to deem these programs unconstitutional needlessly disrupts the fiscal stability of thousands of colleges and universities that educate millions of students of all ethnicities and backgrounds.

Congress first established MSI programs on a bipartisan basis in the 1986 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and expanded them in subsequent reauthorizations. MSIs have received bipartisan support over the course of six administrations presided over by presidents of both parties. That was true during President Trump’s first term, when he signed the FUTURE Act into law, to secure permanent funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges (TCCUS), and MSIs.

More than 800 federally recognized MSIs currently serve over five million students, many of whom are first generation college students and come from low-income backgrounds. These include Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNHSIs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs), and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs). More than half of all MSI students qualify for Pell grants, and HSIs enroll 37 percent of the nation’s Pell recipients. As directed by Congress in Section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act, institutions to be eligible for MSI funding, are evaluated on their current enrollment (e.g. among the students they enroll, 15 to 25 percent of existing students must be from a particular student population), have lower than average expenditures, and must enroll high percentages of students receiving Pell grants or need-based aid.

On September 10, 2025, grantees who were recipients of discretionary grant funds under six programs received a letter that the funds were being reprogrammed because the Department of Education (Department) believed that “racial quotas” were unconstitutional. At the time, the Department recognized that while it had statutory authority to reprogram the discretionary funds, the mandatory funds provided to MSIs, which have been required in statute since 2007, could not be reprogrammed and would continue to be dispersed. The Department then added that it would continue to consider the underlying legal issues associated with the mandatory funding mechanism in these programs.

On December 2, 2025, the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion analyzing the constitutionality of the Department of Education’s MSI programs and determined that both the discretionary and mandatory grants for HSIs, ANNHSIs, ANNAPISIs, and NASNTIs, and the formula-based PBI programs, are unconstitutional. On December 19, the Department of Education stated that it was evaluating the full impact of the OLC opinion on the affected programs.

While the Department of Justice’s opinion cites to the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) (“SFFA”), that decision pertained specifically to the factors a college or university can consider when evaluating a student for admission. Those factors are unrelated to the determination of whether a school should be considered an MSI, and relying on that precedent— when there has been no specific court determination that MSIs are unconstitutional—is an inappropriate subversion of duly-enacted federal law. MSIs are not directed nor required to employ race-conscious admissions policies for their enrollment; they are evaluated based on the population of students they already serve at the time they are applying for funding.

Furthermore, the funding provided to eligible MSIs through Title III and V grants is provided to the institution, not to specific students. The benefits of the funds are directed towards all students that attend those colleges, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Without these funds, under-resourced institutions would not be able to adequately support their students’ success and the economic benefits for the local communities where these institutions are located would be lost.

Notably, the OLC opinion does not differentiate grants to Native American or Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native serving institutions from other MSI grantees. The opinion incorrectly lumps these institutions with all MSIs, even as federal law has long recognized that these programs serve categories of students that are not racial but rather political classifications. Notably, 90 percent of Native students enroll in traditional public and private colleges, including NASNTIs and ANNHSIs, and the federal government has a fundamental legal responsibility to Native students’ education that is not based on race but on treaties, statutes, court decisions, and the trust responsibility. Further, last year the Department recognized this “unique political and legal relationship” when it took the position that American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian history is not classified as diversity, equity, and inclusion and pledged to “continue to deliver on all statutory grant programs that support American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students.” NASNTIs and ANNHSIs are statutorily authorized to receive federal support from the Department to strengthen their capacity to serve American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students.

Furthermore, this action is inconsistent with the policies of this Administration. Nearly a half dozen agencies have clarified that programs that serve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians do not constitute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) activities prohibited by President Trump’s executive orders. Grants supporting Native communities with which the federal government holds trust and treaty obligations do not impose racial quotas or restrict admissions based on race, but rather deliver on the federal trust responsibility to provide an education for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians because of their unique legal status and political relationship with the United States.

This decision is yet another example of this Administration attempting to circumvent Congress and its obligations to follow the law. Unilaterally deciding that long-standing programs are unconstitutional, absent a ruling from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent and disrupts needed support that colleges and students rely on.

We urge you to allocate Title III and V discretionary and mandatory funds as Congress intended so that these institutions, which educate millions of working-class Americans, can continue to successfully serve every student they enroll and continue to be economic engines for the communities they serve across this nation. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and Alex Padilla (D-CA), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration called on Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to immediately schedule an Intelligence Community (IC) briefing for senators on election security concerns ahead of the 2026 federal midterm elections. The request comes amid unprecedented investigations by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), purportedly to address “evidence” of election vulnerabilities and manipulation of election results, which have not been substantiated.

The senators pressed Gabbard for an explanation of her chilling actions late last month when she joined the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in raiding Fulton County, Georgia’s elections office to further perpetuate the repeatedly disproven lie that the 2020 election was stolen. They emphasized that Gabbard, President Trump, and others have given numerous inconsistent explanations of who tasked Gabbard with seizing these 2020 election materials and why she was involved. As the Trump Administration continues to spread baseless election conspiracy theories, Warner and Padilla also pushed Gabbard to clarify why ODNI tested voting machines and seized other election data in Puerto Rico.

“You should come prepared to clarify your public statements regarding voting system security and the status of ODNI’s highly unusual investigations regarding purported election integrity,” wrote the senators. “You, the President, and others have offered conflicting explanations of your participation in the FBI’s raid of the Fulton County, Georgia election offices and seizure of materials related to the 2020 election, and your response to date has raised additional questions.”

ODNI has failed to respond to the senators’ previous letter demanding an IC briefing on foreign election threats — including cyber-driven threats to alter American election outcomes — last fall. The senators requested Gabbard also clarify her unsubstantiated public statements regarding voting systems and provide a plan for defensive cybersecurity measures ahead of the 2026 midterm elections, as well as details on the security of the 2025 federal elections. Additionally, they urged Gabbard to share all intelligence products concerning these election threats and underlying ODNI’s recent actions with the appropriate Congressional committees and lawmakers, as required by law. In addition to failing to release a declassified assessment on the 2024 election, as in prior elections, ODNI and the U.S. Department of Justice have refused to provide Congressional leaders with intelligence products on alleged foreign threats to 2026 elections.

“While the lack of response to our September 15 letter is unacceptable, we are also gravely concerned about your failure to provide relevant explanations or information to the election officials you are undermining, including failing to appear at a scheduled appearance with bipartisan Secretaries of State last month,” continued the senators. “In the midst of the 2026 election cycle, we urge ODNI to ensure transparency and support for state and local election administration rather than sowing chaos and doubt in American elections.”

The senators underscored that an intelligence briefing is particularly important after the Trump Administration dismantled election security efforts at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA) and curtailed the Congressionally authorized Foreign Malign Influence Center at ODNI.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Director Gabbard:

On September 15, 2025, we wrote to request an Intelligence Community (IC) briefing for Senators on election security to occur no later than October 10th. To date, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) has failed to take any steps to accommodate this request or respond to that letter.

In light of recent unprecedented and deeply concerning election-related actions taken by ODNI under your leadership, we write to reiterate this request for your office to immediately coordinate an IC briefing for all Senators on foreign election threats, including efforts to influence election outcomes through influence or cyber-enabled means. As part of that briefing, ODNI and the IC should also update the Senate on the status of planned defensive steps to ensure the cybersecurity of the mid-term elections in 2026, and any information regarding the security of the most-recent elections held in November 2025. Prior to that briefing, we ask that you make all intelligence products concerning such threats, and informing your recent actions, available to appropriate Congressional committees and Members of Congress, as required by law.

In addition to that intelligence briefing, you should come prepared to clarify your public statements regarding voting system security and the status of ODNI’s highly unusual investigations regarding purported election integrity. You, the President, and others have offered conflicting explanations of your participation in the FBI’s raid of the Fulton County, Georgia election offices and seizure of materials related to the 2020 election, and your response to date has raised additional questions. Similarly, recent confirmation that ODNI seized voting machines and other election data in Puerto Rico as part of an investigation also require urgent explanation in light of the Administration’s continued amplification of baseless election conspiracy theories. Against the backdrop of the memorandum of understanding that the Department of Justice has circulated to states that have provided sensitive voter information, which contemplates unprecedented federal interference with state and local election administration, these actions to seize voting systems and files are especially concerning.

While the lack of response to our September 15 letter is unacceptable, we are also gravely concerned about your failure to provide relevant explanations or information to the election officials you are undermining, including failing to appear at a scheduled appearance with bipartisan Secretaries of State last month. In the midst of the 2026 election cycle, we urge ODNI to ensure transparency and support for state and local election administration rather than sowing chaos and doubt in American elections. This is essential given this Administration's shortsighted decisions to eliminate much of the election security work at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, Attorney General Bondi’s elimination of the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, and curtailed the work of the Congressionally mandated Foreign Malign Influence Center.

Voting in the first Congressional primary election begins imminently. We request that you work to schedule this briefing no later than February 27, 2026. 

WASHINGTON - U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner joined his fellow Senate Budget Committee Democrats in calling on Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth to explain the Department of Defense’s (DOD) decision to classify its budget reconciliation spending plan—a decision that undermines congressional oversight and accountability. Following passage of the Republican reconciliation bill in July, DOD submitted a fully classified spending plan for $90 billion of the $150 billion appropriated for national security. Congress has yet to receive a spend plan for the remaining $60 billion that was appropriated. Not only is there growing evidence that DOD is not adhering to congressional intent, but absent proper oversight, reconciliation funds could be diverted to unintended purposes.

The senators wrote, “The Department has offered no explanation for why the spend plan was classified, even though some items included in H.R. 1, such as barracks improvements or personnel benefit increases, are not sensitive. It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification. In prior years, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spend plans, while other defense budget materials were provided in unclassified form or with classified appendices as appropriate. The current approach deviates sharply from long-standing practice and raises serious questions about DOD’s rationale.

“This decision also comes amid broader transparency concerns. The Pentagon has adopted new restrictions on communication with Congress and the press, further limiting oversight and undermining public accountability. Combined with the unprecedented classification of the reconciliation spend plan, these steps raise doubts about whether Congress is receiving the information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities,” the senators continued.

In addition to Sen. Warner, Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), and Alex Padilla (D-CA) joined the letter.

The full letter can be found here and below.

Secretary Hegseth:

We write to express significant concern regarding the Department of Defense’s (DOD’s) decision to classify its budget reconciliation spending plan. Classifying the spending plan undermines congressional oversight and accountability. Even at the height of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, defense appropriation spend plans were not fully classified.

When H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (P.L. 119-21), passed the House and was transmitted to the Senate, it included Section 20014, requiring the Secretary of Defense to submit a detailed spending plan within 45 days of enactment and to provide an annual expenditure report beginning one year after enactment. Although the Senate Parliamentarian later determined Section 20014 to be non-budgetary, Democrats were willing to retain the language, but Republicans voluntarily removed it. The fact that Congress previously sought this reporting underscores the importance of transparency in reconciliation budgeting.

Following enactment of H.R. 1, the chairs of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees issued informal programmatic guidance tables outlining congressional intent and requested that DOD submit a detailed spending plan by August 22, 2025. Senate Chairman Roger Wicker subsequently pressed military nominees and officials to publicly commit to adhering to that intent, even though such a legislative requirement would be challengeable under budget reconciliation procedures. Although DOD missed the deadline, media reports indicate DOD provided a classified spending plan to the defense committees covering roughly $90 billion of the $150 billion appropriated for national security.

The Department has offered no explanation for why the spend plan was classified, even though some items included in H.R. 1, such as barracks improvements or personnel benefit increases, are not sensitive. It strains credulity that all the items in the $90 billion classified spend plan are sensitive enough to warrant complete classification. In prior years, only intelligence or specific sensitive programs required classified spend plans, while other defense budget materials were provided in unclassified form or with classified appendices as appropriate. The current approach deviates sharply from long-standing practice and raises serious questions about DOD’s rationale.

This decision also comes amid broader transparency concerns. The Pentagon has adopted new restrictions on communication with Congress and the press, further limiting oversight and undermining public accountability. Combined with the unprecedented classification of the reconciliation spend plan, these steps raise doubts about whether Congress is receiving the information necessary to fulfill its constitutional oversight responsibilities.

In addition, there are indications that reconciliation funds may have been used for purposes not contemplated by law, including paying troops during the recent lapse in appropriations and providing a one-time bonus payment. Such uses appear contrary to congressional intent, which envisioned reconciliation funding as a tool for specific programmatic needs rather than a slush fund for the President’s ad hoc priorities. This underscores the risk that, absent robust transparency, reconciliation funds may be diverted to unintended purposes.

In fact, classifying the spending plan for H.R. 1 risks further turning reconciliation funding into a slush fund—undermining public confidence and risking wasteful spending—since Congress cannot adequately exercise its oversight role.

As members of the Senate Budget Committee, which has jurisdiction over the reconciliation process, and to support appropriate oversight and ensure the responsible use of taxpayer dollars, we request answers to the following questions by February 20, 2026:

1. What is DOD’s justification for classifying the spending plan?
2. Funding for specific classified programs was not included in the reconciliation bill. Are any classified programs receiving funding through reconciliation?
3. Will DOD commit to providing relevant committees of jurisdiction with access to the complete spending plan, including all classified and unclassified materials?
4. Will the reconciliation spending plan be incorporated into the FY2027 budget request? 
5. Why did DOD transmit a spend plan for $90 billion but not the remaining $60 billion? What factors contributed to the development and transmittal of only a partial spend plan?
6. When does the Department plan to submit a spend plan for the remaining $60 billion? Will any subsequent partial spend plan also be classified, and if so, why? 

Should you believe that any portion of your reply must be provided in classified form, please coordinate with the committee to ensure proper handling.

Congress cannot forfeit its constitutional role in overseeing the defense budget. Transparency is not optional; it is the foundation of accountability. We strongly urge the Department to reconsider this approach and provide Congress with comprehensive, appropriately marked spending plans without delay. 

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and all ten of his Democratic colleagues on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs sent a letter to Chairman Tim Scott calling on him to delay the nomination hearing of President Trump’s Fed Nominee, Kevin Warsh, until all pretextual investigations against current Federal Reserve Board members are closed. In addition to Sen. Warner, signers of the letter to Scott include Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tina Smith (D-MN), Raphael Wanock (D-GA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD). 

“The (Warsh) nomination comes after months of repeated efforts by President Trump and his Administration to influence the Fed by intimidation, including by opening criminal investigations into Fed Governor Lisa Cook and Fed Chair Jerome Powell. These ongoing efforts by the President to control the Fed - which must be able to exercise independent judgment - undermine public confidence in any nomination for chair at this time,” wrote the Banking Committee Democrats.

The Banking Committee Democrats continued, “We demand that you delay any nomination proceedings for Mr. Warsh until after the pretextual criminal investigations involving Chair Powell and Governor Cook have been closed.”

The senators wrote, “The Administration’s apparent effort to seize control of the Fed through criminal prosecutions is dangerous and unprecedented. It would be absurd on its face to allow President Trump to handpick the next Chair of the Federal Reserve as his Department of Justice actively pursues criminal investigations of not one, but two sitting members of the Federal Reserve Board. This Committee should not participate in this farcical effort that threatens to undermine our democracy and confidence in our financial markets.”

Read the full letter here. 

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) sent a letter to the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Inspector General Joseph Cuffari urging him to investigate current and future DHS procurements that enable the collection, retention, and analysis of sensitive personal data. As DHS continues a mass deportation campaign across the country, Warner and Kaine raised serious concerns that DHS is collecting and utilizing sensitive data about U.S. citizens and non-citizens in ways that may circumvent Fourth Amendment protections and other constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties, while operating with insufficient oversight and accountability.

“We write to you to express our concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is collecting sensitive personal data that can be used to circumvent civil liberty protections, including those guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. This matter deserves your office’s immediate attention, and we request that your office audit DHS’ immigration procurement activities to determine whether they have led to violations of federal law and other regulations that maintain privacy and defend against unlawful searches,” the senators wrote.

“Numerous media reports and videos show DHS immigration enforcement operations in cities and towns across the country, including allegations of violations of individuals’ civil rights,” the senators continued. “On at least two separate occasions DHS law enforcement personnel – one working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the other for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – have shot and killed American citizens. Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot 3 times in Minneapolis by an ICE agent. Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who worked at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, was also shot in Minneapolis during an encounter with CBP. Additionally, ICE agents have shot and wounded another person and deployed flash bangs and teargas on a family, resulting in the hospitalization of small children, including a 6-month-old baby.”

Warner and Kaine noted that alongside these recent, documented instances of excessive and deadly use of force by DHS immigration enforcement is an unprecedented allocation of funds that may be supporting the inappropriate and unsupervised use of surveillance technology.  

“In addition to egregious practices we have seen in public reporting, it’s important that your office shine light on activities that undergird ICE’s enforcement actions including a muddled patchwork of technology procurements that have significantly expanded DHS’ ability to collect, retain, and analyze information about Americans,” added the senators. “Together, ICE’s new information collection tools potentially enable DHS to circumvent the constitutional protections provided by the Fourth Amendment - protections guaranteed to all Americans and all persons within our borders.”

“DHS law enforcement agencies have moved to amass potentially sensitive personal data with the unprecedented $165 billion DHS was allocated during last year’s partisan reconciliation process. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alone received $75 billion, more funding than that allocated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an agency responsible for investigating violations of a significantly greater number of laws,” the senators continued.

Warner and Kaine provided a detailed list of questions to Inspector General Cuffari intended to uncover the manner and methods by which DHS collects, stores, uses, and shares data that contains personally identifying information and requested that DHS provide a briefing on their investigation and findings to them.

The senators wrote, “DHS’ reported disregard for adhering to the law and its proven ambivalence toward observing and upholding constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of Americans and noncitizens, including freedom of speech and equal protection under the law, leaves us with little confidence that these new and powerful tools are being used responsibly. Coupled with DHS’ propensity to detain people regardless of their circumstances, it is reasonable question whether DHS can be trusted with powerful surveillance tools and if in doing so, DHS is subjecting Americans to surveillance under the pretext of immigration enforcement.”

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

The Honorable Joseph V. Cuffari

Inspector General

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

245 Murray Lane SW

Washington, D.C. 20528

Dear Inspector General Cuffari:

We write to you to express our concern that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is collecting sensitive personal data that can be used to circumvent civil liberty protections, including those guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. This matter deserves your office’s immediate attention, and we request that your office audit DHS’ immigration procurement activities to determine whether they have led to violations of federal law and other regulations that maintain privacy and defend against unlawful searches.

Numerous media reports and videos show DHS immigration enforcement operations in cities and towns across the country, including allegations of violations of individuals’ civil rights. On at least two separate occasions DHS law enforcement personnel – one working for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the other for Customs and Border Protection (CBP) – have shot and killed American citizens. Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was shot 3 times in Minneapolis by an ICE agent.^[1] Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse who worked at a U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs hospital, was also shot in Minneapolis during an encounter with CBP.^[2] Additionally, ICE agents have shot and wounded another person^[3] and deployed flash bangs and teargas on a family, resulting in the hospitalization of small children, including a 6-month-old baby.^[4]

Recently, your office announced new projects to determine whether ICE adequately investigates allegations of excessive force, appropriately hires and trains its workforce, and whether it adheres to detention standards. We strongly support these oversight efforts and will be closely monitoring your investigations for their independence, accuracy, and recommendations.

In addition to egregious practices we have seen in public reporting, it is important that your office shine light on activities that undergird ICE’s enforcement actions including a muddled patchwork of technology procurements that have significantly expanded DHS’ ability to collect, retain, and analyze information about Americans. Together, ICE’s new information collection tools potentially enable DHS to circumvent the constitutional protections provided by the Fourth Amendment - protections guaranteed to all Americans and all persons within our borders.

DHS law enforcement agencies have moved to amass potentially sensitive personal data with the unprecedented $165 billion DHS was allocated during last year’s partisan reconciliation process. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) alone received $75 billion, more funding than that allocated to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), an agency responsible for investigating violations of a significantly greater number of laws.

To date, DHS has:

1. Issued a Request for Information (RFI) to Big Data and Ad Tech providers to support ICE’s investigation activities;^[5]
2. Published a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), Collection and Use of Biometrics by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, that would expand the types and amount of biometric data the agency can – including allowing collection of biometric data from children under 14;^[6]
3. Issued a RFI to hire 30 social media surveillance contractors to collect information from social media and commercial databases and build profiles on individuals for the Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) division;^[7]
4. Issued a Notice of Intent for licenses from Bi2 Technologies - used for scanning individuals’ irises;^[8]
5. Entered a contract with Palantir to upgrade the Investigative Case Management (ICM) system – which has access to information from across the federal government – to include the Immigration Lifecycle Operating System (ImmigrationOS);^[9]
6. Reactivated a contract with Paragon Solutions under the FAR 6.302-1 rule, which is reserved for the most unique services;^[10]
7. Entered into a contract with facial recognition software developer Clearview AI^[11] – about which ICE has received a letter from other Senators;^[12]
8. Entered into a contract with Penlink’s services which monitor social media and track mobile devices;^[13] and
9. Accessed and utilized software that DHS does not have official access to – including Flock License Plate Scanning Software.^[14]

DHS’ reported disregard for adhering to the law ^[15],[16] and its proven ambivalence toward observing and upholding constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms of Americans and noncitizens, including freedom of speech and equal protection under the law,^[17] leaves us with little confidence that these new and powerful tools are being used responsibly. Coupled with DHS’ propensity to detain people regardless of their circumstances,^[18] it is reasonable to question whether DHS can be trusted with powerful surveillance tools and if in doing so, DHS is subjecting Americans to surveillance under the pretext of immigration enforcement.

Immigrants without criminal convictions are now make up the majority of ICE detainees. In September 2025, ICE arrested 59,762 individuals, and nearly 72% of those individuals had no prior criminal conviction.^[19] Since September, reporting indicates that in both Chicago^[20] and Washington D.C.,^[21] immigrants without a prior criminal record have made up 80% of those detained. We are horrified by the videos and reports of masked federal law enforcement officers seizing mothers from their vehicles while dropping their kids off at school, gassing children in their neighborhoods, demanding proof of citizenship based on an individual’s appearance, threatening peaceful protesters, and the broad dragnet operations arresting, injuring, and traumatizing entire communities.

We are deeply concerned that ICE’s surge in brutality against American communities is being facilitated by the inappropriate and unsupervised use of surveillance technology. As such, we formally request an investigation by your office into the methods that DHS uses to collect, retain, analyze, and use data about the communities where it operates in conjunction with the companies mentioned above, and any companies DHS is seeking to conduct business with – for similar purposes – in the future. We ask that the investigation address the following questions and that you provide a briefing to our offices:

1. The manner and methods by which DHS stores and uses data that contains personally identifying information.
1. Whether the manners and methods mentioned above have changed since January 20, 2025. If yes, describe any changes.
2. Is the data that DHS/ICE collects or otherwise obtains from other federal or state government agencies, contractors, foreign governments, or third parties, used to define targets of DHS immigration enforcement activities?
1. If yes, describe the process by which that data is reviewed to ensure its use is consistent with all applicable laws and the Constitution.
3. For data held by DHS that is used for the purpose described in question 2, describe the process under which Federal, state, and local law enforcement or other entities are granted access to the data.
4. Does DHS record incidents when biometric data used by DHS in the field results in a false positive? Provide documentation sufficient to determine the number of times data DHS has collected and aggregated has resulted in false positives when utilized in the field.
1. Provide any legal analysis prepared or relied upon by DHS for incidents where U.S. citizens are detained and biometric data was used in effecting any such detainment.
5. Does DHS currently or formerly maintain information sharing arrangements with social media companies?
1. If yes, provide documentation sufficient to describe the arrangements and circumstances under which social media companies allow DHS access to data held by those companies.
6. How has data sharing between ICE/ERO and other government agencies changed since January 2025? What are the specific thresholds that requests for data must meet before data is shared?
7. Has DHS purchased or otherwise obtained, directly or indirectly, data from data brokers for the purpose of civil immigration enforcement?
8. Does DHS permit individuals to decline or withdraw consent to the collection and use of their biometric or other personally-identifying data?
9. Describe - and provide documentation sufficient to show - the cybersecurity requirements that DHS mandates that private contractors comply with as a condition of participating in DHS immigration enforcement operations.
10. Describe - and provide documentation sufficient to show - any limitations that DHS imposes on private, third-party contractors regarding those parties’ use of the data that they access, generate, or otherwise interact with in the course of performing contracts awarded by DHS or to which DHS is a party.

Sincerely,

### 

* High-quality photographs of Sen. Mark R. Warner are available for download here *

WASHINGTON – Today, in the thick of the holiday shopping season, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) led Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Richard Blumental (D-CT), and Josh Hawley (R-MO) in pushing the Trump administration to crack down on surveillance pricing, which eliminates a fixed or static price in favor of prices that are specially tailored to an individual consumer’s willingness to pay. As part of this letter, the senators highlight a 2024 Federal Trade Commission (FTC) study that found companies used “a wide range of personal data to set individualized consumer prices.” That study was shut down by FTC chair Andrew Ferguson, who cancelled the public comment period, effectively ending the study in January.

“As the FTC has documented, businesses are increasingly using personal data, such as demographic information, precise location, or even web browsing history, to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services. Surveillance pricing builds upon not only the data that a company holds on a prospective customer, but also data purchased from shady data brokers,” wrote the senators. “Recent concerns about surveillance pricing for airline tickets illustrate the dangers of this highly intrusive – and for consumers financially burdensome – practice. Fetcherr, an A.I. analytics company, suggested it was developing pricing algorithms for airlines that would target individuals with specific prices that consider “factors like customer lifetime value, past purchase behaviors, and the real-time context of each booking inquiry” to drive up revenue.”

As part of this letter, the senators highlighted the Biden-era FTC study, which examined how companies tracked consumer behaviors – including a person’s precise location, browser history, and even mouse movements on a webpage – to inform their surveillance pricing tactics.

“The Commission had already begun a comprehensive market investigation into surveillance pricing under its Section 6(b) authority and issued a preliminary staff report on its findings. The 6(b) study explored the use cases and industries in which surveillance pricing is occurring and has helped reveal some of the details of this opaque business,” the senators continued. “The FTC found within its requests at least 250 businesses including grocery stores, apparel retailers, health and beauty retailers, home goods and furnishing stores, convenience stores, and hardware stores had adopted surveillance pricing strategies. Consumers deserve a fair playing field, where they’re not at the mercy of amorphous data brokers capturing their data and using it to determine their maximum financial pain point for a good or service. We urge the Commission to publish its Section 6(b) study on surveillance pricing and then take rulemaking and enforcement actions to reign in this exploitative practice.”

This effort follows strong leadership from Sens. Warner, Gallego and Blumenthal, who earlier this year demanded answers from Delta Air Lines CEO Ed Bastian after the company announced its plans to ramp up use of Artificial Intelligence to set surveillance-based ticket prices.

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

The Honorable Andrew N. Ferguson

Chairman

Federal Trade Commission

600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW

Washington, DC 20580

Dear Chairman Ferguson:

We write to express our concern with the practice of “surveillance pricing” and to urge the Federal Trade Commission (“FTC” or “Commission”) to crack down on the increasingly common practice of companies using personal information to raise prices for consumers. We call on the Commission to re-open its market investigation into surveillance pricing and to take appropriate steps to protect consumers, including enforcement actions and rulemakings. 

As the FTC has documented, businesses are increasingly using personal data, such as demographic information, precise location, or even web browsing history, to target individual consumers with different prices for the same goods and services. Surveillance pricing builds upon not only the data that a company holds on a prospective customer, but also data purchased from shady data brokers. The practice of surveillance pricing has also given rise to new tech companies that claim to use “advanced algorithms, artificial intelligence and other technologies with personal information about consumers ... to categorize individuals and set a targeted price for a product or service” – sophisticated specialists in raising costs on consumers.

Recent concerns about surveillance pricing for airline tickets illustrate the dangers of this highly intrusive — and for consumers financially burdensome — practice. Fetcherr, an A.I. analytics company, suggested it was developing pricing algorithms for airlines that would target individuals with specific prices that consider “factors like customer lifetime value, past purchase behaviors, and the real-time context of each booking inquiry” to drive up revenue. Taken together, airlines could find each consumers pain point and extract the most revenue, taking advantage of urgent trips. These concerns build on existing anxieties about airlines using dynamic pricing. Moreover Fetcherr’s ambitions to “[expand] into new verticals like hotels, cargo logistics, and even finance” illustrates the growth of this practice.

The Commission had already begun a comprehensive market investigation into surveillance pricing under its Section 6(b) authority and issued a preliminary staff report on its findings. The 6(b) study explored the use cases and industries in which surveillance pricing is occurring and has helped reveal some of the details of this opaque business. The FTC found within its requests at least 250 businesses including grocery stores, apparel retailers, health and beauty retailers, home goods and furnishing stores, convenience stores, and hardware stores had adopted surveillance pricing strategies. Consumers deserve a fair playing field, where they’re not at the mercy of amorphous data brokers capturing their data and using it to determine their maximum financial pain point for a good or service.

We urge the Commission to publish its Section 6(b) study on surveillance pricing and then take rulemaking and enforcement actions to reign in this exploitative practice

Sincerely,

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee, called on the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to provide seniors enrolled in Medicare Advantage with more information when a significant number of doctors or hospitals no longer accept their insurance in the middle of the year.

“We write to you today to express our concerns about increasing turmoil and uncertainty for seniors and people with disabilities enrolled in the Medicare Advantage program,” wrote the senators. “As of April 2025, there have been at least 13 states with ‘significant network changes,’ triggering a special enrollment period for MA enrollees in these states. These types of interruptions to the network cannot only affect enrollees' access to care that may already be planned or scheduled, leaving them without an in-network provider, but also leave MA enrollees confused about their coverage options.”

When a senior enrolled in a Medicare Advantage plan loses a significant number of health providers from their plan in the middle of the year, CMS may allow them to switch plans in a “special enrollment period.” However, the circumstances for how these special enrollment periods are determined are opaque, and there is minimal notice to the public, states, and enrollees.

The letter calls on CMS to clarify how these special enrollment periods are determined, describe how seniors in Medicare are notified about plan changes, and additional information to improve transparency around these challenging circumstances.

The full letter can be found here.

###

Washington - Following their September oversight visit of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in Chantilly, Virginia, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Reps. James R. Walkinshaw (D-VA-11), Don S. Beyer, Jr. (D-VA-08), and Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10) called on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to reverse its decision to furlough the civil servants responsible for oversight of ICE detention centers.

 In a bicameral letter to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, the lawmakers raised serious concerns over the furlough of the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO), the unit charged with inspecting facilities, investigating abuse, and ensuring humane conditions for detainees.

 “We write to raise serious concerns about your decision to furlough Department of Homeland Security (DHS) civil servants within the Office of Detention Oversight (ODO). Given the concerns involving the safety of human life, we urge you to immediately reclassify DHS civil servants in charge of oversight as excepted under the Antideficiency Act and reinstate them,” wrote the members.

 The members noted that the Antideficiency Act provides an emergency exception for employees whose work is “necessary to prevent or avoid an imminent threat to human life or safety.” ODO staff, whose functions are essential to prevent death, serious injury, or severe harm, would be eligible to be excepted during the Republican shutdown.

 The Congressional leaders warned that sidelining oversight staff during a government shutdown could put human lives at risk. “This is not hypothetical—ICE has publicly reported that at least twenty people have died in its custody since January,” the members added.

 “The decision to furlough the entire ODO is a clear attempt to sabotage oversight into the conditions of ICE facilities and the wellbeing of detainees. We urge you to immediately reclassify the DHS civil servants in charge of oversight as excepted under the Antideficiency Act and reinstate them,” the members concluded.

 Text of the letter is available here.

###

Washington – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Committee Ron Wyden (D-OR), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and the 12 other Democrats on the Senate Finance Committee in demanding answers about the Trump administration’s reported plans to weaponize the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) criminal-investigative division in an attack on the free speech rights of progressive individuals and groups the President sees as opponents. The senators noted that politically motivated interference in the administration of tax law is prohibited under federal law and can result in criminal penalties, including incarceration. They sought to learn who has directed and participated in this IRS weaponization, what changes the Administration intends to make to IRS policy, and what individuals and groups the Administration is targeting as part of this abusive, illegal weaponization scheme.

“Federal law prohibits political interference with the administration of tax laws and bars the President, Vice President, White House staff, and all Cabinet-level officials except for the Attorney General from requesting investigations into specific taxpayers,” the senators wrote. “Any effort to weaponize the IRS against President Trump’s perceived enemies is against the law, an abuse of power, and a threat to the integrity of our democratic institutions. [The IRS] cannot be the President’s political attack dog. You must immediately end all attempts to politicize the agency, including attempts to use the agency to attack Americans with different political views.”

The senators’ letter asked the following of Treasury Secretary and Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent as well as Gary Shapley, deputy chief of the IRS Criminal Investigation division:

1. Describe the exact changes that have been made to the structure and operations of IRS-CI since January 20, 2025, and other planned or anticipated changes, including the timeline for implementation of future changes.
1. Provide copies of all memoranda, briefing material, or other documents describing the changes or implementing the changes.
2. Describe any changes or directions to deviate from Part 9, Criminal Investigations, of the Internal Revenue Manual.
3. Identify all executive-level officials whose approval was or will be required to implement the changes.
4. Identify all officials who were involved in the decision making process, including Treasury and White House officials.
2. Secretary Bessent, is it correct that President Trump directed you to identify financial networks which he says are fomenting political violence?
1. Did he or any of his advisors name any individuals or groups which he believes to be involved in such networks? Please provide a list of any individuals or groups named in this context.
2. If so, provide the criteria, and legal basis for such criteria, which the IRS would use to determine whether a group is “fomenting political violence.”
3. Is it correct that one or more officials have “drawn up a list of potential targets that includes major Democratic donors?”  
1. Please describe the process by which the list was developed, including the identity of all personnel who contributed names to the list and all input provided from the White House and Treasury (excluding the IRS).
2. Provide a list of all “targets” on this list.
3. Provide the criteria being used to determine who should be targeted by this effort.
4. Provide a list of each person involved in development of this list, including, but not limited to, Treasury personnel and any IRS employees that are also acting as staff or advisors to the Treasury Department and vice-versa.
5. It has been reported that a report created by Capital Research Center has been used as a basis for accusing the Open Society Foundations of supporting groups that commit acts of terrorism or extremist violence. However, the president of Capital Research Center, Scott Walter, has acknowledged that his organization’s report made no such conclusion.   Has this report, or any other report produced by the Capital Research Center, been used to identify “targets” for IRS personnel to investigate?
4. Is it true that Mr. Shapley “has told people that he is going to replace Guy Ficco, the chief of the investigative unit, who has been at the agency for decades.”? 
1. If so, who will be involved in this decision? 
2. Have you made—or are you planning to make—any other personnel changes at IRS-CI? Please describe those changes.
5. Is it true that Mr. Shapley is proposing changes to the rules on how IRS criminal probes are conducted including reducing the role of chief counsel attorneys?  If so, describe the proposed changes in detail, including any changes or deviations from the procedures and processes in Part 38, Chief Counsel Directives Manual – Criminal Tax.
6. Have you consulted with career Treasury and/or IRS legal counsel on any changes to IRS-CI, and, if so, please provide the feedback you received including any legal opinions regarding these changes?
7. Please confirm that you will fully cooperate with all investigations of this issue by any member of this Committee, TIGTA, the Treasury Inspector General, and GAO, or other oversight bodies?
8. Secretary Bessent, given that your personal and professional history with George Soros is the source of much of your own personal fortune, will you commit to recusing yourself from any matters related to him or his organizations? 

Full text of the letter is available here.

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), and U.S. Reps. Don Beyer (D-VA-08) and Steny Hoyer (D-MD-05) led their colleagues in sending a bipartisan letter to Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought urging OMB to follow the law—which President Donald Trump signed in 2019—that requires furloughed federal employees to receive back pay during a government shutdown. The members underscore that the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act of 2019, which was passed and signed into law during the last shutdown under President Trump, is clear that all federal employees, whether they are excepted or furloughed, are entitled to back pay after a government shutdown ends.

“During the 2018-2019 shutdown, we worked with President Trump to enact the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019, the intent of which is clear – federal employees are entitled to retroactive pay in the event of a government shutdown. We applauded President Trump for signing this bipartisan bill into law,” the members wrote.

“The law is clear: all impacted government employees, regardless of excepted or furloughed status, are entitled to back pay after a government shutdown ends, which is consistent with the guidance currently provided by federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM),” the members wrote. “OPM’s shutdown guidance from September 2025 still states that furloughed federal workers will be provided back pay once the government reopens.”

The members continued, “The decision by OMB to remove critical guidance on federal employee back pay is causing unnecessary stress for the federal workforce comprised of nearly 2.2 million employees.”

“We request you immediately clarify and update the Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations Document and other relevant materials to affirm that furloughed employees will receive back pay, as is required by law,” the members concluded.

In addition to Warner, Kaine, Murkowski, Van Hollen, Alsobrooks, Beyer, and Hoyer, the letter is cosigned by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Rev. Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), and Ron Wyden (D-OR). It is also cosigned by U.S. Representatives Alma Adams (D-NC-12), Gabe Amo (D-RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (D-AZ-03), Jake Auchincloss (D-MA-04), Becca Balint (D-VT-AL), Wesley Bell (D-MO-01), Ami Bera (D-CA-06), Sanford Bishop (D-GA-02), Shontel Brown (D-OH-11), Julia Brownley (D-CA-26), Nikki Budzinski (D-IL-13), Janelle Bynum (D-OR-05), André Carson (D-IN-07), Greg Casar (D-TX-35), Ed Case (D-HI-01), Sean Casten (D-IL-06), Kathy Castor (D-FL-14), Sheila Cherfilus-McCormick (D-FL-20), Judy Chu (D-CA-28), Yvette Clarke (D-NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO-05), Jim Costa (D-CA-21), Angie Craig (D-MN-02), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-04), Diana DeGette (D-CO-01), Suzan DelBene (D-WA-01), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-10), Maxine Dexter (D-OR-03), Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Lloyd Doggett (D-TX-37), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD-03), Veronica Escobar (D-TX-16), Dwight Evans (D-PA-03), Shomari Figures (D-AL-02), Lizzie Fletcher (D-TX-07), Bill Foster (D-IL-11), Lois Frankel (D-FL-22), John Garamendi (D-CA-08), Jesús García (D-IL-04), Robert Garcia (D-CA-42), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX-29), Dan Goldman (D-NY-10), Jimmy Gomez (D-CA-34), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH-02), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-05), Jahana Hayes (D-CT-05), Pablo Hernández (D-PR-01), Steven Horsford (D-NV-04), Val Hoyle (D-OR-4), Glenn Ivey (D-MD-04), Jonathan Jackson (D-IL-01), Sara Jacobs (D-CA-51), Pramila Jayapal (D-WA-07), Hank Johnson (D-GA-04), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-CA-37), Bill Keating (D-MA-09), Robin Kelly (D-IL-02), Greg Landsman (D-OH-01), John Larson (D-CT-01), Summer Lee (D-PA-12), Susie Lee (D-NV-03), Teresa Leger Fernandez (D-NM-03), Mike Levin (D-CA-49), Ted Lieu (D-CA-36), Stephen Lynch (D-MA-08), Doris Matsui (D-CA-07), Lucy McBath (D-GA-06), Sarah McBride (D-DE-AL), April McClain Delaney (D-MD-06), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), Betty McCollum (D-MN-04), James McGovern (D-MA-02), LaMonica McIver (D-NJ-10), Robert Menendez (D-NJ-08), Grace Meng (D-NY-06), Kweisi Mfume (D-MD-07), Dave Min (D-CA-47), Gwen Moore (D-WI-04), Joe Morelle (D-NY-25), Seth Moulton (D-MA-06), Frank Mrvan (D-IN-01), Kevin Mullin (D-CA-15), Jerry Nadler (D-NY-12), Joe Neguse (D-CO-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-AL), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY-14), Johnny Olszewski (D-MD-02), Ilhan Omar (D-MN-05),  Frank Pallone (D-NJ-06), Chris Pappas (D-NH-01), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO-07), Mark Pocan (D-WI-02), Mike Quigley (D-IL-05), Delia Ramirez (D-IL-03), Emily Randall (D-WA-06), Jamie Raskin (D-MD-08), Luz Rivas (D-CA-29), Deborah Ross (D-NC-02), Raul Ruiz (D-CA-25), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA-05), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-09), Brad Schneider (D-IL-10), Hillary Scholten (D-MI-03), Bobby Scott (D-VA-03), Terri Sewell (D-AL-07), Brad Sherman (D-CA-32), Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12), Adam Smith (D-WA-09), Marilyn Strickland (D-WA-10), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), Tom Suozzi (D-NY-03), Eric Swalwell (D-CA-14), Emilia Sykes (D-OH-13), Mark Takano (D-CA-39), Mike Thompson (D-CA-04), Dina Titus (D-NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI-12), Jill Tokuda (D-HI-02), Paul Tonko (D-NY-20), Ritchie Torres (D-NY-15), Derek Tran (D-CA-45), Lauren Underwood (D-IL-14), Juan Vargas (D-CA-52), Gabe Vasquez (D-NM-02), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-07), Eugene Vindman (D-VA-07), James Walkinshaw (D-VA-11), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL-25), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ-12), Nikema Williams (D-GA-05), and Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24).

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

Dear Director Vought:

The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) recent update to the Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations document implies that furloughed federal workers are not entitled to back pay. Additionally, a draft OMB memo stated the administration would deny back pay to furloughed federal workers for the current government shutdown. During the 2018-2019 shutdown, we worked with President Trump to enact the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act (GEFTA) of 2019, the intent of which is clear – federal employees are entitled to retroactive pay in the event of a government shutdown. We applauded President Trump for signing this bipartisan bill into law. 

On January 16, 2019, the Senate unanimously passed the Government Employee Fair Treatment Act to guarantee back pay for all impacted federal workers once a government shutdown ends. This law was enacted during the longest government shutdown which lasted 35 days at the end of 2018, and into the beginning of 2019. Prior to the law’s passage, Congress had to pass specific legislation after each shutdown to ensure furloughed workers received back pay. 

Explicitly, the law guarantees back pay for all federal employees in the event of a government shutdown. “Each employee of the United States Government or of a District of Columbia public employer furloughed as a result of a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for the period of the lapse in appropriations, and each excepted employee who is required to perform work during a covered lapse in appropriations shall be paid for such work, at the employee’s standard rate of pay, at the earliest date possible after the lapse in appropriations ends, regardless of scheduled pay dates, and subject to the enactment of appropriations Acts ending the lapse.” The law requires that retroactive pay be required in the event of any government shutdown after December 22, 2018.

The law is clear: all impacted government employees, regardless of excepted or furloughed status, are entitled to back pay after a government shutdown ends, which is consistent with the guidance currently provided by federal agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management (OPM). OPM’s shutdown guidance from September 2025 still states that furloughed federal workers will be provided back pay once the government reopens. The decision by OMB to remove critical guidance on federal employee back pay is causing unnecessary stress for the federal workforce comprised of nearly 2.2 million employees.

Thus, we request you immediately clarify and update the Frequently Asked Questions During a Lapse in Appropriations Document and other relevant materials to affirm that furloughed employees will receive back pay, as is required by law.

Sincerely,