WASHINGTON – Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) today applauded Senate passage of Tyler’s Law, a bill directing the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to provide hospitals with guidance on how emergency rooms can implement fentanyl testing in their routine drug screens. The bill is named for Tyler Shamash, a teenager who died of an overdose in part because – unbeknownst to the physician – he was not tested for fentanyl upon being checked into the emergency room.

“Overdose deaths, especially among young people, are increasing across the country, and even just one preventable death is too many. As we try to fight this epidemic, it’s important that hospital staff are including fentanyl in emergency room drug tests,” said Sen. Warner. “I am proud to have worked on this bipartisan, life-saving legislation that would institute more robust guidance on testing for fentanyl during a suspected overdose.”

In January 2023, Malcolm Kent, a 17-year-old Fairfax County resident, went to the emergency room while experiencing an overdose but was not tested for fentanyl. He died of a fentanyl overdose shortly after being discharged. His mother, Thurraya Kent, has advocated for robust measures to test for fentanyl in emergency rooms and expand access to treatment.

Tyler’s Law would direct the Secretary of HHS to:

• Complete a study to determine how frequently emergency rooms are currently testing for fentanyl when patients come in for an overdose, as well as the associated costs and benefits/risks, and
• Issue guidance to hospitals on implementing fentanyl testing in emergency rooms.

In 2023, 1,936 Virginians died due to overdose of fentanyl and other synthetic opioids, accounting for nearly 79% of all drug overdose deaths in Virginia. Nationally, fentanyl and other synthetic opioids were responsible for just over 69% of all drug overdose deaths that year. Since the start of the COVID pandemic, fentanyl has more than doubled overdose deaths among children ages 12 to 17.

Sen. Warner has consistently pushed for robust action to combat the opioid epidemic, with a particular focus on expanding telehealth so more Virginians experiencing substance use disorder can access treatment. He is the lead sponsor of the TREATS Act, which would permanently (and without any special registration) allow telehealth prescribing of controlled substances, such as buprenorphine, to treat opioid use disorder. He also repeatedly pushed the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) to preserve pandemic-era telehealth flexibilities and establish a special registration pathway so that quality providers can permanently prescribe controlled substances safely via telehealth.

 At the same time, Sen. Warner has emphasized that the crisis is increasingly driven by sophisticated transnational criminal networks that manufacture and traffic fentanyl into the United States, often exploiting gaps at ports of entry and leveraging global financial systems to launder proceeds. To disrupt these networks, he has backed a comprehensive approach that pairs stronger enforcement with financial tools to go after traffickers’ profits and operations. He recently celebrated passage of the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, a sanctions and anti-money laundering law that targets fentanyl traffickers. He also introduced the Stop Fentanyl at the Border Act, legislation that would increase staffing capacity and deploy advanced technology to detect drugs being smuggled through points of entry. 

In addition to Sen. Warner, Tyler’s Law is also sponsored by Sens. Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jim Banks (R-IN), Chuck Grassley (R-IA), and Todd Young (R-IN). Reps. Ted Lieu (CA-36), Bob Latta (OH-05), and Sydney Kamlager-Dove (CA-37) introduced the companion legislation in the House.

The full text of the bill is available here.  

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark Warner (D-VA), Jon Husted (R-OH), and Katie Britt (R-AL) today introduced a bipartisan bill to empower parents to protect their children on social media platforms by providing them with more tools to know if their children are engaging in dangerous or risky interactions.

Sammy’s Law would require large social media platforms to permit parents to receive safety notifications through FTC-regulated third-party safety providers, giving them the tools to shield their children from harm. 

“Parents are struggling to protect their kids from the harmful effects of social media, where children are more exposed than ever to cyberbullying, eating disorders, and other online threats to their wellbeing,” said Sen. Warner. “Sammy’s Law will give parents the choice to be alerted of concerning behaviors on social media, while protecting their personal information. I’m proud to join this bipartisan effort so parents have more resources to supervise their children’s social media use.”

“In Ohio and across the country, criminals are using social media to target our children—selling them dangerous drugs and exploiting them through sextortion while trying to bypass parents and other trusted adults,” said Sen. Husted. “Tragically, teenagers Sammy Chapman from California and James Woods from Ohio are two of many young people who’ve fallen victim to these predators. Parents deserve to know what their kids are exposed to online and have the ability to protect them and save lives. Sammy’s Law would put that authority back where it belongs—with families—and gives parents the tools they need to keep their children safe.”

“At just 16 years old, Sammy Chapman had his whole life ahead of him when he was approached by a drug dealer on social media who sold him drugs laced with fentanyl—an event which tragically led to his death,” said Sen. Britt. “Had legislation been in place like Sammy’s Law, which prevents social media companies from blocking third-party safety software for children, Sammy would likely still be with us today. As parents and legislators, it’s our job to protect our children and teens—our most vulnerable—in every way we can. In the age of social media and the challenges that come with it, Sammy’s Law is a critical step towards protecting our children online by ensuring parents have access to the necessary tools to keep their children safe.” 

Sammy’s Law was named after 16-year-old Sammy Chapman who lost his life to fentanyl poisoning. He was approached by a drug dealer through social media, who delivered drugs laced with a lethal dose of opioid fentanyl to his home. Sammy was unaware he was ingesting fentanyl and tragically lost his life. Sammy’s Law was introduced to give parents the tools to protect their children and other family members by:

• Requiring large social media platforms with either 100 million monthly active users or garner $1 billion in gross revenue per year to make real-time application programming interfaces accessible to Federal Trade Commission (FTC)-registered third-party safety software providers.

• Alerting parents when 15 specific instances or phrases arise that indicate eating disorders, suicidal ideation, and sexual harassment.

Alexander Neville Foundation, Becca Schmill Foundation, Buckets Over Bullying, CADCA, Crime Victims United, Crimestoppers of Houston, D.A.R.E. America, Families Against Fentanyl, JED Foundation, National Center on Sexual Exploitation, National Crime Prevention Council, Organization for Social Media Safety, Parent ProTech, Parents Television and Media Council, Protect Young Eyes, Safe House, SafeProject, Social Media Victims Law Center, Stand for the Silent, The Village Mission and VOID all endorse Sammy’s Law. 

Reps. Debbie Wasserman Shultz (D-FL) and Buddy Carter (R-GA) introduced the companion bill to Sammy’s Law in the U.S. House of Representatives.

“There are sick, evil people who prey on our children from the shadows of social media, selling illicit, even fentanyl-laced, drugs,” said Rep. Carter. Tragically, Sammy Chapman was one of those kids who died at just 16 years old, with his entire life ahead of him. Parents have the right to know when their child is engaging in dangerous online activity, and this bill will equip them with the best possible technology to protect and keep their children safe from bad actors. I thank Senator Husted for his support in this effort.”

“The Senate introduction of Sammy’s Law is a major step toward protecting children on social media,” said Marc Berkman, CEO of the Organization for Social Media Safety. “Through our work with families and schools nationwide, we have seen that third-party safety software saves young lives. This legislation will help protect children from severe social media-related harms like cyberbullying, sextortion, and drug trafficking while also strengthening privacy protections. We thank Senators Husted and Warner for their bipartisan leadership in advancing this critical, life-saving bill.”

Sen. Warner has long championed protecting children on social media. He introduced Kids Off Social Media Act, legislation that would set a minimum age of 13 to use social media platforms and prevent social media companies from feeding algorithmically-targeted content to users under the age of 17. Sen. Warner sponsored the Kids Online Safety Act, which requires social media platforms to, by default, enable a range of protections against addictive design and algorithmic recommendations, privacy protections, dedicated channels to report harm, and independent audits by experts and academic researchers to ensure that social media platforms are taking meaningful steps to address risks to kids. He also introduced the Augmenting Compatibility and Competition by Enabling Service Switching (ACCESS) Act, legislation that would encourage market-based competition with major social media platforms by requiring the largest companies make user data portable – and their services interoperable – with other platforms, and to allow users to designate a trusted third-party service to manage their privacy and account settings.

Read the bill text here.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and more than ten of his Senate colleagues are urging the Trump Administration’s Office of Personnel Management (OPM) against implementing two rules that would severely weaken longstanding civil service protections for federal employees. The senators submitted two letters for OPM’s official comment periods on its proposed rules regarding Suitability Action and Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals.

In the first letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over suitability action appeals when an employee or prospective employee is deemed unsuitable for federal service from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. In the second letter, the senators urged OPM to reject its proposed rule that would transfer jurisdiction over RIF appeals from the MSPB to OPM. In both letters, the senators expressed concern that the rules would shift the adjudication of appeals from the independent MSPB to an internal OPM process overseen by a political appointee – a clear conflict of interest in which OPM is the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter of these appeals. Further, they noted that these moves will erode protections for employees and invite political interference in workforce matters. The Senators stressed that these proposed changes are especially dangerous given the Administration’s recent abuses of federal employees.

In addition to Sen. Warner, Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) signed the suitability action appeals letter. Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) joined Sen. Warner is sending the reduction in force appeals letter.

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully,” the senators wrote in their suitability action appeals letter, which can be viewed here.

“We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades,” the senators wrote in their RIF appeals letter, which can be viewed here. 

Full text of both letters can be viewed below.

Suitability Action Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule, Suitability Action Appeals (OPM-2025-0173-0001). While we agree that suitability standards and procedures play a critical role in protecting the federal government, this proposal undermines the statutory framework, independence, and due process protections that ensure those standards are applied fairly and lawfully.

Congress spoke clearly when it enacted the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. That law reformed the former Civil Service Commission and deliberately created separate entities with distinct missions where personnel policymaking authority was assigned to OPM and independent adjudication of workforce appeals was assigned to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).

This separation was not accidental. Congress sought to prevent precisely the structure this rule would create, one where the same agency that promulgates personnel policy also adjudicates claims that those policies were applied improperly or unlawfully. By transferring suitability appeals from MSPB to OPM, the proposed rule collapses this intentionally designed safeguard and recreates aspects of the system Congress chose to abandon.

By contrast, the MSPB was structured to provide independent, balanced adjudication. Removing appeals from MSPB eliminates this neutral forum and centralizes authority within the policymaking body of OPM. Under this proposal, OPM would draft suitability policies, implement those policies, and adjudicate appeals arising from them. This consolidation makes OPM the policymaker, the enforcer, and the final arbiter.

OPM contends that internal reporting structures will preserve impartiality, claiming that staff taking suitability actions will operate in separate units and report through different supervisory chains than those deciding appeals. However, in practice, this separation cannot play out when both chains ultimately report to you in your politically appointed role as the Director of OPM as the rule clearly states that the Director of OPM will be the final arbiter of appeals.

Further, the proposal comes alongside multiple rules related to removing authority from the MSPB to OPM, including the appeal process for both probationary employees and reductions in force (RIFs). Transferring all these appeal responsibilities to OPM particularly amid a reduced internal workforce and without demonstrated adjudicatory capacity risks inconsistency, delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes—the exact consequences OPM claims this rule seeks to remedy.

This rule must also be considered in the broader context of recent suitability rulemaking that would further centralize personnel authority within OPM. Taken together, these actions would concentrate extraordinary power in a single agency led by political appointees, enabling OPM to sidestep long-established due process protections that shield federal employees from adverse actions based on political considerations, retaliation for exposing waste, fraud, and abuse, or other conduct protected by the merit system principles. This approach risks undermining merit based governance while weakening accountability and increasing politization.

For these reasons, we strongly urge OPM to withdraw this proposed rule and instead work collaboratively with Congress and stakeholders to modernize and improve suitability processes while maintaining the independence and merit principles that underpin our civil service system.

Reduction in Force Appeals:

We write in strong opposition to the Office of Personnel Management’s (OPM) proposed rule—Reduction in Force Appeals [2026-02576]—that seeks to move the venue for Reduction in Force (RIF) appeals from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to OPM. At its core, this proposal undoes Congress’s deliberate separation of personnel policymaking and adjudication of appeals, undermines due process protections for federal employees, and poses heightened risks of politization given the current Administration’s attacks on the nonpartisan civil service. While framed as an efficiency measure, the rule would instead erode structural safeguards that have anchored the merit-based civil service for decades.

In the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Congress divided the former Civil Service Commission’s responsibilities between OPM and MSPB, assigning OPM the task of promulgation and interpretation of federal personnel policy, while entrusting MSPB with the independent adjudication of workforce appeals. This separation was not incidental; it was designed to prevent the very conflict of interest this proposed rule would create. By consolidating policymaking and adjudicatory authority within OPM, the agency that writes and interprets RIF regulations would also determine whether those same regulations were lawfully applied. The proposed rule directly contradicts the statutory framework Congress deliberately constructed to safeguard neutrality and merit principles.

The proposed rule contends that the current “dual-track” structure by which OPM creates RIF regulations and MSPB adjudicates appeals creates inefficiencies. It also asserts that MSPB, as opposed to OPM, lacks institutional expertise about RIFs. However, the quasi-judicial procedures available before MSPB, which include hearings, discovery, and the development of a formal record, are not bureaucratic obstacles; rather, they are consequential safeguards for employees in a merit-based system. Particularly in RIF disputes involving complex claims related to the application of retention factors, preferences, or allegations of improper motive, a transparent and independent process is critical to preserve procedural fairness and employees’ rights.

The proposal further undermines both efficiency and independence by designating the Director of OPM as the final decision-maker in workforce appeals. Concentrating final adjudicatory authority in a single political appointee could create delays, and it would erode the structural independence Congress sought to protect when it separated this type of policymaking from its adjudication.

Additionally, OPM has not demonstrated that it possesses the adjudicatory capacity necessary to replace MSPB’s established system. The rule would shift appeals to OPM’s Merit System Accountability and Compliance (MSAC), which reports directly to the OPM Director and lacks the independent, balanced, multi-member board structure of the MSPB. Transferring appeals without evidence of readiness would risk inconsistent determinations, procedural delay, and diminished confidence in outcomes, which are the very issues the proposal claims to address.

Further, this rule accompanies several other proposed rules that would shift additional authority from the MSPB to OPM, including appeals involving probationary employees and suitability determinations. Concentrating all these adjudicatory functions within OPM at a time of reduced internal staffing and without demonstrated capacity would create further risk of inconsistent determinations and procedural delays.

Equally troubling is the erosion of procedural safeguards acknowledged within the proposal itself. Eliminating or weakening hearing rights and evidentiary collection processes would diminish the ability of employees to meaningfully challenge agency errors and would undermine confidence in the integrity of the system.

Finally, this proposal cannot be viewed in isolation from the broader context of the Administration’s attacks on the merit-based federal workforce. Recent attempts at mass removals and the President’s rhetoric suggesting that personnel actions are directed at political opponents underscore the importance of maintaining robust, independent oversight of RIF actions. Even if this restructuring were presented as purely administrative, it would still collapse the policymaking and adjudicatory separation Congress directed. Especially in the current political climate, the agency that sets personnel policy should not also have adjudicatory authority. If it were to have this concentrated authority, it would heighten the risk of misuse and politicization of workforce decisions.

As members of Congress, we have witnessed firsthand the vital services delivered to the American people by a nonpartisan and highly skilled federal workforce. It is our responsibility to ensure that the civil service remains protected from political retaliation and that it is guaranteed full due process rights. This proposed rule runs counter to those principles. We strongly urge OPM to reject it and instead collaborate with Congress to responsibly manage and modernize federal workforce operations.

###

WASHINGTON – Ahead of a Senate vote, U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (both D-VA) are sounding the alarm on the so-called ‘SAVE America Act’ and its far-reaching and harmful consequences for eligible voters. If signed into law, the SAVE America Act could strip millions of Americans of their ability to vote by imposing unnecessary and burdensome verification requirements. Under the SAVE America Act, voters would be required to provide proof of citizenship – such as a passport or birth certificate – to register to vote and photo identification to cast a ballot – even when voting by mail.

“We support reasonable steps that help maintain trust in our elections, including the voter identification requirements we already have in Virginia,” said the senators. “But the SAVE America Act goes far beyond that – it is a pretext for voter suppression. Republicans continue to raise baseless fears about election fraud and noncitizen voting, despite the fact that our elections are regularly audited and have also been tested repeatedly in courts, especially after 2020. Yet, no evidence of widespread voter fraud has ever been found. This bill is yet another extension of President Trump’s fixation on the 2020 election, and part of a broader effort to undermine confidence in our democracy ahead of 2026 and 2028.”

The SAVE America Act would: 

1. Require proof of name and citizenship before registering to vote (e.g., passport or birth certificate).
2. Require photo identification before voting in person or by mail.
3. Expose poll workers to new criminal penalties, even if they’re just trying to help U.S. citizens vote.
4. Require states to purge voters, potentially using unreliable data and as late as on Election Day.

Under the bill, voters would need to provide proof of citizenship each time they register to vote or update their voter registration. Voters could use a passport or birth certificate with a matching name as proof of citizenship. However, 40 percent of all Virginians — or nearly 3.3 million people — lack a valid passport, and almost 2 million women in Virginia may not have a birth certificate that matches their current legal name. Those women would need to bring both their birth certificate and marriage license to register to vote under the proposed law.

Registering to vote for almost all voters would become more complex. All voters who register at the DMV, online, or by mail would have to present documentary proof of citizenship to their election official in person. This increased burden would have a disproportionate impact on rural voters due to longer drive times required to get to an in-person election office. Furthermore, only 21 percent of Americans with household incomes under $50,000, or 21 million eligible voters nationwide, possess a passport, compared to 64% of those earning over $100,000 — meaning the burden would fall disproportionately on lower-income citizens.

It is extremely rare for noncitizens to vote. In 2024, Virginia Public Radio reviewed over 650 cases of election-related crimes in Virginia’s state court system over the last 20 years found no instances of a noncitizen being convicted of voting illegally. Nationwide, the Center for Election Innovation & Research found that noncitizen voter registration and voting are exceedingly rare, and reported claims often exaggerate the scope of the issue.

Under the Republican proposal, Virginia’s 15,000+ volunteer poll workers would be exposed to new criminal penalties if they register someone to vote without proof of citizenship — even if that person is a U.S. citizen.

Yesterday, Sen. Warner spoke on the Senate Floor about the SAVE America Act, making clear it is nothing more than a disenfranchisement tactic – and that Virginia already has voter ID laws.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and U.S. Rep. Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) today introduced the Hospice Care Accountability, Reform, and Enforcement (Hospice CARE) Act to modernize the Medicare hospice benefit, protect patients and taxpayers from fraud, and expand access to essential services and caregiver support.

Medicare’s hospice benefit has remained largely unchanged since its inception in 1982. However, the hospice industry has changed dramatically both in terms of the types of providers delivering and patients receiving end-of-life services. At the same time, documented and burgeoning fraud and abuse have raised questions about how to ensure the benefit continues to promote patient access while safeguarding the Medicare Trust Fund.

The Hospice CARE Act would strengthen the Medicare hospice benefit through a combination of program integrity provisions and payment reforms to ensure it better meets the needs of terminally ill patients and their families.

 “Making decisions about hospice and end-of-life care is one of the most difficult moments that families can endure, yet Medicare’s hospice benefit is out-of-touch with the needs of patients and providers,” said Sen. Warner. “I’m proud to introduce this legislation that will prioritize patient comfort at home as well as in a health care facility, and protect patients and taxpayers from bad actors attempting to steal essential resources.”

“Hospice should provide comfort and dignity at the end of life, yet the benefit has not evolved to meet families where there is need,” said Rep. Sánchez. “This bill strengthens and enhances Medicare’s hospice benefit so it provides the critical care patients and their families need – like respite care for caregivers and coverage of palliative treatments like dialysis and radiation – all while protecting the program from those trying to exploit it.”

Program Integrity: The bill creates additional safeguards to prevent fraudulent providers from enrolling in Medicare and increases oversight of hospices, especially new hospices. Specifically, it:

• Temporarily prevents new hospices from enrolling in Medicare, while allowing exceptions for instances where additional access to care is needed.
• Requires increased transparency of hospice ownership and managing control information, ensuring CMS’s enrollment records are up to date.
• Increases survey frequency for new hospices to ensure they meet hospice health and safety standards and prohibits payments to hospices that do not submit required quality data to the Secretary, with appropriate exceptions.
• Reduces the potential for inappropriate financial conflicts of interest when certifying individuals’ eligibility for hospice care, while allowing nurse practitioners and physician assistants to also certify eligibility.
• Requires CMS to conduct additional oversight activities to ensure hospices are providing holistic and comprehensive care.
• Provides patients with an explanation of benefits within 15 days of an individual’s hospice election to increase beneficiary awareness of hospice enrollment and prevent extended periods of fraudulent billing.

Payment Reform: The bill ensures that providers are incentivized to deliver high-quality care to individuals and their families. Specifically, it:

• Revises the payment structure for routine home care to reward hospices for providing in-person care.
• Increases payments to hospices for furnishing palliative radiation, chemotherapy, blood transfusions, and dialysis to address access barriers for individuals that require these costly treatments under a hospice election. Additionally, it creates an outlier payment policy to provide a backstop for providers delivering care to high-cost patients.
• Adds home respite care to the Medicare hospice benefit, allowing individuals to receive respite care at home rather than in a facility, which is a key benefit for families and caregivers that are taking care of loved ones at the end-of-life.
• Creates a new transitional inpatient respite benefit to support patients and families through their transition from a hospital into hospice care in the setting of their choice, allowing patients to move from hospital to general inpatient care to transitional respite, when appropriate. This new transitional payment seeks to eliminate the current pattern of care whereby terminally ill individuals are discharged from the hospital and inappropriately admitted to a skilled nursing facility in lieu of electing hospice care.

The full bill is available here. 

“The American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine (AAHPM) greatly supports the work being done on the need to address hospice fraud,” said Kristina Newport, MD, FAAHPM, HMDC, chief medical officer for AAHPM. “Patients and families in need of the care, comfort and quality of life that hospice care provides need to trust that they are receiving the best possible services. We look forward to working with Representative Sánchez and Senator Warner on these important issues and to ensure that all patients have access to this vital care.”

“The Alliance thanks Representative Sánchez and Senator Warner for their commitment to ensuring Americans have access to high-quality hospice care. The reintroduction of the Hospice CARE Act reflects their dedication to meeting the evolving needs of our aging population and strengthening the long-term sustainability and integrity of the hospice benefit,” said Jennifer Sheets, chief executive officer for the National Alliance for Care at Home. “Hospice care is one of the most profound services our healthcare system offers, providing patients and families with compassionate, dignified care during life’s most difficult moments. As the number of Americans turning to hospice continues to grow, it is critical that the benefit keeps pace with how care is delivered today and what patients, families, and providers actually need. The Alliance looks forward to working with Representative Sánchez and Senator Warner and their congressional colleagues on this legislation. We are committed to being a constructive partner in any effort to protect what’s working, address what isn’t, and modernize the Medicare hospice benefit in ways that serve patients, families, and the future of care in our country.”

“Hospice is a vital and deeply valued benefit, with a critical role in America’s health care system,” said Katie Smith Sloan, president and CEO of LeadingAge. “At its best, compassionate, high-quality, person-centered care is delivered to beneficiaries and families by ethical, forward-thinking, competent providers, in keeping with the sector’s nonprofit origins, which established a standard of quality care. Currently, however, hospice is at an inflection point. Increased scrutiny – an appropriate response to fraudulent behavior of a limited group of bad actors – highlights the need for modernization. This moment calls for thoughtful reform to ensure this valuable benefit continues to serve patients and families, support high-quality providers, protect against the rise of dishonest players, and preserve the core promise of hospice care. Done right, changes will expand the benefit to support the realities of modern-day hospice care, address the benefit’s vulnerabilities now being exploited, and help ensure quality to support strong funding. We thank Congresswoman Sánchez and Senator Warner for their leadership on this bill and their longstanding commitment to the need for high quality care for people with serious illness and at the end of life. There is more work to do, and we look forward to continuing to work with Congresswoman Sánchez and Senator Warner to ensure this bill achieves these goals.”

“In addition to significant payment reforms and program integrity measures, this bill takes important steps towards improving access to care for individuals on hospice,” said David Lipschutz, co-director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “This includes incentivizing in-person clinical visits and care to higher-cost patients and allowing respite care to be provided in the home. It also would create a transitional 15-day inpatient respite period to give eligible patients and their families adequate time to arrange for a safe transition into receive hospice at home following a hospital stay.”

“The National Partnership for Healthcare and Hospice Innovation (NPHI) thanks Senator Mark Warner and Congresswoman Linda Sánchez for their continued leadership on improving the experience for patients and families at the end-of-life, including with today's introduction of the Hospice CARE Act of 2026,” said Tom Koutsoumpas, founder and CEO of NPHI. “This legislation provides an important opportunity to pursue thoughtful reforms to the Medicare hospice benefit that both preserve patient access and address ongoing concerns related to program integrity. While the bill represents meaningful progress toward modernizing the benefit and reducing incentives for fraud, waste, and abuse, NPHI believes certain provisions – particularly those related to payment reform – present opportunities for further discussion and refinement. We look forward to working closely with Senator Warner, Representative Sánchez, the Senate Finance Committee, and the House Ways and Means Committee to ensure the legislation delivers thoughtful reforms that strengthen the hospice benefit for mission-driven providers and the patients they serve.”

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), Vice Chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent expressing serious concerns about the reported $10 billion payment to the Treasury as part of the Trump administration-brokered sale of TikTok’s U.S. operations.

In his letter, Warner wrote, “This arrangement, if true, would continue a pattern set by the Trump administration of exercising the power and authority of the government to benefit certain companies and individuals close to the President, and to extract financial concessions as a condition of doing so.”

The letter cites reporting from the Wall Street Journal that investors in the new TikTok deal – including Oracle, Silver Lake, Abu Dhabi's MGX, and other investors – have already paid $2.5 billion to the Treasury and will pay the remaining $7.5 billion in installments. Warner notes that the $10 billion figure represents roughly 71 percent of the new company’s publicly announced $14 billion valuation.

“Congress was addressing legitimate national security concerns when it passed the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act in 2024, limiting the reach of TikTok in the United States. Under the law, the restriction of TikTok went into effect on January 19, 2025, and allowed for a single extension delaying the restriction if certain conditions were met,” Warner noted. “President Trump issued four illegal extensions in the year leading up to this acquisition. The manner in which the administration handled this process raises a fear that the administration prioritized securing the well-connected investors’ ownership of TikTok over national security. The opaque, uncompetitive, and ad hoc process surrounding this government-brokered sale, with numerous clear conflicts of interest, has no analogue in modern American history.”

“In order to help determine if the process under which this administration conducted, assisted, or otherwise facilitated the TikTok acquisition complied with the intent of Congress and the law,” Warner wrote, he is seeking full documentation and explanations from the Treasury Department.

Warner’s letter requests detailed documentation from the Treasury Department addressing five key areas, including: the legal authority for approving the sale, the basis for requesting $10 billion, how the amount was determined, any involvement of President Trump, and the intended use of the funds given the Anti-Deficiency Act’s prohibition on spending non-appropriated funds.

The full text of the letter is available here.

###

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

Photos may be used online and in print, and can be attributed to ‘The Office of Sen. Mark R. Warner’

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), ex officio member of the Board of Trustees of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, released the following statement on today’s board meeting:

“The John F. Kennedy Center is a national monument, and one of the country’s premier arts and cultural institutions. Established by Congress as a National Cultural Center in 1958 and re-named in 1964, the Center has always had an important relationship with Congress, as Congress funds operations and maintenance and capital repair and restoration for the building.

“Unfortunately, recent actions by the president and certain board members have treated the Center like a personal vanity project, including firing career management staff, removing trustees, and sidelining ex officio members who are meant to provide congressional oversight by failing to share information and plans, and, in one specific case, muting a member who chose to speak up at a board meeting.

“This is not how a national cultural institution should be run. I urge the new leadership to restore transparency, fully engage bipartisan trustees, and provide Congress with the true reasons for a planned two-year closure and renovation, rather than turning the Kennedy Center into a platform for personal glorification.”

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA), a member of the Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs, applauds today’s Senate-passage of the bipartisan ROAD to Housing Act, the largest legislative housing package in decades. This landmark legislation will build more homes, bring down home purchasing and renting costs, preserve affordable housing in rural areas, help reduce homelessness, and address the rising share of housing owned by large corporate investors.

“Everywhere I go in Virginia, I hear from working families struggling with the high cost of living,” said Sen. Warner. “I’m relieved that Congress has been able to work together in a bipartisan manner to pass legislation that will help bring down housing costs for families, offer assurance to veterans and rural Virginians, take steps to reduce homelessness, and strengthen protections for renters. In this economy, Americans deserve some financial relief and security.”

The legislation includes more than 40 bipartisan housing provisions, several authored and championed by Sen. Warner, including:

• The RESIDE Act, legislation drafted by Sen. Warner and Sen. Jim Banks (R-IN) that creates a new pilot program to help communities convert vacant buildings – such as abandoned hotels, warehouses, and strip malls – into affordable homes. The program operates within the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)’s HOME Investment Partnerships Program, the nation’s largest federal block grant dedicated to affordable housing. It provides grants to local governments for acquisition, site prep, and rehabilitation of vacant properties, with priority given to communities that reduce regulatory barriers to housing conversion. Since its inception in 1992, the HOME program has invested over $788 million into communities across Virginia – helping build and preserve over 31,000 homes, create over 37,000 jobs, and generate $2.4 billion in local income. The RESIDE pilot program will allow communities to scale new housing development and test innovative strategies that could ultimately be adopted more broadly within the HOME program. 
• The Housing Supply Expansion Act, legislation that updates the federal definition of manufactured housing to allow homes that are not built on a permanent chassis, helping encourage innovation and expand affordable housing options.
• The Homes Are For People, Not Corporations Act, legislation that prohibits large institutional investors from purchasing certain single-family homes to promote homeownership opportunities for American families, not corporations.
• The VA Home Loan Awareness Act, legislation that ensures veterans are made aware of their home loan benefits through the Department of Veteran Affairs (VA), which may provide a more affordable lending option.
• The Veterans Affairs Loan Informed Disclosure (VALID) Act, legislation that improves transparency for veteran homebuyers by requiring Federal Housing Administration (FHA) mortgage disclosures to include cost comparison information to make veterans aware of their home loan benefits through the VA and help them compare those options to FHA financing.
• The Rural Housing Service Reform Act, legislation that reforms the United States Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Rural Housing Service, including by decoupling rental assistance from maturing mortgages to preserve affordable housing in rural areas. This will help preserve housing access for 400,000 rural families.
• Incentivizing Local Solutions to Homelessness, a provision that allows states and localities that receive Emergency Solutions Grant funding to request a waiver of the statutory 60 percent spending cap on emergency shelter beds and street outreach.
• The Reforming Disaster Recovery Act, legislation that permanently authorizes the Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) program and establishes the Office of Disaster Management and Resiliency within HUD to administer the program.
• The Whole-Home Repairs Act, legislation that authorizes a pilot program to offer grants and forgivable loans to eligible recipients to address home repair needs and health hazards to stabilize aging housing stock.
• The Rental Assistance Demonstration Program, which lifts the cap on the Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD) program and codifies tenant protections.
• The Community Investment and Prosperity Act, legislation that increases the Public Welfare Investments cap applicable to banks supervised by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Reserve from 15% to 20%, which will enhance banks’ capacity to make private investments in affordable housing.
• The Better Use of Intergovernmental and Local Development (BUILD) Housing Act, legislation that cuts red tape around environmental reviews, empowering state, local, and tribal governments to streamline reviews and increase housing development.
• The Housing Affordability Act, legislation that requires the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) to increase multifamily loan limits to better match housing market costs and enhance affordability.
• Grants For Planning and Implementation Associated with Affordable Housing, which authorizes a pilot program to offer competitive grants to assist state, local, and tribal governments with regional housing planning and community development activities.
• The Appraisal Industry Improvement Act, legislation that helps bolster appraiser workforce capacity, including by allowing both licensed and credentialed appraisers to conduct appraisals for FHA-insured mortgage lending transactions.

The ROAD to Housing Act also includes numerous provisions that require annual testimony and reporting from federal housing agencies and establishes oversight of key housing programs and funds.

Sen. Warner has long prioritized expanding access to affordable housing and homeownership. He has introduced and supported a range of bipartisan bills to spur new housing construction and redevelopment, including the Neighborhood Homes Investment Act, Preserving Rural Housing Investments Act, Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act, New Markets Tax Credit Extension Act, the Rural Historic Tax Credit Improvement Act, and the Historic Tax Credit Growth and Opportunity Act. He is also the lead author of the Low-Income First Time Homebuyers (LIFT) Act, which would help qualified first-generation homebuyers build equity in their homes by offering a 20-year mortgage with monthly payments comparable to a traditional 30-year loan, and the Yes in God’s Backyard (YIGBY) Act, which would help faith-based organizations and institutions of higher education unlock the promise of their existing land holdings by transforming underused property into much-needed affordable housing. Additionally, Sen. Warner is a cosponsor of the Downpayment Toward Equity Act, which would provide federal grants to help first-generation homebuyers cover down payments, closing costs, and other upfront expenses.

###

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

Photos may be used online and in print, and can be attributed to ‘The Office of Sen. Mark R. Warner’

WASHINGTON –Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined 38 colleagues in sending a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., demanding that HHS take immediate action to protect Americans’ uninterrupted access to comprehensive family planning and services by awarding a one-year full funding extension for all current Title X grantees.

Last year, the Trump Administration withheld millions in funding from almost one in five Title X grantees for months, placing over 840,000 people at risk of losing access to Title X-funded care and forcing some sites to close. While the administration restored funding to these groups by December 2025, many grantees were forced to serve the same need with reduced funding. Now, Title X grantees’ current funding is set to lapse on March 31, 2026.

In their letter, the senators highlight the importance of Title X, helping to provide broader access to important services that have resulted in improved health outcomes like lower maternal and infant mortality, fewer premature births, and lower rates of cancer. Since 1970, the Title X Family Planning Program has provided lifesaving family planning and preventive health services for low-income or uninsured patients. Title X services include contraception, cervical cancer screenings, pregnancy testing and counseling, and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment.

“In short, these services not only make our communities healthier, but also improve educational and economic attainment for women and their families,” the senators wrote.

While funding for all Title X grantees is set to lapse at the end of the month, HHS typically releases Title X non-compete continuation grant guidance in late December, affording grantees about 90 days to complete their continuation application. So far, HHS has not released any guidance or the notice of continuation funding opportunity for Title X year-five awards, creating widespread uncertainty. If this administration fails to meet the April 1, 2026 deadline for releasing Title X funding to current grantees, the repercussions could be catastrophic, with over two million patients losing access to contraception and preventive care and thousands of health care sites put at risk of closure.

“Any gap in Title X funding could result in over two million patients losing access to contraception and preventative care, worsen maternal health outcomes, and increase sexually transmitted infections,” the lawmakers wrote in their letter. “It will also risk layoffs of essential health care providers and staff who provide care for patients at thousands of Title X clinics nationwide, worsening the national maternal and reproductive health care crisis.”

The senators concluded their letter by emphasizing the importance of releasing this funding and how this delay has already caused uncertainty for clinics and patients across the country.

“A lapse in funding caused by this administration would deny patients and their families the dignity of affordable health care and irreparably worsen the health care crisis that President Trump and Republicans in Congress have already exacerbated by enacting the largest cuts to health care in American history,” the senators concluded. “It is imperative that the Department act now and issue a one-year extension of Title X funding.”

In addition to Sen. Warner, the letter was also signed by Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-HI), Patty Murray (D-WA), Angus King (I-ME), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Maria Cantwell (D-WA), Chris Coons (D-DE), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Richard Durbin (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ruben Gallego (D-AZ), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Edward Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Bernard Sanders (I-VT), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Tina Smith (D-MN), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Peter Welch (D-VT), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

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

Dear Secretary Kennedy:

For nearly 60 years, the Title X Family Planning Program (“Title X”) has provided millions of working Americans with access to family planning and essential preventive care services, like cancer screenings. Congress recently renewed its longstanding support for the program in the latest funding package. But under your leadership, the Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) has so far failed to release annual funding for Title X clinics across the country, as it ordinarily would have by this point in the year. Existing awards are set to lapse on March 31, 2026, and any loss of congressionally appropriated Title X funding will hurt millions of patients and significantly weaken communities’ access to comprehensive family planning services. As such, we demand that the Department take immediate action to protect Americans’ uninterrupted access to these critical services by awarding a one-year full funding extension for all current Title X grantees.

Title X is the only dedicated source of funding for domestic family planning services and preventive health care. Since its establishment in 1970, this program has provided vital reproductive health care services to patients at little to no cost, covering services like contraception, cervical cancer screenings, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, and pregnancy testing and counseling. Access to these services improves health outcomes, resulting in lower maternal and infant mortality, fewer premature births, and lower rates of cancer.[1] In short, these services not only make our communities healthier, but also improve educational and economic attainment for women and their families.[2] Title X funding also saves taxpayer dollars elsewhere in the health care system, with every dollar spent on public funding for family planning programs saving at least seven dollars in Medicaid costs.[3]

In 2022, HHS awarded five-year grants to over 85 Title X grant recipients to deliver affordable, patient-centered family planning and preventive health services across the United States and its territories. Without immediate action, funding for grants will lapse on March 31, 2026. Title X grantees were told that non-compete continuation application guidance was required to be released by HHS no later than December 31, 2025. As of current date, that guidance has not been released, creating widespread uncertainty for grantees, patients, and providers with less than a month of funding remaining. If the administration fails to meet the April 1, 2026, deadline for releasing Title X funding to the current grantees, the repercussions for critical health care will be catastrophic. Any gap in Title X funding could result in over two million patients losing access to contraception and preventative care, worsen maternal health outcomes, and increase sexually transmitted infections. It will also risk layoffs of essential health care providers and staff who provide care for patients at thousands of Title X clinics nationwide, worsening the national maternal and reproductive health care crisis.

These harms are not hypothetical. In 2019, the first Trump administration finalized regulations, which had lasting consequences for the program. Over 1,000 clinics became ineligible for funding. Last April, the Trump administration withheld all or partial funding from a quarter of all Title X grantees for months, cutting off over 840,000 patients’ access to contraceptive care and forcing Title X sites to close.[4] When funding was finally restored, clinics were forced to try to meet the same need but with significantly reduced funding.

This delay is already causing costly uncertainty for clinics across the country and the patients that they serve. A lapse in funding caused by this administration would deny patients and their families the dignity of affordable health care and irreparably worsen the health care crisis that President Trump and Republicans in Congress have already exacerbated by enacting the largest cuts to health care in American history. It is imperative that the Department act now and issue a one-year extension of Title X funding.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Sens. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) and Josh Hawley (R-MO) today led a bipartisan group of senators in urging the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Census Bureau to expand data collection and public reporting on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on the U.S. workforce. As AI technologies are rapidly developed, deployed, and integrated across industries, the senators warned that policymakers and researchers will increasingly need reliable federal data to understand how these changes are reshaping the labor market – and how lawmakers, workers and businesses should respond.  

U.S. Sens. Jim Banks (R-IN), Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Todd Young (R-IN) also signed the letter.

“We write to strongly urge the federal government’s statistical agencies to prioritize the collection, analysis, and dissemination of high-quality, timely data regarding artificial intelligence’s (AI) impact on the labor market,” the senators wrote.

The senators continued, “Over the last several years, the enhanced capabilities of artificial intelligence have resulted in its increased application and adoption across many and varied industries and occupations. Predictive machine learning systems and generative AI have already created evolutions within the labor market due to those tools’ ability to perform tasks and functions that ordinarily require human intelligence. The emergence of autonomous technologies, including agentic AI and robotics integrating AI, present opportunities for a dramatic shift in the nature of work.”

“However, reporting from across the private sector, academia, and media depict an uncertain picture of artificial intelligence’s current and potential impact on the workforce, with some use cases demonstrating a high probability of job disruption and others making the case for employment growth. Recent reporting has generated an increased focus on artificial intelligence’s effect on new labor entrants. As such, it is imperative that the federal government serves as an agile, objective, and reliable source of information regarding the significant labor market changes that this technological advancement presents,” the senators stressed.

Currently, the federal government’s data, research, and measurement on AI lags behind non-governmental labor market data. In their letter, the senators outlined several opportunities where surveys can be expanded to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence, including supplemental surveys focused on AI in the monthly Current Population Survey (CPS); the addition of questions on the occupations and wages of both new hires and workers who separate from employers and how many hires, job postings, and layoffs are directly related to the business’ use of AI in the monthly and annual Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS); and the addition of questions related to AI in the National Longitudinal Survey.

The letter builds on the AI Jobs Clarity Act, legislation that Warner and Hawley introduced last fall that would require major companies and federal agencies to report AI-related layoffs to the Department of Labor to be compiled in a publicly available report.

Read the full letter here or below.

Dear Secretary Chavez-DeRemer, Acting Commissioner Wiatrowski, and Mr. Cook:

We write to strongly urge the federal government’s statistical agencies to prioritize the collection, analysis, and dissemination of high-quality, timely data regarding artificial intelligence’s (AI) impact on the labor market.

Over the last several years, the enhanced capabilities of artificial intelligence have resulted in its increased application and adoption across many and varied industries and occupations. Predictive machine learning systems and generative AI have already created evolutions within the labor market due to those tools’ ability to perform tasks and functions that ordinarily require human intelligence. The emergence of autonomous technologies, including agentic AI and robotics integrating AI, present opportunities for a dramatic shift in the nature of work.

However, reporting from across the private sector, academia, and media depict an uncertain picture of artificial intelligence’s current and potential impact on the workforce, with some use cases demonstrating a high probability of job disruption and others making the case for employment growth. Recent reporting has generated an increased focus on artificial intelligence’s effect on new labor entrants.

As such, it is imperative that the federal government serves as an agile, objective, and reliable source of information regarding the significant labor market changes that this technological advancement presents. As it stands, the federal government’s statistical agencies’ data, research, and measurement on artificial intelligence significantly lags behind non-governmental labor market data. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has begun incorporating artificial intelligence impacts on employment projections and has published occupational case studies on these efforts. The U.S. Census Bureau has added artificial intelligence tailored questions to its Business Trends and Outlook Survey and Annual Business Survey. While we applaud these initial steps, we call on your agencies to build upon these actions swiftly and considerably. 

Specifically, we direct your attention to the Joint Explanatory Statement that accompanied the Department of Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2026 as part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026 (Pub. L. 119-75), which states the following:

“The agreement recognizes the value of understanding how artificial intelligence affects our workforce and encourages BLS to evaluate the impact of artificial intelligence on the economy, including job loss, creation, and displacement.”

In response to this directive, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and the U.S. Census Bureau should identify opportunities to fully leverage existing data collection efforts, including, but not limited to, integrating additional artificial intelligence questions into surveys, continuing the incorporation of occupational classification systems into reports, linking cross-agency data measurement to produce comprehensive reports, partnering with non-public entities to produce additional public use statistics, and increasing the frequency of published reports.

Specifically, we point your agencies to several opportunities where surveys can be expanded to better understand the impact of artificial intelligence:

• The Current Population Survey (CPS) serves as the primary source of near real-time labor force statistics and is a cornerstone of the monthly jobs report. BLS should consider adding supplemental surveys focused on artificial intelligence and task specific questions.
• The Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) produces monthly and annual estimates of job openings, hires, and separations. While this survey serves as an important measure of labor demand, it does not currently provide an understanding of labor demand by occupation and how this may be changing with artificial intelligence adoptions. We recommend that JOLTS add questions on the occupations and wages of both new hires and workers who separate from employers and how many hires, job postings, and layoffs are directly related to the business’ use of AI.
• The National Longitudinal Survey follows the lives of a sample of American youth. By establishing a new cohort and adding questions related to artificial intelligence, we can understand long-term trends.

At a time when the U.S. workforce is approaching an inflection point due to the acceleration of artificial intelligence, adaptable and responsive federal statistical agencies are necessary in guiding labor market participants, researchers, and policymakers on how to properly respond to this moment.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

###

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

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-VA) joined 30 of his colleagues in pressing the Trump administration for accountability and an investigation into the death of Nasrallah Abu Siyam, an American citizen who was shot and killed in the West Bank by violent Israeli settlers. Nasrallah is the ninth American citizen who has been killed in the West Bank since January 2022 – to date, no one has been held responsible for the deaths of any of these Americans.

In addition to Sen. Warner, the letter was signed by Sens. Van Hollen (D-MD), Murray (D-WA), Durbin (D-IL), Reed (D-RI), Cantwell (D-WA), Sanders (I-VT), Klobuchar (D-MN), Whitehouse (D-RI), Shaheen (D-NH), Merkley (D-OR), Bennet (D-CO), Coons (D-DE), Schatz (D-HI), Baldwin (D-WI), Murphy (D-CT), Hirono (D-HI), Heinrich (D-NM), Kaine (D-VA), Warren (D-MA), Markey (D-MA), Booker (D-NJ), Duckworth (D-IL), Smith (D-MN), Luján (D-NM), Warnock (D-GA), Welch (D-VT), Kim (D-NJ), Gallego (D-AZ), Blunt Rochester (D-DE), and Alsobrooks (D-MD).

“In the wake of the killing of another U.S. citizen in the West Bank, the ninth since January 2022, we write with grave concern regarding the ongoing lack of accountability for the deaths of Americans in the West Bank. On February 18th, Nasrallah Abu Siyam was shot and killed in the West Bank village of Mukhmas, near Ramallah, by violent Israeli settlers during an attack on Palestinian farmers. This is yet another example of the impunity afforded to extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank under the protection of the Israel Defense Forces. The U.S. government must conduct a credible and independent investigation into Nasrallah’s killing and hold all perpetrators accountable,” wrote the senators.

“Unfortunately, this is the second letter we’ve written to this administration in the last seven months about the killing of an American citizen in the West Bank. […] In response to our letter, the State Department wrote ‘The United States calls for accountability in all cases where U.S. citizens are harmed abroad to help prevent future tragedies.’ It’s clear that these ‘calls’ and whatever efforts were made, if any, to secure accountability, failed. This has now become a consistent pattern in which Americans are being killed in the West Bank by settlers or the IDF without justice or accountability, despite promises from U.S. officials,” they continued.

The senators noted, “Nasrallah Abu Siyam, a 19-year-old American born in Philadelphia, has become the ninth American killed in the West Bank since January 2022. Along with Saifullah Musallet and Khamis Ayyada, a forty-year-old American citizen and father of five who died of smoke inhalation in August after a fire was set by Israeli settlers in his West Bank village of Silwad, Abu Siyam is now the third American killed in the West Bank during the second Trump administration.”

“For all nine of these killings, no one has yet been held accountable by the Netanyahu government, nor has the U.S. government upheld its duty to protect Americans and secure justice and accountability for their deaths. It is unclear to us how many more Americans must die in the West Bank in order for this administration, and other administrations, to take serious, credible steps to secure accountability and ensure an end to the ongoing killings of Americans without consequence,” they pressed.

“We urge you to launch an independent investigation into the killing of Nasrallah Abu Siyam and provide an update on the status of investigations into the killings of all the other Americans killed in the West Bank since January 2022. We expect a briefing on this information by April 5, 2026,” they closed.

The full letter is available here and below. 

Dear Secretary Rubio, Attorney General Bondi, and Ambassador Huckabee:

In the wake of the killing of another U.S. citizen in the West Bank, the ninth since January 2022, we write with grave concern regarding the ongoing lack of accountability for the deaths of Americans in the West Bank. On February 18th, Nasrallah Abu Siyam was shot and killed in the West Bank village of Mukhmas, near Ramallah, by violent Israeli settlers during an attack on Palestinian farmers. This is yet another example of the impunity afforded to extremist Israeli settlers in the West Bank under the protection of the Israel Defense Forces. The U.S. government must conduct a credible and independent investigation into Nasrallah’s killing and hold all perpetrators accountable. 

Unfortunately, this is the second letter we’ve written to this administration in the last seven months about the killing of an American citizen in the West Bank. Our July 2025 letter was regarding the killing of Saifullah Kamal Musallet, a 20-year-old American citizen from Florida who was beaten to death by extremist Israeli settlers. Since that letter, two other Americans have been killed as a result of Israeli settler violence. In response to our letter, the State Department wrote “The United States calls for accountability in all cases where U.S. citizens are harmed abroad to help prevent future tragedies.” It’s clear that these “calls” and whatever efforts were made, if any, to secure accountability, failed. This has now become a consistent pattern in which Americans are being killed in the West Bank by settlers or the IDF without justice or accountability, despite promises from U.S. officials. 

Nasrallah Abu Siyam, a 19-year-old American born in Philadelphia, has become the ninth American killed in the West Bank since January 2022. Along with Saifullah Musallet and Khamis Ayyada, a forty-year-old American citizen and father of five who died of smoke inhalation in August after a fire was set by Israeli settlers in his West Bank village of Silwad, Abu Siyam is now the third American killed in the West Bank during the second Trump administration. 

Six other Americans were killed in the West Bank since January 2022. This includes a 14-year-old boy from New Jersey, Amer Mohammad Saada Rabee, who was shot 11 times, and two 17-year-old boys, Tawfic Abdel Jabbar and Mohammad Ahmed Mohammad Khdour, both shot and killed in separate instances. Aysenur Ezgi Eygi, a 26-year-old American citizen raised in Seattle, was shot in the head by an Israeli soldier, and respected Palestinian American journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, was also shot in the head and killed by the IDF while clearly marked as a journalist. Omar Assad, an elderly Palestinian-American, died of a stress-induced heart attack after being gagged, blindfolded, bound with his hands behind his back, and left on the ground in the cold.

For all nine of these killings, no one has yet been held accountable by the Netanyahu government, nor has the U.S. government upheld its duty to protect Americans and secure justice and accountability for their deaths. It is unclear to us how many more Americans must die in the West Bank in order for this administration, and other administrations, to take serious, credible steps to secure accountability and ensure an end to the ongoing killings of Americans without consequence.

We urge you to launch an independent investigation into the killing of Nasrallah Abu Siyam and provide an update on the status of investigations into the killings of all the other Americans killed in the West Bank since January 2022. We expect a briefing on this information by April 5, 2026.