MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

(Washington, DC) – Yesterday, Ranking Member Marcy Kaptur (OH-09) of the Committee on Appropriations’ Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren (CA-18) of the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology sent a letter to Department of Energy (DOE) Secretary Chris Wright demanding answers regarding a political appointee remaining on paid administrative leave nine months after they were removed from their position. The appointee in question, Ms. Cathy Tripodi, served as the Director of DOE’s Office of Clean Energy Demonstration (OCED). She was removed from her position in October 2025.

“The American people expect the leaders who hold political appointment at the Department to do the work for which they are being paid at significant public expense,” the Ranking Members wrote in their letter. “Unfortunately, it appears this foundational expectation and the public trust was violated by recent personnel-related decisions.”

The lawmakers call into question whether Secretary Wright’s handling of Ms. Tripodi’s departure represents a misuse of taxpayer dollars, writing: “It appears that the Department allowed Ms. Tripodi to continue to earn her taxpayer-funded $190,000 per annum salary, potentially with benefits, for close to a full year after her removal from the OCED Director position. If she performed no work for the Department during the time she remained on the payroll, that would constitute a serious misuse of public funds. If she was working or detailed elsewhere while the Department paid her salary, such an arrangement raises serious questions of its own. In either case, the Department owes Congress and the American people a full and timely explanation.”

The letter is available here and below:

Dear Secretary Wright,

We write to exercise appropriate Congressional oversight over, and request information and documents about, a troubling personnel matter that has unfolded under your leadership at the Department of Energy (“the Department”). We send this letter and exercise this oversight based on the long-held understanding and core principle that political appointees privileged to serve at the Department assume public trust, hold public office, and earn taxpayer-funded salaries. The American people expect the leaders who hold political appointment at the Department to do the work for which they are being paid at significant public expense. Unfortunately, it appears this foundational expectation and the public trust was violated by recent personnel-related decisions.

Specifically, we recently learned that Ms. Cathy Tripodi, a political appointee of the Administration who served as Director of the Office of Clean Energy Demonstrations (OCED) at the Department, remained on paid administrative leave for nearly nine months after she was removed from her at-will position. It appears that the Department allowed Ms. Tripodi to continue to earn her taxpayer-funded $190,000 per annum salary, potentially with benefits, for close to a full year after her removal from the OCED Director position. If she performed no work for the Department during the time she remained on the payroll, that would constitute a serious misuse of public funds. If she was working or detailed elsewhere while the Department paid her salary, such an arrangement raises serious questions of its own. In either case, the Department owes Congress and the American people a full and timely explanation.

This situation represents the latest in a series of developments since you were sworn in as Secretary in February 2025 that have caused ongoing concern and that collectively call into question the decisions being made at the Department. Among these developments are forced indiscriminate firings and resignations of employees; the cancellation of billions of dollars for projects as political retaliation against “blue” States, which you sought to deny was the basis of such cancellations despite the admission in court by the U.S. Department of Justice that such retaliation was indeed the deciding rationale; the pursuit of ideologically-driven market interventions that distort energy markets and raise energy costs for consumers; and the illegal transfer of appropriated funds in ways that violate Congressional spending laws. The consequences of these troubling developments have fallen on the American people in the form of relentless energy price increases that are compounding our Nation’s current affordability crisis.

Your tenure as Secretary to date is also marked by significant turnover at the Department among political appointees, which includes the departures of Mr. Steven Winberg as Deputy Under Secretary for Infrastructure and Mr. Wells Griffith as Under Secretary for Energy, both of whom departed within months of assuming their respective positions. Most notably for the purposes of this letter, Ms. Tripodi – who previously served at the Department during the President’s first term and who was among the current Administration’s earliest political appointments at the Department – was reportedly removed in October 2025 from her position as OCED Director. 

As the respective Ranking Members of the Subcommittee on Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies of the Committee on Appropriations and the Committee on Science, Space, and Technology in the House of Representatives, we have a duty to conduct oversight of the Department, including over personnel decisions affecting the execution of its mission and the upholding of public trust for the American people. Last October, we had no reason to believe that Ms. Tripodi’s removal represented anything beyond a discretionary Presidential personnel matter. However, it now appears that the Department’s handling of her departure under your leadership and other personnel matters may have implicated and may represent the misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Late last month, we learned that Ms. Tripodi remained on paid administrative leave at the Department long after her reported removal from the OCED Director position. Ms. Tripodi had been relieved of her duties nearly nine months earlier in October 2025, and by all accounts her work at the Department had ended at that time. As a political appointee, she lacked civil service protections. There was no legal or administrative barrier to terminating her employment with the Department on the day she was removed. Even so, she apparently remained on the Department’s payroll for nearly nine months, presumably without performing any work. Her government annual salary of $190,000, according to the most recent publicly available information from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), was significant by any standard, and certainly by the standards of most American families. Our understanding upon learning about this situation was that Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave was scheduled to end on or around the end of the month of June 2026. However, it is unclear whether any additional financial benefits or severance pay accompanied the end of her leave.

Since January 2025, the Administration has moved quickly to remove a significant number of highly respected, expert career employees. The Department’s leadership has eagerly participated and embraced these career employee removals. Yet the same urgency through which these Federal workforce reductions have been carried out under the current Administration does not appear to have been applied in the case of Ms. Tripodi. If Ms. Tripodi did not perform any work for the Department during the period she remained on the payroll, that is a troubling double standard – particularly for an Administration that repeatedly invokes “waste, fraud, and abuse” as justification for its broad, unprecedented reductions in force, terminations of career civil servants, and curtailment of programs that serve the public interest. If, on the other hand, Ms. Tripodi was employed or detailed outside the Department – for example, at a National Laboratory or a Department contractor – while continuing to draw her Department of Energy salary, such arrangement raises serious conflict-of-interest and dual-compensation concerns, and it is difficult to understand why the Department would pay a former appointee to work outside its domain. We do not know which of these scenarios may apply in this case, and the Department should tell us.

Keeping a political appointee who has been relieved of her duties on the payroll for nearly nine months is difficult to justify as being in the public interest, whether she performed no work during that time or was paid by the Department while working elsewhere. As skyrocketing energy costs increasingly burden American families, the Department should be able to explain what public purpose this arrangement served. We expect you to account for how it occurred and to identify who was responsible.

We intend to obtain the answers that we seek through this letter. Please respond to the following questions and document production requests no later than two weeks from today, 5:00 PM on Wednesday, August 5, 2026:

1.     How long was Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave at the Department? Please disclose the initial date that she was placed on paid administrative leave and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

2.     How much salary did Ms. Tripodi earn during her time on paid administrative leave? To what government benefits was Ms. Tripodi entitled during her time on administrative leave, what benefits did she receive, and what was the total value of those benefits?

3.     Did Ms. Tripodi receive any severance pay, or any other financial benefit, at the end of her paid administrative leave?

4.     Which Department official(s) authorized Ms. Tripodi’s placement on paid administrative leave?

5.     Why did the Department place Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave after she was removed from her position as OCED Director? What was the legal justification for her placement on paid administrative leave and what specific statutory and regulatory basis served to authorize such leave? 

6.     Have any other political appointees at the Department been placed on paid administrative leave since January 20, 2025? Please identify each political appointee who has been placed on paid administrative leave since that date, the initial date of their administrative leave and the final date of their administrative leave, and the specific reason(s) and legal basis for placing them on administrative leave.

7.     During the period she remained on the Department’s payroll following her removal as OCED Director, was Ms. Tripodi detailed or otherwise assigned at any time to any other entity, including but not limited to a Department of Energy National Laboratory, a contractor, another Federal agency, or any other organization? If so, please identify each such entity, the date(s) of the detail or assignment, the nature of the work performed, which DOE official(s) authorized it, and the source(s) of funding for her salary during that time.

8.     During the period she remained on the Department’s payroll following her removal, did Ms. Tripodi hold any other employment or receive any other compensation from any source? If so, please identify each source of employment or compensation and the dates involved.

9.     Did the Department’s ethics official(s), or ethics official(s) placed anywhere else in the Federal Government, review any detail, assignment, outside employment, or other activity of Ms. Tripodi during this period in question for compliance with applicable conflict-of-interest and ethics requirements? If so, please describe each such review and its outcome. If not, please explain why no such review was conducted.

In addition, please provide the following information to our Committees:

1.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) within the Department regarding the decision to place Ms. Tripodi on paid administrative leave.

2.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) within the Department regarding the end of Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave.

3.     All documents and communications (including, but not limited to, emails, text messages, instant messages, Signal messages, comments, notes, analyses, legal and other memoranda, letters, telephone logs, meeting minutes, calendar entries, PowerPoint slides, and presentation materials) between the Department and the White House Liaison and Deputy White House Liaison, assigned to the Office of the Secretary inside the Department, regarding Ms. Tripodi’s paid administrative leave.

4.     All emails sent from Ms. Tripodi’s official government email account at the Department, and all emails received by Ms. Tripodi’s official government email account at the Department, between October 1, 2025, and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

5.     All text messages, instant messages, and Signal messages sent from Ms. Tripodi’s official government-issued equipment, and all text messages, instant messages, and Signal messages received by Ms. Tripodi’s official government-issued equipment, between October 1, 2025, and the final date of her paid administrative leave.

6.     A copy of the written administrative leave policies, and any associated guidance or memoranda, adopted for the Department that applied during the period Ms. Tripodi was placed on paid administrative leave, and the current version of such policies and related documentation as of the date of this letter, if different.

If you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact Scott McKee with the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Appropriations at (202) 225-3481 or Adam Rosenberg with the Minority Staff of the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology at (202) 225-6375. Thank you for your attention to this important matter.  

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Alma Adams (12th District of North Carolina)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Representatives Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. (NC-12),LoisFrankel (FL-22),Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12),Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), and Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (DE), introduced the Black Women’s Equal Pay Day Resolution, marking July 21^st as Black Women’s Equal Pay Day and recognizing the deep, persistent wage gap that Black women continue to face in the United States. 

Every year, the date of Black Women’s Equal Pay Day is set to mark the amount of time Black women would have to work to earn what white, non-Hispanic men earned by the end of the previous year. In 2025, Black women earned roughly 65 cents for every dollar white men earned. 

“Today, we confront an unacceptable wage disparity facing Black women, and recommit ourselves to correcting it,” said Higher Education and Workforce Development Subcommittee Ranking Member, Congresswoman Alma S. Adams, Ph.D. “For generations, Black women have been compelled to work twice as hard for half the reward. They have faced entrenched barriers, systemic discrimination, and a persistent denial of opportunity. We cannot ask another generation of Black women to wait months, even years, for the pay they rightfully deserve. I am proud to introduce this resolution, and I call on this Congress to act with the urgency this injustice demands.”

“Equal pay is more than a slogan—it’s about whether women can pay their bills, take care of their families, enjoy a good quality of life, and eventually retire with dignity,” said Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Emerita Lois Frankel. “In 2025, for the second year in a row, the gender pay gap widened, and for Black women the disparity is even greater. It’s long past time for Congress to close the wage gap and ensure every woman is paid fairly for her work.”

“The wage gap has widened for two years in a row – the first time we’ve seen such an increase since the 1960s,” said Rep. Watson Coleman. “And as we navigate a nationwide affordability crisis, Republican policies have stripped away tools to narrow the pay gap and made it harder for black women to earn good-paying jobs. Black women are foundational to the progress and survival of this nation yet for far too long have been prevented from reaping the fruits of their labor. It’s imperative that we address the racist, sexist policies that cause structural economic inequality in America so Black women are paid what they’ve earned.”

“Women hold this country together. We raise families, care for loved ones, teach our children, heal the sick, grow businesses, harvest our food, and serve our communities,” said Congresswoman Teresa Leger Fernández, Chair of the Democratic Women’s Caucus. “Yet, year after year, our work is still valued less than men’s. That is not just unfair—it is a choice our country continues to make. Black Women’s Equal Pay Day reminds us that while all women continue to fight for equal pay, Black women face an even steeper climb. We are well into Summer before their equal pay day rolls around—that’s too late, it’s too tiring and smothering to fathom the disrespect this late date signifies. Congress must finally pass the Paycheck Fairness Act and make equal pay the law of the land so that Black women, and all women earn the pay they deserve.” “Even in the ‘land of opportunity,’ Black women must work 50 percent longer to achieve the same earnings as white men,” said Senator Blunt Rochester. “This resolution sheds light on the challenges facing minority communities across the country and reaffirms our commitment to closing the pay gaps. I’m proud to see all my Senate Democratic colleagues join me in making a concerted effort to improve the quality of life for Black women everywhere.”

Text of the resolution can be found HERE.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03)

Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) touted her App Store Freedom Act (H.R. 3209) during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace.” The bipartisan bill, introduced alongside Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-FL-03) last year, would open up the mobile app marketplace to real competition.
“Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution,” Congresswoman Trahan said. “That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly. Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation.”
During the Committee hearing, Trahan spoke about the importance of the legislation. Footage of her remarks can be accessed HERE or by clicking the image below. A transcript is embedded below.

During her remarks, Trahan pointed out that just two companies – Apple and Google – control almost all of the app distribution on iOS and Android devices. Together, they have taken steps to eliminate competition, allowing them to set their own rules, charge extreme fees to app developers, and copy, punish, or outright block apps that they view as conflicting with their own business priorities.
The App Store Freedom Act would ensure that consumers have the ability to install third-party app stores, sideload apps, and delete pre-installed ones they don’t want. It would also give developers free, equal access to the tools they need to compete and stop dominant app stores from forcing developers into proprietary payment systems or punishing them for offering better deals elsewhere.
“H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners,” Congresswoman Trahan continued. “It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.”
The bipartisan bill is backed by a broad coalition of small and medium sized developers and pro-consumer and pro-competition advocacy groups.
—————————————
Congresswoman Lori Trahan
Remarks as Delivered
House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace”
July 22, 2026
Well. Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I also want to thank the Chairman.  Today I’m so glad to see H.R. 3209, the bipartisan App Store Freedom Act, on today’s agenda, and I’m grateful to my co-lead Congresswoman Kat Cammack for her tireless work on this bipartisan legislation.
Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution. That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly.
Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation. A new economic analysis published this week quantifies the harm. Americans spend $52.3 billion annually through Apple and Google’s app stores. If competition pushed down app store fees, consumers could save about $8.9 billion each year.
The App Store Freedom Act targets only the largest gatekeepers and offers a pro-market fix.
It lets consumers choose alternative stores and default apps, install apps outside the dominant stores, and remove unwanted preloaded apps. It stops forced payment systems and gag rules, and it gives developers fair access to operating-system features so they can compete on merit. 
Opponents say exclusivity is the price of security. It’s not. They argue that opening app distribution and alternative app stores will invite malware, scams, and threats to children. And sure, alternative distribution can create risks if poorly managed, but the status quo is already unacceptable.  Documented scams and unsafe apps like nudify apps routinely slip through Apple’s and Google’s security reviews. The answer is strong safeguards, not permanent monopoly control.
To be absolutely clear, nothing in this bill forces someone to use an alternative app store.  Apple and Google can keep operating and vetting their own stores. It does not require them to provide support for third-party apps, and it preserves intellectual-property and national-security safeguards.
We know openness and security can coexist. Google’s Play Protect scans Android apps from outside its store and Apple secures software outside the Mac App Store. Competition could also produce safer choices, including stores designed specifically for families and children.
Security is an engineering challenge, not a monopoly entitlement.
H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners. It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.
Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Bilirakis today is an important first step. I urge the committee to continue to work with Congresswoman Cammack and myself to break the duopoly and allow competition in the mobile app space. American consumers have waited long enough.
###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Lauren Underwood (IL-14)

WASHINGTON – This week, Rep. Lauren Underwood’s bipartisan NIH IMPROVE Act to ensure consistent funding for research on disparities in maternal care and mortality passed the House with unanimous support. The legislation is co-led by Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA).

The NIH IMPROVE Act is part of the Momnibus, a comprehensive package of 14 pieces of legislation designed to address every clinical and nonclinical driver of our nation’s maternal health crisis.

“80% of maternal deaths are preventable—and the NIH IMPROVE Initiative is a key tool to stop them. I am so pleased that this critical legislation for moms and families has passed the House. The Momnibus continues to make incredible progress, and this leap puts us one step closer to seeing the entire package signed into law,” said Rep. Underwood. “Since 2019, IMPROVE has invested more than $200 million in life-saving research that will help end our nation’s maternal health crisis, which disproportionately impacts Black moms. This bipartisan legislation will advance maternal health research by permanently authorizing funding for this initiative and make sure NIH can continue this critical work.”

In early 2019, Co-Chairs Adams and Underwood met with then-Director Francis Collins of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to urge the agency to do more to prioritize research that will help solve our maternal health crisis. In response, NIH launched the Implementing a Maternal Health and Pregnancy Outcomes Vision for Everyone (IMPROVE) Initiative later that year. Since then, Rep. Underwood has increased funding for the program five-fold through the appropriations process. For more information and a complete list of awards, click here. 

The IMPROVE Initiative supports research to reduce preventable causes of maternal deaths, understand and reduce disparities, and improve health care for women before, during, and after pregnancy. It includes a special emphasis on health disparities and populations that are disproportionately affected, such as racial and ethnic minorities, very young women and women of advanced maternal age, and people with disabilities. 

However, this critical research program lacks a sustained funding source, threatening research outcomes and conclusions. The NIH IMPROVE Act would authorize $63.4 million annually for six years to carry out the IMPROVE Initiative and support research on potential causes of maternal mortality and severe morbidity. This funding would be used to target disparities associated with maternal mortality and severe morbidity, reduce preventable causes of maternal deaths, and build an evidence base for improved care and outcomes in underserved maternal care deserts.   

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Norma Torres (35th District of California)

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Don Beyer (D-VA)

Congressman Don Beyer (D-VA) and House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-CA) led 70 House Democrats in demanding that the National Park Service (NPS) immediately address its reported backlog of 1,400 grant approvals, which has delayed more than $360 million in funding for critical projects that keep national parks safe and accessible to the American public.

In a letter addressed to NPS Acting Director Jessica Bowron, the lawmakers warned that the grant approval bottleneck is delaying routine but essential work, including trail maintenance, wildfire mitigation, and other projects during peak visitation and wildfire risk season.

The Members pointed to a new grant process that requires two political appointees to manually review every grant and agreement over $50,000. Members stressed this review process has resulted in more than $360 million in delayed NPS funding. The Members also noted this process bears similarities to review processes that were rolled back at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) after findings they violated federal court orders.

“These delays are unacceptable. Nonprofit programs to clear trails have been delayed at the critical start of peak visitation season, while prescribed burns and other wildfire control programs are at risk of the same fate during peak wildfire risk season,” wrote the Members. “Choosing to make such grants contingent on review by unqualified political appointees puts the safety of the American people at risk, whether they choose to visit our national parks or simply live near them.”

The letter is signed by Representatives Becca Balint (D-VT), Nanette Barragán (D-CA), Wesley Bell (D-MO), Julia Brownley (D-CA), Salud Carbajal (D-CA), Andre Carson (D-IN), Ed Case (D-HI), Joaquin Castro (D-TX), Judy Chu (D-CA), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Herb Conaway (D-NJ), Jim Costa (D-CA), Angie Craig (D-MN), Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA), Sarah Elfreth (D-MD), Laura Friedman (D-CA), John Garamendi (D-CA), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Jesus “Chuy” Garcia (D-IL), Sylvia Garcia (D-TX), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ), Adelita Grijalva (D-AZ), Pablo Hernández (D-PR),  Steven Horsford (D-NV), Sara Jacobs (D-CA), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Julie Johnson (D-TX), Robin Kelly (D-IL), Ro Khanna (D-CA), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL), Ted Lieu (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Seth Magaziner (D-RI), April McClain Delaney (D-MD), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA), Betty McCollum (D-MN), Dave Min (D-CA), Kelly Morrison (D-MN), Jared Moskowitz (D-FL), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Joe Neguse (D-CO), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Frank Pallone (D-NJ), Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Scott Peters (D-CA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-PA), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Kim Schrier (D-WA), Bobby Scott (D-VA), Lateefah Simon (D-CA), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA), Mark Takano (D-CA), Mike Thompson (D-CA), Dina Titus (D-NV), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Jill Tokuda (D-HI), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), Nydia Velázquez (D-NY), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ), George Whitesides (D-CA).

Full text of the letter follows below, and a signed copy is available here.

***

Dear Acting Director Bowron:

We write to request that National Park Service (NPS) immediately adjust its grant review process to address a reported 1,400 active grant approval backlog. According to public reports, NPS currently requires all grants and cooperative agreements valued at $50,000 or above to be manually reviewed by two political appointees. Those appointees serve at the department level and are not solely tasked with ensuring timely review of NPS grants and agreements, creating a severe bottleneck that has left more than $360 million in NPS funding behind schedule.

These delays are unacceptable. Nonprofit programs to clear trails have been delayed at the critical start of peak visitation season, while prescribed burns and other wildfire control programs are at risk of the same fate during peak wildfire risk season. Ensuring that those and similarly routine programs are funded during critical times of the year should be part of the regular operation of the National Park System. Choosing to make such grants contingent on review by unqualified political appointees puts the safety of the American people at risk, whether they choose to visit our national parks or simply live near them.

During the first Trump administration, the Government Accountability Office investigated DOI’s grants review process that was also run through an unqualified political appointee. They found that the appointee, an old football friend of then-Secretary of the Interior, Ryan Zinke, centralized grants review for all bureaus at DOI. He “closely scrutinized applications focused on certain topics, such as endangered species and climate change, rather than considering the merit of individual grant applications or program policy factors, such as leveraging resources between similar programs.” When he rejected grants, he kept his decisions off the books, hiding the truth from the American people and suggesting willful malfeasance.

The NPS decision bears striking similarities to other manual review processes that have been rolled back at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Last year, DHS instituted a manual grant review process that – similar to the reported NPS process – required additional review above a value threshold. That process delayed more than 1,000 FEMA contracts, grants, and disaster assistance awards. The delays came amid historic flooding in Texas and in the heart of the Atlantic hurricane season. After repeated findings that the process violated federal court orders, the DHS approval system was rolled back earlier this year.

We urge you to do the same at NPS, while also providing a full accounting of the current NPS grant and cooperative agreement backlog. It is a core responsibility of NPS to ensure that routine, lifesaving programs are funded on time and in full, while offering full transparency on the status of any delayed approvals. We request an update on NPS’ plans for its grant review process, as well as a full list of all grants and cooperative agreements in the approval backlog, no later than July 28, 2026.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (3rd District of Ohio)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congresswoman Joyce Beatty (OH-03) today testified before a joint Democratic oversight shadow hearing hosted by the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, detailing her successful lawsuit against President Donald Trump’s unlawful attempt to rename the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and highlighting how the Administration continues to prioritize costly vanity projects over the needs of the American people.

During the hearing, titled “Monumental Waste,” Beatty recounted her legal challenge to protect the Kennedy Center and defend the rule of law after Trump-appointed trustees unlawfully stripped ex officio board members of their voting rights and voted to rename the institution.

“My testimony is about not allowing this unlawful act, protecting the rule of law, and standing up for the only living memorial to John F. Kennedy,” Beatty said. “It’s about whether powerful people can rewrite history, seize public institutions, and silence dissent.”

As an ex officio member of the Kennedy Center Board of Trustees, Beatty filed Beatty v. Trump in December 2025 after being muted during the board meeting in which trustees voted to rename the Kennedy Center. In May 2026, U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper ruled in her favor, restoring her voting rights, ordering Trump’s name removed from the building, and blocking the Administration’s planned two-year closure of the Kennedy Center.

Beatty also reflected on witnessing the removal of the unlawful signage outside the Kennedy Center after the court’s order.

“Justice has prevailed. I have not been silenced, I am no longer prevented from attending and voting in board meetings, and the name has come down,” Beatty said.

Beatty concluded by contrasting the Administration’s focus on vanity projects with the economic challenges facing American families.

“In these difficult times, American people deserve better than a President who is more focused on slapping his name on buildings than helping lower the cost of groceries,” Beatty said. “I would have much rather been here focusing on affordability and helping working families, rather than discussing Trump’s vanity projects and petty acts of defiance.”

Watch Congresswoman Beatty’s opening testimony HERE. 

 

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Zoe Lofgren (D-San Jose)

(Washington, DC) — Today, the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology is holding a Full Committee hearing titled, Unleashing the Golden Age of Science: Examining the Priorities of the FY2027 Research and Technology Enterprise.

Ranking Member Zoe Lofgren’s (D-CA) opening statement as prepared for the record is below:

Thank you Mr. Chairman, and good morning Mr. Kratsios. This topic of this hearing is “Unleashing the Golden Age of Science.” That title is stunningly ironic, as this Administration is systematically destroying U.S. science, while our allies and adversaries alike look on astonished. So let me propose an alternative title: “Unleashing the Golden Age of Science in the People’s Republic of China” – because this Administration’s actions only serve to strengthen the hand of China while decimating the U.S. research enterprise.

As reported earlier this month by the Association of American Universities, major research universities across the nation accepted 15% fewer applicants to PhD programs for fall 2026 compared to fall 2025. This is on top of decreases recorded in fall 2025 admissions. These decreases were not just in fields disfavored by this administration – they were across the board in STEM fields.

International students have long been a lynchpin of U.S. leadership in science and technology, so none of us should be celebrating their 17% reduction in PhD admissions at U.S. universities. However, even more shocking given Administration rhetoric, is the fact that PhD admissions for U.S. students also dropped by 13%. So much for America First. We are destroying the seed corn for the future of U.S. science and technology. Meanwhile, China is not only doubling down on their scientific investments, they are also actively recruiting researchers away from the U.S.

Big new initiatives and promises mean nothing when agencies act capriciously – canceling grants mid-way, delaying awards for months even after they have been selected through the rigorous merit-review process, and blacklisting educational and research institutions at will. And if anyone has any doubt as to intent, just look at the proposed OMB rule effectively codifying all of these terrible practices.

Mr. Kratsios, you are the face of this Administration’s science and technology agenda. You appear to have a direct role in some of what’s been happening, but you are accountable for the entirety of it. I will focus on just a couple of egregious actions.

First, you may claim to be free-market conservatives, but the Administration is acting like a bunch of communists. Communists have the government own the means of production. The Administration are bullying American companies into handing over equity stakes in exchange for Federal funding. There is zero transparency to the public, or even to Congress, on how you intend to dispose of those shares, on what timeline, and where any profits will go. We are left to our imagination.

Given the widespread corruption of the last 18 months, what I imagine is this Administration once again disadvantaging the American taxpayer for the benefit of the President’s friends.

Next, I want to focus on the National Science Foundation, the crown jewel of our government’s support for discovery science across all fields of science and engineering. The President requested a $3 billion cut to NSF in both FY 25 and FY 26. Congress said “heck no” and funded the agency close to the FY 24 level. Yet, money is not getting out the door. There are now multiple credible reports of the Administration “taxing” up to 30% of funds for each of NSF’s research directorates, to apparently create some kind of slush fund for Administration priorities. I want to be clear: this would be in direct contravention of the funding law that Congress passed in January, and is entirely illegal.

Mr. Kratsios, you have a background in venture capital. I come from Silicon Valley myself, with a deep appreciation for the ways in which VC has accelerated innovation. But government is not VC. There is no Silicon Valley without fundamental research – the kind government funds – the kind that wins Nobel prizes. But you appear to be imposing the VC model on government. It is a dangerous game to play – one that is already hollowing out our fundamental research base and our talent pipeline.

From the targeting of major universities, to the suppression of inconvenient federal science, to the slandering of diversity in our research enterprise – all of it has helped to throw American science into crisis. Mr. Kratsios, I hope that you are prepared to give serious answers to serious questions about the actions being taken by this Administration and by OSTP specifically under your watch. I yield back.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congresswoman Haley Stevens (MI-11)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – In an interview with WJR’s Kevin Dietz, Michigan Congresswoman Haley Stevens blasted President Donald Trump’s handling of the war with Iran, accusing the administration of dragging the United States into another Middle East conflict without congressional approval, without briefing lawmakers, and without a clear strategy.

Listen to what Michiganders are hearing about Rep. Haley Stevens’ thoughts on the Iran war:

• This administration has got to be a lot more transparent. For goodness sakes, they start this war, they do it without the approval of Congress. They didn’t even brief us. We’re still not getting access to the information we need, and it doesn’t seem to be a plan.

• Oh mission accomplished. Oh, we’ve got a ceasefire with Iran. Oops, 3 days later now we don’t, you know, we’re losing troops, which is so tragic.

• We’re paying for this war as Michiganders, you know, as costs continue to go up. As, you know, the Trump administration is…giving the billionaires a tax cut, but slashing healthcare and food assistance for us, you know, a $70 billion slush fund to ICE. You know, are we safer?

• So I want to know what the plan is. I want to, I want this war to end. I have been voting every single time to get us to that place.

Stevens has continuously called out Trump’s illegal war and its impact on Michigan families. She proudly supported the Iran War Powers Resolution, calling on Donald Trump to end his illegal attacks, and has repeatedly voted to curtail his reach. Rep. Stevens has remained focused on the affordability crisis the Iran war is causing for Michigan families, fighting to install real-time gas price trackers in Congress. She’s also pushed for relief for Michiganders from Trump’s tariffs, introducing the No Tariffs on Groceries Act to lower costs.  In the face of Trump’s abuses of power, Rep. Stevens is fighting for Michigan families, putting their priorities at the top of Washington’s agenda.
 

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Sean Casten (IL-06)

July 22, 2026

Washington, D.C. — U.S. Representative Sean Casten (IL-06) led seven House Democrats in asking the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to clarify its jurisdiction over prediction markets that reference securities or related financial metrics.

“We recognize that event contracts tied to the performance of U.S. financial markets may present opportunities for investors and businesses to hedge their risks, protect their portfolios, and offset potential losses. However, without appropriate safeguards, these contracts can be highly susceptible to manipulation and insider trading,” the lawmakers wrote. “…Therefore, we urge the SEC to issue guidance regarding the regulatory treatment of event contracts that reference individual securities, securities indexes, or other related metrics, which will help provide much-needed clarity to investors, market participants, and the public.”

Event contracts, often referred to as “prediction markets”, are generally structured as financial derivatives that are called binary options. These contracts “derive” their value from whether the underlying event occurs and provide investors with a predetermined all-or-nothing payout. Leading prediction market platforms currently offer event contracts that are based on the stock prices of publicly traded companies, the market capitalization of major stock indexes, and metrics that are linked to a company’s SEC disclosures. These products are trading alongside other event contracts that are based on everything from the outcomes of sports games to the size of the national debt, the daily temperature in Chicago, and the winners of Love Island UK.

Under existing laws, the SEC has jurisdiction over derivatives markets related to securities, including security options and security-based swaps. In recent agency statements, the SEC specified that contracts based on the price of a public company’s stock, or directly on a stock index, may fit within existing securities frameworks. As a result, these contracts would need to be listed and traded on SEC-registered exchanges, offered by regulated broker-dealers, cleared through an established and regulated clearing organization, and subject to robust investor protections.

In addition to Rep. Casten, the letter was signed by Reps. Bill Foster, Jim Himes, Vicente Gonzalez, Brad Sherman, Ritchie Torres, Gregory Meeks, and Janelle Bynum.

Text of the letter can be found below. Text of the letter can be found here.

Dear Chair Atkins:

We write to request that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issue formal guidance to clarify whether event contracts that reference securities or related financial metrics are subject to SEC oversight.

Event contracts, commonly referred to as prediction markets, are structured as binary options that settle based on whether the underlying event occurs. Some prediction market platforms allow users to trade event contracts based directly on securities indexes such as the S&P 500, Nasdaq-100, or the Russell 2000, or the share prices of large publicly traded companies like Apple, Amazon, and Nvidia.

Certain exchanges also list event contracts tied to metrics disclosed in quarterly or annual SEC filings that may inform a company’s market value. This includes contracts that predict Google’s quarterly earnings, Coinbase’s total trading volume, how many restaurants Cava will open, or how many car deliveries Tesla will make.

We appreciate the SEC’s efforts to provide clarity on the regulatory treatment of innovative, new financial products. Notably, in its January 28, 2026 statement on tokenized securities, the SEC stated that “any put, call, straddle, option, or privilege on any security, certificate of deposit, or group or index of securities, including any interest therein or based on the value thereof” is excluded from the definition of a “swap” and subject to the SEC’s exclusive jurisdiction. We further appreciate that the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) reference this exclusion in the June 18, 2026 joint request for comment on the definition of swaps and security-based swaps. This suggests that event contracts based on the price of a public company’s stock or directly on a stock index fit within existing securities frameworks.

Legal experts have also indicated that contracts that are tied to specific outcomes for publicly traded companies, such as earnings announcements, could be considered securities subject to the SEC’s jurisdiction. It would be prudent for the SEC to conduct the appropriate legal analysis and determine whether these contracts should be regulated as securities products.

We recognize that event contracts tied to the performance of U.S. financial markets may present opportunities for investors and businesses to hedge their risks, protect their portfolios, and offset potential losses. However, without appropriate safeguards, these contracts can be highly susceptible to manipulation and insider trading.

Under the existing regulatory framework for derivative securities, the SEC ensures that these products are offered by regulated broker-dealers, traded on SEC-registered exchanges, and cleared through a regulated clearinghouse. These rules appropriately balance investor protections, market oversight, and innovation.

You have previously indicated that prediction markets may involve “overlapping jurisdiction” and that the SEC “ha[s] enough authority” to regulate this space. Therefore, we urge the SEC to issue guidance regarding the regulatory treatment of event contracts that reference individual securities, securities indexes, or other related metrics, which will help provide much-needed clarity to investors, market participants, and the public.

Sincerely,

###