MIL USHOR-2b Engine

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Jared Huffman Representing the 2nd District of California

June 09, 2026

Washington, D.C. – Congressman Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee, are demanding answers from the U.S. Forest Service about its current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands.

Their letter to Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz follows a yearlong Mother Jones investigation that raised serious questions about the use of glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, on public and private forestlands, particularly in areas recovering from wildfire in California. The reporting detailed plans for large-scale spraying in national forests, including areas near trails, campgrounds, waterways, and communities, while also highlighting concerns about the scientific basis and oversight behind the agency’s continued use of the chemical.

“Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use,” Huffman and Pingree wrote.

In the letter, Huffman and Pingree request information on how frequently glyphosate is used on Forest Service land, what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs, which forests are treated, and how current acreage compares to five and ten years ago.

The lawmakers also ask whether the Forest Service has assessed glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and around treated areas; evaluated potential human health harms; established a publicly accessible database of herbicide use; and coordinated with state, tribal, local, and water officials before application.

The letter further presses the agency on worker safety and exposure risks, including protections for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, contractors, and others who may enter treated areas. Huffman and Pingree also ask whether there have been reported worker illnesses, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints tied to glyphosate applications.

Finally, the lawmakers request details on whether the Forest Service has explored or piloted nonchemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications, what those findings showed, and what barriers may be limiting broader adoption.

The full letter is available here and is copied below.

The Mother Jones investigation found that the Forest Service is moving forward with major glyphosate spraying projects in California, including in post-fire recovery areas. It also highlighted that the Forest Service continues to rely on a 2011 risk assessment that cited a now-retracted study on glyphosate safety, which the journal withdrew after determining the named authors were not solely responsible for the paper and that it relied entirely on Monsanto data.

+++

Dear Chief Schultz,

We are writing to request information regarding the U.S. Forest Service’s current and planned use of glyphosate-based herbicides on federal forestlands. Recent reporting has raised questions about the scale, frequency, and oversight of glyphosate application on Forest Service land, as well as the scientific basis for its continued use on forest land. Given the recent scientific disputes, retracted studies, and litigation surrounding glyphosate due to serious ecological and health harms, we are deeply concerned by the alleged use of the herbicide and lack of information available regarding current and planned use.

Please provide the following information:

1. Current Usage:

• How frequently are glyphosate applications conducted on Forest Service land, and what criteria determine when and where spraying occurs?

  • Is glyphosate used after seedlings are manually seeded or replanted or as a substitute for manual reforestation?

  • In post-fire applications, is glyphosate usage limited to areas where natural regeneration is likely, such as in low or moderate burn severity regions?

  • In post-fire applications of glyphosate, has the Forest Service analyzed the erosion impacts of glyphosate use and the corresponding reduction in soil stability?

• In which forests is glyphosate used, and for what purpose?

• What is the current acreage treated annually with glyphosate on Forest Service lands, and how does that compare to five and ten years ago?

2. Monitoring, Reporting, and Public Transparency

• Has the Forest Service conducted or commissioned assessments of glyphosate residues in soil, water, or wildlife in and surrounding treated areas?

• Has the Forest Service evaluated potential human health harms associated with the use of glyphosate?

• Does the Forest Service maintain a publicly accessible database of herbicide use, including quantities, locations, and application methods? If not, will the Forest Service establish such a database?

• What coordination occurs with state health and environmental departments, tribal governments, local governments, and water districts before glyphosate application?

3. Public Health and Environmental Risk Evaluation and Worker Safety

• What steps does the agency take to protect workers, campgrounds or other public facilities, nearby communities, and sensitive ecosystems during and after herbicide application?

• What protections are in place for Forest Service employees, firefighters, trail crews, and others who may need to enter treated areas?

• Have there been any reported worker illness incidents, accidental exposures, or contamination complaints associated with glyphosate applications?

4. Consideration of Alternatives

• Has the Forest Service explored or piloted non-chemical or lower-toxicity alternatives to herbicide applications? If so, what were the findings, and what barriers—financial, operational, or regulatory—limit broader adoption of these alternatives?

Given the public’s deep interest in the stewardship of our federally forested land, clear information on these questions would help build trust and ensure that management decisions reflect the best available science.

Thank you for your attention to this inquiry. We look forward to better understanding how the Forest Service is evaluating glyphosate use and considering safer or more sustainable approaches to forest management.

Sincerely,

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steny H Hoyer (MD-05)

WASHINGTON, DC – Today, Congressman Steny H. Hoyer (MD-05) delivered opening remarks at the House Appropriations Full Committee Markup of the Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies FY 2027 bill. Below are a video and transcript of his remarks:

 

Click here to watch a video of his remarks.

“Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have been through markups on this bill as a member of the committee for about two and a half decades, and as Majority Leader and or Whip for the balance of my 45 years. So, this bill – as has been pointed out by our subcommittee Chair and by the Ranking Member in the first markup – means a lot to me. I went on this committee the day I went on the full committee and we chose committees, because I believe it is the committee that is at the heart of the strength and security of America. Certainly, the defense bill falls in that category, but no more than this bill. For as I’ve quoted Bill Natcher over and over again: ‘As long as you take care of the health of your people and the education of your children, you’ll continue to live in the strongest and best nation on earth.’

“Mr. Chairman, lamentably, I do not believe this bill reflects the kind of investment in that strength that this country needs. I want to thank my friend, the Ranking Member, for whom the annual Labor, Health, Education bill has been at the center of her work in this Congress. Her focus, as mine has been, is on children and women’s health, education, and yes, the welfare of our workers. This is the last Labor, HHS, Education appropriation I’ll be working on with all of you. I wish it could be one where we meet those promises and deliver what working families expect from us. The subcommittee Chairman mentioned, and as has been mentioned so often by our subcommittee Chairman and the full Chairman, you have to make tough choices. I think we all agree with that as appropriators. But the tough choices were made as to how much revenue you’re going to have available and what you’re going to pay for.

“In the ‘Big, Bad Bill,’ as we call it – you call it the ‘Big, Beautiful Bill’ – according to your desires, if dynamic scoring were applied – and that’s what you have suggested – that would have cost us $4.7 trillion in revenue. Static scoring would have been, ironically, less, $3.8 trillion. Either number is an extraordinary number and would fund the appropriation bill for at least three years. Sadly, we don’t make hard choices. What we do is we give significant tax cuts from no money that we have in excess, but from children, national security – although we don’t really do it out of national security because we make exceptions for national security, but not necessarily for children [or] people with health problems. No hearing was had with the Education Secretary. No hearing with the Department of Labor, not a single hearing with any NIH Institute director. So, there was no question [posed] to an NIH Institute director, ‘What are the consequences of these cuts?’ And I want to join the Ranking Member in congratulating our subcommittee Chairman in making sure there wasn’t a cut in NIH [funding]. I think that’s a good policy, and I thank him for his leadership on that. Instead of working, however, in a bipartisan manner to produce a bill that helps our people access health care, education and employment opportunities, the majority is using this bill to, in many ways, dismantle, as the Ranking Member said, the Affordable Care Act.

“To start, this bill rescinds funding from P.C.O.R.I., which saves the taxpayer and helps bring costs down across our health care system, and it takes $2 billion in user fees from the state health care exchanges, squandering money we’ve already collected and making it harder for those without employer provided coverage to get [the] insurance they need. Moreover, the Fiscal Year 2027 bill would severely disinvest in the youngest Americans and their families. I spoke during the subcommittee markup about the positive impact of $315 million for preschool development grant programs and $150 million for the full-service community school programs; amendments will be offered for that. Representative Torres and I each have an amendment to that effect, which I hope we will adopt. I also have an amendment to protect scientists, doctors, and medical researchers at NIH and other health and research agencies from being targeted and fired based upon political considerations, not scholarship and science. And I hope we can come together under the vision and leadership of our Ranking Member to restore the funding cuts across this bill, which includes the $3.7 billion from the Department of Labor, including the Job Corps. And I understand Mr. Zinke will have an amendment to address that problem, and I applaud him for it. $4 billion from HHS and $8.1 billion from the Department of Education. Education is the seed corn; we’re destroying that.

“Mr. Chairman, this bill is just another example in a long list of appropriations bills that the majority has put forward with one simple message to the American people: you’re on your own. You want to make sure your preschools get the support and education they need to start kindergarten, ready to learn? You’re on your own. You want to provide your family with affordable health care coverage through your state’s exchange? You’re on your own. Want to access hands-on skills training for the Job Corps and get a pathway to a good career? You’re on your own. Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity today to change the rhetoric from ‘You’re on our own,’ to ‘We’re on your side.’ Let’s do it. I yield back.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi (8th District of Illinois)

WASHINGTON — Congressman Raja Krishnamoorthi sent a letter to Office of Personnel Management (OPM) Director Scott Kupor demanding answers about the Trump Administration’s proposal to implement a government-wide nondisclosure agreement (NDA) for federal employees, warning that the policy could silence whistleblowers, chill lawful disclosures, and weaken government accountability.

In the letter, Krishnamoorthi warned that the proposal, “as currently drafted, threatens constitutional rights, undermines whistleblower protections, and weakens the public accountability that Americans deserve from their government.”

Krishnamoorthi raised concerns that the proposal’s broad restrictions on vaguely defined “confidential” information could leave federal employees uncertain whether lawful communications with Congress, Inspectors General, law enforcement, or other oversight entities could expose them to discipline or retaliation. While OPM has stated that the NDA would not supersede existing whistleblower protections, Krishnamoorthi noted that “rights guaranteed on paper can be rendered ineffective if employees reasonably fear discipline, civil liability, or criminal penalties for exercising them.”

“Federal employees should not be forced to guess which communications are permissible and which could expose them to punishment,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “This kind of ambiguity risks encouraging employees to remain silent rather than exercising their lawful rights, thereby chilling speech that is essential to government transparency, accountability, and effective congressional oversight.”

The letter also raises concerns about whether the policy would be applied consistently across government. Krishnamoorthi noted that OPM cited leaks to the press as justification for the proposal while failing to reference recent disclosures of sensitive military strike information by senior officials.

“The federal government functions best when employees can faithfully execute their duties, report wrongdoing without fear of retaliation, and communicate with authorized oversight entities while appropriately safeguarding sensitive information,” Krishnamoorthi wrote. “This proposal threatens all three.”

Krishnamoorthi requested answers from OPM no later than June 24, 2026, including:

1. What legal analysis OPM conducted regarding the NDA’s compatibility with the First Amendment and the Whistleblower Protection Act;
2. How OPM defines “confidential” information for purposes of the agreement and what safeguards exist to prevent overly broad interpretation or enforcement;
3. How OPM will ensure employees fully understand their right to communicate with Congress, Inspectors General, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, law enforcement authorities, and other entities authorized to receive protected disclosures;
4. What protections would exist for employees who decline to sign the NDA if agencies choose to adopt it;
5. Whether OPM assessed the proposal’s impact on whistleblowing activity, employee morale, federal recruitment, retention, or public trust in government institutions;
6. Whether the NDA would apply equally to career employees, political appointees, and senior agency officials; and
7. What consultation OPM conducted with Inspectors General, the Office of Special Counsel, employee organizations, constitutional law experts, and whistleblower advocacy groups.

The letter is available here.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative Mike Kelly (R-PA)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), Chairman of the Ways & Means Subcommittee on Tax, introduced H.R. 9173, the “Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act,” legislation that would allow for digital assets to be eligible for charitable contributions.

Many important tax rules that apply to traditional financial assets do not apply because they do not fit the definitions written for traditional financial assets.

“As more Americans begin to use digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies, it’s important to modernize the way Americans can donate to causes and organizations that matter to them. This change will enable more Americans to support churches, charities, and nonprofits that serve the most vulnerable,” said Rep. Kelly.

Simply advancing parity and neutrality for digital assets will modernize the tax code, reduce unnecessary administrative burdens, and encourage greater charitable giving to the organizations that serve families and communities across the country.

BACKGROUND

The Charitable Deductions for Digital Asset Donations Act exempts digital asset donations from the qualified appraisal requirements if the donated property meets certain criteria designed to ensure that the value of the donation can be determined based on reliable market prices.

This bill not only simplifies the process around contributions of digital assets but also provides parity between digital assets and other financial instruments without granting special treatment.

You can find bill text here.

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Bob Latta (R-Bowling Green Ohio)

Today, Congressman Bob Latta (OH-5) welcomed members of the British-American Parliamentary Group to Washington, D.C., to strengthen the longstanding partnership between the United States and the United Kingdom and foster dialogue on shared economic, energy, security, and technology priorities.

The British-American Parliamentary Group (BAPG) serves as an important forum for promoting closer relations and greater understanding between Members of the United Kingdom Parliament and the United States Congress. Throughout the visit, participants will engage in discussions on issues of mutual interest and explore opportunities to further enhance the special relationship between our two nations.

As Co-Chair of the British-American Parliamentary Group, Congressman Latta is committed to strengthening transatlantic cooperation and advancing the enduring friendship between the United States and the United Kingdom.

“The United States and the United Kingdom share one of the strongest partnerships in the world. I am pleased to welcome members of the British-American Parliamentary Group to Washington as we continue working together to strengthen our economic, energy, security, and technology ties. These discussions are important to advancing our shared interests and reinforcing the special relationship between our two nations,” said Latta. 

In April of 2026, Congressman Latta served on the Escort Committee for His Majesty, King Charles III, for his Joint Meeting of Congress.  

Source: United States House of Representatives – Representative David Kustoff (TN-08)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman David Kustoff (R-TN-08) today announced the introduction of H.R. 9176, the Providing Analogous Rules for Digital Assets Act (PAR Act), legislation designed to modernize the Internal Revenue Code and ensure digital assets are treated consistently with comparable traditional financial instruments.

“As digital assets continue to play an increasingly important role in the global economy, it is critical that the United States tax code keeps pace,” said Congressman Kustoff. “The PAR Act takes an important step toward creating a fair tax framework that supports innovation and competitiveness in the digital asset space.”

“The tax code shouldn’t pick winners and losers based on the type of asset someone owns,” said Ways and Means Committee Chairman Jason Smith (MO-08). “Today, taxpayers who use digital assets often face uncertainty because longstanding tax rules that apply to similar traditional assets don’t clearly apply to them. The PAR Act brings greater fairness and consistency to the tax code by ensuring digital assets are treated more like comparable financial assets under existing rules. Representative Kustoff’s legislation provides the clarity taxpayers deserve while helping keep investment, innovation, and jobs here in the United States.”
 

The PAR Act establishes three provisions to align the tax treatment of digital assets with traditional financial assets: 

• The bill modernizes existing tax rules for securities lending by extending them to traded digital assets. Lending these assets is treated like a straightforward loan rather than a taxable sale or exchange.
• It gives dealers and traders in covered digital assets the option to use a clear, well‑established mark‑to‑market accounting framework, aligning them with securities and commodities and providing more predictable, consistent tax treatment for active trading businesses.
• It strengthens the U.S. as a hub for digital asset activity by expanding the existing trading safe harbor so foreign investors can trade digital assets through U.S. intermediaries without being treated as engaged in a U.S. trade or business, encouraging that activity to stay in U.S. markets.
   

In addition, the PAR Act establishes clear statutory definitions for key terms such as ‘digital asset,’ ‘traded digital asset,’ and ‘widely traded digital asset,’ promoting regulatory clarity while giving the Treasury Department targeted authority to prevent abuse and adjust these rules as market conditions evolve.

The legislation applies prospectively and does not create inferences regarding the classification of digital assets under other areas of law or prior tax treatment. 

You can read the bill text here.

###

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Scalise (1st District of Louisiana)

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Today, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) joined House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) and Conference Chairwoman Lisa McClain (R-Mich.) to discuss House Republican efforts to crack down on fraud and ensure taxpayer dollars reach the Americans they were intended to help—not criminals exploiting the system. Leader Scalise also highlighted House Republican efforts to strengthen national security by funding border security and renewing critical counterterrorism tools.

Click here or the image above to view Leader Scalise’s full remarks. 
Highlights from Leader Scalise’s remarks:On rooting out fraud and protecting vulnerable Americans: “We’re bringing a number of additional bills this week to combat fraud, and it’s something that we’ve been seeing, we’ve been exposing, we’ve been bringing more tools forward so that we can root out fraud to protect taxpayers. And it’s not just taxpayers who suffer, it’s a lot of these programs that were intended to help mostly low-income people, kids with disabilities. If you think about some of the Minnesota fraud that’s going on in the, the ‘learing centers’ that you all now know about. That money was intended for students, for children, in some cases children with autism, where that money was stolen by fraudsters. And the government, Tim Walz, Keith Ellison, looked the other way – they knew what was going on, whistleblowers have been telling us that, and they looked the other way – and let the fraud continue. And let the theft of that money continue.“Again, it’s not just billions, tens of billions of dollars stolen from taxpayers. It’s money that’s not going to people who need it, people with disabilities, senior citizens. Dr. Oz has talked about some of the fraud that he’s seen in programs like hospice, where criminal organizations, not just individuals, in some cases foreign countries operating withcriminal entities and enterprises are setting up shops to steal tens of billions of dollars, in some cases taking programs away from people, healthcare programs away, and forcing people into things that they don’t need, taking away benefits they paid into their whole life. And those dollars are gone, and we’re now working to root it out. “You would think this would be an initiative that everybody in Congress would work on together. I wish it was. Sadly, you saw the vote last week. We brought a bill forward to root out fraud in childcare centers. So it’s not just suspected fraud, but if somebody’s actually convicted of stealing money from childcare programs, we bet a bill that says you can’t participate anymore if you’ve already stolen money from taxpayers. And do you know that 98% of Democrats on the House floor last week voted against that bill? 98% of Democrats voted to protect the fraudsters who were stealing money from childcare programs. That’s who Democrats are protecting. They’re protecting criminals who are stealing money from children. It’s that basic. So we’re going to continue to bring more bills to protect the taxpayers of this country, to root out the fraud that we’re seeing.”On protecting national security: “We’re also, of course, bringing a bill later today on reconciliation 2.0 to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security. The final piece, as you know, is to fund ICE and Border Protection. This is a piece that Democrats have said they don’t want to fund because they want open borders. They have made it crystal clear, the Democrat Party in Washington, that they want to go back to open borders, and we’re not going to do that. We need to fully fund this department, especially at a time of heightened security threats.“We also need to make sure that we renew FISA. One of the reasons that the Speaker’s not here right now is he’s over at the White House working with the President to finalize this agreement on FISA. You have the bill over in the Senate. We, of course, passed a bill to have a long-term renewal of FISA. The bill is over in the Senate. They’re having negotiations right now, and hopefully they get it resolved. We stand ready to move that bill as soon as it’s resolved in the Senate. But, you know, hopefully that happens today, tomorrow. But it’s important that that program does not go dark on Friday when it expires, because just understand, FISA has been used time and time again to stop terrorist attacks here on our homeland, on American soil, to prevent terrorist attacks. And that’s a critical, critical tool that we need to renew.”On how anti-business policies drive away jobs and investment: “I will point out a Truth Social post that [Rep.] Marlin Stutzman put out over the weekend chronicling— a lot of you may be familiar— the Chicago Bears are looking at moving right now to Indiana. Yes, the Chicago Bears playing in Indiana. And you would ask why. He literally lays out in brutal detail how Democrats at all levels in Chicago and the state of Illinois literally ran the Chicago Bears out of Chicago and out of the state of Illinois. And I think it’s just important to point out, when you look at what’s coming up and what’s the difference between the two parties, how one party, literally after 100 years of the Chicago Bears playing football in Chicago, they’re going to ultimately end up playing in Indiana. And they didn’t want to. They wanted to stay. But now a, you know, multi-billion dollar program with jobs, with tax revenue, all of that is going to leave the state of Illinois because they ran it out of the state through very specific actions that Marlin Stutzman chronicled.”On raising money for charity with the Congressional Baseball Game: “With that, finally, hopefully I see a lot of you out tomorrow night at the baseball game. Republicans will be playing the Democrats in a spirited competition. It is officially now a sellout. 38,000 tickets have been sold. Which is pretty impressive when you think about it, and over $3 million for local charities raised already in the bank. And that’s something we’re very proud of. It helps a lot of youth programs here in the District of Columbia, and it’s something that Republicans and Democrats come together to do. We want to beat the Democrats. We beat them last year, 13 to 2. We want to beat them again. But we also come together to raise money for a really good cause. Hope to see all of you there.”

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Andy Harris (MD-01)

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Congressman Andy Harris, M.D. (MD-01) met with Secretary of Energy Chris Wright this morning and also sent him a letter urging the Department of Energy to take action to preserve critical power generation capacity in Maryland and strengthen grid reliability across the PJM region.

In the letter, Congressman Harris urged Secretary Wright to consider using the Department’s authority under Section 202(c) of the Federal Power Act to require the continuous baseload operation of the Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner generating stations, citing growing concerns about electric reliability and rising energy costs in Maryland. Harris also thanked President Trump for invoking the Defense Production Act to support American coal production and for helping facilitate the restart of the AES Warrior Run power plant in Allegany County, which will help meet growing demand and provide relief to Maryland ratepayers facing higher electricity costs.

Statement from Congressman Harris:

“Maryland families and businesses are already paying the price for years of green energy state mandates that have skyrocketed electricity costs, slashed reliable baseload generation, and increased dependence on power from Pennsylvania that uses clean coal and gas. As electricity demand rises, the Brandon Shores and H.A. Wagner generating stations can provide cheap, reliable, clean, affordable power. I am urging Secretary Wright to use every available federal authority to support the return of these generating units to continuous use, and protect Marylanders from skyrocketing electricity costs and brownouts.”

The full text of the letter can be viewed here.

For media inquiries, please contact Michella Carter at Michella.Carter@mail.house.gov

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-09)

WASHINGTON – In response to press inquiries, Congressman Steve Cohen (TN-9) offered the following statement regarding his decision not to continue pursuing a lawsuit against the Republican state legislature’s redistricting maps:

“I have decided not to continue pursuing a lawsuit against the gerrymandered Republican redistricting maps but vigorously support the efforts of the ACLU and the NAACP to contest them, which are based on different arguments and have different requests for relief. I firmly believe this was an illegal redistricting effort that was harmful to Memphis and the Black community by diluting their political representation. It is my hope that they will prevail and that the previous district maps will be restored.”

                                                                                                             # # #          

Source: United States House of Representatives – Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05)

WASHINGTON, D.C. – This week, Congressman Andy Biggs (AZ-05) and Congresswoman Diana Harshbarger (TN-01) introduced the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act, legislation to create a pathway for patients with life-threatening or severely debilitating diseases to access individualized investigational treatments when no approved options remain. A companion bill was introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) in the U.S. Senate. 

“One of my first efforts upon taking office in January 2017 was to partner with Senator Ron Johnson to champion Right to Try, which we passed through both the U.S. House and Senate,” said Congressman Biggs.“Many of us know people who are terminally ill and desperately seeking to extend their lives. Right to Try gives these individuals hope, freedom, and power to try potentially life-saving drug therapies. Our coalition was unwilling to let one more American die without this chance, and we are motivated to build on this original bill with the Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act. I am honored to again help lead this bill in the U.S. House, and I pray we can quickly send it to President Trump’s desk to be enacted into law.”

“When someone is fighting for their life, the last thing they need is the government standing in their way,” said Congresswoman Harshbarger. “We are entering a new era of medicine where breakthroughs in genomics and precision therapies can create treatments designed specifically for an individual patient, but our regulatory system was built for a different time and simply hasn’t kept up. This legislation makes sure patients have a clear, durable path to pursue individualized treatments when all other options have failed.” 

“I championed Right to Try to provide hope and freedom to those with terminal illnesses by giving them access to experimental treatments without waiting for full FDA approval. The original Right to Try Act was about giving terminal patients a fighting chance by cutting through red tape,” said Sen. Johnson. “Right to Try 2.0 builds on that success and would provide access to individualized, rare disease and one-patient therapies that the current regulatory environment has yet to accommodate. This is about medical freedom and putting doctors and patients at the top of the treatment pyramid.”

“Patients battling serious and life-threatening diseases too often reach a devastating dead end: no approved treatments left, and nowhere else to turn. The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act changes that by giving these patients and their doctors the ability to pursue promising, individualized therapies while preserving strong transparency and safety guardrails. This legislation is a critical breakthrough that ensures medical innovation doesn’t stop at the FDA’s door—it reaches the patients who need it most after conventional options have failed. We are deeply grateful to Reps. Harshbarger and Biggs and Senator Johnson for championing this patient-first approach. They are helping restore hope, agency, and dignity to families facing the hardest moments of their lives by putting them back in the driver’s seat of their own care,” said Terry Wilcox, Co-Founder & CEO of Patients Rising.

“No American should be forced to beg the government for permission to try to save their own life, and no bureaucrat should prevent a patient from accessing cutting-edge therapies. The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments opens the door to the latest advances in medical treatment and brings the federal government into the 21st century,” said Victor Riches, President and CEO of the Goldwater Institute.  

Right to Try is a bipartisan policy that has passed in 41 states, including Arizona, during Congressman Biggs’s time there in the State Legislature, where it received nearly 80 percent of the vote in 2014. Right to Try 2.0 has been enacted in 17 states – also including Arizona.

BACKGROUND: 

The bill builds on the original Right to Try Act of 2017 signed into law by President Trump, which gave terminally ill patients the right to access investigational drugs not yet fully approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This legislation adapts that same patient-first framework for a new era of precision medicine, where therapies can be tailored to a single patient’s unique genetic profile—something existing regulatory pathways designed for broad patient populations were never built to accommodate. 

The bill complements recent FDA efforts related to individualized therapies while establishing long-term patient protections through federal law. On February 23, 2026, the FDA released draft guidance outlining a “plausible mechanism” framework to support development of individualized therapies. However, agency guidance alone can be revised or withdrawn and does not create enforceable rights for patients. Establishing a durable statutory pathway requires congressional action. 

KEY PROVISIONS: 

• Allows patients diagnosed with a life-threatening or severely debilitating disease to access investigational individualized therapies when no approved treatments remain.
   
• Requires treatment to occur under physician supervision in qualified healthcare facilities meeting established federal safety and quality standards.
   
• Ensures Institutional Review Board (IRB) oversight and robust informed consent protections for participating patients.
   
• Supports the generation of real-world clinical data that can inform future regulatory decisions and therapeutic development.
   
• Provides a durable statutory framework that does not depend on changing regulatory guidance or administrative priorities.
   
• A patient must have a physician’s recommendation for an investigational individualized treatment.
   
• Manufacturers are not obligated to provide treatments, and physicians are not required to recommend treatments they deem inappropriate for a patient. The Right to Try for Individualized Treatments Act is voluntary for all parties involved. 

###