Congress
U.S. Congress
Here's a look at documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate
Featured Stories
Ansari Delivers Floor Speech Demanding Independent Investigation Into Haitian Asylum Seeker's Death in Arizona ICE Custody
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, issued the following news release:* * *
Ansari Delivers Floor Speech Demanding Independent Investigation Into Haitian Asylum Seeker's Death in Arizona ICE Custody
*
WASHINGTON - Today, Representative Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03) delivered a floor speech calling for a full, independent investigation into the death of Emmanuel Clifford Damas, a Haitian asylum seeker who died in ICE custody after reportedly being denied adequate medical care after complaining about a toothache to the staff at Florence Correctional Center in Arizona.
"I will ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Rep. Yassamin Ansari, D-Arizona, issued the following news release: * * * Ansari Delivers Floor Speech Demanding Independent Investigation Into Haitian Asylum Seeker's Death in Arizona ICE Custody * WASHINGTON - Today, Representative Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03) delivered a floor speech calling for a full, independent investigation into the death of Emmanuel Clifford Damas, a Haitian asylum seeker who died in ICE custody after reportedly being denied adequate medical care after complaining about a toothache to the staff at Florence Correctional Center in Arizona. "I willnot stop until there's an independent investigation into the death of Emmanuel Damas. At least 46 people have died in ICE custody under the Trump regime, and it cannot stand," said Rep. Ansari. "It shouldn't be that damn difficult to provide humane conditions. ICE and companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group have billions of dollars at their disposal and yet are choosing to treat human beings in this country like animals. I will keep fighting until the American people know the truth about what is happening inside ICE detention centers."
WATCH
Below is a transcript of Rep. Ansari's full remarks as delivered on the House Floor:
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in outrage over the negligence that led to the death of Emmanuel Clifford Damas on March 2, 2026.
Emmanuel Damas was a 56-year-old Haitian asylum seeker who died after reportedly being denied adequate medical care while in ICE custody after complaining about a toothache to the staff at Florence Correctional Center in Arizona.
On March 13, I traveled to the Florence Correctional Center to conduct an oversight visit.
I was met by more than a dozen people-including, to my surprise, private counsel for CoreCivic, the company that operates the facility and profits from mass detention.
When I asked basic questions-about medical staffing, available care, and what happened to Mr. Damas-there was extreme reluctance, especially from the private lawyer.
Under DHS leadership, and masterminded by Stephen Miller-the architect of Trump's racist mass deportation agenda-ICE has made it nearly impossible for Members of Congress to do our jobs.
Despite following ICE's arbitrary requirements, I was denied the ability to speak with detainees that day.
I returned on March 20, and what I learned confirmed the worst.
Detainees described Mr. Damas in excruciating pain. They called the medical care "fatal." His face had swollen to the size of a potato. He could no longer speak or walk. Night after night, he begged for help-but was ignored. ICE only checked his blood pressure. By the time he was taken to a hospital, he could barely breathe.
Mr. Damas' death was a clear case of medical negligence at the hands of ICE.
I have called for a full, independent investigation into Mr. Damas' death, including the release of his medical examiner's report, a complete timeline of his care, and all medical records from his time in custody.
My heart goes out to the Damas family. They should NEVER have experienced such a tragedy-perpetrated by the U.S. government and funded by our taxpayer dollars that should be going to healthcare, food assistance, and programs that support communities.
And this is not the only case.
My constituent, "Yari", is currently detained while suffering from leukemia. She has endured severe medical neglect for over a year.
What happened to Mr. Damas could very well happen to her.
Every time I visit these detention facilities, it brings me to tears. It's sickening. It's traumatizing. It's deeply un-American.
Firstly, I will not stop until there's an independent investigation into the death of Emmanuel Damas. At least 46 people have died in ICE custody under the Trump regime, and it cannot stand.
Second, I will be a hell no on ICE funding. Republicans are blocking essential workers from being paid just to protect a lawless, violent ICE system, while Democrats are pushing to separate ICE funding from the rest of DHS.
Third, I urge my colleagues to sponsor the DRAIN ICE Act and the Stop Inhumane Conditions in ICE Detention Act. These bills would rescind ICE's $75 billion slush fund and improve oversight, transparency, and conditions in detention centers.
Fourth, release my constituent Yari now so she can receive the care she needs.
And finally, it shouldn't be that damn difficult to provide humane conditions. ICE and companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group have billions of dollars at their disposal and yet are choosing to treat human beings in this country like animals.
I will keep fighting until the American people know the truth about what is happening inside ICE detention centers.
I yield back.
***
Original text here: https://ansari.house.gov/media/press-releases/ansari-delivers-floor-speech-demanding-independent-investigation-into-haitian-asylum-seekers-death-in-arizona-ice-custody
America First Policy Institute General Counsel D'Andrea Testifies Before House Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight released the following testimony by Gina D'Andrea, general counsel of the America First Policy Institute, from a March 18, 2026, hearing entitled "The Legal Basis for Action Against Venezuelan Drug Traffickers":* * *
Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Gina D'Andrea, and I serve as General Counsel of the America First Policy Institute. I am here to address the legal bases for the president's authority to take military action to ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The House Judiciary Subcommittee on Oversight released the following testimony by Gina D'Andrea, general counsel of the America First Policy Institute, from a March 18, 2026, hearing entitled "The Legal Basis for Action Against Venezuelan Drug Traffickers": * * * Mr. Chairman, Madam Ranking Member, and distinguished Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to testify. My name is Gina D'Andrea, and I serve as General Counsel of the America First Policy Institute. I am here to address the legal bases for the president's authority to take military action toprotect the American people from external threats, specifically with respect to recent actions involving Venezuela. As I will explain, the president's authority to take military action in such situations rests on long-accepted constitutional grounds and has, in fact, been exercised by various presidents dating back to the Founding Fathers.
First, I'd like to give a brief recap of what is going on in America's own backyard.
Evidence shows that the United States is confronting a narco-terrorist network that operates within the Venezuelan government itself. First under Hugo Chavez, and now Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela has served as a hub for extra-hemispheric actors who are hostile to the United States and has enabled them to traffic drugs and criminals into our homeland. This includes China, Russia, and perhaps now most notably, Iran.
Maduro was indicted by a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York on charges of narco-terrorism and conspiracy to import cocaine into the United States.
Neither the United States, under both the Biden and Trump Administrations, nor the European Union recognizes him as a legitimate head of state. In fact, under the prevailing norms of customary international law, even the United Nations would be hard-pressed to recognize Maduro's legitimacy: Maduro lost the 2024 presidential election, refused to cede power, and no principle of international recognition, whether grounded in effective control or democratic legitimacy, can sustain a claim to lawful governance by a leader who holds office in defiance of his own electorate. (See, e.g., U.N. Doc. S/1466 (Mar. 9, 1950); Murphy, Democratic Legitimacy and the Recognition of States and Governments, 48 I.C.L.Q. 545, 566-79 (1999).) He has been named by the Department of State as the official leader the Cartel de los Soles and has used his power to weaponize an illegitimate militia to traffic narcotics into American communities on an industrial scale. He is also alleged to have worked against the United States interests with Iran, including potentially aiding Iranians in entering the United States under the illegal CHNV parole program that operated during the Biden Administration.
The evidence is clear. This is not a foreign policy dispute. This is the protection of the American people and the enforcement of American criminal law.
To start, the authority of the President under Article II of the U.S. Constitution is sufficient to support action to address these threats from America's neighbors. As Commander-in-Chief, the president bears the primary responsibility, and truthfully, obligation, to protect the American people and ensure national security. This authority to address external threats before they reach the homeland has bipartisan recognition dating back to the founding fathers.
The Administration's Executive Order designating the cartel networks as foreign terror organizations recognizes that these are not ordinary criminals and are instead paramilitary entities that pose a direct threat to the United States. This designation bolsters the President's authority to take action in defense of the American people.
In the face of narco-terrorists operating as a foreign government and funneling dangerous drugs and criminals into U.S. territory, the President has both the authority and the duty to take action and protect America from her enemies.
Turn first to the strikes on narcotrafficker vessels. Congress itself designated the Department of War as the lead federal agency for detecting and monitoring the maritime transit of illegal drugs into the United States. (10 U.S.C. Sec. 124). Consonantly, the Maritime Drug Law Enforcement Act vests federal jurisdiction over drug trafficking aboard vessels on the high seas. (46 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 70501-70507). The strikes were carried out as a result of evidence showing such drug trafficking was taking place. More to the point, the Commander in Chief power has always been understood to encompass the authority to direct military operations against threats to national security. (U.S. Const. art. II, Sec. 2; The Prize Cases, 67 U.S. 635 (1863)). Striking vessels that evidence shows serve as instrumentalities of narco-terrorism is a lawful exercise of that power.
Turn next to the capture of Maduro. Operation Absolute Resolve was not an act of war. It was a targeted law enforcement operation to execute a federal arrest warrant. And it was not the first time that the United States has engaged in such an operation. In 1989, the United States deployed military forces to apprehend General Noriega, a sitting leader indicted on federal drug-trafficking charges. The courts upheld jurisdiction and rejected his claim of head-of-state immunity. (United States v. Noriega, 746 F. Supp. 1506 (S.D. Fla. 1990), aff'd, 117 F.3d 1206 (11th Cir. 1997)). Importantly, the Supreme Court has long held that the manner of a defendant's apprehension does not divest a court of jurisdiction to try him. (Ker v. Illinois, 119 U.S. 436 (1886); United States v. Alvarez-Machain, 504 U.S. 655 (1992)). Perhaps most relevant is that Maduro, like Noriega, enjoys no sovereign immunity because the United States does not recognize him as a legitimate head of state.
Both operations draw further support from the President's constitutional authority over foreign affairs. The Executive stands as the Nation's sole organ in international relations. (United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936)). The President holds the exclusive power to recognize or refuse to recognize foreign governments. (Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 576 U.S. 1 (2015)). Success in foreign relations demands one national voice, and the constitution is clear that the Executive alone carries it. When the evidence showed the President that an indicted narco-terrorist commanding no legitimate authority posed a continuing threat to the American people, he acted squarely within his constitutional power to counteract that threat.
The War Powers Resolution does not foreclose these actions. It expressly preserves the President's independent Article II authority. (50 U.S.C. Sec.Sec. 1541-1548.) The Administration complied with its procedural requirements. The Office of Legal Counsel has maintained, across administrations of both parties, that the President may act without prior congressional authorization when the operation serves important national interests and does not rise to a constitutional war./1
Consonantly, the Supreme Court has recognized that the President retains the authority to act where Congress has imposed no prohibition. (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (Jackson, J., concurring)). Congress has not prohibited these actions. To the contrary, Congress appropriated counter-narcotics funds, designated the Department of War as the lead counter-drug agency, and a federal grand jury returned the very indictment this operation enforced.
* * *
1 See also Proposed Deployment of United States Armed Forces into Bosnia, 19 Op. O.L.C. 327 (1995), https://www.justice.gov/d9/olc/opinions/1995/11/31/op-olc-v019-p0327_0.pdf.
* * *
Members of this Committee, the Framers designed a Constitution that balances energy in the Executive with accountability through the Legislature. These operations honored that design. The strikes on narcotrafficker vessels enforced congressionally authorized counter-narcotics authorities under the Commander in Chief's operational direction. The capture of Maduro executed a federal warrant against a man no free nation recognizes as legitimate. Both were targeted, both were limited, and both were grounded in the text of our Constitution and over two centuries of Executive practice.
Thank you, and I look forward to your questions.
* * *
Original text here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/d-andrea-testimony.pdf
America First Legal Foundation Senior Counsel Rogers Testifies Before House Judiciary Subcommittee
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government released the following testimony by James Rogers, senior counsel of the America First Legal Foundation, from a March 18, 2026, hearing entitled "Immigration Policy by Court Order: The Adverse Effects of Plyler v. Doe":* * *
Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and Members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government: Thank you for the invitation to testify on this critical topic.
My expertise on our country's immigration system is multifaceted.
From 2015 to 2021, I served ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- The House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government released the following testimony by James Rogers, senior counsel of the America First Legal Foundation, from a March 18, 2026, hearing entitled "Immigration Policy by Court Order: The Adverse Effects of Plyler v. Doe": * * * Chairman Roy, Ranking Member Scanlon, and Members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government: Thank you for the invitation to testify on this critical topic. My expertise on our country's immigration system is multifaceted. From 2015 to 2021, I servedour country as a Foreign Service Officer at the Department of State. From 2017 to 2019, I served as a Consular Officer conducting visa interviews in Brazil. I then spent two years--from 2019 to 2021--as an attorney advisor in the Office of the Assistant Legal Advisor for Consular Affairs. Since leaving the State Department and returning to the practice of law, a significant part of my practice has been litigating border security and immigration cases.
In 1982, the Supreme Court decided Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), holding by a 5-4 vote that the State of Texas could not deny free public K-12 education to children who were illegally present in the United States. Plyler was wrongly decided from the outset. The majority opinion acknowledged the very legal premises that should have compelled it to uphold the Texas law--yet proceeded to strike it down anyway, using a standard of constitutional review it invented for the occasion, untethered from constitutional text or prior precedent. Chief Justice Burger's dissent, joined by three colleagues, clearly exposed this, and its reasoning has only grown more persuasive with time.
Following the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), the Supreme Court now has both the legal framework and the factual grounds to overrule Plyler. The Dobbs decision articulated a rigorous set of factors for reconsidering prior constitutional decisions, and Plyler fails every one of them.
Moreover, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act in 1996, supplying the very "articulable federal policy" that the Plyler majority said was missing.
Finally, even while Plyler remains on the books, states, localities, and the federal government are not without tools. This testimony outlines concrete actions that can be taken today, within Plyler's constraints, to limit the burdens illegal alien enrollment imposes on America's public schools.
I. Plyler v. Doe: Why the Dissent Was Right
A. What Plyler v. Doe Decided
In 1975, the Texas Legislature enacted a statute that withheld state education funding from local school districts for the education of children who were not "legally admitted" to the United States and authorized school districts to deny enrollment to such children or to charge them tuition. In Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202 (1982), the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 vote, struck that statute down as a violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. The majority opinion, written by Justice Brennan, held that illegal aliens are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause and that states cannot deny children a free public K-12 education on the basis of immigration status unless the state can show that the denial furthers a "substantial state interest."
B. A Primer on Constitutional Standards of Review
To understand why Plyler is legally problematic, it helps to understand the framework courts use to evaluate whether a law violates the Equal Protection Clause. Courts apply different levels of scrutiny depending on who is harmed and what right is affected.
Strict scrutiny is the most demanding standard. It applies when a law discriminates against a "suspect class"--such as a racial minority--or burdens a "fundamental right" such as the right to vote. Under strict scrutiny, the government must show that the law serves a compelling government interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve it. Laws rarely survive this level of review.
Rational basis review is the default, most permissive standard. It applies to ordinary legislation affecting no suspect class and no fundamental right. Under rational basis, a law is presumed constitutional and will be upheld if there is any rational reason a legislature could have had for enacting it. Laws almost always survive this level of review.
The outcome of a constitutional challenge often depends entirely on which standard applies. And the standard is supposed to be determined by the nature of the classification and the nature of the right at stake -- not by the sympathies of the reviewing judges.
C. The Majority's Analytical Problem
The Plyler majority found itself in a difficult position. It acknowledged that its own precedents required it to conclude that neither strict scrutiny nor any heightened standard applied. The Court stated explicitly: "Undocumented aliens cannot be treated as a suspect class because" they are "presen[t] in this country in violation of federal law.... Nor is education a fundamental right; a State need not justify by compelling necessity every variation in the manner in which education is provided to its population." Plyler v. Doe, 457 U.S. 202, 223 (1982).
Having made those admissions, the Court was legally obligated under its own precedents to apply ordinary rational basis review--the permissive standard under which virtually any conceivable government justification suffices. Yet the Court refused to do so. Instead, it invented a novel, intermediate standard of review without any clear constitutional basis, demanding that Texas show a "substantial state interest"--a test that appears nowhere in the Court's prior Equal Protection jurisprudence and that the majority never adequately explained or grounded in the actual text of the Constitution.
Even the majority itself acknowledged the sensitivity of this area, recognizing that "[t]he obvious need for delicate policy judgments has counseled the Judicial Branch to avoid intrusion into this field." Id. at 225.
And yet, having recognized that caution was warranted, the Court proceeded to intrude all the same.
D. The State's Justifications and the Court's Rejection of Them
Texas offered several justifications for its statute, all of which the Court rejected -- in most cases with very little legal analysis.
First, Texas argued that the law served the state's interest in preserving its limited educational resources for lawful residents. The Court dismissed this almost out of hand, stating that "a concern for the preservation of resources standing alone can hardly justify the classification used in allocating those resources." Id. at 227. The Court provided no persuasive explanation for why resource conservation--a plainly legitimate government interest under any rational basis analysis--failed to satisfy even a "substantial interest" test.
Second, Texas argued the law was justified by the State's desire to protect itself from an influx of illegal immigrants and the economic burdens they impose. The Court rejected this as well, finding "no evidence in the record suggesting that illegal entrants impose any significant burden on the State's economy." Id. at 228.
Third, Texas argued that illegal alien children impose special burdens on the State's ability to provide high-quality public education. The Court disagreed because, under an invented standard that it failed to justify, Texas needed to show that "exclusion of undocumented children is likely to improve the overall quality of education in the State." Id. at 229.
Fourth, Texas argued that illegal alien children are appropriately singled out because their unlawful presence makes them less likely to remain in the state and put their education to productive use.
The Court rejected this too, stating that "it is an interest that is most difficult to quantify" and that Texas had no "assurance" whether the illegal alien children would remain or leave the State. Id. at 230.
Finally, and critically, the Court acknowledged that the outcome might have been different, but Congress had not enacted a clear federal policy on point. The majority wrote: "We are reluctant to impute to Congress the intention to withhold from these children, for so long as they are present in this country through no fault of their own, access to a basic education. In other contexts, undocumented status, coupled with some articulable federal policy, might enhance state authority with respect to the treatment of undocumented aliens. But in the area of special constitutional sensitivity presented by these cases, and in the absence of any contrary indication fairly discernible in the present legislative record, we perceive no national policy that supports the State in denying these children an elementary education." Id. at 226. As discussed in Part II below, Congress has since spoken directly on this subject-- removing the very premise upon which the Court rested its decision.
E. Why the Dissent Was Right
Chief Justice Burger, joined by Justices White, Rehnquist, and O'Connor, wrote a dissent that, with the benefit of four decades of hindsight, reads as the more principled and constitutionally sound analysis.
The dissent rested on several powerful arguments.
The Court substituted its own policy preferences for those of the Texas Legislature. As Chief Justice Burger wrote: "The Constitution does not constitute us as 'Platonic Guardians' nor does it vest in this Court the authority to strike down laws because they do not meet our standards of desirable social policy, 'wisdom,' or 'common sense.' We trespass on the assigned function of the political branches under our structure of limited and separated powers when we assume a policymaking role as the Court does today." Id. at 242 (Burger, C.J., dissenting) (cleaned up).
The majority was acting to compensate for congressional failure. The dissent captured, with unusual candor, exactly what the Court was doing: "The Court makes no attempt to disguise that it is acting to make up for Congress' lack of 'effective leadership' in dealing with the serious national problems caused by the influx of uncountable millions of illegal aliens across our borders. The failure of enforcement of the immigration laws over more than a decade and the inherent difficulty and expense of sealing our vast borders have combined to create a grave socioeconomic dilemma. It is a dilemma that has not yet even been fully assessed, let alone addressed. However, it is not the function of the Judiciary to provide 'effective leadership' simply because the political branches of government fail to do so." Id. at 242-43 (cleaned up).
This critique goes to the heart of the separation of powers. Whatever one thinks of the underlying policy, federal immigration law is entrusted by the Constitution to Congress and the Executive, not to the federal judiciary. When courts step in to fill perceived policy gaps left by legislative inaction, they undermine the democratic process and exceed their constitutional role.
The majority distorted the Constitution. Burger was unflinching: "The Court employs, and in my view abuses, the Fourteenth Amendment in an effort to become an omnipotent and omniscient problem solver.
That the motives for doing so are noble and compassionate does not alter the fact that the Court distorts our constitutional function to make amends for the defaults of others." Id. at 243. He added that "the extent to which the Court departs from principled constitutional adjudication is ... disturbing." Id.
The Court invented a standard of review with no constitutional basis. Having conceded that illegal aliens are not a suspect class and that education is not a fundamental right, the majority was required to apply rational basis review. As Burger wrote: "Once it is conceded--as the Court does--that illegal aliens are not a suspect class, and that education is not a fundamental right, our inquiry should focus on and be limited to whether the legislative classification at issue bears a rational relationship to a legitimate state purpose." Id. at 248. The majority's invention of a hybrid, intermediate standard was, as Burger bluntly observed, "a prime example" of a court being "was guilty of an unabashedly result-oriented approach." Id. at 244.
The Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of all persons in all circumstances. The dissent correctly noted that "[t]he Equal Protection Clause does not mandate identical treatment of different categories of persons" and that "[t]he distinction the State of Texas has drawn--based not only upon its own legitimate interests but on classifications established by the Federal Government in its immigration laws and policies--is not unconstitutional." Id. at 243-44.
Furthermore, "[t]he Equal Protection Clause guarantees similar treatment of similarly situated persons, but it does not mandate a constitutional hierarchy of governmental services." Id. at 248.
Resource conservation of limited resources is a rational and legitimate state interest. Under ordinary rational basis review--which the Court itself admitted was the appropriate standard--conservation of limited public resources is an entirely legitimate government objective. As Burger wrote: "I assume no Member of this Court would argue that prudent conservation of finite state revenues is per se an illegitimate goal." Id. at 249. The majority's offhand dismissal of Texas's resource-conservation justification thus could not be reconciled with rational basis doctrine.
Illegal aliens are not entitled to the same governmental benefits as lawful residents. This may be the dissent's most commonsense point: "it simply is not 'irrational' for a state to conclude that it does not have the same responsibility to provide benefits for persons whose very presence in the state and this country is illegal as it does to provide for persons lawfully present. By definition, illegal aliens have no right whatever to be here, and the state may reasonably, and constitutionally, elect not to provide them with governmental services at the expense of those who are lawfully in the state." Id. at 250.
The dissent also observed the inconsistency of the Court's position given federal law: "It is significant that the Federal Government has seen fit to exclude illegal aliens from numerous social welfare programs.... Although these exclusions do not conclusively demonstrate the constitutionality of the State's use of the same classification for comparable purposes, at the very least they tend to support the rationality of excluding illegal alien residents of a state from such programs so as to preserve the state's finite revenues for the benefit of lawful residents." Id. at 250-51.
The Chief Justice was careful to note that his conclusion was not a statement of preferred policy: "Denying a free education to illegal alien children is not a choice I would make were I a legislator." Id. at 252. However, he concluded: "The Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem.... The solution to this seemingly intractable problem is to defer to the political processes, unpalatable as that may be to some." Id. at 253-54 (citation omitted).
II. The Path to Overruling Plyler -- Applying the Dobbs Framework
A. Stare Decisis Is Not an Inexorable Command
The doctrine of stare decisis -- the principle that courts should generally follow their prior decisions -- is an important part of the rule of law.
It promotes stability, predictability, and public confidence in the judiciary.
But it has never been, and must never be, an absolute rule. Some of the Supreme Court's most celebrated decisions were cases where the Court overruled a prior precedent that was demonstrably wrong.
In Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization, 597 U.S. 215 (2022), the Supreme Court articulated a careful, multi-factor framework for determining when a prior constitutional precedent should be overruled. The Court identified five key factors that bear on whether overruling is appropriate. As shown below, all five factors weigh in favor of overruling Plyler.
B. Applying the Dobbs Factors to Plyler v. Doe
Factor 1: The Nature of the Court's Error. The first Dobbs factor is to examine the nature of the court's error, particularly whether the decision was "egregiously wrong." Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 268. Plyler was wrong from the day it was decided. As the dissent demonstrated, the majority conceded the very legal premises--that illegal aliens are not a suspect class and education is not a fundamental right--that under the Supreme Court's own jurisprudence required application of rational basis review.
Having made those concessions, the majority had no principled basis for invalidating the Texas law. The majority's invention of a novel intermediate standard of review, untethered from constitutional text or precedent, was a product of result-oriented adjudication, not principled constitutional analysis. Like Roe v. Wade, Plyler imposed a judicial policy preference in place of a democratically enacted law, short-circuiting the political process on a question the Constitution entrusted to the states and Congress.
Factor 2: The Quality of the Reasoning. Dobbs instructs that poor legal reasoning--lacking textual, historical, or precedential grounding--weighs in favor of overruling. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 269-70. Plyler's reasoning is notably thin. The majority never explained the constitutional source of its novel "substantial state interest" standard. It performed no serious engagement with constitutional text or history. It rejected each of Texas's proffered justifications with brief, conclusory responses that would fail under any ordinary rational basis analysis. The majority's analysis more closely resembled a legislative committee's policy assessment-- weighing societal costs and benefits--than a legal opinion grounded in constitutional interpretation. This is precisely the kind of judicial legislating that Dobbs recognized as a basis for overruling prior precedent.
Factor 3: Workability. Dobbs asks whether the rule set forth in a prior decision can be understood and applied consistently and predictably.
Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 280-81. Plyler's "substantial state interest" standard has proven unworkable in at least two respects. First, it has never been clear what makes a state interest "substantial" enough to override the ruling, leading to litigation uncertainty for states and localities. Second, and more significantly, the decision has made it difficult for states to respond to dramatically changed circumstances--including a surge in illegal immigration that dwarfs the numbers the Court considered in 1982. A rule of constitutional law that cannot be coherently applied to changed factual conditions, and whose outer limits remain undefined, is by definition unworkable.
Factor 4: Effect on Other Areas of Law. Dobbs recognized that a
factor weighing in favor of overruling a decision is if it distorts other legal doctrines. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 286-87. Plyler has had a distorting effect on immigration federalism. By holding that courts must review state distinctions based on immigration status under a heightened (if undefined) standard, the decision has chilled legitimate state policy choices across a range of public benefit programs and has been cited as a barrier to statelevel immigration enforcement. It has also created interpretive confusion about the relationship between federal immigration law and state benefit programs -- confusion that Congress has been unable to fully resolve even through legislation.
Factor 5: Reliance Interests. Dobbs recognizes that strong concrete reliance interests--like those involving property or contract rights-- weigh against overruling. Dobbs, 597 U.S. at 287-88. Plyler does not implicate the kind of concrete, transactional reliance that would make overruling disruptive. Unlike property rights or contract obligations, the expectation of receiving free public education based on illegal presence in the country does not represent the kind of settled reliance interest that the law is designed to protect. The illegal aliens whose children attend public schools under Plyler cannot claim they organized their affairs and made irreversible economic commitments in reliance on the decision in the same way that property owners or contracting parties do. Restoring the rule of law in this area would not unwind decades of commercial transactions; it would return a policy question to the democratic branches, where it has always belonged.
C. Post-1982 Congressional Enactments Remove Plyler's Core Premise
The Plyler majority was candid that its holding rested in part on the absence of a clear federal policy on the subject. As Justice Brennan wrote, "undocumented status, coupled with some articulable federal policy, might enhance state authority with respect to the treatment of undocumented aliens." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 226.
Congress has since supplied precisely that policy. In 1996, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), which declared it "a compelling government interest to remove the incentive for illegal immigration provided by the availability of public benefits," 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1601(6)-(7) and declared that illegal aliens who are not "qualified aliens" are ineligible for federal public benefits. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1611. Congress specifically defined "federal public benefits" to include postsecondary education and other government services. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1611(c)(1)(b). In the same year, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), which barred states from offering in-state postsecondary tuition to illegal aliens unless the same rate is offered to all U.S. citizens regardless of state of residence. 8 U.S.C. Sec. 1623.
These enactments--passed with overwhelming bipartisan support--represent exactly the kind of "articulable federal policy" that the Plyler majority said could change the constitutional calculus. In light of PRWORA, a state can now argue not only that its distinction between lawful and unlawful residents is rational, but that it mirrors an explicit federal policy judgment by Congress. The foundational premise of the Plyler majority--that no federal policy supported the Texas classification--no longer holds.
D. State Challenges Are Already Underway
Multiple states have already moved to create the legal vehicle for the Supreme Court to reconsider Plyler by introducing legislation that would require proof of citizenship or legal immigration status as a condition of enrollment, or that would authorize school districts to charge tuition to illegal alien students. These legislative efforts are deliberate; they are designed to generate litigation that will allow the Supreme Court to reconsider Plyler under the current constitutional framework and in light of changed circumstances.
This strategy mirrors the successful approach taken in the abortion context. Mississippi's Gestational Age Act--the law at issue in Dobbs-- was enacted specifically to create a vehicle for overruling Roe v. Wade. The same strategic logic applies here: a state that enacts a law requiring immigration status verification for school enrollment and charges tuition to unlawfully present students will invite a legal challenge. That challenge, if it reaches the Supreme Court, will allow the Court to reconsider Plyler using the Dobbs framework outlined above.
Congress can accelerate this process by enacting legislation explicitly providing that states are authorized to condition free public K-12 education on lawful presence. Such a statute would not only constitute additional evidence of an "articulable federal policy" under Plyler's own terms, but would also frame the legal question for any reviewing court in the most favorable manner possible.
III. What States and Localities Can Do Right Now
Even under the constraints of Plyler as currently interpreted, states and localities retain meaningful tools to address the burdens illegal alien enrollment places on public schools. The following is a non-exhaustive list of actions permitted under current law.
A. Residency Verification
Plyler prohibits states from denying enrollment based solely on immigration status, but it does not prevent states from defining the threshold concept of residency itself in ways that exclude illegal aliens and nonimmigrant aliens from qualifying as district residents in the first place. That distinction matters enormously. A state that denies enrollment because a child is an illegal alien runs directly into Plyler. A state that denies enrollment because a child is not a resident of the district--applying a carefully crafted, constitutionally grounded definition of residence--raises a fundamentally different legal question.
The legal tools for this approach are well-established. The Supreme Court has recognized that "usual residence" for purposes of the census means more than mere physical presence; it includes "some element of allegiance or enduring tie to a place." Franklin v. Massachusetts, 505 U.S. 788, 804 (1992). An illegal alien, by definition, lacks both. As the Court held in United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the reciprocal relationship of protection and allegiance that defines lawful residence depends on the sovereign's permission to reside here. 169 U.S. 649, 694 (1898). Because illegal aliens are present in defiance of federal law, the United States has not consented to their residence; they remain subject to removal at any time, possess no enduring tie to any particular state, and owe their primary political allegiance to a foreign nation--not to the state in which they temporarily find themselves. Aliens present on temporary visas are similarly situated: their authorized stay is, by definition, contingent and time-limited, and it cannot create the durable allegiance and enduring tie that lawful residency requires. States can codify these principles by adopting statutes that only allow residents to attend public schools without paying tuition and including in their definition of "resident" for school enrollment purposes to mean a person who has legal permission to live in the school district--thereby excluding illegal aliens and nonimmigrant visa holders as a matter of residence law, not immigration-status discrimination. The Supreme Court expressly recognized in Burns v. Richardson, 384 U.S. 73, 92 (1966), that states possess the constitutional authority to exclude aliens and other non-permanent residents from their electoral apportionment bases, reflecting the broader principle that state-conferred benefits may rationally be limited to those who share a genuine, lawful connection to the community.
B. Data Collection and Fiscal Reporting
Nothing in Plyler prevents states from requiring school districts to collect and publicly report aggregate data on the number of enrolled students who cannot demonstrate lawful presence, the associated per-pupil costs, and the total fiscal burden on the state's public school system. This kind of fiscal transparency is valuable for two reasons: it provides an honest accounting of the costs that the public is bearing; and it builds the evidentiary record that may be needed to support future litigation or legislation.
C. Restricting Benefits Beyond Basic K-12 Education
Plyler protects access to "basic education"--the core K-12 curriculum. It does not guarantee every supplemental program, enrichment activity, or government benefit offered by a school or district. States can adopt policies restricting illegal alien students' access to, for example, specialized gifted and talented programs that involve additional state funding, dual-enrollment college tuition subsidies, extracurricular travel, and similar optional programs that go beyond the baseline Plyler requires.
These distinctions must be applied carefully and not used as a pretext for wholesale exclusion, but legitimate distinctions between "basic education" and "supplemental benefits" are constitutionally defensible.
D. Withholding State Funding for Postsecondary Education
States have clear authority to deny in-state tuition and state financial aid to illegal alien students in postsecondary education. As discussed above, PRWORA explicitly recognizes this, and IIRIRA bars states from offering discounted in-state tuition to illegal aliens unless the same rate is offered to all U.S. citizens. Any state that currently offers in-state tuition to illegal aliens in defiance of IIRIRA should reconsider that practice, and Congress should vigorously enforce the IIRIRA prohibition.
E. Federal Program Eligibility Verification
While Plyler constrains states regarding basic K-12 enrollment, it does not control eligibility for federally funded programs administered through schools. In 2025, the Department of Education issued interpretive guidance concluding that federally funded career and technical education programs under the Perkins Act, adult education programs under WIOA, and other federal workforce education grants are "federal public benefits" subject to PRWORA's citizenship-verification requirements. Clarification of Federal Public Benefits Under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act, 90 Fed. Reg. 30,896 (Jul. 11, 2025). Under the guidance, schools receiving federal funds must verify eligibility for such programs and exclude ineligible illegal aliens accordingly. Head Start and federally funded preschool programs are similarly subject to federal eligibility verification and are not protected by Plyler.
Conclusion
Plyler v. Doe was a decision driven by judicial sympathy for children in a difficult situation -- a sympathy that is entirely understandable on a human level. But as Chief Justice Burger correctly observed, "the Constitution does not provide a cure for every social ill, nor does it vest judges with a mandate to try to remedy every social problem." Plyler, 457 U.S. at 253-54 (Burger, C.J., dissenting). The Court's role is to interpret the Constitution, not to serve as a policymaking body filling in the gaps left by legislative inaction. Where the Constitution's text, history, and precedent all point in the same direction--and where the Court's own analytical concessions compel application of a standard under which the challenged law would clearly survive--the Court must follow the law, not its own policy preferences.
Plyler failed that test in 1982. The Dobbs framework gives the Court a principled path to correct that error now.
* * *
Original text here: https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/rogers-testimony_0.pdf
Amata Chairs Portion of Legislative Hearing Examining 12 Veterans' Bills
WASHINGTON, March 26 (Rep.) -- Del. Aumua Amata Radewagen, R-American Samoa, issued the following news release:* * *
Amata Chairs Portion of Legislative Hearing Examining 12 Veterans' Bills
*
Washington, D.C. - Congresswoman Uifa'atali Amata on Wednesday presided for part of a legislative hearing that examined 12 new Veterans' bills, the first step in their legislative process through the House Veterans' Affairs Committee (HVAC) following introduction. Note this group of bills is separate from the 27 bills examined on March 18 by the full Committee, where Aumua Amata serves as Vice Chairman.Congresswoman ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 (Rep.) -- Del. Aumua Amata Radewagen, R-American Samoa, issued the following news release: * * * Amata Chairs Portion of Legislative Hearing Examining 12 Veterans' Bills * Washington, D.C. - Congresswoman Uifa'atali Amata on Wednesday presided for part of a legislative hearing that examined 12 new Veterans' bills, the first step in their legislative process through the House Veterans' Affairs Committee (HVAC) following introduction. Note this group of bills is separate from the 27 bills examined on March 18 by the full Committee, where Aumua Amata serves as Vice Chairman.CongresswomanAmata presiding over Veterans' legislative hearing on Wednesday
The HVAC Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations is led by Chairwoman Jen Kiggans (R-Virginia), who presided for the first portion of the hearing, then Congresswoman Amata held the center chair for part of the hearing.
"I'm pleased we have plentiful Veterans legislation to continue working on and send the best of these bills forward to the full House of Representatives for votes," said Congresswoman Amata. "Many of these bills address specific service needs or VA reforms resulting from listening to Veterans constantly in testimony, roundtables, and meetings. I will continue to provide updates from Washington."
The hearing provided the first examination of the following legislation:
* H.R. 7280, the Veteran DATA Act
* H.R. 6654, the Veterans Affairs Management and Oversight of Software Assets Act
* H.R. 7319, the VA Bonus and Relocation Recovery Act
* H.R. 7683, the VA Fiscal Management Modernization Act
* Discussion Draft, the Vets CLEAR Act
* Discussion Draft, the Veterans Affairs Subcontractor Competition and Opportunity Network Act
* Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to require that certain sterile processing technicians of the Veterans Health Administration hold appropriate professional certifications, and for other purposes
* Discussion Draft, to amend title 38, United States Code, to modify the rate of pay for care or services provided under the Community Care Program of the Department of Veterans Affairs based on the location at which such care or services were provided, and for other purposes
* Discussion Draft, to establish an entitlement to a supplemental period of unpaid parental leave for employees of the Department of Veterans Affairs
* Discussion Draft, to deem certain individuals as parents of Department of Veterans Affairs employees for purposes of determining entitlement to certain family and medical leave for such employees
* Discussion Draft, to prohibit the downgrading of law enforcement positions in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes
* Discussion Draft, to amend Title 38, United States Code, to establish the Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs in the Department of Veterans Affairs, and for other purposes.
Subcommittee Chairwoman Kiggans stated that the hearing examined "12 bills covering a wide range of issues, all aimed at strengthening accountability, improving care, and ensuring VA delivers on its commitments to those who served. These bills address critical areas including oversight of VA operations, protection of veterans' data, workforce retention and accountability, small business opportunity, payment reform, and improvements to the quality and safety of healthcare veterans receive every day."
Issues : Veterans
***
Original text here: https://radewagen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/amata-chairs-portion-legislative-hearing-examining-12-veterans-bills
Alsobrooks, Blumenthal, McBath Introduce Extending WIC for New Moms Act
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Maryland, issued the following news release on March 25, 2026:* * *
Alsobrooks, Blumenthal, McBath Introduce Extending WIC for New Moms Act
Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Extending WIC for New Moms Act, a bicameral bill to expand eligibility and support mothers and infants into the postpartum and breastfeeding periods through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs. This legislation extends WIC eligibility in the postpartum period from 6 months ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-Maryland, issued the following news release on March 25, 2026: * * * Alsobrooks, Blumenthal, McBath Introduce Extending WIC for New Moms Act Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) introduced the Extending WIC for New Moms Act, a bicameral bill to expand eligibility and support mothers and infants into the postpartum and breastfeeding periods through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) programs. This legislation extends WIC eligibility in the postpartum period from 6 monthsto 24 months and in the breastfeeding period from 12 months to 24 months. Congresswoman Lucy McBath (D-Ga.-06) is introducing this legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Cosponsors include Senators Booker (D-N.J.), Durbin (D-Ill.), and Duckworth (D-Ill.).
"For children in low-income homes, food scarcity can impact their overall health for the rest of their lives. After Republicans decimated food assistance programs like SNAP in their 'big, beautiful bill,' we need to re-double our efforts to support vulnerable new moms to ensure their families are able to grow and thrive together. Extending WIC eligibility for mothers in postpartum and breastfeeding periods just makes sense and is a critical part of our plan to improve maternal and child health," said Senator Alsobrooks.
"This critical legislation extends WIC eligibility for breastfeeding and postpartum mothers to improve maternal and infant health outcomes. Lack of access to nutritious food has serious impacts on a child's health and development. With the Extending WIC for New Moms Act, we will support vulnerable families and strengthen their ability to grow, thrive, and stay healthy," said Senator Blumenthal.
"Access to nutritious food in the earliest stages of life is essential to a child's health and development. WIC is a proven lifeline for families, but we must do more to support mothers beyond their first few months after childbirth. Extending WIC eligibility--for both breast-feeding and formula-fed babies--is a commonsense step to improve maternal health and give every child a stronger start," Senator Durbin said. "I'm cosponsoring the Extending WIC for New Moms Act to provide more comprehensive health care for mothers and their babies, improving their health outcomes across the United States."
"We should be doing everything we can to ensure families have what they need to keep their babies fed and healthy--instead, Donald Trump is focused on building a ballroom for his billionaire buddies and starting the kind of taxpayer-funded forever wars he promised to get us out of while American families struggle," said Senator Duckworth. "Extending WIC eligibility during the critical postpartum and breastfeeding months is a simple way to ensure moms and babies get the nutrition they need to thrive. I'm proud to introduce this legislation to support young families through the often overwhelming moments of becoming a new parent."
"No mother should be cut off from essential nutritional support just months after giving birth--especially when the postpartum and breastfeeding periods are among the most critical windows for both maternal and infant health," said Senator Booker. "This legislation extends nutritional support, so mothers can continue receiving nutrition assistance and care for up to two years after childbirth. Congress has a duty to ensure all mothers and babies have the support they need to stay healthy."
The Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) is a critical federal program to provide supplemental foods, health care referrals, and nutrition education to low-income pregnant, breastfeeding, and postpartum people, as well as infants and children up to age 5 who are at nutritional risk.
Data on WIC's effectiveness show the benefits of the program for moms and babies: pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding WIC participants have lower likelihoods of pregnancy-related risk factors, lower risk of preterm birth, and lower risk of low-birthweight infants. Maternal WIC participation is also associated with reductions in infant mortality and improved nutrition and health outcomes for infants and children. By extending eligibility for WIC in the postpartum and breastfeeding periods, the Extending WIC for New Moms Act will make sure the nutritional needs of moms and babies are met, improving maternal and child health outcomes and advancing birth equity across the United States.
This Women's History Month, Senator Alsobrooks remains focused on protecting and fighting for additional funding for women's health care. She is fighting for women suffering with uterine fibroids through her bipartisan U-FIGHT Act. She is tackling the heart disease crisis through her bipartisan Women's Heart Health Expansion Act. The Extending WIC for New Moms Act and the Social Determinants for Moms Act are part of her mission to ensure mothers and pregnant women have access to the care they need.
Read full bill text here (https://www.alsobrooks.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/ELT26158.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.alsobrooks.senate.gov/news/press-releases/alsobrooks-blumenthal-mcbath-introduce-extending-wic-for-new-moms-act/
At Hearing, Warren Blasts Trump Administration's Flip-Flopping on Iran War, Alienating U.S. Allies
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, issued the following news release:* * *
At Hearing, Warren Blasts Trump Administration's Flip-Flopping on Iran War, Alienating U.S. Allies
*
Warren: "It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs, and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that."
Warren: "Trump has alienated many of our allies, and those costs are becoming clear."
Video of Exchange (YouTube)
Washington, D.C. - At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, issued the following news release: * * * At Hearing, Warren Blasts Trump Administration's Flip-Flopping on Iran War, Alienating U.S. Allies * Warren: "It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs, and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that." Warren: "Trump has alienated many of our allies, and those costs are becoming clear." Video of Exchange (YouTube) Washington, D.C. - At a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)pressed Admiral Richard A. Correll, Commander of U.S. Strategic Command (STRATCOM), on how President Donald Trump's foreign policy decisions impact U.S. alliances as the war against Iran continues. U.S. Strategic Command is responsible for strategic deterrence and nuclear operations.
On February 28, President Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu launched the first attack on Iran. Longstanding U.S. allies alleged they were not informed of President Trump's plan to start the war until after the first strikes. Now, President Trump has publicly criticized those allies for not providing support to address Iran's chokehold on the Strait of Hormuz while oil prices soar.
"It is not only an embarrassment when the President begs, and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that," said Senator Warren.
Senator Warren noted that Admiral Correll has previously said repeatedly that alliances are critical to deterrence. When pressed on if Russia and China would view U.S. alliances as strong, given the lack of support from allies, Admiral Correll asserted, "I think China's and Russia's behavior...demonstrates their continued concern for America's alliances." Senator Warren challenged his view, stating, "You're telling me your view is there's no threat here, and I'm just telling you that just does not bear credible analysis."
Senator Warren also raised her concerns about how Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu seems to be pursuing different objectives regarding the war compared to President Trump's claimed reasoning. On March 18, the Israeli government bombed one of the largest oil fields in the Middle East. Afterwards, President Trump posted on Truth Social that the U.S. was unaware of this attack, condemning it because of the economic danger that it would pose.
The Trump administration also continues to change its objectives for launching a war with Iran. Last year, the White House issued a press release proclaiming that "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news." The Trump administration has still not given a clear goal for its war against Iran, but has insisted on the threat of Iran's nuclear weapons as one of many objectives.
"If this administration can't keep its main partner in line and can't keep its own story straight, then we've got a problem," said Senator Warren.
When Senator Warren questioned Admiral Correll on whether it enhances strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining U.S. policy goals or for the Trump administration to continue changing its reasons for attacking Iran, he repeatedly refused to answer the senator's question. Instead, pointing to disagreeing with the senator's assessment, Admiral Correll stated, "I have no further comments to make other than what I've previously said."
Senator Warren concluded the hearing by raising her concern over Admiral Correll's unclear responses to her questions and emphasized the importance of understanding the impact of President Trump and his administration's changing narratives on U.S. interests.
Transcript: Hearings to examine the posture of the United States Space Command and United States Strategic Command in review of the Defense Authorization Request for fiscal year 2027 and the future years defense program.
Senate Armed Services Committee
March 26, 2026
Senator Elizabeth Warren: President Trump has dragged us into war against Iran, and we're all paying the price. Service members have died. Oil prices are soaring, and we are facing a global economic crisis over the Strait of Hormuz. One big reason? Donald Trump's go-it-alone approach to blowing up long-standing American alliances. He has insulted and tariffed just about everyone, and he launched this war alongside Israel without telling our other allies. And then when he sees gas prices skyrocket, Donald Trump changes his tune and starts begging our allies to help us patrol the Strait of Hormuz. And our partners have said they want to help, but only if the fighting stops.
Admiral Correll, U.S. Strategic Command, is responsible for strategic deterrence and nuclear operations, and you have said repeatedly that alliances are critical to deterrence. So, Admiral, do Russia and China think that our alliances are strong when our partners refuse to help?
Admiral Richard A. Correll: My military assessment is that they continue to think they're very strong, and I think China and Russia's behavior in terms of attempting to undermine those alliances demonstrates their continued concern for America's alliances.
Senator Warren: I just have to say your answer makes no sense to me. That Russia and China watch us insult our allies, then beg for their help, and then our allies don't give that help. And you think Russia and China think, "There's an alliance that's working just great." Look, it is not only an embarrassment when the President begs and our allies say no, it is a national security threat because our enemies take note of that. It is your job to advise the Secretary about how to deter our greatest threats. And you're telling me your view is there's no threat here, and I'm just telling you that just does not bear credible analysis.
Trump has alienated many of our allies, and those costs are becoming clear. At the same time, we have launched war with Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu, who seems to be pursuing a completely different set of objectives, and President Trump is unwilling or unable even to rein in Netanyahu. On March 18, the Netanyahu government bombed one of the region's largest oil fields. Trump then posted that the U.S. didn't even know in advance and that we didn't want further oil strikes because of the economic danger that it would pose.
So, Admiral, does it enhance strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining explicit US policy goals?
Admiral Correll: Senator, I respectfully disagree with your overall assessment.
Senator Warren: What part do you disagree with that Trump posted that we didn't know and didn't agree with what Netanyahu did, but Netanyahu did it anyway? What part are you disagreeing with?
Admiral Correll: Senator, I can just speak to my portfolio and my responsibilities, and you know, our capabilities remain ready to respond and deter, and they deter each and every day.
Senator Warren: I appreciate that. But that is not my question. My question is, does it enhance strategic deterrence to have major partners undermining explicit US policy goals?
Admiral Correll: Strong, mil-to-mil relationships and our alliance network are part of our overall deterrence.
Senator Warren: Look, again, your answer just lacks any credibility. If this administration can't keep its main partner in line and can't keep its own story straight, then we've got a problem. In June, the White House issued a press release proclaiming that, quote, "Iran's nuclear facilities have been obliterated, and suggestions otherwise are fake news," and yet now Iran's nuclear program is one of the many changing reasons that the administration has given for this war.
So, Admiral Correll, let me ask one more. Does it help strategic deterrence when the White House changes its story minute by minute on the reasons for this war?
Chairman Roger Wicker: Senator Warren, the witness on three occasions, has said that he is declining to answer that question because he disagrees with the premise. I appreciate that members are able. To make whatever points they want, but I think it's clear why he's unable to answer your question because he completely disagrees with the premise.
Senator Warren: I'm glad that it's clear to you, Mr. Chairman, but with respect, I don't understand what part of the premise he disagrees with. I'm stating facts here. I'm asking if those facts are helpful for the United States or unhelpful for the United States?
Chairman Wicker: Admiral, you can answer the question if you're able.
Admiral Correll: I have no further comments to make other than what I've previously said.
Chairman Wicker: Thank you, Senator Warren.
***
Original text here: https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/at-hearing-warren-blasts-trump-administrations-flip-flopping-on-iran-war-alienating-us-allies
As Airports Grind to a Halt, Barrett Votes for Third Time to Fund Homeland Security and Pay TSA Agents
WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Michigan, issued the following news release:* * *
As Airports Grind to a Halt, Barrett Votes for Third Time to Fund Homeland Security and Pay TSA Agents
*
Washington, D.C. - As the longest airport security lines in history grind airports to a halt, Congressman Tom Barrett (MI-07) today helped pass legislation to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the third time this year. The Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act ( H.R. 8029 ) was approved by a 218-206 vote, with all but four Democrats voting to keep DHS shut down.
"Airports across ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 -- Rep. Tom Barrett, R-Michigan, issued the following news release: * * * As Airports Grind to a Halt, Barrett Votes for Third Time to Fund Homeland Security and Pay TSA Agents * Washington, D.C. - As the longest airport security lines in history grind airports to a halt, Congressman Tom Barrett (MI-07) today helped pass legislation to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for the third time this year. The Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act ( H.R. 8029 ) was approved by a 218-206 vote, with all but four Democrats voting to keep DHS shut down. "Airports acrossthe United States are a complete mess with people spending hours on end waiting to get through security because TSA agents simply can't afford to keep coming to work without getting paid," said Barrett. "This nightmare is only going to get worse as thousands of Americans get ready to travel for spring break and Easter unless we fund the Department of Homeland Security and pay TSA. I just voted to do that for the third time, and it's time we demand the Senate to do the same."
DHS has been shut down for 41 days, jeopardizing the missions of the TSA, Coast Guard, FEMA, Secret Service, and various other counterterrorism and security agencies. Since then, security wait times at some airports have reached more than six hours long. In testimony before Congress this week, acting TSA Administrator Ha Nguyen McNeill highlighted that assaults against TSA officers have increased 500% since the shutdown began on February 14.
The Pay Our Homeland Defenders Act is identical to the bipartisan DHS funding bills that passed the House in January and earlier this month with Barrett's support. The funding plan was negotiated this winter by Republicans and Democrats in the House, Senate, and White House, but Democrats then proceeded to block the legislation in the Senate, where the bill requires several Democrat votes to pass.
***
Original text here: https://barrett.house.gov/media/press-releases/airports-grind-halt-barrett-votes-third-time-fund-homeland-security-and-pay
Artificial Intelligence: OMB Action Needed to Address Privacy-Related Gaps in Federal Guidance
WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report:* * *
Artificial Intelligence: OMB Action Needed to Address Privacy-Related Gaps in Federal Guidance
*
Fast Facts
Federal agencies are increasingly adopting AI as its capabilities improve. However, AI technology poses privacy-related risks and challenges.
For example, using AI may reveal personal and private information in raw data sets. At the same time, agencies don't always have the tools and resources to ensure privacy protection while using AI.
The Office of Management and Budget's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, March 26 (TNSLrpt) -- The Government Accountability Office issued the following report: * * * Artificial Intelligence: OMB Action Needed to Address Privacy-Related Gaps in Federal Guidance * Fast Facts Federal agencies are increasingly adopting AI as its capabilities improve. However, AI technology poses privacy-related risks and challenges. For example, using AI may reveal personal and private information in raw data sets. At the same time, agencies don't always have the tools and resources to ensure privacy protection while using AI. The Office of Management and Budget'sgovernment-wide AI guidance doesn't fully address all the major privacy-related risks and challenges. We recommended that OMB give agencies more direction in addressing these risks and challenges.
A person typing on a computer keyboard with illustrations of several exclamation points each in a triangle positioned around a shield that has A.I. in the middle, superimposed over the person's hands.
Highlights
What GAO Found
GAO convened a panel of experts who identified privacy risks and challenges associated with the use of artificial intelligence (AI), which align with GAO's prior reporting on AI use. For example, the experts noted that using AI may reveal sensitive information in raw data sets, potentially exposing personal and private information, among other privacy risks. At the same time, the experts identified several challenges that federal agencies face in addressing these risks. These include the lack of technology to implement AI with appropriate privacy protections and the potential performance tradeoff when adjusting or removing certain data for the sake of privacy.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB)'s government-wide AI guidance does not fully address all the identified privacy-related risks and challenges. Specifically, OMB's guidance does not specify the types of known privacy-related risks that agencies should consider when establishing policies to address privacy in AI. OMB's guidance provides direction on addressing two challenges identified by the panelists: the need for enhanced skills among the federal workforce to effectively implement AI and the ability to accelerate and scale the implementation of AI systems with privacy protections. However, the guidance does not fully address the remaining eight challenges.
Extent to Which the Office of Management and Budget's Government-wide Guidance Addressed 10 Selected Expert-identified Privacy-related Challenges When Using Artificial Intelligence (AI), as of January 2026
Given the risks and challenges, additional guidance from OMB could help ensure agencies take appropriate steps to protect the privacy of sensitive data when using AI. OMB could also use existing mechanisms, such as the Chief AI Officer Council or Federal Privacy Council, as forums for interagency information-sharing about strategies or best practices for addressing AI-related privacy challenges. Without this additional direction, risks are increased that agencies' use of AI would disclose sensitive data, or compromise privacy in other ways.
Why GAO Did This Study
AI is rapidly evolving and has significant potential to transform society and people's lives. Further, surges in AI capabilities have led to a wide range of innovations with substantial promise for improving the operations of government agencies. However, AI can also pose significant risks to individuals, groups, and organizations. As a result, when agencies use AI to carry out their missions, they need to consider privacy-related risks and challenges. They also need to ensure that they have implemented appropriate risk management and privacy controls to protect the private information of the American public.
In this report, GAO (1) describes the risks and challenges associated with protecting privacy when using AI and (2) examines the extent to which OMB addressed these risks and challenges in government-wide guidance.
To do so, GAO assembled a panel of experts and compiled a non-exhaustive list of privacy risks and challenges associated with AI. GAO also reviewed OMB's AI-related guidance to determine if it highlighted the specific types of privacy risks identified by the experts. Further, GAO compared OMB's AI-related government-wide guidance to 10 selected challenges to determine if they could be addressed by the contents of the guidance.
Recommendations
GAO is making two recommendations to OMB to fully address the identified risks and challenges via updated guidance or by facilitating additional information sharing. GAO provided OMB with a copy of the draft report for its review and comment. OMB did not provide comments.
Recommendations for Executive Action
Agency Affected Recommendation Status
Office of Management and Budget The Director of OMB should specify examples of known privacy-related risks that agencies should consider when updating their policies as they pertain to AI. (Recommendation 1)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
Office of Management and Budget The Director of OMB should facilitate additional information sharing or issue government-wide guidance related to:
* how agencies should consider privacy when evaluating and auditing AI models that contain sensitive information;
* storing data in a manner where sensitive data can be separated from the dataset;
* clear rules, norms, and best practices with respect to privacy that agencies should use when developing AI solutions internally;
* performance metrics agencies can use to assess privacy-related impacts when using AI;
* actions agencies can take to ensure that members of the public who interact with their AI technologies understand what they are consenting to;
* technological tools agencies can use to protect sensitive data when using AI;
* incorporating AI-specific considerations into privacy impact assessments, including identifying risks and informing the public about how PII is involved in the use of AI; and
* potential tradeoffs between privacy and performance agencies can consider when using AI. (Recommendation 2)
Open Actions to satisfy the intent of the recommendation have not been taken or are being planned.
When we confirm what actions the agency has taken in response to this recommendation, we will provide updated information.
***
Original text here: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-26-107681