Recent Issues

A provision in a House budget/appropriations bill would cancel $2 billion in federal funding that supports the operations of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) health insurance Marketplace exchanges. These funds are critical to maintaining the infrastructure that allows millions of Americans to shop for, enroll in, and retain subsidized health insurance coverage through HealthCare.gov and state-based exchanges.

Eliminating this funding would jeopardize the day-to-day functioning of the ACA Marketplaces — including enrollment systems, consumer assistance programs, and outreach efforts — potentially leaving millions of Americans without a reliable pathway to affordable health coverage. Analysts and advocacy groups have warned that cutting this operational funding could destabilize coverage for a significant share of the roughly 21 million people currently enrolled in Marketplace plans.

Constituents are urging their U.S. Representatives and Senators to oppose any legislative provision that eliminates or reduces this $2 billion in ACA Marketplace operational funding, and to work to restore and protect it so that the health insurance exchanges continue to function effectively for all Americans who depend on them.

H.R. 9310, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act for FY2027, proposes significant funding increases for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) — with ICE slated for approximately $38.2 billion and CBP for approximately $26 billion. Critics and advocacy groups have raised serious concerns that these funding levels come without sufficient accountability measures, oversight provisions, or enforceable guardrails on how funds are spent, particularly with respect to detention operations and enforcement activities.

The FY2026 cycle already saw ICE's detention budget grow from $3.4 billion to $3.8 billion — a $400 million increase — and the FY2027 bill continues that upward trajectory. Separately, a Senate budget resolution has been criticized for providing what advocates describe as a "blank check" of $70 to $140 billion to ICE and CBP with no meaningful accountability or civil rights protections attached. Component-level appropriations for CBP and ICE remain contested, and key provisions — including $6.64 billion in U.S. Border Patrol funding — have been subject to ongoing negotiation.

Constituents are urging their U.S. Representatives and Senators to scrutinize H.R. 9310 carefully, oppose funding increases that lack robust oversight and accountability provisions, and work to amend the bill to include enforceable civil rights protections, independent inspector general oversight, transparent detention standards, and clear consequences for documented abuses by ICE and CBP personnel.

On August 8, 2026, the U.S. Senate passed a bipartisan continuing resolution (CR) by a sweeping 90–6 vote to keep the federal government funded through December 11, 2026. The Senate-passed CR includes three key protections: (1) it blocks the diversion of appropriated funds to Border Patrol outside of congressionally approved channels, preventing executive branch circumvention of the appropriations process; (2) it temporarily shields federal grant awards from politically motivated review and control; and (3) it preserves critical housing and food assistance programs for vulnerable Americans.

The House GOP has advanced a competing version of the CR that strips all three of these provisions — opening the door for billions in unauthorized transfers to Border Patrol, subjecting federal grants to political interference, and putting housing and nutrition assistance at risk for millions of low-income households.

Constituents are urging their U.S. Representatives to reject the House GOP version and instead pass the Senate-approved CR as written. This bipartisan Senate measure maintains congressional authority over federal spending, protects the integrity of the grant-making process, and upholds the safety net programs that millions of Americans depend on.

The Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act (H.R. 22, 119th Congress) passed the U.S. House and now awaits a Senate vote. The bill would require all Americans to present documentary proof of citizenship — such as a birth certificate or passport — in order to register to vote in federal elections.

Proponents argue the measure is a necessary safeguard against non-citizen voting. Critics — including election law experts, civil rights organizations, and bipartisan voices such as Senator Lisa Murkowski — contend that non-citizen registration is already illegal and extremely rare, and that the bill would instead erect costly new barriers for millions of eligible American citizens who do not have ready access to the required documents. This includes low-income voters, elderly citizens, Native Americans, and young voters who may lack a passport or birth certificate on hand.

Constituents are urging their U.S. Senators to vote NO on the SAVE Act, opposing a measure they believe would disenfranchise lawful voters rather than protect election integrity.

H.R. 38, the Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act, is currently before the 119th Congress (2025–2026). Introduced by Rep. Richard Hudson, the bill establishes a federal statutory framework allowing any individual who is legally eligible to carry a concealed firearm in their home state to carry or possess a concealed handgun in any other state that permits concealed carry — provided they comply with that state's laws on where firearms may be carried.

Under current law, concealed carry permits are treated differently across state lines, creating a patchwork of regulations that can expose law-abiding gun owners to criminal liability simply for crossing a state border. H.R. 38 would resolve this inconsistency by creating a nationwide reciprocity standard, similar to how states mutually recognize driver's licenses. The bill has received support from 24 state attorneys general and has the expressed backing of President Trump.

Constituents are urging their U.S. Representatives and U.S. Senators to support and pass H.R. 38 without delay, ensuring that the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens are protected across all state lines.

North Carolina House Bill 958 is a sweeping 38-page elections overhaul that would make significant changes to how voters register, cast ballots, and have their votes counted across the state. Key provisions include reducing early voting periods during primaries, primary runoffs, and special elections; eliminating days of mail voting; prohibiting mail ballot requests made by phone or by family members; and allowing candidates to challenge eligible votes after election day. The bill also increases political appointee hiring at the State Board of Elections, raising concerns about the independence and transparency of election administration.

Critics, including the League of Women Voters and the NC Conservation Voters, argue that HB 958 stacks suppression tactics that disproportionately burden eligible voters while reducing public transparency around the election process. After passing the House, the Senate replaced the bill with a proposed committee substitute that advocates say made the legislation even more restrictive.

Constituents are urging their state legislators and Governor to oppose HB 958 in its current form and to reject any version of this bill that reduces voting access, shortens early voting windows, restricts mail ballot procedures, or undermines the integrity and independence of election administration in North Carolina.

Florida public school students currently access school meals through a means-tested free and reduced-price lunch program that requires families to apply, qualify, and — in many cases — carry a visible stigma of economic need. Students whose families miss paperwork deadlines or fall just above income thresholds can go hungry, and the administrative burden falls on schools, families, and students alike. Research consistently links reliable access to nutritious meals with improved concentration, attendance, and academic achievement.

A bill has been filed in the Florida Legislature that would establish universal free school meals — providing cost-free breakfast and lunch to every student in a Florida public school, regardless of household income. Several states have already enacted similar laws, demonstrating that universal school meal programs are operationally feasible and eliminate the inequities and shame associated with means-testing. Allowing all students to receive free meals ensures equal access to nutrition while reducing administrative overhead for schools.

Constituents are urging Florida state legislators to support and pass universal free school meals legislation. This would remove income-based eligibility barriers, end meal debt and lunch shaming, and guarantee that every Florida public school student starts the school day fed and ready to learn.

Across the country, state-funded private school voucher programs — including traditional vouchers, Education Savings Accounts (ESAs), and tax-incentive scholarships — divert billions of taxpayer dollars to private institutions with little to no public oversight. Unlike public schools, which are subject to rigorous financial audits, standardized academic assessments, and civil rights protections, most voucher-accepting private schools face minimal accountability requirements. Independent research has found that students in voucher programs frequently perform lower academically than their public school peers, and multiple programs have faced documented cases of fraud and misuse of public funds.

Constituents are urging their state legislators to pass comprehensive voucher accountability legislation that includes: (1) mandatory annual independent financial audits of all private schools receiving voucher funds; (2) standardized academic testing requirements for voucher recipients, with results reported publicly so taxpayers can evaluate program outcomes; and (3) income-based eligibility caps to ensure that public dollars are directed toward families with genuine financial need — not used to subsidize private school tuition for wealthy households who would have enrolled regardless.

These reforms would protect the integrity of public education funding, ensure that diverted tax dollars produce measurable student outcomes, and restore transparency to programs that currently operate as a largely unaccountable parallel school system. Legislators should act now to require that any school accepting public voucher money meets the same basic standards of accountability demanded of the public schools those funds were originally meant to serve.

Florida's Everglades and waterways are under mounting pressure from agricultural runoff, inadequate enforcement of existing environmental laws, and chronic underfunding of restoration efforts. Harmful algal blooms, nutrient pollution from fertilizer and farm runoff, and degraded water quality threaten public health, wildlife, tourism, and the long-term viability of one of the nation's most iconic ecosystems.

Florida law — including the Everglades Forever Act (§ 373.4592, Florida Statutes) — already mandates that state agencies work to restore the Everglades in terms of both water quality and water quantity. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the South Florida Water Management District have existing statutory authority to enforce water quality standards and regulate pollution sources, including agricultural discharges. However, advocates and environmental organizations have consistently raised concerns that enforcement actions are too infrequent, fines are too low to deter violations, and agency oversight of nutrient runoff from agricultural operations remains insufficient.

Constituents are urging their Florida state representatives to take three concrete actions: (1) demand that FDEP and other relevant executive agencies rigorously enforce existing environmental protection and water quality laws, including issuing meaningful penalties for violations; (2) support and advance legislation that establishes stricter controls on agricultural runoff and nutrient pollution entering Florida's waterways and the Everglades watershed; and (3) secure robust, dedicated state funding in the annual budget for Everglades restoration projects, ensuring Florida upholds its legal and moral commitment to restoring this critical ecosystem.

On July 23, 2026, a suspect shouting "Allahu Akbar" stabbed an Asian man and a Jewish man in an unprovoked dual attack on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Critics and community leaders have cited this attack as emblematic of a broader failure by Mayor Zohran Mamdani's administration to adequately protect New York City residents and enforce the law equally — regardless of the victim's background.

Beyond this specific incident, a growing record of administrative failures has drawn scrutiny: alleged neglect of children in City custody, inadequate safeguards for schoolchildren, retaliation against or failure to protect public-safety agency whistleblowers, and concerns about selective or unequal enforcement of criminal law. Taken together, these patterns have led advocates to argue that Mayor Mamdani's conduct rises to the level of malfeasance in office.

Under New York Public Officers Law § 36, the Governor of New York holds authority to remove a city mayor for cause, including misconduct or malfeasance in office, following notice and an opportunity to be heard. Constituents are urging Governor Kathy Hochul to exercise that statutory authority and commence formal removal proceedings against Mayor Mamdani to restore accountability and public safety in New York City.