See how Michael F. Bennet actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Michael F. Bennet's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.
Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Michael F. Bennet's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Michael F. Bennet's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
39 predictions on record · none have been resolved by a passage vote yet. Check back as bills move.
To prohibit the disclosure of records by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement, and for other purposes.
No paired statements and votes yet for Michael F. Bennet
We haven't yet found statement/vote pairs on the same topic for Michael F. Bennet. This usually means either the rep hasn't taken public positions on bills that have come to a passage vote, or those bills haven't been tagged yet. The checker runs as new press releases and votes come in.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Michael F. Bennet's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
We haven't extracted campaign positions for Michael F. Bennet yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
No party-break passage votes recorded for Michael F. Bennet. Either they've voted with Democrats on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.
Bennet, Collins, Colleagues Press CMS to Grant Greater Flexibility to Rural Health Transformation Program Implementation - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: Senators Bennet and Collins urge the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to grant greater flexibility in implementing the Rural Health Transformation Program to better support rural hospitals and clinics facing financial challenges.
Denver— Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, co-chair of the Senate Rural Health Caucus, and Maine Senator Susan Collins (R-Maine) led a bipartisan group of their colleagues to ask Dr. Mehmet Oz, Administrator for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to grant greater flexibility to ensure the successful implementation of the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). The Senators stressed that RHTP provides a unique opportunity to address long-standing challenges. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and John Hickenlooper also signed this letter.
“In rural communities across the country, hospitals and clinics serve as the backbone of local health care systems delivering emergency care, supporting maternal health, treating chronic illness, and standing ready to respond when lives are on the line. Its implementation is an important opportunity to strengthen care for the millions of Americans who rely on rural hospitals, clinics, and providers every day,” began the senators.
For many rural communities, local hospitals and clinics are the front line for health care due to proximity. These institutions serve farmers and fishermen injured during harvest season, seniors managing chronic illness, families seeking maternity care close to home, and patients facing medical emergencies where every minute matters. Due to this, when rural hospitals struggle financially, the effects are felt far beyond the health care system. Communities lose jobs, families lose access to lifesaving care, and patients are forced to travel even further for care.
Rural health care systems across the country are facing enormous challenges. Over 200 rural hospitals have closed or cut inpatient services since 2010, and more than 45 percent of remaining facilities are operating in the red. Now that the $50 billion in funds is being distributed, RHTP is officially underway and all 50 states have their initial funding. As currently structured, the guidance for implementing the RHTP places many of our rural hospitals and clinics at a disadvantage unintentionally, even though they are the frontline providers that need this funding the most.
“Rural Americans deserve reliable access to high-quality care close to home. Our recommendations aim to strengthen the hospitals and providers that communities rely upon in moments of crisis and every day in between. Low reimbursement rates from public payers paired with low volumes are a major contributor to rural hospital financial instability. RHTP provides a unique opportunity to address these long-standing challenges and set rural hospitals up for success on their road to transformation,” continued the senators.
This letter is endorsed by the Colorado Hospital Association, Colorado Rural Health Center, Eastern Plains Healthcare Consortium, Federation of American Hospitals, National Association of Rural Health Clinics, and National Rural Health Association.
"The National Rural Health Association supports Senators Bennet and Collins’ bipartisan letter to CMS addressing methods to strengthen the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP). In order to protect the integrity of this historic investment, it is critical that CMS ensure funds reach the rural health facilities they were intended for. Providing greater flexibility for provider payments, workforce investments, and health information technology, while ensuring smaller and independent rural providers can meaningfully access funding opportunities, will help RHTP fulfill its purpose of strengthening rural health care systems and improving access to care in rural communities," said Alan Morgan, CEO of the National Rural Health Association.
"For this unique investment to be truly transformational, it is imperative that these dollars flow to rural providers, including the 5,800+ CMS-certified Rural Health Clinics across the country. “We greatly appreciate the leadership of Senators Bennet and Collins to ensure necessary flexibilities in implementation to ensure these funds go where they are needed most," said Sarah Hohman, Director of Government Affairs for the National Association of Rural Health Clinics.
"The Colorado Hospital Association appreciates Senators Bennet and Collins for their bipartisan leadership in advocating for a Rural Health Transformation Program that reflects the realities facing rural providers. Rural hospitals are the backbone of their communities, delivering essential care while navigating significant financial, workforce, and operational challenges. The recommendations outlined in this letter would help ensure RHTP funding reaches the providers serving patients on the front lines and provide the flexibility states need to address the unique needs of their rural communities. We encourage CMS to work closely with rural providers and state partners to ensure these dollars achieve their intended purpose of strengthening rural access to care," said Jeff Tieman, President & CEO of the Colorado Hospital Association.
“RHTP is an opportunity to advance rural healthcare nationwide. However, it must be implemented in a way that does not leave out the smallest rural healthcare providers who are often at the very forefront of the rural safety net care delivery system. The Colorado Rural Health Center enthusiastically supports the bipartisan reforms and adjustments laid out in this letter and in particular would like to ask your consideration of requests to ensure that funds are flexible to meet local needs and improve sustainability of facilities and providers,” said Michelle Mills, CEO of the Colorado Rural Health Center.
Bennet remains committed to ensuring Coloradans in rural areas have access to the best health care available. In May 2026, Bennet and U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) led the unanimous Senate passage of the Rural Community Hospital Demonstration Reauthorization Act to extend a lifeline to rural hospitals across the country, including four in Colorado. In March, Bennet joined U.S. Senator Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) to introduce the Rural Hospital Revitalization Act, which would provide zero-interest loans through the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s Community Facilities Program to qualifying hospitals for new construction or renovation of existing hospital facilities. In February, Bennet celebrated the passage of six of his health care bills: the Accelerating Kids Access to Care Act, REAL Health Providers Act, Medicare Multi-Cancer Early Detection Screening Coverage Act, Give Kids a Chance Act, PREEMIE Act Reauthorization, and Prescription Drug Supply Chain Pricing Transparency Act.
In November 2025, Bennet joined Senators John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) in designating November 20, 2025, as National Rural Health Day. In July 2025, Bennet and Barrasso introduced the Accelerating the Development of Advanced Psychology Trainees Act, bipartisan legislation to increase access and coverage to behavioral, psychological, and mental health services in rural areas. In April 2025, Bennet and Representative Jeff Hurd (R-Colo.) held a roundtable discussion with rural health providers on the Western Slope to discuss challenges to providing high-quality care in Colorado’s rural communities.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
We are writing to express our bipartisan support for successful implementation of the Rural Health Transformation Program (RHTP) and to respectfully request your consideration of targeted adjustments.
In rural communities across the country, hospitals and clinics serve as the backbone of local health care systems delivering emergency care, supporting maternal health, treating chronic illness, and standing ready to respond when lives are on the line. Its implementation is an important opportunity to strengthen care for the millions of Americans who rely on rural hospitals, clinics, and providers every day.
For rural communities throughout the country, local hospitals are far more than health care facilities. They are often the only emergency room within hundreds of miles, the only labor and delivery provider in a region, the primary source of behavioral health services, and the front line for primary and preventive care. Rural hospitals care for farmers injured during harvest season, seniors managing chronic illness, families seeking maternity care close to home, and patients facing medical emergencies where every minute matters.
These providers are also economic anchors and trusted institutions within their communities. When a rural hospital struggles financially, reduces services, or closes altogether, the effects are felt far beyond the health care system. Families lose access to lifesaving care, communities lose jobs and stability, and patients are forced to travel long distances for services that should be available close to home or move away from these health care deserts altogether.
At a time when many rural hospitals continue to face workforce shortages, rising operational costs, declining reimbursement, and persistent financial instability, it is essential that implementation of the RHTP reflects the realities facing rural providers on the ground. Congress created this program in recognition of the fact that rural providers require meaningful support to continue serving their communities and to build long-term sustainability for the future.
We are concerned, however, that the current structure and guidance for implementing the RHTP may unintentionally disadvantage many of the rural hospitals and clinics the program was intended to support. Larger systems and organizations often have substantially greater administrative capacity and resources to compete for and manage grant funding, while smaller rural providers – providers that need this funding the most – may lack the staffing, infrastructure, or technical support necessary to fully participate. In many instances, rural providers gain institutional support from larger systems to which they belong but still face the challenging economic realities of serving a rural population. In other instances, rural providers are completely independent and must face these challenges on their own. It is crucial that the RHTP be implemented to support providers caring for rural populations regardless of setting. Without clear protection and targeted support, there is a real risk that funding may not reach the frontline rural providers that communities depend upon most.
CMS’s recent clarification that states may use provider payment funding for workforce recruitment and retention, infrastructure investments, technical assistance, systems development for alternative payment model participation, and support for non-clinical roles is a step in the right direction. These flexibilities recognize many of the practical challenges rural providers face and are important steps toward helping hospitals and clinics remain viable.
We believe that implementation can be improved further by lifting the cap on infrastructure and capital improvements for rural facilities, as many need significant improvement and equipment upgrades. We also believe that clarifying the permissibility of direct payments to providers is crucial.
At the same time, we ask for action to further strengthen the program to ensure it fully supports the needs of rural communities and providers by:
Rural Americans deserve reliable access to high-quality care close to home. Our recommendations aim to strengthen the hospitals and providers that communities rely upon in moments of crisis and every day in between. Low reimbursement rates from public payers paired with low volumes are a major contributor to rural hospital financial instability. RHTP provides a unique opportunity to address these long-standing challenges and set rural hospitals up for success on their road to transformation.
Thank you for your continued work to support rural health care providers and the patients they serve. We appreciate your consideration of the adjustments we have requested and look forward to further engagement with you and your team to ensure RHTP fulfills its promise for rural communities across the country.
Bennet, Van Hollen, Colleagues File Amicus Brief Urging Federal Appeals Court to Reverse Decision on Trump Administration Attack on the Merit-Based Federal Workforce - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The senators oppose the Merit Systems Protection Board's decision allowing at-will removal of immigration judges, arguing it violates the Civil Service Reform Act and unconstitutionally shifts power from Congress to the Executive Branch.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) in submitting an amicus brief to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit urging the Court to reverse a prior decision that erodes protections for immigration judges and jeopardizes the greater integrity of the merit-based federal civil service.
The lawmakers’ amicus, filed in the case of Jackler and Jaroch v. Department of Justice, follows the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (MSPB) recent ruling that the attorney general has constitutional authority under Article II to fire immigration judges at will, potentially limiting those judges’ ability to appeal their terminations. The decision arose from the 2025 firings of two judges and marks a significant shift in precedent that would allow agencies to argue certain employees who are deemed “inferior officers” are not entitled to traditional civil service protections.
In the amicus brief, the senators outline their concerns with the ruling and the possibility it will open the door to broader constitutional challenges to protections for employees across the federal workforce. The senators requested the Court reverse the decision of the MSPB and cancel the removals of Jackler and Jaroch.
“The Merit Systems Protection Board’s decision was incorrect. Article II does not permit the President to override Congress’s constitutional power to pass laws governing the federal civil service. Upholding the final administrative decision would fundamentally alter the balance of power between the Executive and Legislative branches. Millions of federal workers would become removable at will — the civil service merit system would functionally cease to exist,” wrote the senators.
“The position of Immigration Judge was created by Congress pursuant to its power to ‘establish a uniform rule of naturalization.’ As employees defined under 5 U.S.C. § 7511, Immigration Judges are entitled to the procedural protections set forth in 5 U.S.C. § 7513. The removals of Jackler and Jaroch without the protections of 5 U.S.C. § 7513 is therefore contrary to the will of Congress. And the President’s removal power under Article II cannot ‘disable’ Congress from enacting a reasonable restriction on the removal of employees whose duties mirror tremendous swaths of the civil service,” continued the senators.
“That the President now asserts this authority under Article II does not change the fact that the removals of Jackler and Jaroch are in violation of the Civil Service Reform Act, and accordingly against the will of Congress,” concluded the senators.
Bennet has consistently fought to ensure equity within the U.S. immigration system. Last month, Bennet introduced three bills aimed at reforming the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP): the Keeping Immigrants and Destinations Safe (KIDS) Act; the Training, Responsibility, Uniforms, and Standards for Transparency (TRUST) Act; and the Oversight, Protection, and Enforcement Notification (OPEN) Act. In January, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the Providing Useful Budgets for Localities to Invest in Cops by Substituting Appropriations from Federal Enforcement To Yield Results (PUBLIC SAFETY) Act, legislation to redirect nearly $75 billion in funding passed in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) from ICE and send it instead to local law enforcement programs to help hire and train 200,000 local police officers in communities across the country.
In November 2025, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the bicameral Restoring Access to Detainees Act, legislation to ensure DHS allows noncitizens who have been detained to contact their legal counsel and families. In August 2025, Bennet joined the Immigration Enforcement Identification Safety (IEIS) Act to prohibit immigration enforcement officials from wearing masks and to require them to wear visible identification. In April 2025, Bennet and U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) also led bicameral colleagues in urging Former Attorney General Pam Bondi to address the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s decision to fire key immigration judges. In February 2025, Bennet joined his Senate colleagues to introduce the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would reinstate DHS’s long-standing policies to prevent ICE from making arrests at sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
The text of the brief is available HERE.
Bennet, Neguse, Colorado Democrats Demand Answers on DACA Renewal Backlog - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The Colorado Democratic delegation calls on the Department of Homeland Security and USCIS to expedite processing of DACA renewal applications, which have experienced significant delays under the Trump Administration, and seeks clarification on policy changes contributing to the backlog.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet and Colorado U.S. Representative Joe Neguse led the state’s Democratic Congressional delegation – U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper and U.S. Representatives Diana DeGette, Jason Crow, and Brittany Pettersen – in demanding the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) to immediately expedite Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applications for Coloradans currently in limbo.
Colorado is home to more than 12,000 DACA recipients. Under the Trump Administration, USCIS review of DACA applications has dramatically slowed, with wait times for renewal applications increasing from 15 days in Fiscal Year 2025 to more than two months in Fiscal Year 2026. That’s a 360% increase in processing times in just the first five months of the fiscal year. These delays are causing job losses and workforce disruptions, as DACA recipients are left without valid work permits through no fault of their own.
"We write to express our deep concerns about the growing backlog of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applications for hundreds of Coloradans that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet processed…Colorado is home to over 12,000 DACA recipients. They are Americans in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute to this nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Our constituent services teams regularly hear from hardworking Coloradans concerned about the status of their renewal applications and the threat that the ongoing delays pose to their families," wrote the Colorado lawmakers.
For 14 years, DACA recipients, also known as Dreamers, have strengthened communities across the country, fueled the economy, and built lives in the United States. 87% of DACA recipients nationwide are in the workforce, and they contribute approximately $17 billion annually to the economy. Across Colorado, Dreamers are pillars of their communities.
"The USCIS backlog of DACA renewal requests is hurting many students, health care workers, first responders, law enforcement officers, and wildland firefighters during what is expected to be a severe wildfire season. These DACA recipients are pillars of their communities, and their lives are now on hold while their DACA renewal applications remain pending with USCIS. These delays affect not only DACA recipients themselves, but all Coloradans,” continued the Colorado lawmakers.
The state’s Democratic congressional delegation closed their letter by reiterating their call for the agencies to streamline processing and seeking answers regarding any changes in policy or procedure that may be contributing to delays, as well as the extent to which immigration enforcement actions have the ability to effect these individuals.
Bennet has consistently fought to protect DACA recipients and ensure they can continue to build their futures in the only country they ever called home. This month, Bennet joined Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) as well as U.S. Representatives Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) in leading over 50 colleagues to press Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s recent decision to weaken legal protections for DACA recipients. In May 2026, Bennet introduced three bills which target critical reforms at DHS, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP); the Keeping Immigrants and Destinations Safe (KIDS) Act; the Training, Responsibility, Uniforms, and Standards for Transparency (TRUST) Act; and the Oversight, Protection, and Enforcement Notification (OPEN) Act. In March 2026, Bennet joined Senators Masto and Durbin, as well as 38 of their Democratic colleagues to send a letter to outgoing DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and USCIS Director Joseph Edlow demanding that the Department reduce the delays in processing renewal applications under the DACA program. In January, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the Providing Useful Budgets for Localities to Invest in Cops by Substituting Appropriations from Federal Enforcement To Yield Results (PUBLIC SAFETY) Act, legislation to redirect nearly $75 billion in funding passed in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) from ICE and send it instead to local law enforcement programs to help hire and train 200,000 local police officers in communities across the country.
In November 2025, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the bicameral Restoring Access to Detainees Act, legislation to ensure DHS allows noncitizens who have been detained to contact their legal counsel and families. In August 2025, Bennet joined the Immigration Enforcement Identification Safety (IEIS) Act to prohibit immigration enforcement officials from wearing masks and to require them to wear visible identification. In April 2025, Bennet and U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) also led bicameral colleagues in urging Former Attorney General Pam Bondi to address the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s decision to fire key immigration judges. In February 2025, Bennet joined his Senate colleagues to introduce the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would reinstate DHS’s long-standing policies to prevent ICE from making arrests at sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear Secretary Mullin and Director Edlow:
We write to express our deep concerns about the growing backlog of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) renewal applications for hundreds of Coloradans that United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) has not yet processed. We urge USCIS to expedite the processing of these applications.
Colorado is home to over 12,000 DACA recipients. They are Americans in every way but their immigration status. Many only know this country as their home, and they contribute to this nation by paying taxes and serving in critical roles, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Our constituent services teams hear every day from hardworking Coloradans concerned about the status of their renewal applications and the threat that the ongoing delays pose to their families.
As you know, the DACA program grants two-year, renewable work permits to undocumented adults who were brought to the United States as children. DACA recipients must comply with strict background checks and maintain clean criminal records, and they must re-apply to renew their status every two years. Since its creation fourteen years ago this week, the DACA program has allowed more than 800,000 previously undocumented individuals to remain active, contributing members of their communities without fear of deportation.
Under the Trump administration, USCIS review of DACA applications has slowed to a crawl. Reports show wait times for renewal applications have increased to a median of 70 days between October 2025 and February 2026, up from a median of 15 days in fiscal year 2025. This leaves DACA recipients in legal limbo and undermines the intent of the DACA program.
The USCIS backlog of DACA renewal requests is hurting many students, health care workers, first responders, law enforcement officers, and wildland firefighters during what is expected to be a severe wildfire season. These DACA recipients are pillars of their communities, and their lives are now on hold while their DACA renewal applications remain pending with USCIS. These delays affect not only DACA recipients themselves, but all Coloradans.
We urge you to expedite all DACA renewal applications without delay, and we request answers to the below questions no later than June 30, 2026:
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter
Bennet, Ricketts, Heinrich, Fischer Introduce FENCE Act to Support Colorado Farmers and Ranchers - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The senators introduce legislation to authorize the USDA to include virtual fencing as an eligible option under the Emergency Conservation Program, providing farmers and ranchers with greater flexibility to recover from natural disasters while managing livestock and protecting wildlife habitats.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Subcommittee on Conservation, Forestry, Natural Resources, and Biotechnology, and Senators Pete Ricketts (R-NE), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), and Deb Fischer (R-NE) introduced the Fencing Eligibility for New Conservation Equipment (FENCE) Act. The legislation would authorize the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to include virtual fencing as another option for farmers and ranchers under the Emergency Conservation Program (ECP). Including virtual fencing in this program would provide American farmers and ranchers with greater flexibility to repair and restore farmland affected by natural disasters.
“Colorado ranchers have endured years of challenges, particularly as drought and wildfires grow more frequent across the West,” said Bennet. “We need to give farmers and ranchers the tools to navigate changing conditions, adopt new technologies, and build resilient operations. This bill provides the flexibility ranchers need to recover in ways that work best for them.”
“Nebraska’s ranchers are the best in the world. They’ve shown it this year in response to this spring’s devastating fires across our state,” said Ricketts. “Ranchers recently shared with me that one-size-fits-all policies are hindering their ability to rebuild. The FENCE Act encourages USDA to continue finding new ways to support Nebraska’s recovery efforts.”
“As a kid, I helped repair fences on our small calf-cow operation, and I know exactly how time consuming it is. As a sportsman, I’ve also seen how built infrastructure can dramatically alter wildlife migration corridors,” said Heinrich. “My FENCE Act ensures producers in New Mexico and across the country can access federal funding for virtual fencing technology, helping them manage livestock more efficiently while also restoring the landscapes wildlife rely on.”
“When the Senate passed my Emergency Conservation Program Improvement Act in March, I said that flexibility is my top priority in improving disaster assistance,” said Fischer. “The FENCE Act is no different. This legislation opens the door for producers to use new technology, like virtual fencing, to replace their damaged or lost fence lines after disasters strike. This would be a great opportunity for farmers and ranchers to seize if it makes sense for their operation.”
The FENCE Act would unlock virtual fencing, as well as other new or emerging technologies, as another tool for farmers and ranchers under the ECP, as long as it does not increase the cost to repair or replace current permanent structure fencing. Virtual fencing technology is useful for grazing and land management as it allows for controlled cattle placement through GPS-enabled collars that deliver audio cues and electrical pulses. Colorado farmers and ranchers have highlighted the need for greater flexibility in recovering and rebuilding resources.
Bennet has consistently worked to secure resources and support for Colorado’s farmers and ranchers. In the ongoing 2026 Farm Bill negotiations, he is fighting for provisions that address the western water crisis, ensure USDA programs work for Colorado and the West, invest in forests and watershed health, address climate change and deploy clean energy, and fight for families and strengthen local and regional food systems. To date, he has led or co-led the introduction of 19 bills for potential inclusion in the Farm Bill, including 15 bipartisan measures, and cosponsored numerous other Farm Bill-related proposals.
The text of the bill is available HERE.
Bennet, Hickenlooper, Schiff, Colleagues Launch Inquiry into Trump’s Effort to Redirect Taxpayer Dollars from National Parks for Vanity Projects - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: Senators are launching an inquiry into the Trump Administration's alleged redirection of National Park Service fee revenues—which should support park maintenance—toward what they characterize as vanity projects in Washington, D.C., including ornamental fountains and Lincoln Memorial renovations. They are calling for transparency and demanding that fee revenues be distributed back to national parks as required by law.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper, joined Senator Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and eight Senate colleagues in launching an inquiry into the Trump Administration redirecting tens of millions of dollars from fees paid to the National Park Service (NPS) to fund a number of President Donald Trump’s vanity projects in Washington.
“The American people deserve transparency and a complete explanation of where their money is being directed,” wrote the senators. “Rather than distribute these fee revenues back to our national parks and public lands, it appears that the Department of the Interior has redirected fee revenues to pay for President Trump’s vanity projects around Washington, D.C.”
Visitors to our national parks contribute millions of dollars to NPS by purchasing recreation passes and digital versions of the America the Beautiful Pass. Under the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act, at least 80% of those fees must be used at the national park where the fees were collected to upkeep or maintain the parks and 20% is required to be available to the agency that collected it on an agency-wide basis.
Rather than distribute that revenue back to our national parks and public lands, the Department of the Interior has reportedly redirected the funding to pay for President Trump’s vanity projects around Washington. According to reports, NPS is spending $60 million in fees paid by national park visitors to repair nine ornamental fountains. Another $7 million in fees has been redirected for Trump’s renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which the president had previously promised would only cost $1.8 million.
Bennet has a strong record of defending the integrity of the NPS and public lands. In February 2026, Bennet joined U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) in sending a letter calling on Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Doug Burgum to consider the effect that establishing the U.S. Wildland Fire service would have on the NPS’s efforts to protect cultural and natural resources. In January 2026, Bennet expressed concern over the Trump Administration’s so-called “modernization” plans for national park access, including several alarming partisan, polarizing initiatives that undermine the spirit of ensuring our public lands are accessible to all. In November 2025, Bennet sent a letter to Secretary Burgum demanding DOI grant backpay to NPS seasonal employees who were furloughed during the recent government shutdown. In February 2024, Bennet, Hickenlooper and Neguse welcomed the establishment of Colorado’s Camp Amache as America’s newest unit of the NPS.
In addition to Bennet, Hickenlooper, and Schiff, U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Kristen Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and Jeffrey Merkley (D-Ore.) signed the letter.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
We write to inquire about the Trump administration’s allocation of fee revenues paid by Americans for national park recreation passes and America the Beautiful digital passes to support beautification projects in Washington D.C. Visitors to our national parks contribute millions of dollars to the National Park Service’s (NPS) budget by purchasing recreation passes and digital versions of the America the Beautiful Pass. The American people deserve transparency and a complete explanation of where their money is being directed.
The Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act (FLREA) grants public land management agencies the ability to collect and charge fees for accessing federal recreational lands. FLREA requires that, under normal circumstances, at least 80 percent of the recreation fees paid onsite by taxpayers must be retained and used at the national park where the fees are collected. The remaining 20 percent is to be available to the agency that collected it on an agency-wide basis. This enables the National Park Service to redistribute revenues from popular parks that charge entrance fees to those parks that do not charge fees. This formula helps ensure that fees benefit visitors by creating a funding stream for the upkeep and maintenance of our national parks.
Rather than distribute these fee revenues back to our national parks and public lands, it appears that the Department of the Interior has redirected fee revenues to pay for President Trump’s vanity projects around Washington, D.C. Reporting reveals that NPS is spending $60 million in fees paid by national park visitors to repair nine ornamental fountains in Washington, D.C. This is in addition to another $7 million in fees that the administration is using to fund the renovation of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool, which DOI recently increased to more than $13 million in a no bid contract. President Trump previously promised the Reflecting Pool project would only cost $1.8 million, and the huge spending increases suggests either incompetence or corruption in the project management. The Washington Post has reported that park fee revenues would no longer be available for some park superintendents to use on park upkeep.
A separate analysis of government spending data conducted by NOTUS revealed that the Interior Department is spending a total of $95 million in taxpayer dollars on D.C. beautification projects close to the White House. The President’s D.C. projects include a $5 million sole-source award to cover horse statues in nearly pure gold leaf and another $5 million sole-source award to repave the base of a marble statue. According to USASpending.gov, these particular awards are being drawn from DOI’s Working Capital Fund.
Further, revenue from the sale of digital America the Beautiful Passes appears to be funding some of these projects, but without any guardrails or transparency. Most Americans would assume that the fees paid for the digital passes would be similarly distributed to parks throughout the country. However, unlike fees collected onsite, FLREA does not mandate a particular formula or means of distribution of revenues collected from digital sales to particular national parks or federal land units. Revenue from online sales is distributed according to agreements between the federal land agencies and with little statutory guardrails or congressional oversight.
Credible sources with direct knowledge of these matters have now reported to Congress that much, if not all, fee revenue from online America the Beautiful Passes is being used to fund the President’s “beautification” projects in Washington. This means that this revenue is not being directed to national parks across the country. This loss in revenue for our parks could have devastating effects on the future viability of these public natural treasures. As of the end of Fiscal Year 2025, NPS had a backlog of deferred maintenance projects totaling over $24.2 billion. Deteriorating roads, water systems, and other park facilities pose safety concerns for visitors and over time degrade the overall park experience. The redistribution of revenues to D.C. projects could mean multiple millions of dollars lost for individual national parks around the country.
Despite taxpayers’ clear contributions to these projects, the administration has shielded these projects and the contracts from public view. For instance, President Trump awarded a $17.4 million no-bid contract for the repair of two Lafayette Park fountains in Washington, D.C., to the company currently building the White House ballroom. It is troubling that the administration has used sole-source contracts to bypass the fair and impartial open competition process that is typically required under federal law.
Consequently, we ask that you provide responses to the following requests by June 23, 2026:
The lack of transparency around awards for these beautification projects, as well as the loss in revenue meant for the maintenance and betterment of our national parks threatens the public’s trust and the long-term integrity of our nation’s most beloved public lands. Accordingly, as we investigate the potential waste, fraud, and abuse by the administration, we request a detailed explanation for where the revenue from digital passes is being directed and what percentage of this revenue is supporting the D.C. projects rather than supporting the maintenance of our public parks. Thank you for your response.
Bennet, Congressional Democrats Press Todd Blanche on Decision to Weaken Legal Protections for DACA Recipients - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: Senator Bennet and over 50 congressional Democrats oppose a Board of Immigration Appeals decision that weakens legal protections for DACA recipients, arguing it contradicts existing DHS regulations and a Fifth Circuit Court ruling affirming DACA's forbearance protections.
Denver— Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet joined Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.) as well as U.S. Representatives Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) and Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) in leading over 50 colleagues to press Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche on the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)’s recent decision to weaken legal protections for Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) recipients.
In a letter to Blanche, the lawmakers raise legal concerns with the decision, highlighting inconsistencies between BIA’s ruling and the forbearance protections provided by DACA and upheld by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.
“We are troubled to see the Board, and by extension, the Department of Justice, attempt to circumvent legal protections for DACA recipients, which have been codified in regulation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and affirmed in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We urge you to take steps within your authority as Attorney General to ensure the Board’s rulings regarding DACA are interpreted in a manner consistent with current law,” wrote the lawmakers.
“DACA is well established as a ‘a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue . . . removal.’ As the Board noted in its decision, a DACA recipient ‘cannot be removed from the United States while she has DACA protection.’ DHS established DACA in 2012 by memorandum, and codified it in regulation in 2022 … By regulation, immigration judges may, in the exercise of discretion, terminate removal proceedings for individuals who have received grants of deferred action,” continued the lawmakers.
“The Fifth Circuit also maintained the nationwide stay for current DACA recipients, acknowledging the ‘immense reliance interests’ of current DACA recipients and the potential for significant disruption to others reliant on the program. Most important, in its decision, the Fifth Circuit stated that it would ‘not disturb DACA's policy of forbearance.’ DACA’s policy of forbearance, as explained in the DACA regulation, ‘is a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue the removal of certain aliens[.]’ (emphasis added),” explained the lawmakers.
“By concluding in Matter of Santiago-Santiago that an immigration judge may not terminate removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has been granted DACA, the Board acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision and the Department of Justice regulation permitting termination based on deferred action. The decision fails altogether to consider the DHS regulation’s stringent requirements for maintaining and renewing DACA and the Fifth Circuit holding preserving DACA’s forbearance from removal. Thus, the Board’s decision paves the way for DACA recipients to be detained and placed in removal proceedings without regard for their societal contributions, clean records, or public support, and even though they cannot be removed while their DACA remains valid,” concluded the lawmakers.
In addition to Bennet, Durbin, Padilla, Cortez Masto, Kelly, Garcia, and Ramirez, U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and U.S. Representatives Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.), Sarah McBride (D-Del.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), and Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) signed the letter.
Bennet has consistently fought to protect DACA recipients and to ensure they can continue to build their futures in the only country they ever called home. Last month, Bennet introduced three bills which target critical reforms at the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP); the Keeping Immigrants and Destinations Safe (KIDS) Act; the Training, Responsibility, Uniforms, and Standards for Transparency (TRUST) Act; and the Oversight, Protection, and Enforcement Notification (OPEN) Act. In March 2026, Bennet joined Senators Masto and Durbin, as well as 38 of their Democratic colleagues to send a letter to outgoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow demanding that the Department reduce the delays in processing renewal applications under the DACA program. In January, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the Providing Useful Budgets for Localities to Invest in Cops by Substituting Appropriations from Federal Enforcement To Yield Results (PUBLIC SAFETY) Act, legislation to redirect nearly $75 billion in funding passed in the Republicans’ One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA) from ICE and send it instead to local law enforcement programs to help hire and train 200,000 local police officers in communities across the country.
In November 2025, Bennet joined his colleagues in introducing the bicameral Restoring Access to Detainees Act, legislation to ensure DHS allows noncitizens who have been detained to contact their legal counsel and families. In August 2025, Bennet joined the Immigration Enforcement Identification Safety (IEIS) Act to prohibit immigration enforcement officials from wearing masks and to require them to wear visible identification. In April 2025, Bennet and U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.) also led bicameral colleagues in urging Former Attorney General Pam Bondi to address the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s decision to fire key immigration judges. In February 2025, Bennet joined his Senate colleagues to introduce the Protecting Sensitive Locations Act, which would reinstate DHS’s long-standing policies to prevent ICE from making arrests at sensitive locations like schools, hospitals, and places of worship.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear Acting Attorney General Blanche:
We write to object to the Board of Immigration Appeals precedential decision in Matter of Santiago-Santiago, in which the Board undermined protections provided by a grant of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). We are troubled to see the Board, and by extension, the Department of Justice, attempt to circumvent legal protections for DACA recipients, which have been codified in regulation by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and affirmed in a recent decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. We urge you to take steps within your authority as Attorney General to ensure the Board’s rulings regarding DACA are interpreted in a manner consistent with current law.
DACA is well established as “a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue . . . removal.” As the Board noted in its decision, a DACA recipient “cannot be removed from the United States while she has DACA protection.”
DHS established DACA in 2012 by memorandum and codified it in regulation in 2022. To be eligible for protections pursuant to DACA, non-U.S. citizens must meet strict requirements, including establishing that they arrived in the United States as children, meeting strict educational or vocational requirements, and undergoing stringent background checks. If approved, DACA recipients receive a two-year period of forbearance from removal and work authorization; recipients must renew their DACA grant (and undergo new background checks) every two years. By regulation, immigration judges may, in the exercise of discretion, terminate removal proceedings for individuals who have received grants of deferred action.
In response to a challenge by Republican states, processing of initial DACA applications has been enjoined since 2021. In 2021, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas vacated the DACA memorandum, concluding that the DACA program was unlawful. However, the Court stayed its order as it applied to individuals who had already received DACA grants at the time of the decision, allowing them to maintain and renew DACA every two years under the conditions of the 2012 memorandum. After DACA was codified in regulation, the District Court struck down the regulation but maintained the stay. Last year, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the lower court’s decision that portions of DACA violate the law, but, significantly, narrowed the scope of the remedy to Texas, allowing DACA to continue in full effect in the other 49 states. The Fifth Circuit also maintained the nationwide stay for current DACA recipients, acknowledging the “immense reliance interests” of current DACA recipients and the potential for significant disruption to others reliant on the program.
Most important, in its decision, the Fifth Circuit stated that it would “not disturb DACA's policy of forbearance.” DACA’s policy of forbearance, as explained in the DACA regulation, “is a form of enforcement discretion not to pursue the removal of certain aliens[.]” (emphasis added).
By concluding in Matter of Santiago-Santiago that an immigration judge may not terminate removal proceedings based solely on the fact that the respondent has been granted DACA, the Board acts in a manner that is inconsistent with the Fifth Circuit’s decision and the Department of Justice regulation permitting termination based on deferred action. The decision fails altogether to consider the DHS regulation’s stringent requirements for maintaining and renewing DACA and the Fifth Circuit holding preserving DACA’s forbearance from removal. Thus, the Board’s decision paves the way for DACA recipients to be detained and placed in removal proceedings without regard for their societal contributions, clean records, or public support, and even though they cannot be removed while their DACA remains valid.
To better address these concerns and reconcile the BIA decision with the Department’s claims of “restoring integrity to the immigration adjudication system” and reflecting “straightforward interpretations of clear statutory language,” we request detailed responses to the following questions by Friday, June 26:
We look forward to your prompt response.
Bennet, Hickenlooper, Cortez Masto Introduce Legislation to Protect the Right of Women to Cross State Lines to Seek Abortion Care - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The senators support federal legislation to protect the right of women to travel across state lines to seek abortion care and to prevent states from restricting or punishing such travel.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senators Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper joined Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) to reintroduce the Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act ahead of the four-year anniversary of the Supreme Court’s disastrous Dobbs decision. This legislation would block anti-choice states and localities from limiting travel for abortion services and empower impacted individuals to bring civil action against those who restrict a woman’s right to cross state lines to receive legal reproductive care.
“Almost four years ago today, the Supreme Court overturned fifty years of legal precedent, making it significantly more challenging for Americans to access reproductive healthcare,” said Bennet. “Since then, maternal mortality rates have grown consistently in states where access to abortions are restricted or banned. The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act will save lives. We must ensure that all Americans can make their own decisions about their bodies and their futures, no matter where they live. I will continue to fight for access to reproductive health care in Colorado and across the United States.”
“Women should never face prosecution for seeking reproductive care,” said Hickenlooper. “For decades, this basic freedom was protected nationwide until it was shamefully stripped away. Failing to protect a woman’s right to make her own healthcare decisions would be a stain on our nation.”
“As we approach the anniversary of the Supreme Court overturning Roe v. Wade, it is critical that we remain vigilant against continued efforts to further roll back women’s reproductive freedoms,” said Cortez Masto. “For women in states where abortion became illegal over the last four years, the right to travel for abortion care is a lifeline. We cannot stop pushing back against any attempts to limit this right and make women second-class citizens in America.”
“Republican states responded to the right-wing Supreme Court justices’ demolition of Roe v. Wade by enacting increasingly extreme abortion bans and restrictions, including attempts to ban women from travelling to safe states and to punish out-of-state doctors,” said Whitehouse. “Our Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act protects the rights of women to cross state lines, a fundamental tenet of American life. The legislation would also protect medical providers from punishment for providing reproductive health care that is legal in their state.”
“In the four years since Dobbs was overturned, we’ve heard countless stories of women forced to travel across state lines to obtain abortion care or even receive treatment for a miscarriage. Yet some Republican lawmakers now want to punish women for exercising their constitutional right to travel freely within our country to get the care they need. It’s sickening and wrong.” said Murray. “Our bill would protect Americans’ constitutional right to travel across state lines to get a lawful abortion — and protect the providers who care for them. As Republicans do everything they can to strip away our constitutional rights, I am going to keep fighting to protect every woman’s access to the basic health care they deserve.”
“When the Supreme Court overturned Roe, it stripped over 170 million Americans of their constitutional rights to privacy and bodily autonomy,” said Gillibrand. “The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act would reaffirm the constitutional right to travel freely across state lines and empower Americans to take action against those who seek to block women from traveling to access the reproductive health care they need. It is essential that we fight back against these attacks on our liberty.”
Anti-choice politicians in states like Texas have sought to punish both women for leaving their state for reproductive care and the doctors and employers who help them. The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act underscores the Constitutional protections for interstate travel and provides redress for women whose rights are violated. The legislation would also protect health care providers in pro-choice states, like Colorado, from prosecution and lawsuits for serving individuals traveling from other states.
“Nearly two dozen states have abortion bans on the books that are forcing people to travel hundreds of miles for the care they need, and anti-abortion extremists want to punish people for crossing state lines to do so. The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act comes at a critical moment. We thank Senator Cortez Masto for her leadership on this bill to protect patients and providers — no matter where they live,” said Mini Timmaraju, President and CEO, Reproductive Freedom for All.
“The Trump Administration and its backers in Congress are determined to make it harder for everyone, everywhere to get an abortion, even in states where abortion is legal. Their deeply unpopular anti-abortion agenda has already decimated our health care landscape and abortion bans stretch across 20 states, forcing patients to travel. We need every lawmaker to use every tool in their toolbox to protect access to abortion. We are grateful to Sen. Cortez Masto, Whitehouse, Murray, and Gillibrand for introducing a bill that reaffirms a patient’s right to travel for time-sensitive, essential abortion care, and prohibits interference with those who are forced to cross state lines as well as those who assist patients in their travels. As attacks on life-saving health care intensify, it is crucial that patients can continue to travel for abortion care, and the people who help them are able to do so without the threat of civil or criminal penalties,” said Alexis McGill Johnson, President and CEO, Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
The Freedom to Travel for Health Care Act is endorsed by Reproductive Freedom for All, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, ACLU, Guttmacher Institute, Physicians for Reproductive Health, National Partnership for Women and Families, Center for Reproductive Rights, Power to Decide, National Latina Institute for Reproductive Justice, National Council of Jewish Women, National Women’s Law Center Action Fund, National Abortion Federation, National Network of Abortion Funds, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, In Our Own Voice: National Black Women’s Reproductive Justice Agenda, and the Silver State Hope Fund.
Bennet has continually fought to secure abortion rights and women’s health resources in Colorado. In June 2025, Bennet and Hickenlooper joined the Senate Democratic caucus to introduce the Women’s Health Protection Act, legislation to guarantee access to abortion nationwide, on the third anniversary of the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade. In October 2024, Bennet and Hickenlooper joined 258 members of Congress in submitting an amicus brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, calling on the court to require Medicare-funded hospitals to provide life-saving care that may include abortion care. In May 2026, Bennet and Hickenlooper joined Murray and 23 senate colleagues to reintroduce the Let Doctors Provide Reproductive Health Care Act, legislation to protect abortion providers in states like Colorado — where abortion remains legal — from Republicans’ attempts to restrict their practice and create uncertainty about their legal liability.
In addition to Bennet, Hickenlooper, Murray, Whitehouse, Gillibrand and Cortez Masto, U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Penn.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) co-sponsored the bill.
The text of the bill is available HERE.
Bennet, Pettersen, Hickenlooper Demand Answers as Trump Administration Pursues Potential Payouts for January 6 Defendants and Election Deniers - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The senators demand transparency and accountability regarding the Trump Administration's 'Anti-Weaponization Fund,' expressing concern that it may have been or could be used to compensate January 6 defendants and election deniers, and calling for a full accounting of the fund's status, applicants, and any payments made.
The letter follows reports that January 6 defendants are pursuing compensation through the Federal Tort Claims Act as Trump refuses to provide proof his slush fund was terminated.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, Ranking Member of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Taxation and IRS Oversight, joined U.S. Representative Brittany Pettersen and Senator John Hickenlooper to demand a full accounting of the Trump Administration’s so-called “Anti-Weaponization Fund” and any alternative efforts to compensate January 6 defendants, election deniers, or individuals involved in efforts to overturn the 2020 election, including Tina Peters.
The lawmakers’ letter follows reports that attorneys representing hundreds of January 6 defendants have filed claims seeking compensation from the federal government despite the fact that the administration claimed that the fund is no longer moving forward. Yet, Trump has failed to provide any written confirmation that the slush fund has been terminated or disclose who applied for compensation, whether any payments were approved, or how taxpayer dollars may have been used.
“Despite repeated assurances that you are ‘not moving forward with the fund,’ your agencies have produced no written confirmation of its closure, no legal justification for its existence, and no accounting of who applied, what was promised, or whether taxpayer dollars were ever committed. The absence of even the most basic materials — coupled with conflicting statements from the Administration — raises a serious concern: that the fund was used, or intended to be used, to financially reward individuals involved in the January 6 attack or those who amplified false claims of a stolen election,” wrote the lawmakers.
“These concerns have only intensified in light of public statements from individuals who applied for compensation and now describe the fund as merely a ‘brief distraction’ while they pursue payouts through other channels. The opacity surrounding this program has not lessened; it has deepened. And it has fueled legitimate fears that the fund, and the legal rationales underlying it, may have been — or could still be — used to support individuals whose actions undermined democratic institutions or threatened public safety, including through meritless claims brought by January 6 defendants and taxpayer‑funded payments to rioters who assaulted law enforcement officers,” continued the lawmakers.
The letter requests a complete accounting of:
Bennet has consistently fought against Trump’s Anti-Weaponization Fund. In June 2026, Bennet led Democratic members of the Subcommittee in a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano, demanding answers on the settlement addendum reached with President Trump that prevents the Department of Justice from bringing any action or pursuing any tax audit into previous returns filed by Trump, his family members, or affiliated companies. Bennet also filed amendments during the budget reconciliation process to eliminate the "Anti-Weaponization Fund," block Donald Trump's corrupt Department of Justice (DOJ) settlement that shields him and his family from tax audits, and prevent any future administration from creating similar schemes. In May 2026, Bennet demanded an investigation and vowed to file an amendment to block Trump’s corrupt settlement with the DOJ.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear Secretary Bessent, Acting Attorney General Blanche, and Chief Executive Officer Bisignano:
We write to demand the immediate production of all records related to the creation, administration, and purported termination of the so-called Anti-Weaponization Fund, as well as any records indicating whether the Administration has considered or used the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) as an alternative vehicle for compensating individuals who might have applied to the fund. Despite repeated assurances that you are “not moving forward with the fund,” your agencies have produced no written confirmation of its closure, no legal justification for its existence, and no accounting of who applied, what was promised, or whether taxpayer dollars were ever committed.1 The absence of even the most basic materials — coupled with conflicting statements from the Administration — raises a serious concern: that the fund was used, or intended to be used, to financially reward individuals involved in the January 6 attack or those who amplified false claims of a stolen election, and that the Administration is hoping to provide additional avenues to effectuate that intent. Such conduct would represent an extraordinary abuse of public resources and a breach of the public trust.
These concerns have only intensified in light of public statements from individuals who applied for compensation and now describe the fund as merely a “brief distraction” while they pursue payouts through other channels.2 The opacity surrounding this program has not lessened; it has deepened. And it has fueled legitimate fears that the fund, and the legal rationales underlying it, may have been — or could still be — used to support individuals whose actions undermined democratic institutions or threatened public safety, including through meritless claims brought by January 6 defendants and taxpayer-funded payments to rioters who assaulted law enforcement officers.
Recent reporting shows that attorneys representing hundreds of January 6 defendants have already begun filing claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. The precedent your agencies have set, suggesting that January 6 rioters, election deniers, and others advancing baseless allegations of “weaponization” are entitled to financial remedies at taxpayer expense, is indefensible. The Department of Justice (DOJ) cannot and must not use existing legal mechanisms to accomplish the same objectives as the Anti-Weaponization Fund, even if the fund itself has been quietly abandoned.
This is not hypothetical. One attorney has already filed FTCA claims for “some 200” clients.3 Another has filed for “roughly 400” more.4 The Anti-Weaponization Fund was an unauthorized and inappropriate vehicle for financial rewards. Using the FTCA to achieve the same ends is equally corrupt.
Given the extraordinary nature of this fund, the Administration’s inconsistent public statements, the surge of FTCA filings by individuals convicted of serious offenses, and the DOJ’s refusal to provide written confirmation of the fund’s termination, your agencies must immediately produce a full accounting of how this fund was created, administered, and ostensibly terminated – and whether the Justice Department believes FTCA claims to be a suitable avenue for pursuing relief for unenumerated instances of “weaponization.” Anything less would constitute a failure of transparency and a dereliction of your duty to safeguard taxpayer resources.
Accordingly, please provide the following information no later than July 12, 2026:
Our constituents have a right to immediate explanations about this fund’s genesis and reported conclusion. Full disclosure is not optional. It is the minimum required to ensure that no federal program is used to reward political allies, excuse misconduct, or circumvent established legal processes. We look forward to complete and thorough answers to the above.
Bennet, Budd Introduce Bipartisan Bill to Unlock U.S. Space-Based Chip Manufacturing & Close Advanced Manufacturing Gap with China - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: Senators Bennet and Budd introduced bipartisan legislation to clarify that space-based semiconductor manufacturing qualifies for tax credits under the CHIPS and Science Act, aiming to enhance U.S. competitiveness against China in advanced semiconductor technology.
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, a senior member of the Senate Finance Committee, and U.S. Senator Ted Budd (R-N.C.) introduced the Semiconductor Superiority Act. This bipartisan legislation amends Section 48D of the CHIPS and Science Act of 2022 to clarify that space-based semiconductor manufacturing is an included use for tax credits. In May 2025, Bennet introduced the bipartisan Strengthening Essential Manufacturing and Industrial (SEMI) Investment Act to expand Section 48D tax incentives for semiconductor facilities to include upstream materials suppliers.
The legislation eliminates uncertainty for American manufacturers regarding microgravity semiconductor technology, bolstering U.S. global competitiveness. U.S. Representatives Vern Buchanan (R-Fla.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), and Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.) led companion legislation in the House of Representatives.
"Colorado has the talent, research institutions, and aerospace ecosystem to lead the next generation of semiconductor innovation," said Bennet. "We cannot afford to fall behind. The next frontier of semiconductor manufacturing should be led by the United States. I look forward to working with my colleagues to pass this bipartisan bill into law."
“Every day, over 300 million Americans utilize semiconductor chips, whether in smartphones, televisions, bank ATMs, or home appliances, but now that China has already implemented space-based chip fabrication into its supply chain, the U.S. is at risk of losing our global competitive edge,” said Budd. “The Semiconductor Superiority Act gives domestic manufacturers the green light to develop microgravity semiconductor technology to compete with China. Given that several American companies are already investing in the equipment, launch capacity, and advanced chips manufacturing, we already have momentum, and we cannot afford to stall.”
By unlocking the Section 48D tax credits under the CHIPS and Science Act, the Semiconductor Superiority Act will:
Last year, Bennet helped pass into law several provisions from the Foreign Investment Guardrails to Help Thwart (FIGHT) China Act, legislation that protects U.S. national security by limiting American investments in certain technologies in China, such as artificial intelligence, advanced semiconductors, quantum systems, and hypersonics. In July 2022, Bennet celebrated the passage of the bipartisan CHIPS and Science Act which boosted the domestic semiconductor industry, funded the largest five-year investment in public research and development in the nation’s history, and created regional technology hubs nationwide to spur broad-based job creation and innovation.
The text of the bill is available HERE.
Bennet, Padilla, Durbin, Whitehouse, Colleagues Sound Alarm on Trump Administration Use of Election Crimes Prosecutions to Interfere in Midterm Elections - U.S. Senator Michael Bennet
Position: The senators oppose the Trump Administration's removal of the DOJ's Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual from public access, arguing it raises concerns about potential election interference and politically motivated prosecutions ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
Senators call out DOJ’s quiet removal of long-standing election prosecution manual ahead of 2026 midterms
Denver — Colorado U.S. Senator Michael Bennet, a member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights, led 20 of their Senate colleagues to demand answers over the Trump Administration’s decision to remove the most recent version of the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual from the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) website without explanation. The removal of this DOJ guidance comes as the administration has threatened election takeover efforts which will result in voter suppression across the country, especially in this year’s midterm elections.
In their letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, the senators highlighted the administration's alarming actions related to election administration and oversight, arguing that the removal of the manual from the DOJ website raises further questions about President Trump's efforts to interfere in elections. Of particular concern, the 2017 edition of the manual stated that DOJ prosecutors should not seize voting materials until after an election had been certified.
“The manual published by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division has been easily publicly accessible on the Department’s Election Crimes Branch website in both Democratic and Republican Administrations,” wrote the senators. “During President Trump’s first term, the manual was accompanied by a memorandum describing the Department’s longstanding election non-interference policy. While the manual underscores the importance of deterrence as the objective served by federal prosecutions of individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election, it also makes clear that ‘this deterrence is achieved by public awareness of the Department’s prosecutive interest in, and prosecution of, election fraud—not through interference with the process itself.’”
In the letter, the senators questioned Acting Attorney General Blanche on the administration’s motivations for removing the manual from the DOJ website and any efforts to restore it. They further requested clarification from the administration to understand any outside influences or partisan political motives. The oversight letter asked whether revisions will be included and if Trump’s allies will contribute to those revisions. The senators further warned that the removal of the manual paves the way for politically motivated legal actions by the Trump Administration in advance of the midterm elections.
“While the Department’s ongoing voter roll lawsuits are failing across the country, we are concerned that those efforts, which were calculated to compel states into inaccurately purging voters, may be the pretext for more meritless pre- and post-election challenges, including interfering with election certification,” continued the senators. “Similarly, unsubstantiated claims by DOJ leadership of ‘tens of thousands noncitizens on voter rolls’ are reckless, as time and again, those claims have been refuted by findings that many individuals are falsely identified as noncitizens, and the extremely rare appearance of noncitizen registrants on the voter rolls or the even more extremely rare cases of noncitizen voters are often due to bureaucratic errors or misunderstandings about eligibility, as opposed to intentional fraud.”
In addition to Bennet, Padilla, Durbin, and Whitehouse, U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Chris Coons (D-Del.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) signed the letter.
Bennet has consistently fought against Republicans’ brazen efforts to undermine federal elections. In May 2026, Bennet denounced the U.S. Postal Service’s (USPS) proposed rule that would implement part of Trump’s executive order attacking mail in voting. In April 2026, Bennet joined Senators John Hickenlooper, Padilla, and 35 of their colleagues to introduce the Mail and Absentee Voter Protection Act to block Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional executive order that attacks Coloradans’ ability to cast mail-in ballots. In March 2026, Bennet condemned the SAVE America Act on the Senate floor and called out Trump for holding the Senate hostage to pass this legislation. In April 2025, he spoke on the Senate floor, calling out the SAVE Act that would make it harder for millions of American citizens to register and exercise their right to vote, including women and voters in rural communities across the country. In February 2025, Bennet slammed Trump for sowing distrust in elections. In July 2023, Bennet and his Democratic colleagues introduced the Freedom to Vote Act to improve Americans’ access to the ballot, invest in state election infrastructure, strengthen campaign finance disclosure requirements, and ensure our elections are free from interference.
The text of the letter is available HERE and below.
Dear Acting Attorney General Blanche:
We write regarding the Department of Justice’s (DOJ or Department) decision to remove the Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses manual, now in its eighth edition, from the Department’s website without explanation.
In the context of other alarming actions taken by the Trump Administration’s Department of Justice, including pursuing politically-motivated investigations at the direction of the White House; implementing drastic changes to the longstanding mission of the Civil Rights Division’s Voting Section; suing 30 states for unrestricted access to their voter rolls; and making unprecedented demands for ballots, election equipment, and names of election workers, the removal of this manual continues to raise the alarm about DOJ’s involvement in the upcoming midterm elections for partisan political purposes. We urge you to confirm the Department’s adherence to the principles outlined in the manual and be transparent about what, if any, changes the Department is making to this longstanding policy to protect elections from political interference.
The manual published by the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division has been easily publicly accessible on the Department’s Election Crimes Branch website in both Democratic and Republican Administrations. During President Trump’s first term, the manual was accompanied by a memorandum describing the Department’s longstanding election non-interference policy. While the manual underscores the importance of deterrence as the objective served by federal prosecutions of individuals who commit federal crimes in connection with an election, it also makes clear that “this deterrence is achieved by public awareness of the Department’s prosecutive interest in, and prosecution of, election fraud—not through interference with the process itself.” The Amundson Memo similarly provides clear directives reaffirming guidance provided under former Attorney General William Barr that prosecutors and investigators “may never select the timing of public statements (attributed or not), investigative steps, criminal charges, or any other action in any matter or case for the purpose of affecting any election, or for the purpose of giving an advantage or disadvantage to any candidate or political party.”
The manual is also still cited in the Justice Manual, a critical reference guide for U.S. Attorneys and other DOJ prosecutors, which states:
Where a criminal or national security investigation during an election cycle is at issue, the Department must also be careful to adhere to longstanding policies regarding the timing of charges or taking overt investigative steps. See, e.g., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses 8-9, 84–85 (8th ed. 2017).
Recent reports have indicated that the number of attorneys in DOJ’s Public Integrity Section has been reduced from 36 to two. In addition, in early April, former Republican congressman Dan Bishop was appointed as the Department’s chief election fraud prosecutor with nationwide authority to pursue the President’s debunked claims of widespread voting fraud. Around that same time, you hired 2020 election conspiracist Joe DiGenova as Counsel to pursue politically motivated prosecutions, who has in turn apparently hired Kurt Olsen, a former White House election czar previously sanctioned for misleading courts in election cases.
Following these developments, we need to better understand the extent to which the Department’s investigations are being influenced by partisan political motives. Given Department leadership’s public enthusiasm for working with Republicans in Congress on issues related to elections, including agreeing to demands that DOJ bring legal action to force states to redraw congressional lines, even after citizens in their states have already voted, we expect complete answers to the following straightforward questions:
While the Department’s ongoing voter roll lawsuits are failing across the country, we are concerned that those efforts, which were calculated to compel states into inaccurately purging voters, may be the pretext for more meritless pre- and post-election challenges, including interfering with election certification. Similarly, unsubstantiated claims by DOJ leadership of “tens of thousands” noncitizens on voter rolls” are reckless, as time and again, those claims have been refuted by findings that many individuals are falsely identified as noncitizens, and the extremely rare appearance of noncitizen registrants on the voter rolls or the even more extremely rare cases of noncitizen voters are often due to bureaucratic errors or misunderstandings about eligibility, as opposed to intentional fraud.
To be clear, any attempts by DOJ to file lawsuits to stop eligible voters from voting, their votes from being counted, or elections from being certified, will fail, but any attempts are still corrosive to public trust and confidence in our election administration and invite threats against nonpartisan election workers.
Against this backdrop, the absence of guidance from the Public Integrity Section on election noninterference appears to clear the way for politically-motivated legal actions by DOJ itself in the lead-up to and aftermath of the midterm elections. Accordingly, we request that you immediately confirm the Department’s adherence to longstanding, bipartisan policy of noninterference and comply with this request no later than June 22, 2026.
Source: GDELT 2.0 GKG, filtered to a curated list of national outlets. Inclusion is not endorsement; opinion pieces and reported news are mixed.
Recent stock activity
Periodic transaction reports filed under the STOCK Act — disclosed by the rep, sourced from public filings.
No disclosed trades on record.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
1.THE COLORADO WAY8 contributions$98,825
2.WIN THE WEST 20221 contribution$14,000
3.COMMON SENSE 2020-III1 contribution$13,944
4.BLUE SENATE PAC1 contribution$7,198
5.DEMOCRACY ENGINE, INC. PAC1 contribution$5,800
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.ANGELO GORDON$7,000
2.BIRNAM OAK ADVISORS LP$7,000
3.BROWN-FORMAN CORP$5,000
4.NYU STERN SCHOOL OF BUSINESS$5,000
5.GOOGLE INC.$3,500
6.PISCES, INC.$3,300
7.BUTLER SNOW LLP$2,500
8.VITUITY$1,500
9.APOLLOMD$1,500
10.THIRD ROCK VENTURES$1,450
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
