See how Lisa Blunt Rochester actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Lisa Blunt Rochester'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 Lisa Blunt Rochester's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Lisa Blunt Rochester's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
29 predictions on record · none have been resolved by a passage vote yet. Check back as bills move.
Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States relating to the authority of Congress and the States to regulate contributions and expenditures intended to affect elections and to enact public financing systems for political campaigns.
Based on 1 data point across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-2·Consistent
Secure the Border Act of 2023
92/100
What they said
Apr 28, 2026
The lawmakers and advocates call on the Supreme Court to uphold Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, and other countries in crisis, and urge Congress to advance legislative solutions to stabilize the care workforce that relies heavily on TPS holders.
The statement explicitly opposes ending Temporary Protected Status and calls for Congress to advance legislative solutions to protect TPS holders. The Secure the Border Act of 2023 is a restrictive immigration bill focused on border wall construction and asylum limits, with no provisions protecting or extending TPS. The representative voted no on passage, which is consistent with the stated position defending TPS and opposing restrictive immigration measures.
Pairs with ambiguous language and high uncertainty are withheld until more data is available. Procedural, cloture, and amendment votes are excluded — they don't cleanly signal substantive support or opposition.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Lisa Blunt Rochester'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 Lisa Blunt Rochester yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
Passage votes where Lisa Blunt Rochester broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
2
Cross-aisle votes
118-hr-1516·Sep 10, 2024·82% of D voted NO
DHS Restrictions on Confucius Institutes and Chinese Entities of Concern Act
NEWS: Senators Blunt Rochester, Booker, Representatives Barragán, DeSaulnier Lead Bicameral Opposition to New EPA Rule
Position: The members oppose the EPA's proposed Risk Management Program rule, arguing it would weaken 2024 chemical safety protections and increase risks to workers, emergency responders, and communities near chemical facilities.
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Congresswoman Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.-44), and Congressman Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.-10) led 34 members from both chambers in opposition of EPA Administrator Zeldin’s Risk Management Program (RMP) Rule. The Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention rule would weaken 2024 protections enacted to keep workers, emergency responders, and communities safe from chemical disasters.
“[This] proposal would undo core preventive measures and unnecessarily threaten the lives and health of workers, emergency responders, and fenceline communities, including the one in three children who go to school in a chemical danger zone,” the Members wrote in a letter to Administrator Zeldin. “Recent chemical emergencies and disasters such as the deadly explosions at the Valero refinery in Ardmore, Oklahoma and at Koch foods in Fairfield, Ohio—along with the recent findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board—highlight the shortcomings of the proposed rule and demonstrate the risk these rollbacks pose to the workers at RMP facilities and to the communities near them.”
“All communities deserve to live their daily lives free from toxic exposure,” the Members continued. “We call on you to fully implement, not undo, the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule and we look forward to working with you to ensure that the communities we represent, and those across the country, are protected from the danger of chemical disasters by a truly preventative Risk Management Program.”
In addition to Senator Blunt Rochester, Senator Booker, and Congresswoman Barragán, the letter was signed by Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), as well as Representatives Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.-08), John Garamendi (D-Calif.-08), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.-20), Elanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.-Del.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.-12), Adam Smith (D-Wash.-09), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.-12), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.-43), Betty McCollum (D-Minn-04), Kevin Mullin (D-Calif.-15), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.-09), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.-07), Madeline Dean (D-Penn.-04), Julia Brownley (D-Calif-26), Dwight Evans (D-Penn.-03), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.-04), Rob Menendez (D-N.J.-08), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.-09), Jennifer McClellan (D-Va.-04), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.-02), Sara Jacobs (D-Calif.-51), Sean Casten (D-Ill.-06), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.-17), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.-06), Don Beyer (D-Va.-08), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.-01), and Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.-07).
The full text of the letter can be found here, and below.
We write to express our strong opposition to the Risk Management Program (RMP) proposed rule: Common Sense Approach to Chemical Accident Prevention (EPA-HQ-OLEM-2025-0313) issued February 24, 2026. We write to urge the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to fully implement and not weaken any protections included in the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule. This rule included vital preventive measures to avoid chemical disasters and to keep workers, emergency responders, and fenceline communities safe.
As you know, the RMP, as enacted in Section 112 of the Clean Air Act, was intended as a tool to prevent chemical facility disasters following the deadly 1984 gas disaster in Bhopal, India—but to date the program has been largely reactive. During the first Trump administration, the EPA rolled back safety measures, ignoring the statute's core prevention objectives and the demonstrated need for action to prevent chemical disasters. Under the Biden administration, significant data from tragic incidents, recommendations from the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board (CSB) and other experts, and public input from workers, communities, states, industry and trade organizations supported a more robust final rule in 2024 that incorporated essential safety improvements. Despite this, we find ourselves with a proposed RMP rule that represents an industry wish list and takes us backwards on health and safety.
The proposal would undo core preventive measures and unnecessarily threaten the lives and health of workers, emergency responders, and fenceline communities, including the one in three children who go to school in a chemical danger zone. With 177 million Americans living in the worst-case scenario zones of RMP facilities, it is imperative that EPA fulfills its mission to protect human health and the environment by restoring the 2024 Safer Communities RMP rule.
Recent chemical emergencies and disasters such as the deadly explosions at the Valero refinery in Ardmore, Oklahoma and at Koch foods in Fairfield, Ohio—along with the recent findings of the U.S. Chemical Safety Board—highlight the shortcomings of the proposed rule and demonstrate the risk these rollbacks pose to the workers at RMP facilities and to the communities near them. EPA has the responsibility to prevent chemical disasters “to the greatest extent practicable,” and “to minimize accidental releases” of hazardous chemicals and “minimize the consequences of such releases. However, at a time when strong regulations are needed more than ever to save lives and protect communities from preventable toxic chemical exposures and releases that are particularly dangerous for children’s health, EPA’s proposed rule fails to meet the Clean Air Act’s vital chemical release prevention requirements and to fulfill the Congressional mandate to protect health and safety.
From 2004 to 2025, facilities regulated by the RMP program have reported over 3,900 industrial chemical releases, including at least 2,814 that have reported harm to human life, injury, shelter in place or evacuation, or property or environmental damage. Chemical disasters have caused over $6.5 billion in damages (over the same time period), affecting families, businesses, and our nation’s economy— and have made homes and neighborhoods less affordable by decreasing neighbors’ property value. The average amount of monetized damages from industrial chemical emergencies was over $540.2 million per year, without even including many types of harm including health risks, property values, evacuation and shelter-in-place costs, and more.
The 2026 proposed RMP rule rolls back several preventative measures that were finalized in the 2024 Safer Communities rule. Some major changes are below:
All communities deserve to live their daily lives free from toxic exposure. No worker, no family, and no child should ever again experience a preventable chemical emergency. Instead of rolling back the 2024 rule, EPA should ensure that chemical facilities do all they can to protect our communities from industrial chemical disasters.
We call on you to fully implement, not undo, the 2024 Safer Communities by Chemical Accident Prevention rule and we look forward to working with you to ensure that the communities we four represent, and those across the country, are protected from the danger of chemical disasters by a truly preventative Risk Management Program.
NEWS: Senator Blunt Rochester Introduces Suite of Mother’s Day Bills Supporting Maternal Health
Position: Senator Blunt Rochester introduced three bills to improve maternal health outcomes: the Optimizing Postpartum Outcomes Act to expand Medicaid coverage for pelvic physical therapy, the IMPACT to Save Moms Act to allow states to test new Medicaid and CHIP payment models for maternity care, and the WELLS Act to address safe discharge practices and racial bias in maternal healthcare.
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, today introduced three bills to support pregnant and postpartum moms in honor of Mother’s Day. The bipartisan Optimizing Postpartum Outcomes Act, which is co-led by Senator Dan Sullivan (R-Alaska), would improve Medicaid coverage for pelvic physical therapy and raise awareness of this postpartum treatment. The bicameral Innovative Maternal Payment and Coverage (IMPACT) to Save Moms Act, which Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.-09) will introduce in the House, would give states the ability to test new payment approaches for maternity care under their Medicaid and CHIP programs. The bicameral Women Expansion for Learning and Labor Safety (WELLS) Act, which Congresswoman Robin Kelly (D-Ill.-02) introduced in March, would address safe discharge of laboring women and racial bias in the health care system.
“As a mother and grandmother, I know first-hand the joys and challenges that motherhood brings,” said Senator Blunt Rochester. “I’m proud to lead legislation that strengthens the healthcare services afforded to moms across the country. It’s time that we ensure moms receive the same caliber of care that they so often give to others.”
“I believe there is no greater gift than that of parenthood, and strong, healthy families start with making sure mothers and babies get the care they need,” Senator Sullivan said. “In Alaska, where our unique geography, distance, and weather can already create serious barriers to care, it can be especially challenging for new mothers and families. Our legislation will help improve outcomes across the country by strengthening access to health services and making sure women are not left to navigate this critical time alone.”
“Black women in the US are still far more likely to die from pregnancy-related causes than white women, and that is unacceptable,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. “In the richest country in the world, every person deserves access to high-quality, equitable maternal health care before, during, and after pregnancy. I’m proud to reintroduce the IMPACT to Save Moms Act alongside Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester to help create innovative maternity care payment models and expand continuous health insurance coverage for pregnant women, helping ensure timely diagnosis, monitoring, and treatment throughout pregnancy and postpartum care. No one should lose their life because our health care system failed to provide the care they needed at one of the most critical moments of their lives.”
“Black women's pain is too often overlooked, dismissed, or minimized with devastating consequences,” said Congresswoman Kelly, Chair of the Congressional Black Caucus Health Braintrust. “The WELLS Act is named after my constituent, Mercedes Wells, who was discharged while in active labor and forced to give birth on the side of the road. My bill ensures that every mother is heard, respected, and safely treated so no other mother goes through a similar traumatic situation. I’m proud to work with Senator Blunt Rochester to advance maternal health equity and improve the care moms receive during pregnancy, delivery, and postpartum.”
The Optimizing Postpartum Outcomes Act would:
The Optimizing Postpartum Outcomes Act is endorsed by American Physical Therapy Association (APTA), APTA Academy of Pelvic Health, and Bayhealth Medical Center. Click here for more information.
The IMPACT to Save Moms Act would:
Click here for more information.
The WELLS Act is endorsed by 4Kira4Moms, Maternal Mental Health Leadership Alliance, Chamber of Mothers, and In Our Own Voice. Click here for more information.
NEWS: Senator Blunt Rochester Releases Statement on Supreme Court Decision Gutting Voting Rights
Position: Senator Blunt Rochester opposes the Supreme Court's decision to strike down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, arguing it weakens the Voting Rights Act and harms voting access for Black Americans.
U.S. Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) today released a statement in response to the Supreme Court striking down a majority-Black congressional district in Louisiana, further weakening the Voting Rights Act.
“I’ve said it before: Our democracy is under attack, and today, the Supreme Court struck another blow. For over 60 years, the Voting Rights Act has been a symbol of a democracy inclusive of all Americans, representing the sacrifices made by Black civil rights activists for the right to vote. Yet, the Supreme Court has been systematically chipping away at that progress, dragging us backward. So, while I’m not surprised by this ruling, I am devastated by what this will mean for the Americans whose voices will be silenced. This fight is far from over. My Democratic colleagues and I will continue to do everything in our power to protect and restore voting rights across our nation.”
NEWS: Blunt Rochester Joins Gallego, Alsobrooks, and Colleagues in Pressing Fed Nominee Kevin Warsh on Contradictory Testimony
Position: Senators are pressing Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh to clarify apparent contradictions between his Senate testimony denying pressure from President Trump on interest rate policy and Trump's public statements indicating he secured assurances from Warsh to support rate cuts.
Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), and Andy Kim (D-N.J.) called on Federal Reserve (Fed) Chair nominee Kevin Warsh to clarify discrepancies between his testimony before the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and public statements from President Trump regarding Warsh's support for cutting interest rates.
“Ultimately, your claims that you ‘never said to the President where [you] think rates should be’ and your comment that the President ‘never generally or specifically instructed’ you regarding committing to an interest rate path appear to directly contradict President Trump,”the senators wrote in a letter to Kevin Warsh. “President Trump confirmed to the Journal that during your interview on December 10, 2025, he pushed you on whether you could be trusted, generally, to support cutting interest rates as Fed Chair. He apparently left that meeting satisfied that you would. President Trump also publicly indicated that you ‘understand that he wants [you] to lower interest rates,’ and that if you had said anything otherwise, you ‘would not have gotten the job.’”
"How President Trump managed to secure that assurance without ‘generally…suggest[ing]’ that you should ‘commit to any interest rate path’ in at least some way is hard to understand,” the senators continued.
The senators requested answers to the following questions:
The full text of the letter is available here and below:
We write today to seek clarification on your testimony at your April 21, 2026, hearing before the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs regarding your nomination to serve as Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
At the hearing you, you engaged in the following exchange with Senator John Kennedy:
Senator Kennedy: So the President has never sat you down, looked you in the eye and said, “Here’s the deal, Scooter, I’m going to appoint you but you got to agree to lower interest rates.” That didn’t happen or it did happen?
Kevin Warsh: The President never once asked me to commit to any particular interest rate decision. Period. And nor would I ever agree to do so if he had.
Later in the hearing, you said the following to Senator Lummis:
Senator Lummis: Can you tell us a little bit about your conversations with President Trump about interest rates?
Kevin Warsh: …I never said to the President where I think rates should be. I never committed any such thing, and I wouldn’t have even thought about doing so.
Your statements appear to directly contradict public reporting, including public comments made by President Donald Trump. For example, as reported by NBC News:
Llamas asked Trump whether Kevin Warsh…understands that he wants him to lower interest rates.
“I think he does, but I think he wants to anyway,” Trump said. “I mean, if he came in and said, ‘I want to raise them…’”
“If he said that, he wouldn’t have gotten the job?” Llamas interjected.
“He would not have gotten the job,” Trump responded. “No.”
And according to the Wall Street Journal:
During a 45-minute meeting with Warsh on Wednesday at the White House, the president pressed Warsh on whether he could trust him to support interest-rate cuts if he were chosen to lead the central bank, according to people familiar with the meeting. Trump, in the Journal interview, confirmed that reporting.
“He thinks you have to lower interest rates,” Trump said of Warsh.
Yet when pressed about this reporting by Senator Ruben Gallego, you doubled down by saying:
The President never asked me to commit to interest rate cuts at any particular meeting over the period of my tenure at the Fed. He didn’t ask for it. He didn’t demand it. He didn’t require it. And nor would I have ever done so…I stand by every word I said. The President never asked me to commit to any such thing, nor would I ever do so.
At this point in the hearing, the accuracy of your comments appeared to hinge on your claim that the President did not ask you to agree to a specific, or “particular,” interest rate cut at “any particular meeting” of the Fed over the course of your tenure, as compared to a more general commitment to lowering rates. But then, Senator Alsobrooks pressed you again:
Senator Alsobrooks: You said the President never asked you about lowering interest rates. And you said he never–“specifically” is the word you use–demanded that you, that you decrease interest rates. Well, did the President generally suggest this to you as well?
Kevin Warsh: You know, in my, in my recitation to your colleagues, I wasn’t trying to be clever. The President never generally or specifically instructed me, suggested I should commit to any interest rate path whatsoever.
Ultimately, your claim that you “never said to the President where [you] think rates should be” and your comment that the President “never generally or specifically instructed” you regarding committing to an interest rate path appear to directly contradict President Trump. President Trump confirmed to the Journal that during your interview on December 10, 2025, he pushed you on whether you could be trusted, generally, to support cutting interest rates as Fed Chair. He apparently left that meeting satisfied that you would. President Trump also publicly indicated that you “understand[] that he wants him to lower interest rates,” and that if you had said anything otherwise, you “would not have gotten the job.” How President Trump managed to secure that assurance without “generally…suggest[ing]” that you should “commit to any interest rate path” in at least some way is hard to understand.
To help us better understand your testimony and your engagement with President Trump in the lead up to your nomination to serve as Fed Chair, we request answers to the following questions no later than Tuesday, May 5:
1. Are there any corrections you would like to make to the record regarding your April 21, 2026, testimony before the Banking Committee?
2. Did President Trump ask you in the lead up to your nomination if he could “trust you”?
a. Did he specify what he was hoping he could “trust you” to do? If so, what was it he hoped he could trust you to do?
3. Following your meeting with President Trump, the President referred to you in telling the Wall Street Journal, “He thinks you have to lower interest rates.” You claim that the President “never generally or specifically instructed” you on interest rates or “suggest[ed] [you] should commit to any interest rate path whatsoever.”
a. Was President Trump telling the truth, or lying, to the Wall Street Journal?
b. Assuming you believe the President was telling the truth, how did President Trump come to understand your views on interest rates during the meeting? What, specifically, did he ask you, and what, specifically, did you tell him?
Thank you for your response to this letter.
WATCH: Senator Blunt Rochester Slams Administrator Zeldin Over Trump Budget Cuts
Position: Senator Blunt Rochester opposes the Trump administration's proposed cuts to water infrastructure funding programs, arguing that states cannot afford the loss of federal support for drinking water and wastewater systems.
“States really can’t afford this.”
Click here to watch Senator Blunt Rochester’s Remarks
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), a member of the Environment and Public Works Committee, today criticized the Trump administration’s proposed cuts to a water infrastructure program states rely on to provide drinking water to residents. Blunt Rochester also blasted Zeldin on EPA’ decision to roll back a rule designed to keep communities safe from chemical disasters.
Senator Blunt Rochester’s full remarks and exchange with Administrator Zeldin can be found here. A key excerpt is below:
Senator Blunt Rochester: “Just this week, I had the opportunity to meet with county executives, county council people in my state, and there was a lot of concern that the President's budget eliminates nearly all funding for the clean water and Drinking Water State Revolving funds, the primary source of water infrastructure funding in our country. And your agency estimates a funding gap of $625 billion over the next two decades. For drinking water infrastructure alone, wastewater adds another $271 billion and in my small state, we could lose $90 million in cuts to SRFS. States really can't afford this. That's what they shared with us, and especially when we're talking about rising costs, whether for food or gas or anything else we people can't afford, one more higher bill.”
Administrator Zeldin: “Yes, absolutely, and we'll make sure that that we're able to work closely with each of you.”
WATCH: Ahead of SCOTUS Arguments, Blunt Rochester, Pressley, Markey, Wasserman Schultz, Advocates Demand Court Defend Temporary Protected Status
Position: The lawmakers and advocates call on the Supreme Court to uphold Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for nationals from Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, and other countries in crisis, and urge Congress to advance legislative solutions to stabilize the care workforce that relies heavily on TPS holders.
Today, Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) and Edward J. Markey (D-Mass), as well as Congresswomen Ayanna Pressley (Mass-07) and Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (Fla.-25), alongside a coalition of seniors, care workers, advocates, and allies, demanded the Supreme Court defend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) and urged Congress to advance solutions to stabilize the care workforce as a national care crisis unfolds.
The press conference took place the day before the Supreme Court hears oral arguments in a case involving the Trump Administration’s efforts to end TPS for Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, and other nations grappling with layered crises. The presser also follows the House’s adoption of a discharge petition led by Congresswoman Pressley to extend TPS for Haiti for three years.
“TPS recipients are integral parts of our community. They are our neighbors, our friends, caretakers, business owners, and so much more,” said Senator Blunt Rochester. “I was proud to join Congresswoman Pressley, Senator Markey, and dedicated advocates to keep up the drumbeat here in Congress, because welcoming those who need a safe place to call home is part of who we are as Americans. And no one—even the President—can take that identity away from us.”
“TPS holders serve as a backbone for families and our economy—caring for our elders and loved ones through illness, strengthening our communities, and making innumerable contributions daily,” said Congresswoman Pressley. “That’s why we we’re using every tool available to defend Temporary Protected Status and affirm the dignity, humanity, and due process of our immigrant neighbors from Haiti, Venezuela, Syria, and other nations in crisis. Our message to the Supreme Court today is simple: do your job, uphold the law, save lives, and protect our communities. I’m grateful to my colleagues and our advocates for their ongoing partnership.”
“Every day, TPS holders contribute their hard work and support to our communities, including as caregivers,” said Senator Markey. “TPS holders are nurses, nursing assistants, home health aides, childcare workers, and more. They form an invaluable part of the infrastructure of support that holds our communities together. Our care economy does not run on apps or algorithms—it runs on people. I am thankful to Congresswoman Pressley for her partnership in this years-long fight to advocate for the TPS community in Massachusetts and across the country. We must preserve TPS and protect our immigrant neighbors.”
"TPS holders earn work permits, pay taxes, and get zero government welfare. They pay into Medicare and Social Security and get nothing in return,” said Congresswoman Wasserman Schultz. "I was so proud that Congresswoman Pressley and Senator Markey joined me in leading over 180 Democratic colleagues in an amicus brief to urge the Supreme Court to reject Trump’s illegal termination of TPS."
Joining the lawmakers at the press conference were Luis Zaldivar of the American Business Immigration Coalition; Athena Jones, SEIU Local 512, Home Care Chapter Chair; Executive Director Jenn Stowe, National Domestic Workers Alliance; Pierre Shostal, Goodwin House Alexandria (GHA); Todd Andrews, Chief Operating Officer, Asbury Communities Inc.; and Rita Siebenaler, Goodwin House Bailey's Crossroads (GHBC),.
“Providers across the country are losing longtime, legally authorized caregivers, breaking trusted relationships and widening staffing gaps that directly threaten older adults’ access to needed care. Foreign-born workers have long been essential to the nation’s aging services sector, and recent immigration policy changes, such as the potential termination of Haitian temporary protected status, are exacerbating the aging services’ sector’s well-documented and increasing workforce needs. The harm to families and older adults trying to access the services they need when they need them is a travesty. We urge Congress and the Trump administration to adopt immigration policies that strengthen, rather than destabilize, the caregiving workforce that older adults and families depend on,” said Katie Smith Sloan, President and CEO, LeadingAge.
"The mass deportation of our long-term, law-abiding workforce in critical sectors has a devastating impact on the stability of senior care across the country. Nationally, immigrants comprise nearly 28% of the direct care workforce, including as many as 1 in 3 home care workers. In communities like Goodwin Living Alexandria, where immigrants represent 90% of nursing center care partners, removing these essential workers amid a national workforce shortage would severely strain the care our seniors depend on. ABIC Action is ensuring that the administration and Congress understand that removing these productive, responsible members of our society directly jeopardizes the essential services American families rely on every day,” said Luis Zaldivar, Project Director, ABIC Action.
In February, Senator Blunt Rochester led all 47 members of the Senate Democratic Caucus in a letter demanding for then-Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem to reverse her decision to terminate Temporary Protected Status for Haiti. The full letter can be found here.
Footage from the press conference is available here.
NEWS: Blunt Rochester, Cantwell, Baldwin, & Wyden Tell DHS Secretary: No Promotion for Coast Guard Officer Who Committed Whistleblower Retaliation
Position: The senators urge the DHS Secretary to withdraw the promotion of a Coast Guard commander found by the DHS Office of Inspector General to have committed whistleblower retaliation, citing the need to uphold federal whistleblower protection laws and maintain progress on Coast Guard cultural reform.
“We urge you to chart a different course than your predecessor at DHS when it comes to protecting whistleblowers and upholding the law.”
U.S. Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Coast Guard, Maritime, and Fisheries, Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Ranking Member of the Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Tammy Baldwin (D-Wisc.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sent a letter to Secretary of Homeland Security Markwayne Mullin urging him to stand by his nomination hearing testimony supporting whistleblower protections and demanding that the White House withdraw the promotion of Commander Jesse Millard to become a Captain in the U.S. Coast Guard.
“We appreciate your commitment to uphold federal whistleblower protection laws during your nomination hearing to become the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS),” wrote the Senators. “An independent investigation by the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed Commander Millard committed whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Given your testimony supporting whistleblower protection laws, we do not believe you would support advancing Commander Millard’s promotion now that you oversee the Coast Guard as the Secretary of DHS.”
A 2018 DHS OIG investigation found that Commander Milliard had retaliated against a subordinate for filing a protected whistleblower complaint against him. The investigation’s finding against Millard was one of only 11 whistleblower retaliation complaints validated by DHS OIG out of more than 3,100 it received in six years.
The Coast Guard is asking the Senate to promote Millard less than three years after “Operation Fouled Anchor,” which revealed significant failures of Coast Guard leadership to prevent harassment and to hold those responsible accountable for their actions. The Coast Guard faced bipartisan, bicameral condemnation for their handling of Operation Fouled Anchor, and Coast Guard leadership has vowed to hold themselves to a higher standard.
“Congress recently passed major structural reforms in a bipartisan Coast Guard Reauthorization Act—which you supported,” the Senators wrote to Secretary Mullin. “But there is more work to do to address these challenges and ensure the progress we have made is durable. As DHS Secretary, you must not tolerate backsliding on this important bipartisan work to improve the Coast Guard’s culture.”
“We urge you to chart a different course than your predecessor at DHS when it comes to protecting whistleblowers and upholding the law,” they concluded. “Ensuring Commander Millard’s promotion is withdrawn would be a crucial step in that direction.”
We appreciate your commitment to uphold federal whistleblower protection laws during your nomination hearing to become the next Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Consistent with your testimony, we urge you to demand the White House withdraw the pending promotion of Commander Jesse Millard to become a Captain in the U.S. Coast Guard. An independent investigation by the DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG) confirmed Commander Millard committed whistleblower retaliation in violation of the Military Whistleblower Protection Act. Given your testimony supporting whistleblower protection laws, we do not believe you would support advancing Commander Millard’s promotion now that you oversee the Coast Guard as the Secretary of DHS.
During your nomination hearing on March 18, 2026, you testified that there are “laws in place to protect whistleblowers and I have said multiple times I will work within the law.” You also testified that, if faced with allegations of whistleblower retaliation under your leadership, “I’m going to work within the law and that’s [whistleblower retaliation] unlawful.” We agree, which is why Commander Millard’s promotion is particularly concerning.
In 2018, the DHS OIG published a detailed Whistleblower Retaliation Report of Investigation that found Commander Millard retaliated against his subordinate by giving her unusually low performance marks on her 2016 Officer Evaluation Report after she filed a protected whistleblower complaint against him and other Coast Guard leaders. The DHS OIG specifically documented how Commander Millard knew about the subordinate’s complaint before he gave her low marks and reacted angrily in response. For example, Commander Millard sent himself an email that demanded his subordinate “resigns after apologizing” to him—simply for submitting a protected whistleblower complaint, as is her right under the law. Between fiscal years 2019 and 2025, the DHS OIG validated only 11 out of more than 3,100 whistleblower retaliation complaints it received. One of those eleven is Commander Millard. Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen accepted the DHS OIG’s findings and determined that corrective action was warranted.
It has been less than three years since the “Operation Fouled Anchor” scandal came to light, which revealed rampant cultural failings, permissibility of harassment and retaliation, and widespread lack of leadership accountability throughout the Coast Guard. Congress recently passed major structural reforms in a bipartisan Coast Guard Reauthorization Act—which you supported. But there is more work to do to address these challenges and ensure the progress we have made is durable. As DHS Secretary, you must not tolerate backsliding on this important bipartisan work to improve the Coast Guard’s culture.
The whistleblower who was subjected to this retaliation submitted a letter to the Commerce Committee urging the Senate to reject Commander Millard’s promotion. In that letter, the whistleblower correctly underscored how Commander Millard’s promotion “would perpetuate a pattern of institutional failure that Congress has already rightfully and strongly condemned.” As someone who voted in support of vital reforms to ensure Coast Guard accountability when you were in the Senate, you no doubt share these concerns.
We urge you to chart a different course than your predecessor at DHS when it comes to protecting whistleblowers and upholding the law. Ensuring Commander Millard’s promotion is withdrawn would be a crucial step in that direction.
Cc: Senator John Thune, Majority Leader of the United States Senate
Admiral Kevin Lunday, Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard
NEWS: Senators Blunt Rochester, Coons join colleagues in introducing bill to kill Trump’s Executive Order restricting vote-by-mail
Position: Senators Blunt Rochester and Coons support legislation to nullify President Trump's executive order restricting mail-in voting and to protect voters' right to cast ballots by mail. The bill would prevent federal agencies from implementing the order and bar similar future orders.
Senators Lisa Blunt Rochester and Chris Coons (both D-Del.) joined 38 of their colleagues in introducing the Absentee and Mail Voter Protection Act (Absentee MVP Act) to block President Trump’s illegal and unconstitutional executive order (EO) attacking mail and absentee ballots, and to protect the right to vote by mail.
The Absentee MVP Act would nullify President Trump’s March 31 EO, or any similar order, that aims to illegally rewrite federal election rules and it would prohibit the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and any other agency from spending funds to implement actions in the president’s unconstitutional EO. At its core, the EO would give the USPS sweeping new authority to decide which voters may cast ballots by mail by ordering the USPS to reject and refuse delivery of lawful ballots unless states comply with newly established federal eligibility lists.
Those who do not comply with these unlawful restrictions would face serious consequences: election officials, mail carriers, and others who send or deliver ballots to voters the administration considers ineligible could face criminal charges, and states and local governments could forfeit federal funding. To lay the groundwork for this override of existing state and federal voting laws, the order also tasks DHS with building state-by-state rosters of voting-age American citizens – drawn from federal data sources widely considered to be incomplete and unreliable.
“President Trump's unlawful executive order is an attempt to spread election misinformation and silence American voters,” said Senator Blunt Rochester. “The Absentee MVP Act is essential to protecting Americans' right to vote and ensuring the continued integrity of our elections.”
“States understand their own unique geographies, voters, and industries, so they are best positioned to make the right choices about how to ensure their citizens have full and fair access to the ballot box, not the federal government,” said Senator Coons. “President Trump is trying to illegally rip that power away from the states. This bill will protect voters in every state and ensure our elections are free and fair.”
In addition to nullifying the EO, this legislation bars any similar EO and provides additional limits on the Trump administration's attempts to implement the actions in the EO, including by:
“The Constitution is clear. Elections belong to Congress and the states, not the President. You do not protect them by building federal lists out of flawed data,” said Roman Palomares, LULAC National President and Board Chairman.
“No president – Trump or any to come – should be able to change the rules of an election in order to keep power and disenfranchise eligible voters. This bill pushes back on the Trump Administration’s illegal executive order that attempts to do just that. It is a strong, forward-looking step to protect the integrity of our elections and ensure voters decide elections, not politicians,” said Cole Leiter, Executive Director, Americans Against Government Censorship.
“For generations, service members have relied on mail and absentee ballots to exercise the rights they serve to defend. This legislation protects that lifeline and makes clear that no administration should be able to undermine access to the ballot for political gain. Our democracy is strongest when every eligible voter can participate without fear or interference,” said Janessa Goldbeck, Marine Corps Veteran and CEO, Vet Voice Foundation.
The legislation is co-sponsored by U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Andy Kim (D-N.J.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
The Absentee MVP Act is available here.
NEWS: Senator Blunt Rochester Blasts Secretary Kennedy on Measles Outbreak, Loss of Public Trust
Position: Senator Blunt Rochester opposes Secretary Kennedy's handling of the measles outbreak and his public health policies, arguing they have eroded public trust in the health system and contributed to the loss of the U.S. measles-free status.
“You’ve talked a lot about trust. The people don’t trust you.”
Click here to watch Senator Blunt Rochester’s Remarks
Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, today blasted Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. over the administration’s handling of the ongoing Measles outbreak. Senator Blunt Rochester pressed Kennedy on how his dangerous policies are not only harming children but eroding confidence in the American health system.
Senator Blunt Rochester’s full remarks and exchange with Secretary Kennedy Jr. can be found here. A key excerpt is below:
Senator Blunt Rochester: “The United States first became measles-free over 25 years ago, a quarter of a century ago. We have maintained that status in every year since, until you became secretary, a simple yes or no. Does the President know there is a historic measles surge occurring nationwide?”
Secretary Kennedy: “I’m sure he does.”
Senator Blunt Rochester: “As head of our nation's head health agency, have you advised the president to sound the alarm and encourage Americans to obtain the measles vaccine?
Secretary Kennedy: “That’s my job and we do it.”
Senator Blunt Rochester: “The Pan American Health Organization was scheduled to review our measles-free status on April 13, did your department request to delay this independent international review of our measles elimination status to November after the election?”
Senator Blunt Rochester: “So, you did not request it? You had no knowledge of the request? You had no communication with the White House? Thank you. It's awfully convenient that we're postponing it until after November, when people won't have the opportunity to know our measles status. I would just say this: There has been a lot in terms of polling on trust. You've talked a lot about trust. The people don't trust you. And I would ask, what is different from all these other years? You are. If the American people don't trust you, which most of the polls show. I don't know why the President should trust you, either. I yield back.”
WATCH: Senator Blunt Rochester on CNN: “This administration has a pattern of stripping independence”
Position: Senator Blunt Rochester opposes the nomination of Kevin Warsh as Federal Reserve Chair, citing concerns about his independence from presidential influence and lack of transparency regarding his financial assets and recusal plans.
Click here to watch the Senator’s interview
U.S. Senator Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.) today joined CNN News Central to discuss the nomination hearing for Trump’s Federal Reserve Chair nominee Kevin Warsh. Senator Blunt Rochester reaffirmed her commitment to not supporting Trump’s nominees while voicing her concern about Mr. Warsh’s transparency and his vow to remain independent from Trump.
Below are excerpts of the interview.
On Confirming Warsh as Federal Reserve Chair
“I have been very clear that I have not supported Trump's nominees, and he did not give me any reason to go against my precedent. The issue of independence was front and center because this president has already, for the first time in I think 112 years, Justice Kavanaugh said, wanted to fire a sitting member of the Federal Reserve Board. Not just Chairman Powell but also Governor Lisa Cook. And so, one was the issue of independence. Will Warsh be independent? And second was transparency. He's got about $100 million of assets that he says he will, you know, recuse himself… But Senator Warren and others asked, well, what? Where's the transparency? What is that? So, it was incomplete paperwork, at the same time, also concerns about his independence. “
On Warsh’s Commitment to Independence from Trump
“Mr. Warsh actually said presidents in the past have had opinions, but presidents in the past have not threatened to fire members of the board… Mr. Warsh in a statement, he talks about regime change. [I asked] what does that mean? Are they going to get rid of people so that they can replace them with Trump loyalists? We've seen this across the board [with] ACIP, the vaccination board that we will be questioning Secretary Kennedy about later. This is a pattern that this administration has stripped independence. …Ultimately, you know, it is for his political gain and not for the American people. And so, my focus also was to make sure that for Mr. Warsh, his whole goal was not about just Wall Street, but to make sure that Main Street was taken care of as well.
Articles from a curated list of national outlets that mention Lisa Blunt Rochester.
No recent news mentions yet.
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.MACHINISTS NON PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUE OF THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS & AEROSPACE5 contributions$25,000
2.UA UNION PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS VOTE! PAC (UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA)Labor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for United Association plumbers and pipefitters — backs prevailing-wage protections, federal infrastructure funding, project labor agreements, and apprenticeship programs.AI$15,000
3.NATIONAL REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$15,000
4.AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTON COMMITTEE3 contributions$15,000
5.BLACKROCK FUNDS SERVICES GROUP LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$15,000
6.THE HOME DEPOT INC. PACBusiness3 contributionsRetail corporation PAC — supports candidates aligned with business-friendly policies on labor, tax, and regulatory matters.AI$15,000
7.UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. PAC (UPSPAC)3 contributions$15,000
8.UBS AMERICAS INC. PACFinance2 contributionsPAC of UBS Americas, the U.S. subsidiary of Swiss banking and financial-services firm UBS. Backs candidates and policies supporting capital markets, banking regulation, and financial-sector interests.AI$10,000
9.LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PACLabor2 contributionsTrade-union PAC for construction laborers — backs prevailing-wage standards, infrastructure investment, apprenticeship programs, and project labor agreements.AI$10,000
10.UAW V CAP (UAW VOLUNTARY COMMUNITY ACTION PROGRAM)2 contributions$10,000
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.APOLLO GLOBAL MANGEMENT$7,000
2.APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT INC$6,000
3.GENNX 360$5,250
4.AURORA PICTURES$5,000
5.ROCKET COMPANIES LLC$5,000
6.MOONLIGHT PROPERTIES$5,000
7.OCEAN ATLANTIC COMPANIES$5,000
8.THE PARTNERSHIP INC.$3,500
9.DEVOTED HEALTH INC.$3,500
10.MATTHEWS HOLDINGS SW$3,500
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.
