See how Christopher A. Coons actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Christopher A. Coons'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 Christopher A. Coons's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Christopher A. Coons's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
0%
Accuracy
0
Correct
1
Incorrect
38
Pending
Wrong119-sjres-184
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Based on 1 data point across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-sjres-38·Consistent
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to "Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers".
75/100
What they said
Jun 17, 2026
The senators advocate for federal investment in domestic manufacturing capacity and reduced dependence on foreign supply chains, particularly from China, to strengthen economic security, create jobs, and lower consumer costs.
Voted Nay on A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Federal Highway Administration relating to "Waiver of Buy America Requirements for Electric Vehicle Chargers".
The statement advocates for strengthening domestic manufacturing and reducing dependence on foreign supply chains, particularly from China. The bill nullifies a waiver that temporarily exempted EV chargers from Buy America requirements, effectively reinforcing domestic content standards. The senator's NO vote on this amendment aligns with the stated position favoring domestic manufacturing — voting against the waiver removal preserves the temporary exemption, which could be seen as protecting foreign suppliers. However, the amendment's specific mechanics and the senator's substantive intent are not entirely clear from the vote record alone, and the statement does not explicitly address EV chargers or this particular rule.
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 Christopher A. Coons'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 Christopher A. Coons 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 Christopher A. Coons. 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.
Senator Coons statement on President Trump’s Oval Office address
Position: Senator Coons opposes President Trump's claims about foreign election interference and criticizes the administration's actions regarding election administration, including National Guard deployment in cities and potential ICE presence at polling locations.
WILMINGTON, Del. – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) put out the following statement in response to President Trump’s prime time speech:
“Tonight’s address from President Trump was a tantrum of sinister innuendo, conspiracy theories, and misdirection. Americans who tuned in tonight heard no new concrete or proven claims about foreign interference in our elections. There is unanimous agreement within the intelligence community that foreign adversaries did not succeed in interfering with the vote in the 2020 election. President Trump and his allies have filed dozens of lawsuits, launched countless investigations, and even sparked an insurrection to try to find voter fraud in the 2020 election. They have failed to do so every single time because none exists.
“Unfortunately, these lies are no longer about one election President Trump lost six years ago. Since retaking the White House, President Trump has moved National Guard troops into our cities, repeatedly floated the possibility of deploying ICE agents at polling locations, and said the Postal Service won’t deliver mail-in ballots in states that don’t turn over sensitive information to his administration. Tonight’s speech is his latest effort to exert partisan control over the 2026 elections because he knows Republicans can’t win on their own record.
“Should President Trump try to interfere in November’s election through illegal, un-American means, I believe he will fail. I will support every effort to defend our democracy, and I will not stop working to ensure every eligible vote will be counted.”
Senators Coons, Lankford introduce bill to help unemployed workers start small businesses
Position: The senators support modernizing the Self-Employment Assistance program to allow unemployed workers to receive unemployment insurance benefits while working full-time to start a small business, removing outdated federal restrictions that currently limit program participation.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), James Lankford (R-Okla.), and Jon Husted (R-Ohio) introduced the New Opportunities for Business Ownership and Self-Sufficiency (NO BOSS) Act today, legislation that would modernize the Self-Employment Assistance (SEA) program so that laid off workers can more easily receive their normal unemployment insurance even while working full-time to start a new business.
Artificial intelligence will likely reshape America’s economy and disrupt or displace jobs across many sectors. However, even as AI is expected to contribute to job losses, it will also lower barriers to entrepreneurship, making it easier than ever for workers to start a small business. The NO BOSS Act would ensure that workers experiencing a job transition don’t have to sacrifice their unemployment insurance payments to pursue their entrepreneurial dreams.
Current law allows states to operate SEA programs, which allow eligible unemployment insurance beneficiaries to continue receiving benefits while working full-time to launch a business rather than searching for traditional employment. However, outdated federal rules unnecessarily limit who can participate, leaving fewer workers with a meaningful opportunity to choose business ownership over traditional employment.
“Every small business began with someone taking a chance on a new idea, and new AI tools will make it easier than ever to turn those ideas into business plans, sales, and storefronts,”said Senator Coons. “Americans shouldn’t have to choose between the safety net of unemployment benefits that they’ve paid into and the all-American opportunity to chase their entrepreneurial dream. As artificial intelligence reshapes the nature of work, this bill will help support American entrepreneurs, keep food on families’ tables, lift up small businesses, and keep our economy strong.”
“If you lose your job, the government shouldn't tell you the only way forward is to go work for somebody else. Some folks have a business idea they've been dreaming about for years, and losing a job might be the push to finally chase it. Right now, an outdated federal rule forces people on unemployment to spend their time applying for jobs they don't want instead of building the business they do want. Our bill fixes that. If you're willing to put in the work to start a business, hire your neighbors, and build something in your community, we should cheer you on, not stand in your way,” said Senator Lankford.
The NO BOSS Act would update the SEA program by:
The bill is endorsed by the Center for American Entrepreneurship, the Foundation for American Innovation, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council, the R Street Institute, Shopify, Block, the Bipartisan Policy Center Action, and the Coalition to Protect America’s Small Sellers.
“More Americans want to build something of their own than ever before, but too many can't get past the cost and red tape of just starting. That's the real shame, because 90% of entrepreneurs say they'd do it again if given the choice. The NO BOSS Act would tear down the hurdles standing between people and their ideas, making entrepreneurship a real choice for anyone, not just the ones who already have a safety net,” said Alexandra Clark, Shopify vice president of public affairs.
“The American economy continues to evolve rapidly. According to our research on the Rise of the Modern Earner Economy, approximately a third of Americans – 117 million people – are now earning income from multiple sources, and a growing number of adults, especially younger, Gen Z workers, are seeking out opportunities to become independent entrepreneurs. At Block, we’re committed to understanding the needs of modern earners and creating tools to help underserved populations achieve success in today’s vibrant economy. We’re proud to support the bipartisan NO BOSS Act, as it’s a desperately needed step to help ensure federal policy keeps pace with changing realities for the American worker,” said Melissa Netram, US public policy and government affairs, Block.
“New business filings and interest remain healthy, but Congress can help turn more of these entrepreneurial intentions into business launches by advancing practical reforms and measures that provide support to individuals through the transition period and time it takes to get a business off the ground. The NO BOSS Act provides such support,” said Karen Kerrigan, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council president & CEO.
“Entrepreneurs and the new businesses they launch are disproportionately responsible for the innovations that drive economic growth and account for virtually all net new job creation,” said John Dearie, president of the Center for American Entrepreneurship. “The NO BOSS Act will improve and modernize UI by leveraging the power of entrepreneurship. The bill is a powerfully pro-innovation and pro-entrepreneurship reform to an important aspect of America’s employment policy apparatus. CAE thanks Senators Chris Coons (D-DE) and James Lankford (R-OK) for their leadership and looks forward to working with them to ensure swift passage of the legislation.”
“The NO BOSS Act is a commonsense proposal that empowers workers, improves our social safety net, and creates new opportunities. While self-employment rates and business start up rates remain lower than they were 30 years ago, the post-pandemic period has seen a movement towards more people pursuing their dreams and starting new businesses. This proposal can help the nation continue this positive momentum. The R Street Institute is pleased to support it,” said Eli Lehrer, R Street Institute president.
“It has never been easier for one person with a good idea to start a business – but outdated restrictions still stand in the way. The NO BOSS Act removes these obstacles so more Americans can work for themselves,” said Luke Hogg, Foundation for American Innovation senior fellow.
The text of the bill is available here.
Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, colleagues send letter to Trump administration calling for answers on green card application changes
Position: The lawmakers oppose a Trump administration policy memorandum that restricts green card adjustment of status applications to those applying abroad and requiring applicants to demonstrate their presence is in the 'national interest.' They argue the policy lacks statutory basis and contradicts decades of precedent and congressional intent favoring domestic adjustment of status.
In a letter to USCIS, senators and representatives question the new requirements for green card applicants to apply abroad and demonstrate their presence is in the ill-defined “national interest”
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), U.S. Representatives Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), and dozens of their colleagues demanded an explanation from the Trump administration on the recent changes to the green card application process.
In a letter to United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow, the lawmakers cited a recent USCIS memorandum that requires noncitizens seeking a green card to apply abroad, as well as – for the first time – establish their presence in the United States as “in the national interest.”
The lawmakers wrote: “We write to object to your new policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. Adjustment of status is the statutory process by which immigrants may apply for lawful permanent residence, often called a ‘green card,’ from within the United States. On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum (PM-602-0199) with guidance claiming that adjustment of status is an ‘extraordinary form of relief.’ Without any basis in the law and in a departure from decades of precedent, this guidance creates a policy preference for consular processing abroad over adjustment of status in the United States, requiring applicants to meet new, undefined discretionary criteria to be processed domestically. We urge you to reverse this new policy and restore adjudications of adjustment of status applications in a manner consistent with the law, longstanding practice, and congressional intent.”
The lawmakers continued: “PM-602-0199 states that adjustment of status ‘is a matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.’ This is simply incorrect. There is no statutory preference for consular processing, and legislative history shows that Congress has long maintained a strong preference in favor of allowing eligible noncitizens to adjust status in the United States. Adjustment of status was first introduced into law over 70 years ago, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952. The practice was introduced and later expanded in recognition of the significant number of eligible individuals seeking green cards who resided in the United States. In the limited circumstances in which Congress intended to restrict adjustment of status, statutory text has been amended to prevent certain classes of noncitizens from using the process. When individuals are in the United States and eligible for adjustment of status, legislative history shows that Congress has a strong preference that such individuals have an opportunity to adjust their status while remaining in the U.S.”
The lawmakers concluded, before making a series of requests for information: “By directing adjudicators to treat adjustment of status as an ‘extraordinary form of relief’ and by creating a policy preference for consular processing, the memorandum undermines the very purposes Congress sought to advance when enacting and amending section 245 of the INA. Congress established adjustment of status as a cornerstone of the modern immigration system to promote family unity, administrative efficiency, and economic stability. Any effort to dismantle that statutory framework through internal agency policy is unacceptable.”
In addition to Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, Durbin, and Padilla, the letter is signed by U.S. Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Angus King (I-Maine), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)
In addition to Raskin and Jayapal, the letter is also signed by U.S. Representatives Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Nanette Barragán (D-Calif.), Joyce Beatty (D-Ohio), Donald Beyer (D-Va.), Nikki Budzinski (D-Ill.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), André Carson (D-Ind.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Gilbert Ray Cisneros Jr. (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), J. Luis Correa (D-Calif.), Joe Courtney (D-Conn.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), April McClain Delaney (D-Md.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Veronica Escobar (D-Texas), Lizzie Fletcher (D-Texas), Maxwell Frost (D-Fla.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" Garcia (D-Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Julie Johnson (D-Texas), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (D-Calif.), Timothy Kennedy (D-N.Y.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-Ill.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), Christian Menefee (D-Texas), Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Analilia Mejia (D-N.J.), Dave Min (D-Calif.), Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.), Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Hillary Scholten (D-Mich.), Mary Gay Scanlon (D-Pa.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Lateefah Simon (D-Calif.), Adam Smith (D-Wash.), Suhas Subramanyam (D-Va.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Mark Takano (D-Calif.), Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Derek Tran (D-Calif.), Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), Marc Veasey (D-Texas), Nydia Velázquez (D-N.Y.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.).
We write to object to your new policy memorandum regarding adjustment of status. Adjustment of status is the statutory process by which immigrants may apply for lawful permanent residence, often called a “green card,” from within the United States. On May 21, 2026, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) issued a policy memorandum (PM-602-0199) with guidance claiming that adjustment of status is an “extraordinary form of relief.”1 Without any basis in the law and in a departure from decades of precedent, this guidance creates a policy preference for consular processing abroad over adjustment of status in the United States, requiring applicants to meet new, undefined discretionary criteria to be processed domestically. We urge you to reverse this new policy and restore adjudications of adjustment of status applications in a manner consistent with the law, longstanding practice, and congressional intent.
PM-602-0199 states that adjustment of status “is a matter of discretion and administrative grace not designed to supersede the regular consular processing of immigrant visas.” This is simply incorrect. There is no statutory preference for consular processing, and legislative history shows that Congress has long maintained a strong preference in favor of allowing eligible noncitizens to adjust status in the United States. Adjustment of status was first introduced into law over 70 years ago, in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952.2 The practice was introduced and later expanded in recognition of the significant number of eligible individuals seeking green cards who resided in the United States.3 In the limited circumstances in which Congress intended to restrict adjustment of status, statutory text has been amended to prevent certain classes of noncitizens from using the process.
When individuals are in the United States and eligible for adjustment of status, legislative history shows that Congress has a strong preference that such individuals have an opportunity to adjust their status while remaining in the U.S. When expanding adjustment of status, Congress has often raised concerns with forcing noncitizens in the United States to use consular processing.5 A 1960 House Report accompanying legislation expanding adjustment of status expressed congressional dissatisfaction with “the fallacious procedure known as ‘preexamination’ . . . consisting of round trips to Canada for the sole purpose of obtaining an immigrant visa.”6 In the American Competitiveness in the Twenty-First Century Act of 2000, Congress enacted into law transitional protection for individuals stuck in the employment-based green card backlog.7 The accompanying Senate report noted that the provision “enables these individuals to remain in H-1B status until they are able to receive an immigrant visa and adjust their status within the United States, thus limiting the disruption to American businesses.”
PM-602-0199 would also create new criteria that do not exist in law—and are not supported by the law—for individuals to be processed for a green card from within the United States. A spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently noted: “This policy will have no noticeable impact on highly qualified applicants and skilled professionals who have followed the law. These aliens benefit the national interest and provide economic benefits to the United States and will continue to merit the favorable exercise of discretion.”9 However, for decades, adjustment of status has ordinarily been granted to eligible individuals unless there are adverse factors weighing against a favorable exercise of discretion.10 This is consistent with the law—if noncitizens are otherwise eligible for a favorable exercise of discretion that would result in a grant of adjustment of status, there is no legal or statutory basis to make an additional discretionary determination of “national interest” to allow them to be processed within the United States. Thus, the policy memorandum imposes what amounts to a new substantive standard—requiring applicants to affirmatively demonstrate that their adjustment serves the national interest or provides economic benefit—without any congressional authorization for such a test. Worse still, it does so without any effective date, explanation of how pending applications will be adjudicated, transition period, or clear guidance as to which categories of applicants would be affected.
This is a major policy shift. USCIS has long recognized Congress’s preference for allowing eligible noncitizens to obtain lawful permanent residence through adjustment of status in the United States.11 For decades, USCIS and its predecessor agencies have adjudicated millions of adjustment applications pursuant to section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA). Since 1980, more than half of all individuals granted lawful permanent residence have obtained that status through adjustment of status in the U.S. rather than consular processing abroad.12 If individuals are forced to pursue immigrant visas through consular processing abroad, many will face months or years of separation from spouses, children, parents, and other family members due to extensive visa appointment backlogs at U.S. consulates worldwide.13 And as discussed above, Congress has expressly weighed in against processes that would push individuals from within the United States to consular processing abroad.
For individuals who have built lives in the United States—including those who have children who are U.S. citizens, have stable employment, pay taxes, and participate in their communities—this forced separation will impose significant hardships on their U.S.-citizen family members and communities.15 The policy also threatens substantial economic disruption. Skilled workers, entrepreneurs, medical professionals, researchers, students transitioning to permanent residence, and employees sponsored by U.S. businesses may be forced to depart the country for extended periods while awaiting immigrant visa processing abroad.16 Such disruptions would impose significant costs not only on affected individuals and families, but also on American employers and the broader U.S. economy.
By directing adjudicators to treat adjustment of status as an “extraordinary form of relief” and by creating a policy preference for consular processing, the memorandum undermines the very purposes Congress sought to advance when enacting and amending section 245 of the INA. Congress established adjustment of status as a cornerstone of the modern immigration system to promote family unity, administrative efficiency, and economic stability. Any effort to dismantle that statutory framework through internal agency policy is unacceptable. As such, please provide responses to the following questions:
We look forward to your prompt response to our inquiries.
Senator Coons presses Attorney General nominee Todd Blanche on independence from Trump during confirmation hearing
Position: Senator Coons expresses concern that the nominee lacks independence from the president and questions whether he would use the Department of Justice to prosecute political opponents rather than serve the American people impartially.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) questioned Todd Blanche, President Trump’s nominee for Attorney General of the United States, at his Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing today, where he pressed Blanche on whether he would stand up to the president and highlighted Blanche’s past support for President Trump’s mass pardons for January 6 rioters who attacked Capitol Police officers.
President Trump fired former Attorney General Pam Bondi in April, barely a year after taking office, amid reports that he had grown frustrated that the DOJ was not doing enough to prosecute his political opponents. Blanche, President Trump’s former personal attorney and Bondi’s deputy, took over as acting attorney general and is now seeking Senate confirmation to lead the department permanently.
“You're in charge of a Department of Justice I don't recognize: prosecuting the president's political enemies, firing rank-and-file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to, slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety,” said Senator Coons.
Senator Coons also pushed Blanche on the proposed $1.8 billion “weaponization fund” he has tried to create for President Trump to reward political allies and President Trump’s blanket pardons of individuals charged in connection with the January 6 attack, including rioters who were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers. Blanche struggled to answer questions about the pardons after Senator Coons confronted him with his own remarks at the Conservative Political Action Conference where Blanche “trumpeted [the pardons] as an achievement.”
A video and full transcript of Senator Coons’ comments are available below.
Senator Coons: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member. Acting Attorney General Blanche, thank you for your service and for appearing here. And thank you to your family and to the men and women of the Department of Justice who work tirelessly to fight crime and to make our nation secure, I'm grateful for their service.
I'm sorry that your schedule apparently didn't permit us to meet before this confirmation hearing, but I hope and expect we'll find time to meet soon after today.
Senator Coons: Thank you. As I consider your nomination, like all other nominations to similar cabinet positions, I need to know you're qualified to serve. You demonstrably are. That you have the policy views to serve well. We will discuss that today. And, most importantly in this role, that you have the independence to serve as the attorney general for the American people.
And that last question has troubled me the most. You're in charge of a Department of Justice I don't recognize: prosecuting the president's political enemies, firing rank-and-file prosecutors and FBI agents because of the cases they were assigned to, slashing grants for law enforcement and public safety.
These are some actions that, in your previous confirmation hearing before us, you said you would not take. Now, I appreciate your statement walking back the $1.8 billion “weaponization fund” that you created, but I question how it got that far, and we'll get into that.
You sat in an appropriations hearing earlier this year before me and defended it at that time. In fact, if I remember correctly, you told me I was wrong for criticizing it. But following questions by Senators Durbin and Cornyn, I'm concerned it's not dead yet, and I think we should talk that through.
Overall, this is not what I believe the American people expect or deserve from the Department of Justice.
Having spent critical parts of January 6 in this room taking shelter from the mob, I just wanted to open with some questions. How many people were convicted of assaulting law enforcement officers on January 6?
Blanche: I believe around 120, approximately, but I could be off a few more.
Senator Coons: You are. The answer is more than 200. And how many of those individuals had their sentences commuted or were pardoned by President Trump?
Blanche: President Trump either commuted or pardoned every defendant from the January 6 events.
Senator Coons: That's correct. And in this room right now, and outside this room, are Capitol Police officers protecting us in this hearing room. How many of them do you think might have friends or colleagues who were attacked by supporters of the president on January 6?
Blanche: I don't know the numbers, but I'm sure many of the Capitol Police officers who are here today worked, either were working on January 6th, or knew people who were.
Senator Coons: I'll just say that I consider a shameful slap in the face of the men and women of law enforcement for those convicted of assaulting police officers to have been pardoned.
I know you were not serving as deputy attorney general when President Trump pardoned those folks, but you said just a few moments ago that you were not celebrating this decision by the president. He was exercising his constitutional power.
But earlier this year, in front of CPAC, a conservative event, I would say, from the transcript, you actually trumpeted it as an achievement. And I quote, saying, “If you look at what happened to the men and women convicted because of January 6, by 5 p.m. on January 20, every one of them was either pardoned or had their sentence commuted by President Trump. So, when folks say you've done nothing, I say you have a very short memory.”
Would you say that you're proud of President Trump's decision to pardon individuals who assaulted law enforcement?
Blanche: No, that's not what I was saying there at all, Senator. So, I was responding to inquiries around why more hadn't been done by the Department of Justice with respect to January 6 defendants. And so, my answer was that the January 6 defendants and some of their lawyers had a short memory because a lot had already been done. Indeed, by the end of the day on January 20, they had all been pardoned or commuted. So, I wasn't celebrating it. I was merely stating a fact, which is that the January 6 defendants did receive a very generous pardon or commutation from President Trump. Every one of them on January 6.
Senator Coons: A generous – and in my view, for those who had assaulted police officers – unwarranted, unjustified, ahistorical, and a terrible precedent.
Let me move on to questions I've asked in previous hearings. Is President Trump, just as a simple matter of constitutional law, eligible to run for another term as president in 2028?
Blanche: I don't believe he is. No.
Senator Coons: That is correct, in my view, reading of the plain language of the 22nd Amendment. Why do you think several of the judicial nominees of this administration have refused repeatedly to answer that question simply and clearly, as you just did, when I put it to them?
Blanche: I have no idea why they answer questions.
Senator Coons: Me neither. It was confounding.
Blanche: You are asking me to speculate about something I don't know.
Senator Coons: Is the Department of Justice that you are running independent from the White House?
Blanche: The Department of Justice, like every single department in the executive, is part of the executive. I mean, Article II of the Constitution gives the power of the executive to President Trump.
So, we certainly operate with integrity. We certainly operate in the single mindset to serve the American people and do the right thing.
But I am a member, if confirmed, I will be a member of the cabinet. I'm serving in the acting capacity that way now, just like the other cabinet members. And President Trump can fire me whenever he wants, so…
Senator Coons: Do you have a sense why he fired your predecessor?
Blanche: I have no idea. President Trump, we all serve with the pleasure of President Trump in this administration.
Senator Coons: Did President Trump ever post on Truth Social directing your predecessor to get at it, to prosecute his perceived political enemies?
Blanche: I don't think those were his exact words, but no.
Senator Coons: Those were not his exact words, but I thought it was the intention.
It is my impression, sir, that you are here rather than your predecessor because the president was unhappy with her failures to actually secure convictions of folks like Attorney General Tish James or former FBI Director Jim Comey.
If you're confirmed and you're asked to take an action you believe to be illegal or unethical, would you resign?
Blanche: That will never happen. But yes, if it were to happen, I'm not going to violate my oath to the Constitution.
Senator Coons: I appreciate that answer.
You did answer a question by a colleague about input that you gave to the president. Did you ever say no to the president on the slush fund, the anti-weaponization fund? Did you advise him against this?
Blanche: I am not, will not, talk about communications I have with the president. I served as his lawyer for a couple years before he was elected. I'm the deputy attorney general and the acting attorney general, so I'm not going to talk about communications that I have with him.
But, Senator, I will say that President Trump trusts me to give him counsel. Counsel does not mean a recognized man, and so that's, and that's true in my case, like it should be in any attorney general's case.
Senator Coons: Let me just, for a minute, bear down on the anti-weaponization fund.
You've testified to the House: “We are not moving forward with that fund, period.” But you've repeatedly refused to put that commitment in writing or to submit a declaration to the court.
You're an officer of the court, a member of the bar. You should be able to make that assertion in a court filing or even in a letter submitted to this body.
On May 19, you testified before the Justice Appropriations Subcommittee, “Since the case had been dismissed, there was no judge and no mechanism for judicial review.”
But in an opinion this week, a federal judge wrote, and I'm quoting, that your testimony was “at best misleading and at worst disingenuous,” explaining the court remained available to review this agreement had you sought relief.
Why not seek review of the settlement agreement or submit some record, some writing, given that the president continues to publicly champion this weaponization fund, and given your previous answer to me in another hearing that you wouldn't say whether or not those who assaulted cops on January 6 would be eligible for multimillion-dollar payouts?
Blanche: So, there's a lot of questions there.
First of all, we have put it in writing. It's in repeated court filings in EDVA and D.C. So, this narrative that you won't put it in writing happens not to be true.
The reason why neither myself nor Secretary Bessent agreed to put a declaration in is because there's long-standing precedent that judges cannot ask cabinet secretaries or people like me to put in declarations. It has nothing to do with whether the fund is alive. I'm under oath today, and I've said it's dead repeatedly. I said it to the House Oversight Committee, and I am happy to say as many times as necessary.
As far as what the judge said in Florida, just the last question you asked about Florida, that judge disagreed with what I said. I still believe that 11th Circuit precedent, which I've studied, I am right. So, we'll see.
Senator Coons: You did say earlier, “This is the most transparent Department of Justice in American history. We have nothing to hide.” And you started by saying, “We're here to rebuild trust.”
Two decisions, or two OLC opinions, I'm very interested in. I'm the senior Democrat on defense and intelligence appropes. I'm the most senior member of the Foreign Relations Committee on my side who's currently serving on this committee.
I'm curious as to why the most transparent department has refused to release the OLC opinion that justifies the 66 strikes the military has conducted on boats in the Caribbean, which have killed more than 220 people, either a redacted version or in a classified setting to me and others who are in relevant decision-making positions.
Blanche: Well, Senator, we made the head of OLC available on multiple occasions to explain that to you and other members of the committee, and that is extraordinarily transparent and unprecedented that we've done that. Whether an OLC opinion is released, there's a lot of process that goes into that. But the idea that we were not transparent about our legal basis there is absolutely not true.
Senator Coons: Okay, another chance to be transparent: The FISA court in March certified your Section 702 proceedings but found compliance deficiencies. This is an important power of the federal government that will soon be up again for vote, and you have not declassified that opinion.
Senators Cotton and Warner, Republican and Democratic leads on Intelligence, in April wrote the administration saying that they expected declassification of this March opinion within two weeks. Yet it remains classified. You have a bipartisan request from the leadership of Intel. Will you declassify it or make it available to us?
Blanche: We'll continue to look at that. I agree with you that that's a very important issue, and we need 702 reauthorized.
Senator Coons: Thank you. Last question, if I could.
The Safer Supervision Act is co-sponsored by Senators Lee, Cornyn, Tillis, and Lankford, and it gives a path forward to making sure that federal probation and parole is more effective. We've discussed it before. Will you meet with me to talk about ways that this important criminal justice reform, supported by federal law enforcement, could move forward?
Blanche: I think it's, yes, absolutely. I very much agree with what you're trying to do there, Senator.
Senator Coons, Hickenlooper, colleagues pressure White House to reverse proposed political rule change harming American science, research, and innovation
Position: The senators oppose a proposed OMB rule that would grant the White House political control over federal grant administration, arguing it undermines scientific competitiveness, enables corruption, and harms American innovation and jobs.
“We cannot afford to export American innovation and American jobs because of partisan games.”
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), and 9 of their colleagues called on White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought in a new letter to reverse a proposed rule, broadly titled “Regulation for Federal Financial Assistance,” that negatively affects how nearly all federal agencies administer grants and financial agreements. The OMB’s rule change grants the White House political control over how awards are administered, further enabling corruption, undermining U.S. scientific investments and competitiveness, and blocking funding for critical life-saving research and collaboration.
“The proposed changes solidify federal grant-making as an unprecedented partisan power-grab that eliminates transparency of how taxpayer dollars are spent. This rule would derail American innovation and competitiveness at the local and national levels, kill good-paying American jobs, drive up costs for families, and halt essential projects in local communities,” wrote the senators. “Instead of supporting data-driven investments that pay dividends for the American people, this guidance facilitates partisan ideals and cronyism, leaving Americans in the dark.”
The senators continued, “We share the goals of improved transparency, accountability, and oversight; clarification of regulatory structure; and reducing recipient burden–all in pursuit of continuing America’s global leadership in science and innovation. However, these regulations would act in opposition to these goals. They would undermine our country’s competitiveness, erode our scientific ecosystem, increase unwanted bureaucracy, enable corruption, and perpetuate uncertainty across our local communities. We strongly urge you to withdraw this proposed rule.”
The OMB’s proposed rule change would rework how federal agencies award and administer grants and cooperative agreements. Changing how funding is administered affects the primary mechanisms through which the country funds basic research, applied science, and scientific workforce development. These agencies also fund local projects including but not limited to infrastructure, public health, resource conservation, and rural development, which have been consistent targets of the Trump Administration. The proposed rules formalize an August 7, 2025, Executive Order that directed OMB to expand political oversight over all federal awards.
In addition to Senators Coons and Hickenlooper, the letter is also signed by U.S. Senators Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Angus King (D-Maine), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.).
The full letter is available here.
Senator Coons, colleagues introduce bipartisan legislation to streamline distribution of cost-saving energy initiative funding
Position: The senators support legislation to expedite federal distribution of grant funding from the Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program to help states and households reduce energy costs through efficiency upgrades.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Susan Collins (R-Maine), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), and Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) introduced the Investing in State Energy Act, which will ensure grant funding from the Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and State Energy Program (SEP) are distributed without delay to state agencies and local partners that implement these cost-saving energy initiates from both programs.
This bipartisan bill comes as the U.S. Department of Energy continuing to delay the distribution of more than $400 million in grant funding from both WAP and SEP even as energy costs rise.
“Delawareans are struggling under the weight of rising energy bills,” said Senator Coons. “President Trump’s war in Iran has only made energy more expensive. This bipartisan legislation will give Delawareans – and Americans across the country – relief from spiraling costs.”
“Right now, the cost of everything is up, and energy prices are no exception. It’s critical that federal funding from these two programs be distributed quickly so that families can make energy efficiency upgrades to lower their utility bills and states can invest in efforts that make energy more reliable and affordable,” said Senator Shaheen. “Our bipartisan legislation would ensure that the Department of Energy is making this funding available in a timely manner, delivering much-needed certainty to states and localities and financial relief to American households.”
“The Weatherization Assistance Program and the State Energy Program are proven, cost-effective ways to permanently reduce energy usage and lower home energy bills for low-income Mainers,” said Senator Collins. “By preventing unnecessary delays in the distribution of these funds, this bipartisan bill would give states the certainty they need to plan effectively and help more families affordably weatherize and heat their homes.”
"The Trump Administration is driving up energy prices and throttling back federal aid. These bipartisan programs provide real relief and have a proven track record of success. The Investing in State Energy Act would put a stop to needless delay and get this critical funding out the door to help all fifty states lower energy costs," said Senator Reed.
“Donald Trump has made the cost of energy skyrocket and American families and businesses are paying the price,” said Senator Padilla. “These two programs are essential, cost-effective ways to conserve energy and advance clean energy practices. Our bill would ensure the Department of Energy is making funding available to lower utility bills, conserve energy, and provide much needed financial relief to Americans across the nation.”
The Investing in State Energy Act would:
For more than 40 years, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)’s Weatherization Assistance Program (WAP) and State Energy Program (SEP) have provided technical and financial assistance to states, tribal governments, and U.S. territories to encourage the adoption of clean energy and energy efficiency practices and technologies. WAP enables income-eligible families, older adults, veterans, and individuals with disabilities to improve the energy efficiency of their homes, freeing up limited resources for other essentials like food and medicine. SEP provides cost-shared resources directly to the states for allocations by the governor-designated State Energy Office to support energy projects, such as energy emergency planning and response, private sector innovation in clean energy and state-driven energy infrastructure modernization. Encouraging local high-impact projects through the Investing in State Energy Act will serve families in need and continue to push greater efficiency in energy use to meet state goals.
Senator Coons has long been an advocate for lowering energy costs through the Weatherization Assistance Program. Last August, he introduced bipartisan, bicameral legislation to reauthorize WAP through 2030 and increase funding limits to help more families upgrade their homes, and led the last successful reauthorization effort in 2020. He also introduced the Weatherization Assistance Program Improvements Act, which would increase funding for the program and also create a Weatherization Readiness Fund to repair structural issues and prepare homes for weatherization assistance. He has also secured increased funding for WAP through the appropriations process and as part of the 2021 bipartisan infrastructure bill.
The Investing in State Energy Act is endorsed by the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO), the Building Performance Association (BPA) and the National Association for State Community Services Programs (NASCSP).
“They continue to show leadership on energy policy. The 56 State and Territory Energy Offices utilize U.S. State Energy Program (SEP) funds provided by Congress to help accelerate their governors’ policy actions aimed at addressing rising electricity costs and bringing more power on the grid. The Investing in State Energy Act would direct the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) to move far more rapidly delivering SEP and WAP formula funds to states. Over the past several years, the delays in DOE moving bipartisan appropriated SEP and WAP funds to the states have more than doubled – forestalling energy cost savings and economic benefits to consumers and businesses in every state. We fully support the bipartisan Investing in State Energy Act and efforts to bring a greater sense of urgency on this important issue,” said David Terry, President of the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO).
“The Weatherization Assistance Program and State Energy Program are critical to energy affordability, reliability and security,” said Steve Skodak, CEO of the Building Performance Association (BPA). “BPA member contractors perform home upgrades for WAP projects across the country, lowering energy bills and improving home health, safety, and comfort. Ensuring the prompt delivery of these funds through the Investing in State Energy Act will benefit both low-income American households and the home performance contractors who serve them.”
Full text of the bill is available here.
ICYMI: Senator Coons, legal experts warn against Supreme Courtattempts to strip power from Congress in new essay
Position: Senator Coons and co-authors argue that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Roberts is systematically transferring power from Congress to the executive branch and judiciary, weakening the legislative branch's constitutional authority. They advocate for Congress to reassert its role through stronger legislation, including ethics and transparency measures for the Court.
“The framers never intended the legislative branch to bend to the will of the president or the court.”
WASHINGTON – In case you missed it, U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) published a joint op-ed in SCOTUSblog yesterday with Albany Law School Associate Dean Ray Brescia and David Beier, former Chief Domestic Policy Adviser to Vice President Al Gore and former House Judiciary Committee counsel, warning that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts is systematically stripping authority from Congress, weakening the power of the American people’s directly elected representatives to write the laws, allocate funding, and set federal policy.
“Every day, Americans are witnessing the most significant expansion of presidential power in modern times,” the authors wrote. “Just as important, and less obvious, is the other significant shift that is occurring in our system of government: the Roberts Supreme Court is systematically stripping away power from Congress, the directly elected representatives of the people.”
Senator Coons, Beier, and Brescia look back at the court’s decisions from recent years, from attacks on the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder andLouisiana v. Callais, to overturning Chevron deference and giving federal judges greater authority over complex regulatory issues in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, to allowing the president to fire the heads of previously independent agencies like the FTC in last week’s Trump v. Slaughter decision. While these decisions have garnered mass outcry for their conservative lean and their embrace of the “Unitary Executive” theory that has given President Trump vast new powers, less attention has been paid to where this power has been drawn from. As the authors note, many of these new powers that the court has bestowed on itself and the executive branch have been taken away from Congress; in many cases, Congress has held these powers for decades.
“Taken together, these efforts are a transfer of power from the first branch of government to the third within our constitutional system,” they wrote. “While the framers conceived of three, co-equal branches, what the court has done is to declare that all branches are equal, but some branches are more co-equal than others.”
Senator Coons, Beier, and Brescia also point to Congress’ history of responding to Supreme Court decisions that narrowed federal law with new legislation, including the Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978, the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, and the Civil Rights Act of 1991. They argue Congress must reassert its constitutional oversight role by passing stronger legislation such as the Supreme Court Ethics, Recusal, and Transparency Act and use its annual budget authority to give more specific guidance to agencies.
“While the Supreme Court has increasingly centralized power at Congress’ and everyday Americans’ expense, this trajectory is not inevitable,” they concluded. “As our nation marks its 250th anniversary, Congress must find the political will to restore the constitutional balance of power. The framers never intended the legislative branch to bend to the will of the president or the court. By executing rigorous oversight and aggressively asserting its authority over war powers, spending, and civil rights, at a minimum, Congress can – and must – reclaim its rightful constitutional role.”
From SCOTUSblog: The Supreme Court’s quiet coup
Every day, Americans are witnessing the most significant expansion of presidential power in modern times. Just as important, and less obvious, is the other significant shift that is occurring in our system of government: the Roberts Supreme Court is systematically stripping away power from Congress, the directly elected representatives of the people.
This erosion of congressional authority is not happening by accident; it is the direct result of steady, calculated intrusions into Congress’ constitutionally designated role – to write the laws, allocate funding, and set federal policy for the nation.
What the court has accomplished is something subtler and potentially far more permanent than a sudden coup: it has radically narrowed Congress’ ability to shape how laws are interpreted, implemented, and defended after they are enacted.
Senator Coons statement on Supreme Court decisions in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook cases
Position: Senator Coons opposes the Supreme Court's decision in Trump v. Slaughter and Trump v. Cook, arguing that expanded presidential removal power over agency heads threatens regulatory independence and consumer protections. He expresses particular concern about impacts on the FTC, Federal Reserve, and worker and internet safety, while praising the Court's limitation of removal power over the Federal Reserve Board.
WILMINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) released the following statement after the Supreme Court ruled in Trump v. Slaughter, a case regarding President Trump’s attempted removal of Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter, and in Trump v. Cook, a case regarding the president’s attempted firing of Federal Reserve Board Member Lisa Cook:
“The president is not meant to be a dictator or a king, but this Supreme Court continues to give President Trump unchecked power.
“Today’s decision will bring the kind of leadership chaos we’ve seen at the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Justice, and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to agencies that protect workers, keep our economy on track, and regulate our internet and our elections. Now, President Trump can remove the heads of those agencies if they make a decision he dislikes even when it is best for our nation. It could leave Americans who are already struggling with more expensive internet, fewer consumer protections, and more dangerous workplaces.
“While in the context of Slaughter the decision is baffling, I’m glad the court found a way to limit the scope of this opinion when it comes to the Federal Reserve. The independence of the Federal Reserve is part of the foundation of the American economy and a benchmark for the world – and its decision will protect our economy from some of the president’s political meddling. I’ve known Lisa Cook for over three decades. She is a brilliant economist dedicated to making the economy stronger for the American people. When President Trump doesn’t like our economic numbers, his answer is not to accept responsibility, or to enact policies that will make them better – it’s just to fire people. I’m glad to see that strategy has been halted here.”
Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, colleagues demand USPS abandon proposed rule to carry out President Trump’s illegal order restricting vote by mail
Position: Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, and Democratic colleagues oppose President Trump's executive order and USPS proposed rule that would restrict vote-by-mail access by creating a federal absentee voter list and giving USPS authority to refuse ballot delivery to voters not on that list.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Chris Coons and Lisa Blunt Rochester (both D-Del.), as well as Gary Peters (D-Mich.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and the rest of their Democratic colleagues wrote to the United States Postal Service (USPS) demanding it abandon its proposed rule to implement President Trump’s unconstitutional executive order to restrict voting by mail.
The senators sent a previous letter in April that urged the USPS to not carry out President Trump’s executive order, which would force states to submit absentee voters’ information to the postal service for the creation of a federal mail-in voter list. Under this order, USPS could refuse to deliver millions of ballots to voters who are not on that list, giving the agency an unprecedented and illegal role in the administration of American elections. The USPS has not responded to that letter and has affirmed President Trump’s executive order by issuing a proposed rule that allows the postal service to determine whether millions of Americans can receive and cast ballots through the mail.
“We write for a second time regarding the unconstitutional and illegal attempt to transform the United States Postal Service into an election administration agency controlled by the White House and President Trump,” wrote the senators.“In April, 37 senators wrote to you after President Trump issued his Executive Order directing USPS to issue a rule to establish compulsory specifications for election mail and create a master absentee voter list of millions of American voters – with the power to refuse to deliver their ballots.”
The senators continued: “Despite these grave and serious legal deficiencies, on June 2, 2026, USPS published a proposed rule that, if finalized, would establish President Trump’s control over federal elections and allow USPS to adjudicate who can and cannot vote by mail. This proposed rule risks disenfranchising millions of voters. We again insist that you follow the law, refuse to implement President Trump’s Executive Order, and withdraw this presidentially-directed proposed rule.”
The senators warned that the proposed rule would create a federally controlled national list of absentee voters, raising serious concerns about potential misuse and abuse. In court filings, the administration has acknowledged that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is already in discussions with USPS about potentially comparing the list to DHS datasets. The senators raised concerns that combining USPS data with unreliable federal records could lead to eligible voters being disenfranchised, or voters and election officials being unfairly targeted for investigation.
“Ultimately, the proposed rule seeks to create a centralized national absentee voter database with individualized barcodes connected to the voters’ names under the control of the President that contains the voting information of millions of Americans,” wrote the senators. “That information would be ripe for potential abuse or improper disclosure potentially imperiling the integrity of American elections.”
“Accordingly, we insist that the Postal Service abandon this proposed regulation and return to its core mission of providing universal postal services to every American. The Constitution and federal law demand nothing less,” the senators concluded.
Joining Senators Coons, Blunt Rochester, Peters, and Padilla in sending the letter are Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), U.S. Senators 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.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), 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.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), 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.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.).
Read the full letter to the U.S. Postal Service here.
Senator Coons statement on Supreme Court decision to end temporary protections for Haitians and Syrians
Position: Senator Coons opposes the Supreme Court's decision allowing the Trump administration to end Temporary Protected Status for Syrians and Haitians, arguing that TPS recipients have strengthened their communities and that the U.S. should maintain its role as a refuge for those fleeing persecution.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Chris Coons (D-Del.) released the following statement after the Supreme Court declared the Trump administration could end Temporary Protected Status – a kind of immigration status that allows those fleeing crises to reside legally in the United States – for Syrians and Haitians:
“This Supreme Court just handed away more of the judiciary’s power to the president for no good reason except that President Trump wants it.
“Being a beacon for those seeking refuge from oppression and violence overseas defines one of the most important threads that runs through all of American history.
“Temporary Protected Status brought a Haitian community to Delaware. In return, they have made our state stronger. They are our friends and neighbors and integral to our agricultural industry. That’s a quintessentially American story – one that President Trump, and now the Supreme Court, are trying to bring to an end.”
Articles from a curated list of national outlets that mention Christopher A. Coons.
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.COONS LEADERSHIP FUND3 contributions$27,700
2.THE PEOPLE'S VOICES PAC2 contributions$10,000
3.HAWAII PAC2 contributions$10,000
4.WINE AND SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEBusiness1 contributionTrade association PAC for wine and spirits wholesalers — backs candidates and policies supporting alcohol distribution, retail licensing, and industry regulatory interests.AI$5,000
5.OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE1 contribution$5,000
7.NCTA - THE INTERNET & TELEVISION ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (NCTA PAC)1 contribution$5,000
8.NATIONAL BEER WHOLESALERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEBusiness1 contributionTrade association PAC for beer wholesalers — backs candidates supporting alcohol distribution regulations, tax policy, and industry supply-chain interests.AI$5,000
9.NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEReal Estate1 contributionTrade association PAC for apartment owners and operators — backs candidates supporting property-rights protections, favorable tax treatment of rental housing, and reduced regulatory burdens on multifamily housing.AI$5,000
10.MOTOR CITY PAC1 contribution$5,000
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.YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR LLP$88,000
2.APOLLO GLOBAL MANAGEMENT$50,000
3.LOCKHEED MARTIN$32,500
4.CAPITAL GROUP$23,750
5.LEIDOS$20,750
6.BLACKSTONE$20,000
7.CAPITAL GROUP COMPANIES$17,500
8.GIBSON DUNN & CRUTCHER$16,400
9.K&L GATES LLP$16,000
10.BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK LLP$15,000
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.
