Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Sean Casten's votes line up with your views.
Consistency insights
Sean Casten · statement ↔ vote record
77
Consistency score
Based on 6 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
119-hconres-68·Consistent
What they said
Jan 28, 2026
The lawmakers warn oil companies that transactions involving Venezuelan oil assets under the Trump Administration's claimed authority pose legal and financial risks, as Congress has not been provided a full legal justification and future administrations or Congress may invalidate such arrangements.
Rep. Casten's statement warns against Trump Administration actions regarding Venezuelan oil assets without Congressional authorization, emphasizing Congress's constitutional war powers and the need for legal justification. His procedural yes vote on a resolution directing removal of U.S. Armed Forces from Venezuela unless Congress authorizes them aligns with this position—both reflect concern about executive overreach without Congressional approval. However, the vote is procedural rather than on final passage, and the statement focuses on oil transactions while the bill addresses military presence, creating some directional alignment but not complete overlap.
The congressman opposes the president's stated threat to destroy an entire civilization, characterizing it as dangerous, reckless, and potentially constituting a war crime. He calls for accountability for administration officials who act on such threats and suggests the president is unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.
Voted Yea on To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.
Casten's statement opposes dangerous military threats and actions lacking proper authorization, while the bill directs removal of armed forces from Venezuela hostilities absent congressional authorization. Both positions align on the principle that military action requires congressional approval and that unauthorized military operations are problematic. However, the vote was procedural rather than on final passage, and the statement addresses a specific threat to destroy a civilization whereas the bill addresses ongoing hostilities in Venezuela—a related but distinct operational context. The consistency is directional but not explicitly confirmed to address the identical situation.
The lawmakers warn oil companies that transactions involving Venezuelan oil assets under the Trump Administration's claimed authority pose legal and financial risks, as Congress has not been provided a full legal justification and future administrations or Congress may invalidate such arrangements.
Rep. Casten's statement warns against Trump Administration assertions of authority over Venezuelan assets without congressional approval, citing Congress's constitutional war powers and limits on presidential authority. His yes vote on a resolution requiring congressional authorization for any U.S. Armed Forces presence in Venezuela aligns with this position—both emphasize that Congress must authorize executive action regarding Venezuela. However, the statement focuses on oil transactions and legal risks to companies, while the bill addresses military force authorization specifically, creating some scope mismatch despite directional alignment on the core principle of congressional authority.
The congressman opposes the president's stated threat to destroy an entire civilization, characterizing it as dangerous, reckless, and potentially constituting a war crime. He calls for accountability for administration officials who act on such threats and suggests the president is unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.
Casten's statement opposes military action against Venezuela (characterizing threats as dangerous war crimes) and his procedural 'yes' vote on a resolution directing removal of unauthorized armed forces from Venezuela aligns with that opposition. However, the vote is procedural rather than on final passage, and the statement focuses on the president's rhetoric and fitness for office rather than specifically on the Venezuela deployment question, creating some interpretive distance.
The congressman opposes the president's stated threat to destroy an entire civilization, characterizing it as dangerous, reckless, and potentially constituting a war crime. He calls for accountability for administration officials who act on such threats and suggests the president is unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.
Casten's statement opposes the president's threat to destroy a civilization and calls for accountability and removal of unauthorized military action. His yes vote on a resolution directing removal of U.S. Armed Forces from Venezuela absent congressional authorization aligns with this position—both reflect opposition to unilateral executive military action and concern for preventing potential war crimes or civilian harm. The vote is consistent with his stated concern about unauthorized military operations and accountability.
The congressman opposes the president's stated threat to destroy an entire civilization, characterizing it as dangerous, reckless, and potentially constituting a war crime. He calls for accountability for administration officials who act on such threats and suggests the president is unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.
Voted Yea on To direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against Venezuela that have not been authorized by Congress.
Casten's statement opposes the president's threat to destroy an entire civilization and calls for preventing unauthorized military action that could constitute a war crime. His yes vote on a resolution requiring congressional authorization before U.S. Armed Forces engage in hostilities against Venezuela aligns with this position by constraining unilateral executive military action. The resolution directly addresses the mechanism to prevent the type of unauthorized, potentially catastrophic military action the statement condemns.
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.
Casten Proposes Measure to Protect Ballot Access for Overseas Service Members
Position: Rep. Casten supports modernizing absentee voting procedures for military members and overseas citizens by requiring states to accept online voter registration and ballot requests, send ballots electronically by default, and streamline the reapplication process to reduce barriers to voting participation.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) introduced the Military Voter Overseas Technical Enhancement (VOTE) Act, legislation to eliminate the bureaucratic hurdles that often hinder American servicemembers’ ability to vote while overseas on active duty.
“Our service members defend our democracy abroad; they shouldn't have to fight to participate in it at home,” said Rep. Casten. “For too long, outdated absentee processes have effectively disenfranchised those in uniform. The Military VOTE Act modernizes this system, ensuring that a transition in duty station never means a loss of their fundamental right to vote.”
“The introduction of the Military VOTE Act marks a significant step forward in modernizing access for eligible military and overseas voters,” said Sam Oliker-Friedland, CEO of Responsive Gov Action. “By implementing commonsense reforms, the men, women, and families who sacrifice so much for our freedoms will face fewer burdens to exercising their right to vote. If passed, the bill will also ease administrative burdens, provide funding for election officials, and include a study of automatic voter registration for American service members. Congress must now build on this momentum to ensure the right to vote remains accessible for all service members, their families, and overseas citizens, and I thank Congressman Casten for his leadership on this initiative."
The 1986 Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (UOCAVA) requires states to allow military members on active duty stationed away from their voting residence, their eligible family members, and other overseas citizens to vote via absentee ballot in federal elections.
However, members of the Armed Forces often face barriers to full participation as voters, particularly as they move between duty sites domestically and around the world. In 2022, 26% of military voters participated in the election, as compared to 48% of all voting-eligible Americans. Many who would have voted reported that the process of requesting an absentee ballot and not receiving a ballot prevented them from voting.
The Military VOTE Act remedies this issue by requiring states to accept voter registration and absentee ballot requests online or by email. It ensures ballots are sent electronically by default if a voter hasn’t selected a preference, guarantees absentee ballots for all future elections without the need to reapply, and prohibits rejecting applications simply because they were submitted early.
Specifically, the Military VOTE Act would:
Require acceptance of voter registration and absentee requests online or by email;
Require that states send ballots electronically by default when a voter hasn’t selected a preference;
Require that states provide absentee ballots for at least two federal elections, and for all elections thereafter if the voter receives their blank ballot electronically, without needing to reapply once a voter registers and requests an absentee ballot;
Prohibit absentee ballot application rejections based on early submission; and
Task the Department of Defense with improving voter information for service members and studying automatic registration when they join or move.
Full text of the legislation can be found here.
A one-page summary can be found here.
Casten, Schakowsky Demand Trump Administration Prevent Displacement of Palestinians in West Bank
Position: The representatives urge the State Department to use diplomatic pressure on the Israeli government to prevent forced displacement of Palestinians from Khallet al-Sidra in the West Bank, ensure displaced families can safely return and rebuild, prevent settler attacks, and hold perpetrators accountable.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Representatives Sean Casten (IL-06) and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09) led 30 House Democrats in a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio demanding the State Department engage with the Israeli government to prevent the forced displacement of Palestinian residents from the village of Khallet al-Sidra in the West Bank and to ensure displaced families can safely return and rebuild their homes.
“U.S. pressure on the Israeli government has proven crucial in protecting Palestinian communities in the past. Some communities facing significant demolition threats have remained in place in part due to sustained international and U.S. diplomatic attention” the lawmakers wrote. “We urge you to use your diplomatic influence to help ensure that residents of Khallet al-Sidra can safely return to their land without fear of violence and that immediate steps are taken to prevent further settler attacks and hold perpetrators accountable. This should include permitting the reconstruction of homes and essential infrastructure destroyed in recent incidents, as well as ensuring that Israeli authorities provide adequate protection to vulnerable communities consistent with their legal obligations.”
Khallet al-Sidra is a small shepherding community that has existed for decades, but in recent months, residents have faced escalating violence and intimidation from Israeli settlers, including arson attacks that have destroyed homes, vehicles, and essential livelihood structures. Reports indicate that these attacks, combined with threats and restricted access to the area, have created conditions that have forced families to flee and prevented them from returning or rebuilding.
This situation reflects a broader pattern of increasing settler violence and displacement across the West Bank. Since October 2023, hundreds of Palestinian communities have faced sustained attacks and pressure, contributing to widespread displacement and raising serious concerns under international humanitarian law. In 2025, the United Nations documented over 1,800 settler attacks affecting approximately 280 communities, and displacement has accelerated further in 2026.
In addition to Reps. Casten and Schakowsky, the letter was signed by Reps. Jerrold Nadler, Becca Balint, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Lloyd Doggett, Dave Min, Jennifer McClellan, Lateefah Simon, Jamie Raskin, Rosa DeLauro, Chris Deluzio, Betty McCollum, Mark Pocan, Al Green, Sylvia Garcia, Nikema Williams, André Carson, Chellie Pingree, Val Hoyle, Jared Huffman, Steve Cohen, Veronica Escobar, Mike Quigley, James McGovern, Mark DeSaulnier, Nanette Diaz Barragán, Joaquin Castro, Derek Tran, and Seth Moulton.
A copy of the letter can be found here. Text of the letter can be found below.
As Members of Congress who support a strong U.S.-Israel relationship, we are writing to urge you to engage with the Israeli government to prevent the forced displacement of Palestinian residents from the Bedouin village of Khallet al-Sidra, located near Mukhmas in the West Bank, and to ensure that residents are permitted to safely return and rebuild their homes following multiple devastating arson attacks by Israeli settlers. Allowing settlers to successfully use violence to displace shepherds from their homes, expand territorial control, and undermine prospects for peace is an unbearable injustice that runs counter to U.S. values and jeopardizes the possibility of a negotiated two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Khallet al-Sidra is a small shepherding community that has existed for decades. In recent months, residents have faced escalating violence and intimidation from Israeli settlers, including arson attacks that have destroyed homes, vehicles, and essential livelihood structures. Reports indicate that settlers have explicitly threatened residents, contributing to a coercive environment that has forced families to flee. When residents have attempted to return and rebuild, Israeli authorities have reportedly restricted access to the area and denied reconstruction, leaving families displaced and without recourse.
For decades, the Bedouin families of Khallet al-Sidra have made this land their home. They have bravely tried to remain despite increasing threats and pressure, but cannot continue to do so if the Israeli government continues to enable displacement and violence persists without effective intervention.
This situation reflects a broader and deeply concerning pattern of escalating settler violence and forced displacement across the West Bank. For the past two and a half years, Palestinian communities, especially Bedouin and shepherding communities in Area C, have faced sustained attacks, intimidation, and increasing barriers to remaining on their land. In 2025, the United Nations documented over 1,800 settler attacks that resulted in deaths, injuries, or property damage in approximately 280 communities across the West Bank. The United Nations has also documented the accelerating displacement this violence is causing. As of late March 2026, the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs reported that 1,697 Palestinians from 33 communities had already been displaced in 2026 due to settler violence and access restrictions, surpassing the total for all of 2025, and that 38 communities have been emptied since 2023. This sustained pattern contributes to de facto forced displacement and raises serious concerns under international humanitarian law, including obligations related to the protection of civilian populations under occupation.
U.S. pressure on the Israeli government has proven crucial in protecting Palestinian communities in the past. Some communities facing significant demolition threats have remained in place in part due to sustained international and U.S. diplomatic attention. We urge you to use your diplomatic influence to help ensure that residents of Khallet al-Sidra can safely return to their land without fear of violence and that immediate steps are taken to prevent further settler attacks and hold perpetrators accountable. This should include permitting the reconstruction of homes and essential infrastructure destroyed in recent incidents, as well as ensuring that Israeli authorities provide adequate protection to vulnerable communities consistent with their legal obligations.
Thank you for your attention to this urgent humanitarian matter. Protecting vulnerable communities from displacement and violence is critical to upholding shared values and preserving the possibility of a just and lasting peace.
Casten, Schakowsky, Beyer Reintroduce Energy Consumer Protection Act to Crack Down on Market Manipulation
Position: The representatives support legislation that would grant the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission additional authority to ban companies from energy markets if they manipulate prices or submit false information, and to strengthen enforcement against market manipulation in electricity and natural gas markets.
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Sean Casten (IL-06), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), and Don Beyer (VA-08) reintroduced the Energy Consumer Protection Act, bicameral legislation aimed at strengthening federal oversight of energy markets and protecting consumers from price manipulation.
The legislation would provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) with additional authority to ban companies from participating in electricity and natural gas markets if they are found to have manipulated energy prices or submitted false or misleading market information.
“Electricity prices have skyrocketed under the Trump Administration due to policies that protect fossil fuel companies at the expense of consumers,” said Congressman Sean Casten. “Our bill, the Energy Consumer Protection Act, helps bring those costs down and prioritizes American families by giving FERC the additional authorities it needs to prevent market manipulation."
“As energy costs soar, we can’t risk letting bad actors rig the electricity market to line their own pockets at the expense of families," said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. "I'm reintroducing the Energy Consumer Protection Act to give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the tools it needs to hold traders who manipulate the market accountable and protect consumers from corporate greed.”
"American families are spending more on their energy bills than ever before as the Trump Administration continues to prioritize fossil fuel profits over affordability, and we can't afford market manipulators making matters worse," said Congressman Don Beyer. "Our bill, the Energy Consumer Protection Act, would provide the FERC with the ability to hold those manipulators accountable and keep energy costs down for consumers."
Current law prohibits energy market manipulation and false or misleading information. However, existing enforcement tools are not sufficient to deter repeat violations or protect consumers from ongoing abuse.
Just last week, a company was ordered to pay more than $1 billion in penalties for fraud in energy capacity markets, underscoring the need for stronger enforcement authority.
Companion legislation was introduced in the U.S. Senate by U.S. Senators Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV) and Maria Cantwell (D-WA).
Text of the legislation can be found here.
Casten, Castro, Van Hollen, Kaine Demand Transparency from Trump Administration on United States-Venezuela Energy Deal
Position: The lawmakers call for transparency and a Government Accountability Office audit of the Trump Administration's energy deal with Venezuela, citing concerns about lack of oversight, potential anti-corruption control gaps, and unclear disbursement mechanisms for oil revenues.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06), Congressman Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), and Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) are demanding transparency from the Trump Administration on its energy deal with Venezuela, an unprecedented attempt in seizing control of a sovereign nation’s natural resources. The members are pressing the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to conduct a full audit of this deal.
The lawmakers underscored that President Trump’s executive order gives his administration unprecedented authority over Venezuelan oil supply, writing, “This gives senior Trump Administration officials sweeping discretion over how the Venezuelan oil funds will be spent and it is unclear whether the appropriate anti-corruption and anti-money laundering controls exist to ensure that the funds are not enabling the illicit drug trade and other criminal activities in Venezuela.
The lawmakers criticized the lack of oversight of the deal, writing, “Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that no formal audit agreement was in place, but his agency plans to engage outside auditors to review future payments. This lack of a defined oversight mechanism, combined with the arrangement's significant scale and its national security and foreign policy implications, warrants independent congressional oversight.”
They concluded by requesting a GAO audit and that the “scope of the review cover both the period of time that the funds were routed to accounts in Qatar, the current arrangement for funds to be routed to U.S. accounts controlled by the Treasury Department, and any other successor mechanism utilized by the Administration to facilitate the sale of Venezuelan oil, custody of these assets, and disbursement of these funds.”
In part, the lawmakers are requesting that the GAO audit include:
A full accounting of the agencies, employees, and contractors involved in the deal.
A full account of the financial structure of the arrangement, including how proceeds are dispersed and the financial executives who stand to benefit.
Potential areas for fraud, waste, abuse, and conflicts of interest.
Read the full details of the audit and the full letter here.
Casten Statement on Trump Threat to Destroy a "Whole Civilization"
Position: The congressman opposes the president's stated threat to destroy an entire civilization, characterizing it as dangerous, reckless, and potentially constituting a war crime. He calls for accountability for administration officials who act on such threats and suggests the president is unfit to serve under the 25th Amendment.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten released the following statement:
"The president’s threat to wipe out an entire civilization is dangerous, reckless, and would constitute a war crime under both domestic and international law. This rhetoric undermines U.S. credibility, endangers civilians, and places American personnel in untenable legal, moral, and mortal jeopardy. Anyone in the Trump Administration who acts on this threat and violates the law must be held accountable, including criminal liability.
"The urgency of the situation demands immediate action. This is the type of moment the 25th Amendment was drafted to address. The president is unfit to serve, and lives are at stake. The entire chain of command has a responsibility in this moment to step up and put their country over their loyalty to the president."
Casten Introduces Bill to Ensure American Workforce Meets National Defense Needs
Position: Rep. Casten supports legislation that clarifies Defense Production Act funding can be used by domestic companies to recruit, train, and place workers in defense-critical occupations, and directs federal agencies to assess and report on skilled labor gaps in critical industries.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) introduced the DPA Workforce and Skilled Labor Needs Act of 2026, legislation that allows available funds to be used to recruit, train, or place workers in defense-critical occupations, ensuring that U.S. businesses have the necessary resources to fulfill production needs under the Defense Production Act (DPA).
“Ensuring the federal government stands ready to meet any skilled labor needs required to support the national defense of the United States is of the utmost importance,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “This bill addresses the current gap between need and ability by directing federal agencies to assess existing workforce challenges, while also providing for greater funding flexibility for domestic companies to fill their workforce proactively.”
The DPA provides the president with an array of authorities to ensure that domestic companies, when called upon, are capable of providing essential materials and goods needed for the national defense, including for responding to military conflicts, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other national emergencies. For example, the DPA has been used to facilitate immediate access to emergency shelter, food, communications equipment, and other essential items during major hurricanes, floods, and wildfires. In addition, during the COVID-19 pandemic, the DPA was used to secure medical supplies, including ventilators, masks, and vaccine materials.
Under the DPA, the president can extend funding to eligible businesses to address projected shortfalls in industrial resources, critical technology items, or essential materials needed for national defense. This can include supporting initiatives to address skilled workforce shortages in critical industries. The DPA Workforce and Skilled Labor Needs Act fills a funding gap by clarifying that domestic companies can use funds to hire or retrain workers to address those shortages proactively. For example, according to a recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report, private maritime shipbuilders face workforce limitations that make it difficult to meet goals set by the Department of Defense (DoD).
The DPA Workforce and Skilled Labor Needs Act of 2026 permits the use of available funds to address workforce shortages and skills gaps that could affect U.S. national defense preparedness. In addition, this bill would direct the appropriate federal agencies to identify any existing skilled labor gaps in critical industries that could affect their ability to fulfill DPA production requirements, to provide legislative and administrative recommendations, and to include relevant information in annual reports.
These provisions were included as a part of H.R. 7688, the DPA Modernization Act of 2026, which unanimously passed the House Financial Services Committee on March 4, 2026.
Text of the legislation can be found here.
Casten Hosts Roundtable to Highlight Sheldon Peck Homestead Historic Site | U.S. Congressman Sean Casten
Position: Rep. Casten supports designating the Sheldon Peck Homestead as a National Register of Historic Places site, citing its significance as an Underground Railroad location and its importance to preserving American history.
Lombard, IL — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) hosted a roundtable with historians, preservationists, and local leaders to highlight the importance of historic sites and stories that have shaped our nation’s history. The roundtable was co-hosted by Landmarks Illinois and the Lombard Historical Society and took place at the Sheldon Peck Homestead in Lombard.
“The Sheldon Peck Homestead is a notable place in both American and Illinois’ history. Sheldon and Harriet Peck were not only outspoken abolitionists, but they also provided shelter to freedom seekers along the Underground Railroad,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “Now more than ever, as the Trump Administration attempts to erase our nation’s past, it’s important to preserve and honor places like the Peck Homestead. It’s past time the Peck Homestead is recognized on the National Register of Historic Places.”
The Peck Homestead is registered on the National Park Service Network to Freedom as a verified stop on the Underground Railroad. Congressman Casten, along with experts and local leaders, participated in a discussion on the importance of the Peck Homestead, other historic sites in Illinois, and why naming the Peck Homestead to the National Register of Historic Places would benefit the local community.
"The Sheldon and Harriet Peck Homestead in Lombard should be included in the National Register of Historic Places,” said Bonnie McDonald, President & CEO of Landmark Illinois. “The fact that this documented Underground Railroad site, which is included in the Network to Freedom, has been determined ineligible for National-Register listing proves that preservation practices must evolve. Landmarks Illinois has been working hard to do just that. We thank Rep. Casten for joining us in this work and for his commitment to ensuring the Peck Homestead receives the recognition it deserves. The National Register of Historic Places was created to recognize significant places across the nation, its territories, and tribal lands that tell our country's collective story. The lack of places included in the National Register that tell our full history, like the Peck Homestead, must be rectified."
"The Sheldon Peck Homestead is one of the most important historic sites in Lombard and an essential part of Illinois history,” said Alison Costanzo, Executive Director of the Lombard Historical Society. “For decades, the Lombard Historical Society and our community have worked to preserve this place and the stories it holds, from Sheldon Peck’s legacy as a nationally recognized folk artist and abolitionist to the story of 'Old Charley,' a freedom-seeking man connected to the household. Since the 2012 review, we have undertaken additional research, archaeology, and documentation to address the questions raised during the earlier nomination process. As our nation approaches America 250, this is the right moment to ensure that places like the Peck Homestead — where the ideals of democracy, freedom, and civic courage were lived out — are recognized as part of our national story."
Other attendees of the event included Jeanne Schultz Angel from the Midwest Underground Railroad Network and Illinois Association of Museums, Sara Faddah and Dario Durham from 77 Flavors of Chicago, Jeffrey Nevins from the Illinois Department of Natural Resources, and Sara Phalen from the West Chicago City Museum, Illinois America 250 Commission.
Photos and videos from the roundtable can be found here.
Casten, Van Hollen Push for Answers on Venezuelan Oil Proceeds in U.S. Treasury-Run Accounts
Position: The lawmakers are requesting transparency and congressional oversight regarding the Treasury Department's handling of Venezuelan oil sale proceeds, questioning the legal authority and statutory basis for the department's custody and control of these sovereign assets.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) and U.S. Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) pressed Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent for answers on the Treasury’s claimed authority over, and handling of, funds generated from the sale of Venezuelan oil.
“On February 4, 2026, at a House Financial Services Committee hearing, you agreed to provide the specific statutory authority the Treasury Department is relying on to custody and exercise control over Venezuela’s sovereign assets, as well as a copy of the written agreement referenced in your testimony and additional details regarding the arrangement with the Qatari bank,” the lawmakers wrote. “Regardless of whether the Qatari bank account has been wound down, it is important that the Administration produce related documents, submit to congressional oversight, and provide the American people with much-needed transparency on this opaque and legally questionable plan.”
On January 9th, President Donald Trump issued an Executive Order directing the Treasury Secretary to hold and safeguard the proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil and to facilitate transactions of these funds as directed by the Secretary of State.
In January, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed that $500 million in proceeds from the first sale of Venezuelan oil were placed into a bank account in Qatar. Secretary Rubio also claimed that the Treasury Department has a written agreement with the Venezuelan government to review monthly budget requests from this bank account in Qatar. Energy Secretary Chris Wright recently stated that these funds are no longer going to Qatar and are being deposited into a U.S. Treasury-managed account.
In February, under questioning from Rep. Casten during a House Financial Services Committee hearing, Secretary Bessent was unable to detail where, how, or under what authority the Treasury Department is controlling these Venezuelan oil funds. Secretary Bessent also denied the existence of any written agreement with the Venezuelan government that governs how these funds will be spent. A video of this testimony can be found here.
Text of the letter can be found below. A copy of the letter can be found here.
In the weeks since the United States captured Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, the Trump Administration has overseen the sale of Venezuelan oil. President Trump stated that the United States would take control of up to 50 million barrels of Venezuelan oil, valued at approximately $2.8 billion, and sell the oil at market price. In a January 6, 2026, Truth Social post, President Trump stated that the oil revenues “will be controlled by me, as President of the United States of America, to ensure it is used to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States!”
On January 9, 2026, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) declaring that the proceeds from these oil sales are the sovereign property of the Government of Venezuela and directing the Treasury Secretary to hold these funds solely in a “custodial and governmental capacity.” The EO further directs the Treasury Secretary to “comply with instructions regarding disbursements or transfers…as may be determined by the Secretary of State”. The President invoked the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and declared a national emergency, stating that the risk of court-ordered seizure or other actions against these funds constitutes an unusual and extraordinary threat to U.S. national security and foreign policy.
At a January 28, 2026, Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing, Secretary of State Marco Rubio confirmed the first sale of Venezuelan oil, valued at $500 million, had been deposited in a Qatari bank account. He further testified that $300 million had been transferred to the Venezuelan government to meet payroll obligations for public sector employees. Secretary Rubio also testified that the Treasury Department has a written agreement with the Venezuelan government to review monthly budget requests from the Qatari bank account. He stated that the $200 million in oil proceeds remained in a “short-term account” and would ultimately be transferred to a U.S. Treasury account.
On February 4, 2026, at a House Financial Services Committee hearing, you agreed to provide the specific statutory authority the Treasury Department is relying on to custody and exercise control over Venezuela’s sovereign assets, as well as a copy of the written agreement referenced in your testimony and additional details regarding the arrangement with the Qatari bank. Regardless of whether the Qatari bank account has been wound down, it is important that the Administration produce related documents, submit to congressional oversight, and provide the American people with much-needed transparency on this opaque and legally questionable plan.
We request that you respond to the following questions by no later than March 25, 2026:
Under what statutory authority is the Treasury Department relying on to exercise custody over the sovereign assets of another country? Please provide the relevant statutory citations.
Under what statutory authority did the Treasury Department exercise custody indirectly through a third-country financial institution and direct the release of funds through an offshore bank account owned by the Government of Venezuela? Please provide the relevant statutory citations.
Has the Treasury Department’s Office of the General Counsel issued a written legal opinion concluding that the Department can lawfully exercise custody over Venezuela’s sovereign assets under these circumstances?
If so, please provide a copy of that legal opinion.
If not, please describe the legal analysis on which the Department is relying.
Did the Treasury Department request or receive a legal opinion from the Justice Department’s Office of General Counsel regarding the Department’s custody of Venezuelan sovereign assets under these circumstances?
If so, please provide a copy of this opinion.
Please provide a copy of the written agreement between the Treasury Department and Venezuela’s interim government regarding monthly budget requests, payments, and disbursements.
Is there a memorandum of understanding or other written agreement that governed or is currently governing the role of the Qatari bank that held or is currently holding these funds?
If so, please provide a copy of this document.
In your testimony, you indicated that no formal audit agreement is currently in place, but the Treasury Department will bring in outside auditors. Secretary Rubio committed to notifying the Senate Foreign Relations Committee once an audit system is established.
Has this audit system been established, and if so, when did it begin operating?
Will you commit to providing notification once the Treasury Department has finalized this audit system?
On February 13, 2026, Energy Secretary Chris Wright stated that these funds “won’t go to Qatar anymore” and there is a U.S. Treasury account. He also said that Venezuelan oil sales have totaled $1 billion and in the next few weeks will bring in another $5 billion.
As of the date of your response to this letter, what is the current balance being held in this Qatari bank account?
Has the Qatari bank account been closed? If so, were any funds transferred to another account upon closure? To what account or where were these funds transferred?
Under what statutory authority is the Treasury Department transferring Venezuelan oil revenues from an offshore bank account to a U.S. Treasury account?
As of the date of your response to this letter, what is the current balance being held in the designated U.S. Treasury account?
Since January 28, 2026, has the Treasury Department authorized or facilitated any additional payments to the Venezuelan government or to any other recipients from either the Qatari account or from the U.S. Treasury account? If so, please provide an itemized list with details on the transaction amounts, recipients, and the purposes for which the payments were authorized.
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York serves as the primary fiscal agent for the Treasury Department, including related to management of the Treasury General Account.
Are the Venezuelan oil funds being held in a U.S. Treasury custodial account at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York? If so, are these funds being held in the Treasury General Account or held in a segregated custodial account?
Are the Venezuelan oil funds being held in a subaccount of the Government of Venezuela or Central Bank of Venezuela at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or at any other U.S. insured depository institution?
Has any U.S. financial institution been involved in or will be involved in transactions related to or the movement of Venezuelan oil funds?
In early January, the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) issued licenses permitting the commodity firms Vitol and Trafigura to engage in certain sales of Venezuelan oil. Both firms have previously been involved in bribery schemes, and a senior employee of Vitol was a major donor to President Trump’s 2024 campaign. Please describe the process by which Vitol and Trafigura received these licenses, including whether other firms with comparable businesses were considered for these licenses.
Position: Congressman Casten opposes the Trump Administration's military hostilities against Iran without congressional authorization, arguing the president lacks constitutional and legal justification for the strikes and that Congress must authorize any military action.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) voted for House Concurrent Resolution 38, a bipartisan War Powers Resolution to prohibit the Trump Administration’s hostilities against Iran, and released the following statement:
“The president started a war without a plan, clear endgame, legal justification, or congressional authorization. American service members and innocent civilian lives have been lost because of the president’s actions. He has done everything he can to plunge the region into dangerous instability and drag the United States into another open-ended conflict.
“This war has already cost the American people billions of dollars and comes in the wake of the Trump Administration’s unauthorized spending cuts to programs that actually benefit Americans. He has violated our power of the purse and prioritized chaos in Iran over making life better for Americans at home.
“Neither the Constitution nor the War Powers Act allows the president to start a war. That authority rests solely with Congress. As recently as yesterday, the president himself called this a war. As did his Secretary of Defense.
“In order for the president to engage in hostilities against another country without congressional authorization, he must demonstrate there is an imminent threat to the United States. In the weeks leading up to the strikes, as the president moved US troops into the region, he did not make the case for an imminent threat. In the days since the attack, he has not shown that there is an imminent threat. The word “imminent” does not even appear once in the Administration’s War Powers notification to Congress.
“Instead, the president and his administration have provided questionable reasoning for their actions that are on shaky legal grounds. They have obfuscated, backtracked, contradicted, and embarrassed themselves. No one in the White House is quite sure why they bombed another country. They only know that Donald Trump’s ego told them to.
“Our Constitution is clear: our sons and daughters should not be sent into harm’s way without debate and authorization by the people’s representatives in Congress. While Iran’s regime is repressive and destabilizing, that does not justify unauthorized military strikes. That is why I voted to stop the Trump Administration’s hostilities against Iran.”
Casten, Castro Propose Measure to Investigate Trump’s Questionable Handling of Venezuelan Oil Money
Position: The representatives propose legislation requiring an independent Government Accountability Office audit of the Trump Administration's handling of Venezuelan oil sale proceeds, citing concerns about transparency and potential misuse of funds held in offshore accounts.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressmen Sean Casten (IL-06) and Joaquin Castro (TX-20) introduced the Venezuela Oil Proceeds Transparency Act, legislation that directs the non-partisan Government Accountability Office to conduct an independent audit of the Trump Administration’s handling of hundreds of millions of dollars in Venezuelan oil funds concealed in offshore bank accounts.
The Trump Administration funneled $500 million in proceeds from its first sale of Venezuelan oil through a bank account in Qatar, without providing any transparency into how these funds were controlled, spent, or used by the interim Venezuelan government.
“From the very beginning, it’s been clear that key members of the Trump Administration are either unaware or unwilling to detail where, how, and under what authority they are controlling funds from Venezuelan oil sales,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “Americans deserve a clear answer, but as Secretary Bessent demonstrated when testifying to the House Financial Services Committee, the Trump Administration isn’t going to provide the information voluntarily. The Venezuela Oil Proceeds Transparency Act will help show where these funds are and who is benefiting from the president’s scheme.”
“President Trump’s regime change war in Venezuela was always about oil,” said Rep. Joaquin Castro. “The Trump Administration has ignored the will of the American people and avoided transparency since the very beginning to gain power, land, and oil. After ousting Nicolás Maduro, the administration seized millions of barrels of oil and created offshore accounts to enrich President Trump and his cronies. It is a brazen act of fraud and corruption. The Venezuela Oil Proceeds Transparency Act will provide answers to the American people and hold oil executives and President Trump accountable for their unprecedented self-dealing.”
During a recent House Financial Services Committee hearing, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent testified, under questioning from Rep. Casten, that he was unaware which accounts Treasury was using to manage the funds from Venezuelan oil sales, despite President Trump’s January 9th Executive Order explicitly stating that Treasury is to hold these assets in custody and facilitate disbursements or transfers. A video of the testimony can be found here.
Specifically, the Venezuela Oil Proceeds Transparency Act requires the GAO to:
Within 30 days, initiate an audit of the United States-Venezuela energy deal, including the activities of the State, Energy, and Treasury Departments, and any other agencies, employees, or contractors or entities involved in implementing the deal;
Within 30 days after the audit is completed, provide a briefing to the chair and ranking members of the Senate and House committees and subcommittees of jurisdiction, which shall include preliminary findings, scope, and any identified risks of fraud, abuse, or conflicts of interest identified while conducting the audit.
Within 90 days after the audit is completed, provide a report (which may include a classified annex) to House and Senate leadership, chairs and ranking members of committees of jurisdiction, and any other members of Congress that request the report.
A Senate-companion of the Venezuela Oil Proceeds Transparency Act was previously introduced by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D-CA).
Text of the legislation can be found here.
Position: The congressman opposes unilateral military action against Iran without congressional authorization or imminent threat to the United States, arguing that the Constitution and War Powers Resolution require congressional debate and approval before deploying troops into harm's way. He advocates for diplomatic and multilateral approaches instead.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) released the following statement on US military action in Iran:
“Iran’s regime is repressive and destabilizing. Its proxies sow chaos across the region. No one disputes that Iran presents serious challenges. Its support for proxy militias, regional interference, and hostility toward its neighbors undermines peace in the Middle East. The United States would welcome a more peaceful and responsible partner in the region.
“But that does not justify unilateral war.
“The President has cited no imminent threat to the United States that would warrant military action without congressional authorization or international support. The threats he referenced were hypothetical and tied to what Iran might do in the future, not an immediate attack requiring unilateral action. That distinction matters under Article I of the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution.
“Even more concerning, the President explicitly acknowledged that U.S. troops may be killed as a result of this unlawful war. That admission underscores exactly why Congress must debate and authorize any such action in advance. Thousands of U.S. service members across the region could now be exposed to missile, drone, or proxy attacks. Our Constitution is clear: our sons and daughters should not be sent into harm’s way without debate and authorization by the people’s representatives in Congress.
“Destabilizing Iran is not cost-free. Iran has the capacity to disrupt oil shipments in the Persian Gulf, activate proxies across the region, and trigger refugee flows that would immediately affect Qatar, the UAE, Turkey, and others. History teaches that calls for regime change, including our own involvement in Iran in 1953, can produce consequences that last for generations.
“If we are serious about confronting Iran, we must lead through diplomacy, coalition-building, financial enforcement, and the rule of law. Congress and the United Nations must be immediately briefed with facts, not spin. The United States is not one individual. Our strength comes from constitutional governance and international credibility.
“Next week, the House will vote on a War Powers Resolution, and I will support it. In the meantime, my thoughts are with our service members and every civilian whose life is now at risk.
Casten Introduces Bill to Incentivize Utilities to Lower Costs for Ratepayers, Lower Emissions
Position: Rep. Casten supports legislation to realign utility company incentives so they earn returns by reducing customer energy costs and emissions through grid efficiency improvements, rather than solely through new infrastructure construction.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) introduced the Shared Utility Rewards for Grid Efficiency (SURGE) Act, legislation to lower bills for American energy consumers by realigning transmission utility incentives with customer cost savings and rewarding improvements in grid efficiency.
“One of the most impactful things we can do to lower costs for American consumers is to give utility companies an incentive to save their customers money and lower emissions at the same time,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “The SURGE Act does just that by realigning utility incentives so utilities are rewarded for making their systems more efficient, lowering energy bills in the process.”
“Modernizing our power grid has never been more essential for affordability, reliability, and meeting our climate goals,” said John Moore, Senior Attorney and Director of the Sustainable FERC Project at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “By authorizing innovative federal and state shared-savings standards, the SURGE bill ensures that proven solutions like advanced conductors and grid-enhancing technologies are deployed at scale—saving billions of dollars in energy costs, cutting pollution, and strengthening our clean energy future.”
“The SURGE Act represents a pragmatic, forward-looking approach to modernizing the electric grid,” said Exelon. “Exelon fully supports actions that utilize proven innovations to deliver a more affordable, reliable and resilient grid. Representative Casten offers a smart shared savings pathway to accelerate grid modernization while ensuring consumers benefit.”
Under current ratemaking, utilities earn returns mainly by building new infrastructure, even when lower-cost operational or efficiency improvements could deliver equal or greater system value. The SURGE Act addresses this misalignment by directing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) to establish a standardized “shared savings” framework that allows transmission utilities to earn a portion of the real, verified savings they deliver to ratepayers through specific actions. This means that if ratepayers do not see savings from a utility’s action, the utility does not receive the incentive.
The SURGE Act also creates a state-level grant program, run out of the Department of Energy, so states that want to create their own shared savings framework for their grid can get the technical support they need to design and implement it.
The opportunity for savings to ratepayers is significant. Research from GridStrategies shows that deploying advanced conductors, one of the solutions advanced by this legislation, could prevent roughly 21 million MWh of annual transmission losses, generating more than $2.2 billion per year in consumer savings, and reducing power sector greenhouse gas emissions by 8 million metric tons annually. This legislation would also accelerate low-cost grid-enhancing technologies (GETs) and operational improvements, providing further savings and emissions reductions, including secondary and tertiary benefits of reduced congestion, lower renewable curtailment, faster interconnection of new generation, and avoided construction of new transmission lines. The SURGE Act unlocks these savings and emissions reductions by making efficiency financially attractive to utilities.
Text of the legislation can be found here.
Casten Introduces the Ceasefire Compliance Act to Bolster Accountability and Oversight of U.S. Weapons in Gaza and the West Bank
Position: The congressman supports legislation that would ban the use of U.S.-origin weapons in Gaza and the West Bank if Israel violates the October 10, 2025 ceasefire agreement, annexes the West Bank, or fails to combat settler violence, while maintaining support for Israel's defensive missile systems and security.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) introduced the Ceasefire Compliance Act, legislation that would ban the use of US-origin weapons in Gaza and the West Bank if Israel violates the October 10, 2025, ceasefire agreement and 20-point plan, annexes the West Bank, or fails to combat settler violence against Palestinians. The bill creates an end-use monitoring group and congressional oversight mechanisms to enforce this ban while exempting defensive missile systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3, and maintaining US support for Israel’s security.
Text of the bill can be found here. A two-page summary of the bill can be found here. A section-by-section of the bill can be found here.
“As one of the United States’ most important allies, Israel must ensure that its policies and the use of U.S. military assistance align with American values, interests, and the law,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “That starts with requiring compliance with the October 10, 2025, ceasefire agreement and the steps laid out in the 20-point plan, curbing settler violence, and rejecting annexation in the West Bank. This legislation creates clear enforcement mechanisms, transparency, and consequences when those conditions are not met. To be clear, it does not deny Israel the right to defend itself, and it preserves support for missile defense. It does, however, set guardrails to help sustain the ceasefire and keep a credible path toward long-term peace, with security for Israelis and freedom and self-determination for the Palestinian people.”
“The Ceasefire Compliance Act puts into law the common sense principle that American weapons cannot be used by the Israeli government in Gaza and the West Bank in ways that fundamentally violate American values and directly contravene U.S. interests,” said J Street President Jeremy Ben-Ami. “US assistance - whether aid or arms - should never come as a blank check. The CCA will ensure the Israeli government is held to agreements it has signed and abides by the ceasefire, allows a Palestinian governing council to take control of Gaza, and cannot annex the West Bank. Passing this bill is a critical step to lay the foundation for broader regional peace that creates a viable Palestinian state alongside Israel and guarantees Israel’s long-term security."
“The Ceasefire Compliance Act recognizes a simple truth: American weapons must only be used in accordance with American laws and American values,” said Madeleine Cereghino, Director of Government Relations for New Jewish Narrative. “Conditioning their use on compliance with the ceasefire, on safeguarding civilians, and on ending unlawful annexation efforts is unfortunately necessary. This legislation honors the best of who we are as a country by insisting on accountability, transparency, and a clear path toward lasting security and dignity for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
“The American people want a just and durable peace for Palestinians and Israelis alike,” said Andrew Albertson, Executive Director of Foreign Policy for America. “The Ceasefire Compliance Act ensures that U.S. taxpayer dollars aren't used to undermine efforts to end the cycles of violence that for too long have threatened U.S. interests, put Americans’ lives at risk, and undermined America's standing in the world."
In addition to Rep. Casten, the Ceasefire Compliance Act is cosponsored by Reps. Madeleine Dean, Veronica Escobar, Chris Deluzio, Becca Balint, Jim McGovern, Jan Schakowsky, Ro Khanna, John Garamendi, Don Beyer, Jill Tokuda, Lloyd Doggett, Valerie Foushee, Mike Thompson, Sylvia Garcia, Doris Matsui, Derek Tran, Emily Randall, Jared Huffman, Mark Takano, Troy Carter, Chellie Pingree, Bonnie Watson Coleman, Marcy Kaptur, Betty McCollum, and Joaquin Castro.
The legislation has been endorsed by J Street, Foreign Policy for America, New Jewish Narrative, Refugees International, and T'ruah.
What The Ceasefire Compliance Act Does
This bill would condition U.S. arms transfers and restrict the use of U.S.-origin defense articles in Gaza and the West Bank if Israel violates the ceasefire agreement, 20-point plan, and related conditions. These include maintaining compliance with the October 10, 2025, ceasefire and steps tied to the 20-point plan, supporting sustained humanitarian access and aid, and refraining from annexation and actions that fuel violence, including continued settler violence in the West Bank. The bill creates an end-use monitoring group and strengthens congressional oversight mechanisms through recurring reporting and certifications to enforce this ban while exempting defensive missile systems such as Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3, and maintaining US support for Israel’s security.
Why the Ceasefire Compliance Act is Important
Enforcing the ceasefire: This bill is critical to increase pressure to enforce the ceasefire, given the multitude of threats to it, including:
Ongoing Israeli airstrikes and artillery fire in Gaza, which have killed over 600 Palestinians since the ceasefire began.
Ongoing restrictions and delay, which limit the consistent flow of humanitarian assistance into Gaza.
Political and practical obstacles to establishing the governance and security arrangements envisioned for Phase Two, which are necessary to keep the ceasefire durable and prevent a return to hostilities.
Implementing the second phase of the ceasefire will require sustained, intense pressure on all actors. While other US allies such as Qatar and Turkey can place pressure on Hamas, only the United States can ensure Israel adheres to its obligations under the ceasefire agreement and moves forward with the 20-point plan.
Supporting Israel’s security: By focusing on a ban of US arms in the Palestinian territories as an accountability mechanism for ceasefire compliance, this bill maintains support for Israel’s self-defense against legitimate security threats from Iran, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and Iran-backed militias in Iraq and Syria.
Security Safeguards: Nothing in this bill prevents Israel from defending itself, or the United States from assisting Israel in the event of another tragic attack. It also does not impose an automatic cutoff of U.S. arms transfers if Hamas resumes hostilities. The bill includes explicit language that:
Does not limit funds for air defense systems, including Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow 3.
Does not prevent the United States from sharing intelligence or assisting Israel in defensive measures, including missile defense maintenance/resupply.
Does not prevent the United States from assisting Israel in protecting its territory from terrorist and other external threats.
Protecting the West Bank: Conditions in the West Bank have deteriorated severely in the past few years.
The Israeli government has failed to act against a massive escalation of settler attacks, despite the killings of Palestinian civilians, including American citizens.
Members of the Israeli government continue to pursue de facto and de jure annexation of the West Bank through both legal measures and settlement expansion.
Policies such as advancing construction plans in the E-1 corridor and changes to land administration and registration policies risk further fragmenting the territory and undermining the viability of a future Palestinian state.
This bill also strengthens Israel’s security by discouraging policies that lead to repeated cycles of war. Mass civilian casualties, humanitarian crises, and unchecked settler violence in the West Bank are moral stains on humanity and make Israel less safe and secure. Coupled with the Israeli government’s policies and acts of de facto or de jure annexation of the West Bank, Israel’s conduct in Gaza and the West Bank has fueled resentment and militancy, damaged Israel’s international standing, complicated prospects for expanding the Abraham Accords, and perpetuated a cycle of violence that harms Palestinians and Israelis. This bill seeks to incentivize policy changes that would reverse these damaging trends and recognizes that issues in the West Bank and Gaza are inextricably linked and must be addressed in tandem.
Ending the blank check: This bill redefines the system of US military aid to Israel, transforming it from a blank check to an accountability-based system that advances US strategic interests in the Middle East, aligns with American values, enhances Israel’s security, and protects Palestinian civilians. Through thorough oversight and tough enforcement mechanisms, it makes clear that actions undermining shared U.S. and Israeli interests and values will have consequences.
Casten Introduces Two Bills to Provide Insights Needed to Improve Energy Efficiency, Lower Energy Bills
Position: Rep. Casten supports legislation to improve federal measurement and transparency of energy use and productivity, arguing that better data collection will help lower energy costs, increase efficiency, and strengthen economic competitiveness.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) introduced the Powering Productivity Act and the Energy - Modernizing EIA Tracking and Reporting to Increase Consistency (Energy METRIC) Act, a pair of bills designed to improve transparency, planning, and decision-making in the U.S. energy system. Together, the bills modernize how the federal government measures energy use and productivity, providing the data needed to lower costs, strengthen competitiveness, and plan responsibly for rising demand.
“Energy demand in the United States is rapidly increasing. At the same time, energy costs remain elevated and volatile,” said Rep. Sean Casten. "Despite energy being a core input into every sector of our economy, policymakers lack basic, standardized tools to measure how efficiently energy is being used. The Powering Productivity Act and the Energy METRIC Act address this problem head-on and provide the insights necessary to help lower costs and increase stability.”
“In this time of historic load growth, it’s more important than ever that our country uses energy as efficiently and productively as possible,” said Jennifer Layke, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. “These two bills would fill critical gaps in current data collection efforts, modernizing energy accounting and reporting to better understand primary energy use and energy productivity. As we make needed investments in the grid, data like this will allow policymakers and grid operators to make informed decisions to ensure that energy is affordable and reliable for Americans.”
“Improving how we measure energy is essential to improving how we use it. Congressman Casten’s Powering Productivity Act and Energy METRIC Act fill long-standing data and transparency gaps that limit the nation’s ability to fully capitalize on energy efficiency,” said Paula Glover, president of Alliance to Save Energy. “Better data means better policy and ultimately lower costs, improved reliability, and a more competitive U.S. economy. These commonsense reforms directly support the Alliance’s mission to advance energy efficiency as the cheapest, cleanest, and fastest way to meet our growing energy needs.”
Economic growth is driven by four core inputs: labor, capital, natural resources, and energy. The United States has spent decades systematically measuring and improving the productivity of labor, capital, and natural resources. But despite being a foundational input to every sector of the economy, the economic productivity of energy remains largely unmeasured.
The Powering Productivity Act directs the Department of Energy to establish:
The first national baseline of U.S. energy productivity, measuring how effectively energy inputs generate economic value across sectors and regions;
An Energy Information Administration (EIA)-led quarterly Energy Productivity Report aligned with the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ Labor Productivity Reports;
A triennial Comprehensive Energy Productivity and Competitiveness Assessment evaluating impacts of increased energy productivity on costs, emissions, environmental impacts, health, resilience, and U.S. industrial competitiveness.
Text of the Powering Productivity Act can be found here.
The Energy METRIC Act modernizes how EIA measures and reports national energy use by examining the limitations of legacy “primary energy” metrics (i.e. metrics developed for a fossil-dominated economy) and directing EIA to develop technology-neutral energy accounting approaches.
By improving comparability across energy sources, this bill provides policymakers, researchers, and markets with a more accurate picture of system efficiency, electrification trends, and energy performance as the energy mix evolves.
Text of the Energy Metric Act can be found here.
Casten, Smith Introduce Bill to Mitigate Climate Risk in US Financial System
Position: The legislation seeks to enhance federal regulators' ability to assess and mitigate climate-related financial risks to the U.S. financial system by re-establishing climate-focused committees within the Financial Stability Oversight Council to monitor and address climate-driven threats to financial stability, insurance affordability, and real estate values.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Representative Sean Casten (D-IL-06) and Senator Tina Smith (D-MN) introduced the Addressing Climate Financial Risk Act, legislation to improve the ability of federal regulators to understand and mitigate risks from climate change within our financial system.
Climate change is increasing the frequency and severity of wildfires, flooding, droughts, and other natural disasters and extreme weather events. The damage and risks generated by these events – in addition to changes needed to transition to a cleaner economy – threaten to severely disrupt real estate values across the country, reshape entire sectors of the economy, and make homeowners’ insurance increasingly unaffordable. At the same time, the Trump Administration is dismantling the progress made under the Biden Administration, which means our regulators are less informed, equipped, and prepared to deal with current and future climate-driven financial crises. Climate change threatens the stability of the U.S. financial system, which is why it is so important to ensure financial regulators approach it in a comprehensive way.
“Federal regulators must be able to fully assess and plan to combat all possible systemic risks to our financial system. That includes the very real risks posed by climate change,” said Rep. Sean Casten. “We’ve already seen financial devastation caused by hurricanes reaching the inland areas of North Carolina and Tennessee, wildfires in California, and flooding in Texas. Even under optimistic estimates, many homes in coastal Florida will likely be uninhabitable before their mortgages are paid off. We must act swiftly to safeguard our financial system against these rapidly accelerating climate risks.”
“Climate change is leading to increased financial risk, with communities across the country suffering billions of dollars in losses from climate and weather disasters,” said Senator Smith. “This is having a direct impact on rising prices and making life even more unaffordable. In Minnesota, we’ve seen dramatic increases in home insurance costs fueled by climate change and severe weather, putting homeownership further out of reach for many Americans. This legislation would help address climate-related risks to the financial system, including insurance, by requiring financial regulators to better monitor for and mitigate these crises.”
In the House, the bill is cosponsored by Representatives Kathy Castor, Ted Lieu, Kevin Mullin, Suzanne Bonamici, Yassamin Ansari, Jared Huffman, Melanie Stansbury, Nydia Velázquez, Julia Brownley, Dwight Evans, Dave Min, and Dan Goldman.
In the Senate, the bill is cosponsored by Senators Merkley, Warren, Heinrich, Van Hollen, and Padilla.
Specifically, the Addressing Climate Financial Risk Act would:
Re-establish two climate-focused committees within the Financial Stability Oversight Council (FSOC), which will advise and inform the Council on best practices in identifying and mitigating climate financial risk. FSOC is composed of the heads of our banking, housing, securities, and insurance regulators and has the authority to address risks that threaten the stability of the U.S. financial system.
Require FSOC to publish an updated report on climate financial risk, following the Biden Administration’s important 2021 report.
Direct banking regulators to update non-binding supervisory guidance to include climate financial risk, which will help banks with more than $50 billion in assets better manage the short and long-term risks associated with climate change.
Codify FSOC’s 2023 proposal to include climate financial risk in its analysis under FSOC’s process for designating firms as “systemically important”, allowing FSOC to use this underutilized tool to address threats posed by climate change.
Direct the Federal Insurance Office (FIO) to publish an updated report on climate financial risk and continue its climate-related data call for 2023, 2024, and onward. For calendar years 2018-2022, FIO conducted a first-of-its-kind data collection to better understand how climate change was affecting homeowners’ insurance affordability and availability.
Express the sense of Congress that our financial regulators should rejoin international climate organizations, including the Network for Greening the Financial System (NGFS).
Text of the legislation can be found here.
Casten Opposes Funding Bill Due To Lack of ICE Reforms
Position: Congressman Casten opposes the funding bill because it lacks reforms to the Department of Homeland Security and ICE, including body camera mandates, warrant requirements for arrests, independent investigations of agent misconduct, and removal of Secretary Noem. He calls for rescission of a $75 billion ICE funding increase and accountability measures for federal immigration enforcement.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) voted against H.R. 7148, Consolidated Appropriations Act 2026, and released the following statement:
“I voted against the funding package considered by the House today because it failed to include guardrails to prevent the further murder of Americans, ensure due process, or address the catastrophic failures by Kristi Noem and the Department of Homeland Security.
“This is not a vote I take lightly. I hold sacred Congress’s constitutional responsibility to fund the government. But we also have a duty to ensure appropriations pursue the interests of the American people. I could not support a bill that fails to exercise Congress’s power of the purse over an out-of-control Executive Branch agency.
“Americans have watched the tragic killings of Renée Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis by federal immigration agents and the abuse of power in communities, including Chicago, throughout the country. Congress cannot write a blank check for enforcement without accountability.
“The Department of Homeland Security, and ICE specifically, is in need of serious reform, including, among others, the following conditions:
Rescission of the $75 billion funding increase for ICE in the Big Ugly Bill
Mandated body cameras for all immigration enforcement agents
End the anonymity of federal agents — they must remove their masks and display identification
No more arrests without judicial warrants
Independent investigations when agents break the law
Removal of Kristi Noem as Secretary of Homeland Security
“The rot within ICE runs deep, but it starts at the top. Kristi Noem has failed. The American people deserve better.”
Casten, 12 House Dems Warn Oil Companies of Legal and Civil Risks of Venezuela Markets
Position: The lawmakers warn oil companies that transactions involving Venezuelan oil assets under the Trump Administration's claimed authority pose legal and financial risks, as Congress has not been provided a full legal justification and future administrations or Congress may invalidate such arrangements.
Washington, D.C. — U.S. Congressman Sean Casten (IL-06) led 12 House Democrats in warning 21 major oil and oilfield services companies of the legal and financial risks posed by any transaction or investment that relies on the Trump Administration’s asserted authority to control Venezuelan oil assets. The letters were addressed to companies that either attended a January 9 meeting at the White House or have reportedly been in touch with the Trump Administration.
The lawmakers cite Congress’s constitutional war powers, U.S. obligations under the U.N. Charter, and limits on the President’s authorities under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), stating that the Administration has not provided Congress or the public a full explanation of the legal basis it claims under U.S. or international law to exert control over Venezuelan state property.
“We urge you, therefore, to bear in mind that it is possible that efforts to invalidate any such arrangements might be made by Congress, a subsequent Administration, or a future Venezuelan government, and that participation might present your company with legal and enforcement risk,” the lawmakers wrote. “Similarly, we urge you to consider that any informal assurances, inducements, or understandings offered by the current Administration might not be recognized by future U.S. administrations.”
The letter emphasizes that any arrangement to sell, license, or otherwise convey interests in Venezuelan oil reserves and related assets could expose participating firms and shareholders to significant long-term risk, including potential civil liability from Venezuela’s creditors. Furthermore, Congress, a future Administration, or a future Venezuelan government can attempt to invalidate any arrangements brokered by the US to extract Venezuelan oil.
In addition to Rep. Casten, the letter was signed by House Financial Services Committee Ranking Member Maxine Waters, House Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman, House Foreign Affairs Committee Ranking Member Gregory Meeks, and Representatives Mike Levin, David Min, Mike Quigley, Don Beyer, Lori Trahan, Yvette Clarke, Sam Liccardo, Nikema Williams, and Shri Thanedar.
The letters were sent to Aspect Holdings, Baker Hughes, BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, Continental, Exxon, Eni, Halliburton, Hilcorp, HKN, Marathon, Phillips 66, Raisa Energy, Repsol, Shell, SLB, Tallgrass, Trafigura, Valero, and Vitol.
Text of the letter can be found below. Copies of the letters can be found linked for each company above.
We write as members of Congress to advise you that any actions you may be taking with the Trump White House as relates to Venezuelan oil may expose you and your shareholders to significant long-term legal and financial risk.
As you are aware, Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war. Additionally, the War Powers Act provides that the United States may not enter into hostilities without the consent of Congress. Furthermore, under Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter, the United States may not lawfully use force against another sovereign state absent authorization from the UN Security Council or a valid claim of self-defense consistent with Article 51.
The Trump White House has asserted that its attacks on boats operated by Venezuelan nationals in international waters did not require those authorizations because they were protecting Americans from narco-terrorism by non-state actors. The Administration has also asserted that the capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife required no congressional authorization because they had been indicted in U.S. courts and were being taken into custody for prosecution.
Without commenting on the merits of those legal arguments, the Trump Administration has not provided Congress or the American public with a full explanation of the legal authority it claims under U.S. or international law to exert control over Venezuelan state property.
In this regard, we would like to remind you that under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), the President has the authority to freeze or restrict certain transactions involving foreign assets within U.S. jurisdiction in response to a declared national emergency. However, IEEPA generally does not authorize the United States to take ownership of a foreign sovereign’s assets or permanently transfer rights in them, except in the narrow circumstance where the United States is engaged in armed hostilities or has been attacked.
Since the Trump Administration has neither provided an adequate explanation nor requested the legal authority from Congress or the UN Security Council, we are troubled by:
the President’s assertions that his Administration has engaged with U.S. oil companies in connection with its actions toward Venezuela, both prior to and following the operation in which U.S. forces took custody of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, and;
the President’s further statements that Venezuela would deliver 30 million to 50 million barrels of oil to the United States, and that his Administration would control the proceeds from the sale of the oil, purportedly “to benefit the people of Venezuela and the United States.”
These statements indicate to us that the Administration may be seeking to sell, license, or otherwise convey interests in Venezuelan oil reserves and related assets. The President is, of course, free to say whatever he wants. But to the extent that any private entity enters into arrangements with the United States regarding Venezuelan resources under these circumstances, such entity may be exposed to legal risk, including civil liability from creditors who hold nearly $200 billion worth of debt to Venezuela and their various state-owned entities.
The Trump administration has indicated that it is working with acting President Delcy Rodríguez to enter into agreements. In light of the circumstances, there may be a risk that any such instruments may be subject to challenge as void or voidable under coercion principles in international law, including those related to the invalidation of agreements procured through the threat or use of force.
We urge you, therefore, to bear in mind that it is possible that efforts to invalidate any such arrangements might be made by Congress, a subsequent Administration, or a future Venezuelan government, and that participation might present your company with legal and enforcement risk. Similarly, we urge you to consider that any informal assurances, inducements, or understandings offered by the current Administration might not be recognized by future U.S. administrations.
For these reasons, we strongly urge you to decline to participate in any transaction or arrangement that relies on the Trump Administration’s asserted authority to control Venezuelan oil assets.
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 contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC contributions are reported separately and not included here.
No itemized contributions ranked for the 2026 cycle yet.
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A by-employer aggregation. "Top contributors" here means employers whose employees collectively gave the most — not necessarily corporate or PAC giving.
