Lloyd Doggett

Democrats Launch Inquiry into Weaponization of IRS

Washington, D.C.— Today, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Ranking Member of the House Ways & Means Health Subcommittee, and Rep. Terri Sewell (D-AL), Ranking Member of the Ways & Means Oversight Subcommittee, led most Ways and Means Committee Democrats in demanding immediate answers from IRS Chief Executive Officer Frank Bisignano on reports that the IRS has compiled a list of Democratic donors and “left-leaning” nonprofit organizations, and is moving to label these groups as domestic terrorists. “Straight out of the authoritarian playbook, Trump is using every lever of government to punish his political enemies and intimidate any potential critic into silence. That’s why he is apparently weaponizing the IRS against dissenting nonprofits and donors,” said Rep. Doggett. “Just as freedom-loving, committed citizens rejected this playbook in Hungary with Viktor Orban’s decisive defeat this week, Ways & Means Democrats are forcefully pushing back against Trump’s abuse. Frank Bisignano must maintain his commitment to our Committee that he will not initiate audits, investigations, or revocations of tax-exempt status based on political targeting.” “As Members of Congress with oversight power over the IRS, Ways and Means Democrats will not stand by as Donald Trump tries to weaponize the IRS against his political opponents,” said Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member Terri A. Sewell. “The IRS must act as a nonpartisan enforcer of the tax code, and the American people deserve to know if current IRS leadership is willing to prioritize serving U.S. taxpayers over Donald Trump and stand up against the President’s obsessive mission to intimidate any organization that opposes his far-right agenda.” “Weaponizing the tax code against the President’s opponents is an abuse of power that no President—Republican or Democrat—should be allowed to get away with,” said Cole Leiter, Executive Director, Americans Against Government Censorship, “Rather than make sure the IRS is helping everyday Americans file correctly and on time, or even enforcing the tax code to pursue tax cheats and criminals, this Administration has dedicated time and effort to harassing groups that disagree with the President and stand in the way of him implementing his agenda. It is essential that the IRS remain a non-partisan enforcer of our tax laws, and it is essential for Mr. Bisignano to tell the American people how he plans to ensure all Americans are treated fairly.” Rep. Doggett and Rep. Sewell’s full letter can be found here and below. The Honorable Frank Bisignano Chief Executive Officer Internal Revenue Service 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 Dear Mr. Bisignano: We write today because we are gravely concerned that the Administration has weaponized the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by targeting tax-exempt organizations and their donors based on their political beliefs and constitutionally protected advocacy. We have said time and time again that the IRS must do its work impartially and without political bias. Taxpayers should not be targeted based on their political beliefs. The President’s use of the IRS to target any particular taxpayer is both unlawful and unacceptable. Therefore, we are deeply troubled that not only has the IRS compiled a list of Democratic donors and “left-leaning” nonprofit organizations, but that the Administration is moving to label these groups as domestic terrorists. In October 2025, we wrote to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA)[1] requesting an investigation after it was reported that the Administration was encouraging the IRS to facilitate criminal investigations targeting Democratic donors and “left-leaning” nonprofit groups, and that a senior IRS official had compiled a list of potential targets that included George Soros and his affiliated organizations.[2] That report further indicated that the President had ordered Treasury Secretary Bessent, in his capacity as Acting IRS Commissioner, to refer certain tax-exempt organizations to the Department of Justice for further investigation. Most recently, reporting indicates that the IRS Criminal Investigation division has partnered with the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to investigate nonprofit organizations over suspected links to “domestic terrorism.”[3] In a December 4, 2025 memo, the Attorney General defined “domestic terrorism” in part by reference to politically protected speech — including what she termed “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology, anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, or anti-Christianity.”[4] We do not support terrorism domestically or abroad, however, we believe these non-profit organizations are being targeted solely because they do not align with this Administration’s agenda. Earlier this year in testimony before the Ways and Means Committee you committed “100 percent” that under your leadership the IRS would not initiate audits, investigations, or revocations of tax-exempt status based on political targeting. As you know, Section 7217 of the Internal Revenue Code makes it a federal crime for covered political officials within the Executive Branch — including the President, Vice President, the Treasury Secretary, and any employee of the executive office of the President — to request, directly or indirectly, that the IRS audit, investigate, or pursue any particular taxpayer. A violation carries criminal penalties of up to five years imprisonment and a $5,000 fine. Additionally, Section 7217 requires IRS officers and employees to report any prohibited requests to TIGTA; failure to report is itself a separate crime. Given the above, please provide written responses to the following questions by April 2029 2026: Has the President requested — either directly or through his staff — that the IRS audit or investigate any particular taxpayer or category of taxpayers? Has Secretary Bessent requested — either directly or through his staff — that the IRS audit or investigate any particular taxpayer or category of taxpayers? Have any individuals considered “applicable persons” for the purposes of Section 7217 requested — either directly or through staff — that the IRS audit or investigate any particular taxpayer or category of taxpayers? Who was involved in developing the list of investigative targets reported in the press? How many audits, prosecutions, or investigations have been requested in connection with the list? How many have been acted upon? How many have been rejected? Are taxpayers on the list being audited, prosecuted, or investigated in relation to alleged activities or tax issues that are not generally subject to such scrutiny? Who has been involved in pursuing audits, prosecutions, or investigations of taxpayers on the list? Does the list include organizations or individuals that have been publicly named as political opponents by the President, Vice President, Treasury Secretary, or other Administration officials? Has the Department of Justice received any referrals connected to the list? Were these referrals initiated through normal IRS channels or through other means? How many potentially improper requests have been reported to TIGTA? How many requests, if any, were not reported as required? What specific concerns have career IRS employees raised about political interference in enforcement decisions? How many IRS employees have reported such concerns, and through what channels? What internal controls has the IRS put in place to prevent and remedy potential political interference in tax administration? What consequences have been imposed or contemplated for those who have made or carried out potentially improper requests for politically motivated investigations? What steps is the IRS taking to prevent retaliation against officers and employees who decline to participate in or sign off on politically motivated investigations? What steps is the IRS taking to protect the rights of whistleblowers who raise concerns about political interference in tax administration? What have you done to ensure that the letter and spirit of Section 1203 of the IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 — under which the Commissioner “shall terminate” any IRS employee who violates a constitutional right or violates IRS policy for the purpose of retaliating against or harassing a taxpayer, taxpayer representative, or fellow employee — is being followed? Has protected taxpayer information been disclosed to non-IRS employees, including Department of Justice, Treasury, or White House staff? If so: What statutory exception under Section 6103 authorized each such disclosure? For Department of Justice and Treasury employees invoking Section 6103(h)(1), what specific official duties required inspection or disclosure of the information, and how does each disclosure relate to tax administration purposes rather than politically motivated investigations? Have the list(s) of investigative targets been shared with other federal agencies or with parties outside the federal government? If so, with whom have they been shared, under what authority, and for what purpose? What steps are being taken to preserve all records related to potential political interference and potential violations of taxpayer privacy laws, including all records related to the list of investigative targets and any instructions given to IRS personnel regarding that list? An IRS spokesperson has been quoted as saying “IRS Criminal Investigation (IRS-CI) is collaborating with federal law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, to investigate individuals and entities that may be funding domestic terrorism or political violence.”[5] Who determined the targets of these investigations? Is IRS-CI investigating any taxpayers who were on the list of investigative targets? Do any of those being investigated include organizations or individuals that have been publicly named as political opponents by the President, Vice President, Treasury Secretary, or other Administration officials? Are those collaborative investigations exclusively matters of tax administration? If you consider the investigations to involve potential violations that do not fall under tax administration, please describe the basis on which federal tax information could be disclosed under Section 6103 for those purposes. Please describe the evidence that shows any disclosures followed your suggested basis. If you have assigned IRS-CI special agents and other employees to work at the FBI’s direction on matters that are not tax administration, has anyone in the Department of Treasury or the IRS disclosed any federal tax information to those investigations under any Section 6103 provision other than a court order entered under Section 6103(i)(1)? If so, for each disclosure please provide which exception to Section 6103’s prohibitions was used and what reasoning allowed for the disclosure. We expect your full and prompt cooperation with this oversight request. The integrity of federal tax administration, and the constitutional rights of American taxpayers and civic organizations, depend on it. ### [1]Letter to Treasury Acting Inspector General of Tax Administration Hill – Ways & Means Democrats. [2]Trump Team Plans IRS Overhaul to Enable Pursuit of Left-Leaning Groups – WSJ. [3]FBI and IRS to Investigate Nonprofit Groups for Domestic Terrorism Links, Sources Say – CBS News. [4]Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence – Office of the Attorney General. [5]FBI and IRS to Investigate Nonprofit Groups for Domestic Terrorism Links, Sources Say – CBS News.

Doggett, Schakowsky Introduce Brand New “Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act”

Position: The release advocates for federal legislation establishing mandatory minimum nurse staffing standards in nursing homes, requiring 4.1 hours of direct care per resident daily and 24/7 registered nurse presence, citing research linking higher staffing to improved resident safety and care quality.

Washington, D.C.— Today, Reps. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Ranking Member of the House Ways & Means Health Subcommittee, and Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Co-Founder & Co-Chair of the House Democratic Caucus Task Force on Aging and Families, filed brand new legislation to establish comprehensive mandatory minimum nurse staffing standards in nursing homes. For decades, researchers have clearly established a link between higher staffing levels and improvements in the safety and quality of care delivered to nursing home residents. Yet, Trump outrageously repealed minimum staffing rules at the behest of nursing home executives who donated to his campaign. Meanwhile, his draconian immigration policies and ICE abuses are harming the care workforce, and his “Big Beautiful Bill” enacted the largest health care cut in U.S. history—cuts expected to trigger nursing home closures. The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act will establish statutory, mandatory, minimum nurse staffing standards with strong enforceable penalties. The bill text can be found here and a bill summary can be found here. “Once again, the corrupt Trump regime has sold off the best interests of Americans to the highest bidder—repealing modest rules after nursing home executives donated to the Trump campaign,” said Congressman Doggett. “This legislation provides the accountability these executives, often backed by private equity, have dodged for too long. Vulnerable nursing home residents with complex needs, and the compassionate nursing staff caring for them, deserve comprehensive, enforceable staffing standards to ensure their safety, health, and dignity.” "Every person in the United States deserves to age with dignity and have access to high-quality long-term care. Yet for too long, our nation has failed to establish a sustainable, comprehensive long-term care policy,” said Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky. "This critical legislation would require nursing homes to provide a minimum of 4.1 hours of direct care per resident each day and ensure a registered nurse is on duty 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Study after study shows that stronger staffing standards lead to better patient outcomes and higher-quality care. It is past time that we act on the evidence, hold facilities accountable, and ensure every resident receives the person-centered care they deserve.” For decades, taxpayers have invested billions in nursing home care, yet too many facilities continue to fall short of meeting residents’ basic care needs,” said Bill Sweeney, AARP Senior Vice President of Government Affairs. “[This] legislation would help address chronic understaffing and ensure nursing facilities have enough staff to care for the residents they are paid to serve." “Care workers have been sounding the alarm for decades about the dangers of understaffed nursing homes—both for the health and safety of these critical workers and the seniors whose lives are in their hands,” said AFL-CIO President Liz Shuler. “The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act sets minimum standards on staffing to ensure that safety and care never takes a back seat to corporate profits. We commend Rep. Doggett for his leadership on decent staffing standards that will protect America’s workers and save lives.” “Chronic short staffing has plagued our nation’s nursing homes for decades, with 1.3 million Americans living in understaffed facilities on any given day. Nursing home workers are stretched too thin and receive poverty wages to care for our parents and grandparents.,” said SEIU Vice President Leslie Frane. “As the nation’s largest healthcare union, SEIU members demand that Congress stand with us and the people we care for by passing the Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act. All of us deserve to age with dignity and receive high-quality care, but until we fix the dangerous gaps in our long-term care system, we are failing families across the country.” "Care providers and staff at nursing homes are doing everything they can to ensure our loved ones are living with dignity, but across the country, these essential workers are stretched thin, often working long hours, nights and weekends for low pay," said AFSCME President Lee Saunders. "Instead of supporting them, the Trump administration is actively rolling back safe staffing standards for nursing homes, undermining efforts to improve life-sustaining care. The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act, led by Reps. Schakowsky and Doggett, would help ensure safe staffing at nursing homes by establishing clear, enforceable requirements — including 24/7 registered nurse coverage and minimum hours of care per resident. We urge Congress to pass it." “National Consumer Voice for Quality Long-Term Care strongly supports the Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act and is extremely grateful to Representatives Doggett and Schakowsky for introducing this legislation. It is irrefutable that nursing homes with higher staffing levels have better health outcomes and quality of life for residents,” said National Consumer Voice Public Policy Director Sam Brooks. “Understaffing has plagued nursing homes for decades and is the primary driver of poor health outcomes in nursing homes. The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act relies on decades of research to establish a minimum staffing standard that will help ensure residents receive high-quality care and live in safe homes.” “Many nursing home problems, including falls, bed sores, malnutrition, and infections, are the direct result of nursing homes cutting corners and not having enough staff on duty,” said Eric Carlson, Directing Attorney at Justice in Aging. “The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act will do what it says – save lives – by requiring nursing homes to maintain safe staffing levels for nurses and nurse aides. Nursing homes receive tens of billions of federal dollars annually, and it’s about time that residents receive the care that they deserve.” "Having adequate staffing in nursing homes improves patients' health and saves lives. Having sufficient staff to ensure resident wellbeing shouldn't be controversial, but the reality is that the health and safety of residents is imperiled every day in far too many facilities. Whether it is because a company wants to cut corners or private equity is trying to extract maximum profit, the risks of insufficient staff are just too high to be left to the whim of nursing home owners,” said Lisa Gilbert, Co-President of Public Citizen. “The Safe Staffing Saves Live Act is commonsense and an important step toward reforming our broken health care system." Additional Background: Following the first COVID-19 outbreak in the United States at a nursing facility in Washington, Rep. Doggett convened a hearing in the Ways & Means Health Subcommittee concerning the safety and quality of care in nursing homes. He subsequently led Ways & Means Democrats in oversight efforts concerning the accuracy of nursing home data. He later led efforts pressing for reinstatement of nurse aide training requirements. In 2023, Reps. Doggett and Schakowsky led over 100 colleagues in urging the Biden Administration to use its authority under the Nursing Home Reform Act of 1987 to establish staffing standards. Heeding their call, CMS eventually finalized modest regulations, which Trump subsequently repealed. The Safe Staffing Saves Lives Act establishes mandatory, statutory, minimum nurse staffing standards and additional enforceable penalties that go beyond the previous rulemaking. With an increasingly aging population with complex medical needs, it is essential that nursing homes have sufficient nurse staffing. ### Issues:Healthcare

Doggett Condemns Trump Lifting Sanctions on Russian Oil Giants Responsible for Child Trafficking

Position: Rep. Doggett opposes the Trump administration's decision to lift sanctions on Russian oil companies Rosneft and Gazprom, which he argues are involved in trafficking Ukrainian children. He also opposes the administration's withholding of congressionally-approved funding for research documenting these crimes.

Washington, D.C.—Today, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), an active member of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and Helsinki Commission, denounced the Trump regime’s shocking complicity in the trafficking of Ukrainian children and retaliation against researchers who revealed this latest outrage. A newly released report by the Humanitarian Research Lab at Yale University revealed the direct involvement of Russian oil companies Rosneft and Gazprom in the trafficking of Ukrainian children—two companies that Trump recently lifted sanctions on. According to the report, 2,000 Ukrainian children were taken to Russian reeducation camps owned by Rosneft and Gazprom subsidiaries. In response to the report, the Trump regime withheld Congressionally-approved funding for the Humanitarian Research Lab’s efforts tracking kidnapped children—funds that were secured under the leadership of Rep. Doggett. “Trump is helping the kidnappers, not the kidnapped. As he lifts sanctions on companies trafficking Ukrainian children, he retaliates against the people trying to find them,” said Rep. Doggett. “When the State Department learned of Yale's report, they ceased all contact with the program. Yale was supposed to receive $5 million of the $15 million Congress appropriated for these efforts — money that is now in jeopardy. Meanwhile, Rosneft and Gazprom can bank billions for the Kremlin war machine with no consequence for their role in child trafficking. Yale told the truth about what Trump’s policies mean for trafficked children. Like so many others, it is being punished for it.” Rep. Doggett continued: “Researchers have done painstaking, courageous work to document these crimes and to keep the world’s attention on the children that Putin has stolen. They deserve a government that support their work instead of sabotaging it. 35,000 children are waiting.” The Geneva Convention defines the forced transfer of children from an occupied territory to the occupying state as a war crime. By lifting sanctions on these companies and moving to suppress the reports of their crimes, Trump continues to appease the war criminal behind them all – once again putting Putin over American values and interests. Watch the Congressman’s remarks here. ###

Rep. Doggett Statement on Trump’s Declaration of War on Iran

Position: Rep. Doggett opposes Trump's declaration of war on Iran, arguing it lacks legal authorization, exhausts no nonviolent alternatives, and will destabilize the region. He calls for Congress to pass a bipartisan war powers resolution to restrain the president.

Washington, D.C.— U.S Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin) released the following statement in response to Trump’s declaration of War on Iran. “Trump has declared war on Iran without exhausting nonviolent alternatives, without a long-term plan, and without any legal authorization,” said Rep. Doggett. “Wasting billions in a destabilizing bloody conflict, even though directed at a despicable regime, he imperils the lives of Americans and innocent civilians throughout the region. Choosing war is not “peace through strength;” it only distracts from his many failures here at home. With war so much easier to get into than to get out of, every member of Congress can vote this week to restrain Trump by adopting a bipartisan war powers resolution. The fall of Saddam Hussein’s statue in Baghdad was the beginning, not the end of chaos in Iraq that led to 4,000 American deaths and cost $2 trillion. Iran is almost 4 times larger than Iraq with a much stronger military. Iran also has much greater capability for deadly retaliation. Ignoring the lessons from Bush’s war, this unprovoked US/Israeli attack endangers us all. Trump again sends a message to other authoritarians Putin and Xi that war is a tool for the powerful to use whenever they choose” ###

Court Ruling Curbs Trump—But Not the Harm He is Causing

Position: The representative opposes Trump's use of tariff authority under IEEPA and Section 232, arguing that tariffs have harmed American families and small businesses through higher prices, and that refunds will primarily benefit corporations rather than consumers.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz Washington, D.C.—Today, U.S Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin), an active member of the House Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee, released the following statement in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling concerning Trump’s tariff authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) in Learning Resources vs Trump: “While finally stopping Trump’s abuse of one law, the Supreme Court cannot undo the real damage that abuse has already inflicted on American families and small businesses. Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ may be over, but prices driven up by his reckless tariff taxes will not suddenly come down. Nor are those ultimate consumers, who have already paid for tariffs with higher prices, assured any benefit. Any refunds go to corporations, some of whom will pocket a windfall if they have already passed on tariff costs to consumers. “And Trump’s tariff abuse is far from over. Under Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, he will justify tariffs for most anything as necessary to protect our national security like his ridiculous recent security claim for sofas and kitchen cabinets. Trump lost this important case, but the real losers are American families who continue to pay more for a costly, chaotic, and lawless trade war not grounded in economic reality.” ###

Rep. Doggett Statement on EPA’s Reversal of Endangerment Finding

Position: Rep. Doggett opposes the EPA's reversal of its endangerment finding for greenhouse gases, arguing that the rollback prioritizes corporate polluters over public health and removes science-based climate protections.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz Washington, D.C.— U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Austin), a member of the House Sustainable Energy and Environment Coalition (SEEC), released the following statement following today’s reversal of the EPA’s endangerment finding. “Few actions of this horrendous Trump regime endanger us more than terminating the endangerment finding— ignoring the science that greenhouse gases endanger human health,” said Rep. Doggett. “You don’t need to be a sailor to understand that turning off the lighthouse does not move the rocks.” By rolling back decades of science-based protections, the Trump Administration is prioritizing corporate polluters over the American families who will ultimately pay the price for the many ways an overheated planet endangers us. Last year, Rep. Doggett led most Texas Democratic Congressmembers in opposing EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin’s initial proposal to effectively eliminate any federal ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and resultant protections. You can find the full letter here. ### Issues:Protecting Our Planet

Rep. Doggett Demands Answers on Trump's Corrupt Venezuelan Oil Bargain

Position: Rep. Doggett opposes the Trump Administration's handling of Venezuelan oil revenues through an offshore account in Qatar, arguing that the arrangement lacks transparency, violates U.S. law, and appears designed to benefit Trump's political donors rather than Americans or Venezuelans.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz Washington, D.C.— Today, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) demanded full transparency from United States Secretary of State Marco Rubio and United States Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent on the Trump Administration’s handling of revenues from Venezuelan oil through an offshore account in Qatar. Secretary Rubio's testimony before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this morning raised more questions than answers. “President Trump has argued that his personally controlling millions in Venezuelan oil proceeds through an offshore account benefits Americans and Venezuelans, but his actions suggest otherwise,” said Rep. Doggett. “He is unlawfully refusing to honor debts owed to U.S. institutions by the Chavista regime and is instead appears to be rewarding his donors.” The letter seeks further explanation regarding the legal authorities the Trump Administration is utilizing to act as a "custodian" of funds for the Venezuelan government, as well as the safeguards in place to ensure Interim Venezuelan President Delcy Rodriguez does not use these funds to pay off Maduro's cronies. Rep. Doggett’s full letter can be found here and below. Dear Secretary Rubio and Secretary Bessent: I write to request information regarding the Trump Administration’s use of an offshore bank account in Qatar to hold revenues derived from the sale of Venezuelan oil. Any arrangement involving the handling of Venezuelan oil revenues by foreign financial institutions located outside the United States raises significant questions about compliance with U.S. law and broader implications for anti-corruption efforts. President Trump has argued that his personally controlling millions in Venezuelan oil proceeds through an offshore account benefits Americans and Venezuelans, but his actions suggest otherwise. He is unlawfully refusing to honor debts owed to U.S. institutions by the Chavista regime and is instead rewarding his donors. The Financial Times reported that President Trump awarded $250 million in oil proceeds to Vitol, where senior trader John Addison donated $6 million to Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. The Washington Post, meanwhile, found that Trump megadonor and hedge fund billionaire Paul Singer “has for years been in the process of acquiring distressed Venezuelan-owned assets in the U.S. and is on the cusp of owning them…to make a considerable profit turning newly available Venezuelan oil into gasoline.” With no transparency or oversight, we cannot ensure future proceeds will not simply be awarded to another one of the Trump family’s allies. The Venezuelan side of the ledger is also vulnerable to corruption from this arrangement. In his first term, President Trump sanctioned Delcy Rodríguez in 2018 for undermining Venezuelan democracy, describing her as key to Maduro’s ability to “solidify his authoritarian rule.” Since then, the Drug Enforcement Administration has investigated Rodríguez for alleged links to drug trafficking, and, in 2022, labeled her a “priority target,” a designation for suspects believed to have a “significant impact” on the drug trade.Transparencia Venezuela reports that Delcy Rodríguez and her brother Jorge Rodríguez, who heads the legislature, have “[gained] control over a large part of the financial, commercial, energy, diplomatic, political, and production sectors, weaving strategic networks…along with allies and cronies… in what some are starting to call ‘Rodriguismo.’” There are currently no safeguards to ensure the Rodríguez family does not use the revenue to pay off Maduro’s allies, including paramilitary groups and drug cartels, to maintain control of the country. Given the potential implications for democratic accountability, U.S. sanctions policy, and financial transparency, I request written responses to the following questions by February 11: 1) You have stated that Qatar was chosen because it is “neutral” territory. What criteria were used to determine this “neutrality” and the preference of Qatar over other countries? 2) Why did the Administration not choose a country with much stronger banking laws and a history of robust management of oil revenues? For instance, Norway is considered the world leader in financial oversight of oil revenues. Why was a bank account thus not established under Norwegian jurisdiction? 3) Secretary Rubio testified today that the bank account in Qatar will ultimately become a U.S. Treasury based account in the United States, subject to an audit process agreed upon between the United States and Venezuela. Under what legislation and related authorities has the Administration authorized the establishment of a U.S. bank account on behalf of the Venezuelan government? a) What institutional mechanisms are being established to ensure full Congressional oversight and the associated required transparency in a timely manner? b) What will that audit process entail? 4) Secretary Rubio also stated that this arrangement was memorialized in a written agreement with Venezuela. Please provide a copy of the agreement. 5) Press have reported that Venezuela has received $300 million of the first $500 million in an oil sale. Secretary Rubio testified today that the remaining $200 million is in the bank account in Qatar. Will that money be put into a U.S.-based Treasury account, as Secretary Rubio suggested? If not, where is it being directed? Which Venezuelan companies received the foreign currency from the $300 million sale? 6) Being as the Administration has stated this arrangement is a short-term solution, how will the State Department ensure rigorous oversight via inspectors general, especially the State Department IG, for future Venezuelan revenue in the long-term? Given the complexity of oversight in this case, what authorities and appropriations for a Special Inspector General for Venezuela (SIGV) will the State Department be seeking from Congress? 7) The administration has undermined the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the Foreign Extortion Prevention Act, and yet these laws are vital to minimizing the willingness of Venezuelan officials to ask for bribes from U.S. companies and for those companies to comply. The two companies awarded Venezuelan oil licenses, Vitol and Trafigura, have been implicated by the Justice Department in bribery scandals. What is the State Department doing to re-invigorate these laws regarding Venezuela and corruption more broadly? 8) What is the State Department doing to track existing illicit financial flows related to Venezuelan criminal state capture? a) Most notably, proceeds from Venezuelan oil-related corruption have been laundered via cryptocurrency. How is the Department helping Venezuelan authorities to track these assets? What is the Department doing to ensure that US-associated cryptocurrency firms are not engaging in further illicit financial flows associated with these Qatar-based oil revenues? 9) How is the United States assisting Venezuela in establishing new oil and other natural resourceassociated laws and institutions that meet international best practices? 10) What is the State Department doing to lift the oppression that has prevented civil society and the press from providing the oversight so critical to developing good governance and starting to unwind the criminal capture of the Venezuelan state? 11) While the National Defense Strategy focuses on so-called "narco-terrorism” in Venezuela, much of the criminal capture of the state is not oil-based. This includes gold smuggling, human trafficking, extortion, and environmental crimes. These crimes can often generate proceeds in excess of those from narcotics. What is the State Department doing to stop these aspects of Venezuela’s criminal state capture? I look forward to your prompt response and to ensuring that U.S. foreign policy decisions affecting Americans, Venezuelans, and sanctioned authoritarian regimes are carried out transparently, lawfully, and in close consultation with Congress. ### Issues:Pushing Back Against Trump/Musk

Helsinki Commissioner Rep. Doggett Introduces Bipartisan Sanctions Package on Russian Energy

Position: Rep. Doggett introduced two bipartisan bills to strengthen sanctions on Russian energy: one closing the refining loophole that allows Russian oil to be laundered through third countries and sold in the U.S., and another banning U.S. companies and their foreign subsidiaries from providing petroleum equipment, software, or services to Russia.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz Washington, D.C.— An active member of the Congressional Ukraine Caucus and Helsinki Commission, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-TX) introduced two bipartisan pieces of legislation to undercut the Russian war machine by strengthening the current ban on Russian petroleum products as well as prohibiting U.S. involvement in Russia’s energy sector. The Ending Importation of Laundered Russian Oil Act would close the “refining loophole” that allows Russian oil to be laundered through third-party countries and sold in the United States as gasoline and other petroleum products, and the No Aid for Russian Energy Act would ban U.S. companies and individuals—and their foreign subsidiaries—from providing petroleum equipment, software, or services to Russia. Ending Importation of Laundered Russian Oil Act: "While more military assistance to Ukraine remains the most urgent priority, much more must be done to reduce funding for Putin’s ‘well-oiled’ war machine,” said Rep. Doggett. “Russia is selling millions of barrels of oil that are refined through foreign refineries and resold around the world. For too long, Americans have unknowingly been helping to fund both sides of this war. Though critical of refining in India, Trump has ignored the modest flow of laundered Russian oil still being imported to America, which represents enough income to buy thousands of deadly drones. The European Union is finally closing this “refining” loophole; we need to do the same.” The bill is cosponsored by Don Bacon (R-NE), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Rich McCormick (R-GA), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Brad Schneider (D-IL), Chris Smith (R-NJ), and Joe Wilson (R-SC). No Aid for Russian Energy Act: “As Putin continues to kill Ukrainians, Texas oilfield service companies have continued to help him fund the war by strengthening Russian energy production,” said Rep. Doggett. “This legislation would do what the Trump Administration should already have done—stop American companies from oiling the Putin war machine.” Last year, Rep. Doggett led colleagues in bipartisan effort to demand a tightening of Russian oil sanctions and to question an exception granted to U.S. oilfield services companies to continue serving as accomplices to Vladimir Putin. The Biden Administration banned U.S. petroleum services from providing support to Russia in January 2025. However, U.S. oilfield services companies have continued to enable Russian oil despite U.S. sanctions through a vast network of foreign subsidiaries. The bill is cosponsored by Don Bacon (R-NE), Gus Bilirakis (R-FL), Steve Cohen (D-TN), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), and Mike Quigley (D-IL). Quotes from Endorsing Organizations: Endorsing organizations: Razom for Ukraine, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA), B4Ukraine, and Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD) Action. "New reports show U.S. companies, most notably Houston-based energy giant SLB, continue to enable Russia’s oil profits, which Moscow uses to finance its war against Ukraine. This ongoing engagement undermines sanctions and directly contradicts U.S. national interests. Washington must fully defund Russia’s oil sector by every available means. Deprived of American equipment and expertise, the sector would rapidly degrade. That is why B4Ukraine proudly supports this bill as a critical step toward cutting war funding and bringing a just peace closer. A ban on imports of refined products from refineries running on Russian crude is also urgently needed. Between January 2024 and June 2025, the U.S. imported $3.6 bn of oil products from three refineries in India. Of this, an estimated $1.5 bn was processed using Russian crude. Because the volumes involved are marginal for the United States, experts agree this policy is unlikely to affect gas prices. What it will do is reduce demand for Russian oil and create clear incentives for refineries to move away from Russian crude if they wish to export to the U.S. market. Closing this loophole is therefore a common-sense step for the United States: it weakens Russia’s capacity to wage war while imposing no cost on American taxpayers." – Nezir Sinani, Executive Director, B4Ukraine "Russia's ability to circumvent U.S. oil sanctions through refining loopholes and foreign subsidiaries represents a critical vulnerability in our efforts to pressure Putin's regime. These bills address fundamental weaknesses that allow billions of dollars to continue flowing to Moscow. By closing the refining loophole and prohibiting companies from enabling Russian oil production through any corporate structure, Congress can ensure that American sanctions achieve their intended purpose: cutting off the financial lifeline that sustains Russia's war in Ukraine. FDD Action is proud to endorse Rep. Doggett's legislation, which deserves strong bipartisan support." – Daniel Vaynshteyn, Associate Director for Government Relations, FDD Action "Russia’s war machine runs on energy revenue. The Ending Importation of Laundered Russian Oil Act and the No Aid for Russian Energy Act close the ‘refining loophole’ and bar U.S. petroleum services—directly or through foreign subsidiaries—from helping fuel Putin’s aggression against Ukraine." - Diana Godlevskaya, Director of Government Affairs, Razom for Ukraine “Russia’s energy exports finance its war machine; cutting that revenue is not punishment—it is prevention. The Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) underscores that robust energy sanctions are essential not only to Ukraine’s survival and freedom, but also to advancing U.S. national security interests by weakening authoritarian aggression, strengthening global stability, and upholding the rules-based international order. The urgent need for decisive action is underscored by Russia’s latest terror on Ukraine’s cities and critical infrastructure, including the devastating overnight missile and drone strikes that killed civilians, disrupted power and heat in freezing winter conditions, and damaged vital infrastructure on January 9, 2026, making clear that unchecked energy revenue only fuels further Russian aggression, imperialist ambitions and the genocide of Ukrainians." - Michael Sawkiw, Jr., President, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America (UCCA) Text of the Ending Importation of Laundered Russian Oil Act can be viewed here. Text of the No Aid for Russian Energy Act can be viewed here. ###

Rep. Doggett Condemns Republican Plan Replacing ObamaCare with NothingCare

Position: Rep. Doggett opposes the Republican health care bill, arguing it eliminates ACA premium tax credits, reduces health care access, and fails to provide relief for families facing rising premiums. He advocates for maintaining the tax credits that make the ACA affordable.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz Watch the Congressman’s remarks here Today, Rep. Lloyd Doggett (D-TX), Ranking Member of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, spoke out against the Republican-created health care crisis. After previously rejecting Rep. Doggett’s amendment to maintain the tax credits that help millions of families afford ACA plans, Republicans shut down the government for weeks, and waited all year to eventually offer a bill that replaces ObamaCare with NothingCare. Rep. Doggett also reacted to some Republicans joining Leader Jeffries’ discharge petition to maintain the ACA credits for three more years: “This last-minute effort by four Republicans to insulate themselves from public outrage may provide them some political cover, but it will do nothing for the struggling families who now face soaring health premiums. After signing our Democratic petition to maintain essential support for the Affordable Care Act, they once again voted against our motion to provide immediate relief by taking up the petition today.” Watch the Congressman’s remarks here. Rep. Doggett’s remarks, as delivered, are below: In a bill that they call ‘big’ and ‘beautiful,’ Republicans have approved the biggest reduction in access to health care in American history. They rejected my amendment in committee to maintain the tax credits that make the Affordable Care Act truly affordable. Now, after shutting down the government for weeks, delaying further weeks, they offer this sorry bill, this loser, wrapped up in a bow for Christmas. To Andrew and his family down in Austin, this phony bill means zero relief on premiums. Premiums that are going to spike for his family by nearly $2,000 per month. Nothing for Russell, a prostate cancer survivor just two years away from Medicare, wondering how he will afford the screenings and any necessary care. And for a mother in Austin who contacted me about the stop-loss provision that is reinforced in this bill, it means the possibility that after her three-year-old child was diagnosed with cancer, they will lose all their coverage. These are real-life stories from my neighbors who have been forgotten by Republicans in their rush to provide more tax benefits for their billionaire buddies. They forget the struggles of so many working Americans. Republicans have made over 70 attempts to destroy the Affordable Care Act, which they all opposed. They peddled junk insurance policies that would deny essential consumer protection benefits under the Affordable Care Act. They could even make matters worse with one provision in this bill that will allow the reinstituting of pre-existing conditions that were used to bar coverage for so many people before the Affordable Care Act. This is their commitment to deny health care, to provide no relief on premiums that are soaring. In short, it means replacing ObamaCare with NothingCare. I yield back. Issues:Healthcare

Doggett, Van Hollen Demand Answers on “Flexible” Foreign Aid Funds

Position: The members demand congressional oversight and accountability for the Trump Administration's use of foreign aid funds, expressing concern that the proposed America First Opportunity Fund lacks transparency and may create an unaccountable system susceptible to corruption and misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Contact: Luis Botello Faz 202-494-4620 Washington, D.C.—Today, U.S. Representative Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas) and Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-Maryland) led colleagues in requesting immediate answers from State Secretary Marco Rubio regarding the Trump Administration’s approach to U.S. foreign assistance. They were joined by 120 House members and 5 Senators. After shuttering USAID and rescinding most of its funding, the Trump Administration had $1.8 billion in remaining appropriated funds to which it has sought a $2.9 billion addition to establish the America First Opportunity Fund for “flexible” foreign aid spending. This would purportedly be used toward vaguely defined initiatives advancing Trump’s “America First” agenda. “Since the Administration has refused to provide a meaningful explanation as to how these foreign aid funds are being used, we are seeking answers to provide the oversight that this Republican Congress refuses to provide,” said Rep. Doggett. “Taxpayer dollars should not be used as a slush fund to reward Trump's billionaire friends and political allies while pursuing his latest whim. Let’s assure that there really is no waste, fraud, and abuse.” “President Trump illegally rescinded billions of previously appropriated foreign aid dollars and is currently sitting on nearly $2 billion in unspent funds for foreign assistance, after taking a chainsaw to USAID and our international development architecture. And yet, his Administration has asked Congress for nearly $3 billion more for vaguely defined so-called ‘America First’ initiatives. Given this Administration’s track record and Congress’s power of the purse, we need answers on how they intend to use these taxpayer dollars,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen. In the letter, the Members wrote, “After the Administration justified its dismantling of USAID to eliminate ‘waste, fraud, and abuse,’ it may be creating an unaccountable foreign aid system highly susceptible to the very corruption it claimed to have addressed…It is critical that Congress maintain effective oversight over the world’s largest foreign aid budget that encompasses vital national security priorities like military assistance, arms agreements, and counterterrorism efforts.” The letter seeks answers regarding the reallocation of USAID funds and the proposed America First Opportunity Fund. Today’s full letter can be read here. The letter is cosigned by Cory Booker (NJ), Andy Kim (NJ), Jeff Merkley (OR), Bernard Sanders (VT), Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Joe Neguse (CO-02), Gabe Amo (RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Becca Balint (VT-AL), Donald Beyer (VA-08), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), Suzzane Bonamici (OR-01), Brendan F. Boyle (PA-02), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), André Carson (IN-07), Salud Carbajal (CA-24), Troy Carter (LA-02), Greg Casar (TX-35), Sean Casten (IL-06), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Joaquin Castro (TX-20), Judy Chu (CA-28), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Joe Courtney (CT-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Jason Crow (CO-06), Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Diana DeGette (CO-01), Christopher Deluzio (PA-17), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Lizzie Fletcher (TX-07), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús García (IL-04), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Al Green (TX-09), Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07), Jahana Hayes (CT-05), Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Sara Jacobs (CA-51), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Henry Johnson (GA-04), Julie Johnson (TX-32), William Keating (MA-09), Ro Khanna (CA-17), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Summer Lee (PA-12), Susie Lee (NV-03), Mike Levin (CA-49), Sam Liccardo (CA-16), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Seth Magaziner (RI-02), John Mannion (NY-22), Doris Matusi (CA-07), Sarah McBride (DL-AL), James McGovern (MA-02), Robert Menendez (NJ-08), Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Dave Min (CA-47), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Joseph Morelle (NY-25), Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Donald Norcross (NJ-01), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Johnny Olszewski (MD-02), Ilhan Omar (MN-05), Frank Pallone (NJ-06), Brittany Pettersen (CO-07), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Mark Pocan (WI-02), Nellie Pou (NJ-09), Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Emily Randall (WA-06), Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Deborah K. Ross (NC-02), Raul Ruiz (CA-25), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Bradley Schneider (IL-10), Kim Schrier (WA-08), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Brad Sherman (CA-32), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Darren Soto (FL-09), Greg Stanton (AZ-04), Marilyn Strickland (WA-10), Suhas Subramanyam (VA-10), Thomas R. Suozzi (NY-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Jill Tokuda (HI-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Derek Tran (CA-45), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Gabe Vazquez (NM-02), Marc A. Veasey (Tx-33), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), James Eugene Simon Vindman (VA-07), Walkinshaw (VA-11), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (FL-25), Maxine Waters (CA-43), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Nikema Williams (GA-05) Full text below: We write regarding the Administration’s actions over U.S. foreign aid, including the State Department’s plans to reallocate nearly $2 billion that Congress had appropriated for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) toward vaguely defined initiatives aimed to advance President Trump’s “America First” agenda. This follows the Administration’s request to establish the $2.9 billion America First Opportunity Fund (A1OF) for “flexible” foreign aid spending in May, despite its appeal that Congress rescind $8.3 billion in previously appropriated foreign aid in June and unilateral cancellation of $5 billion in foreign aid already signed into law in August. Given the Administration’s pledge to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse” in U.S. foreign aid, we request more information on the potential transformation of these Congressional budget accounts into multi-billion-dollar funds that your Department has argued “make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous” without providing any further explanation. The Department’s September 12 notification to Congress outlines that the $1.8 billion previously appropriated for programs implemented by USAID would instead be obligated for State Department-run programs, including countering “Marxist, anti-American regimes” in Latin America, supporting “U.S. immigration priorities” in Africa, and “economic development and conservation work” in Greenland. Meanwhile, the cancellation of at least $19 million in emergency food assistance for famine-stricken Sudan and $27 million to counter deadly infectious disease in the conflict-afflicted Democratic Republic of Congo risks infectious disease outbreaks and global conflict that endanger Americans, running counter to the President’s stated mission. The President’s FY2026 Budget Request to Congress indicated the A1OF would utilize $2.9 billion to “focus on strategic investments that make America safer, stronger, and more prosperous” and fund “new activities to strengthen America’s national security priorities.” Unlike previous Congressional Budget Justifications, it did not specify what those activities would be nor the amount of funding allocated for each activity. The Administration suggested the A1OF could be used for initiatives as varied as U.S. contributions to the United Nations; international peacekeeping; international security assistance; loan guarantees; global disease outbreaks; or anything else the President deems necessary. After the Administration justified its dismantling of USAID to eliminate “waste, fraud, and abuse,” it may be creating an unaccountable foreign aid system highly susceptible to the very corruption it claimed to have addressed. Considering our constitutional responsibility to serve as stewards of taxpayer dollars, we request your prompt answers to the following questions by December 30. Regarding the reallocation of USAID funds: 1. Knowing that the $1.8 billion had to be obligated by September 30, did the Administration have a plan for what specifically to fund before it abruptly cancelled USAID programs in July? 2. Regarding the $1.8 billion obligated by September 30, please provide an itemized list of every country and/or organization that is receiving funding, the amount, and the purpose. 3. What specific activities will be supported by funding dedicated to “[confronting] the Marxist, anti[1]American regimes of Venezuela, Cuba, and Nicaragua”? 4. What specific activities will be supported by funding dedicated to “U.S. immigration priorities” in Africa? Will this include deporting third-country nationals from the United States to African countries? Regarding the A1OF: 1. Who is the individual responsible for recommending to you any awards? 2. What governs the agreements under the A1OF? Will there be a competitive, open process for making awards? Will these be contracts, grants, or compacts? 3. What policies or procedures are being developed to ensure that A1OF funds will be administered with internal control standards comparable to those in place for foreign assistance programming prior to January 2025? 4. The A1OF proposal references investment funds. How do you classify waste, fraud, or abuse under an investment fund? What are the reporting requirements for these funds? 5. How will A1OF funding be monitored in conflict zones? How and to whom will waste, fraud, or abuse be reported? 6. The A1OF proposal directly references India and Jordan as potential funding recipients. What other countries are being considered, and under what criteria? 7. Are you consulting with local organizations and communities in deciding which projects to fund? 8. If funds are to be invested via private firms, how do you ensure for-profit programs are not advantaged over nonprofit programs? 9. What are the criteria used in awarding funds? 10. What are the branding and marking requirements under the agreements that indicate that funding was provided by the U.S.? It is critical that Congress maintain effective oversight over the world’s largest foreign aid budget that encompasses vital national security priorities like military assistance, arms agreements, and counterterrorism efforts. We look forward to your prompt responses justifying where, why, and how the Administration intends to spend billions of taxpayer dollars around the world. ### Issues:Pushing Back Against Trump/Musk