See how Bill Foster's votes line up with your values.
DeepSyte scores Bill Foster's record on the issues you care about — not party, not press releases. Take the 2-minute values quiz to see your personal alignment.
Sign in and take the values quiz to see how Bill Foster's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Bill Foster's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
To prohibit the disclosure of records by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement, and for other purposes.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Based on 9 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-4367·Consistent
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024
92/100
What they said
Mar 5, 2026
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Congressman Foster's statement explicitly opposes DHS funding that lacks ICE reforms, and he voted against passage of the DHS Appropriations Act. His stated position—that he will not support DHS funding without serious ICE reforms—directly aligns with his no vote on this bill, which provides appropriations for ICE without the reforms he demanded. The consistency is strong on the primary substantive question of conditioning DHS/ICE funding on reform requirements.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
92/100
What they said
Mar 5, 2026
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Congressman Foster's statement explicitly opposes DHS funding that lacks ICE reforms, stating he 'voted against this funding bill, and will continue to oppose any legislation that funds ICE without including serious reforms.' His recorded 'no' vote on passage of the DHS Appropriations Act is directly consistent with this stated position. The bill provides appropriations for ICE without the reforms Foster demanded, making his opposition vote align clearly with his public statement.
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Foster's statement opposes DHS funding without ICE reforms and emphasizes Congressional authority over military action. The Secure the Border Act focuses on border wall construction and asylum restrictions without addressing ICE accountability measures Foster demanded. His NO vote aligns with his stated opposition to DHS funding that lacks ICE reforms, though the bill's primary focus (border barriers, asylum limits) differs from the specific ICE reform provisions he highlighted. The consistency is strong on the directional question—opposing DHS legislation without his preferred reforms—but the bill's actual content (border construction, not ICE operations) creates some granularity mismatch.
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Foster's statement opposes DHS funding without ICE reforms and emphasizes accountability for immigration enforcement practices. The bill penalizes sanctuary jurisdictions by restricting federal funds, effectively pressuring cooperation with ICE detainers and information-sharing—a hardline immigration enforcement approach. Foster's NO vote aligns with his stated opposition to DHS funding that lacks ICE reform safeguards; he would likely view this bill as strengthening ICE's hand without the 'commonsense guardrails' and accountability measures he advocates. The statement and vote point in the same direction on immigration enforcement policy, though the bill addresses a specific mechanism (sanctuary city funding restrictions) rather than the internal ICE reforms Foster emphasizes.
Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act
78/100
What they said
Mar 5, 2026
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Foster's statement opposes DHS funding without ICE reforms and emphasizes the need for accountability and guardrails in immigration enforcement. The bill mandates DHS custody and deportation for non-citizens who assault law enforcement—a narrow, enforcement-focused provision that does not address the broader ICE reform standards Foster advocated for (described as 'commonsense guardrails' and 'standards most law enforcement already follow'). His no vote is consistent with his stated opposition to DHS-related legislation lacking the reforms he prioritizes, though the bill's specific focus on assault-related deportations represents a different enforcement mechanism than the systemic ICE reforms his statement emphasizes.
Continuing Appropriations and Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024
75/100
What they said
Mar 5, 2026
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Foster's statement opposes DHS funding without ICE reforms and supports Congressional war powers constraints. The bill is a continuing resolution that funds DHS and includes immigration-related provisions, though the summary does not specify whether it contains the ICE reforms Foster demands. Foster voted no on passage, consistent with his stated opposition to DHS funding lacking ICE reforms. However, the bill's specific immigration provisions and whether they constitute meaningful reform are unclear from the summary, creating some ambiguity about whether his no vote reflects opposition to the bill's immigration content or other factors (e.g., the CR's across-the-board funding reductions). The war powers statement is separate from this appropriations bill and does not directly bear on the vote.
Congress must authorize any sustained military conflict with Iran through a War Powers resolution. Military strikes alone cannot address Iran's nuclear threat; the administration must pursue verified international nuclear inspections, accounting of enriched uranium stockpiles, and sustained diplomacy to prevent escalation.
Foster's statement emphasizes the need for Congressional authorization via War Powers resolution before sustained military conflict with Iran, and calls for diplomacy and international nuclear inspections rather than military strikes alone. His yes vote on the 21st Century Peace through Strength Act is generally consistent with this position insofar as the bill imposes sanctions on Iranian missile programs and petroleum exports—economic and diplomatic tools aligned with his stated preference for non-military pressure. However, the bill does not explicitly address Congressional war authorization or nuclear inspections, and Foster's statement focuses on preventing escalation into broader conflict, while the sanctions provisions represent a hardline approach that could be seen as escalatory. The consistency is directional but incomplete.
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
Both the statement and bill address immigration enforcement policy, but they target different specific questions. The statement opposes DHS/ICE funding absent comprehensive ICE reforms addressing accountability and standards. The POLICE Act creates a new deportability ground for assaulting law enforcement—a narrower enforcement mechanism that does not directly address the systemic ICE reforms Foster advocates for. Foster's NO vote is consistent with his stated opposition to immigration enforcement measures that lack broader accountability reforms, but the bill does not substantively engage the reform framework he describes. The direction of opposition aligns, but the bills address different policy levers within immigration enforcement.
Congressman Foster opposes DHS funding that does not include ICE reforms and supports Congressional authorization requirements for military action, arguing that the President lacks constitutional authority to conduct sustained military operations in Iran without explicit Congressional approval.
The statement and bill both touch immigration enforcement but address different specific questions. The statement opposes DHS/ICE funding absent reforms to ICE practices and accountability; the bill creates new criminal penalties for fleeing law enforcement near the border. The rep's NO vote is consistent with opposition to immigration enforcement measures, but the bill does not directly fund ICE or address the ICE reform standards the statement emphasizes. The vote direction aligns with the rep's stated skepticism of enforcement-focused immigration policy, but the bill's specific provision (criminal penalties for fleeing) is not the same question as ICE institutional reform.
Pairs with ambiguous language and high uncertainty are withheld until more data is available. Procedural, cloture, and amendment votes are excluded — they don't cleanly signal substantive support or opposition.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Bill Foster's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
Positions Bill Foster took during their campaign, scored against their subsequent record — public statements cross-checked with related votes. “Kept” means 80%+ of those statement-vs-vote pairs aligned; “Broken” means 30% or fewer.
0 kept0 broken0 mixed0 no action yet
Bill Foster has 1 tracked position but no scored statement-vs-vote pairs touching them yet. Verdicts will appear here as related statements and votes accumulate.
No action yetSupports
A national law should protect access to abortion in every state.
“Bill fight to defend women's bodily autonomy and the right for every American to access reproductive health care.”
Passage votes where Bill Foster broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
Foster Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Expand Public Service Loan Forgiveness
Position: Introduces bipartisan legislation to allow payments under a broader range of repayment plans, including graduated, extended, and tiered standard plans, to count toward Public Service Loan Forgiveness for a borrower's first 60 qualifying payments.
Washington, DC – Today, Representatives Bill Foster (D-IL) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA) introduced the bipartisan Public Service Loan Forgiveness Inclusion Act of 2026 to expand the types of student loan repayment plans eligible for forgiveness and support those who forgo potentially lucrative careers to work in public service.
The Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program was established in 2007 and requires the Department of Education to forgive federal student loans after borrowers make at least 10 years of qualifying payments while working for certain public service employers. Currently, 97 percent of public servants who have applied for loan forgiveness have been denied. Millions of borrowers who enrolled in the PSLF program were told after they had already made payments that they had the wrong type of loan or repayment plan and would not qualify for forgiveness under the program.
This bill would allow payments made under a broader range of payment plans—including graduated repayment plans, extended repayment plans, and the new tiered standard repayment plans—to count toward PSLF for a borrower’s first 60 qualifying payments.
“The rising cost of higher education is forcing more Americans to take on significant student debt. This financial burden can often discourage talented individuals from pursuing a career in public service,” said Rep. Foster. “It’s past time to expand which student loan repayment plans qualify for forgiveness and make the process easier to navigate.”
The bill is supported by the American Council on Education (ACE), the American Association of Colleges and Universities (AAC&U), Young Invincibles, and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT): Education, Healthcare, Public Services.
It is cosponsored by Reps. Jesús ‘Chuy’ García (D-IL), Sanford Bishop (D-GA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), André Carson (D-IN), Angie Craig (D-MN), Shomari Figures (D-AL), and Alma Adams (D-NC).
A copy of the legislation is available here.
###
Rep. Foster Introduces Bill to Improve Financial Sector Security Amid Rising AI Risks
Position: Introduces legislation to give the NCUA and FHFA authority to oversee third-party technology vendors used by regulated financial entities, citing cybersecurity risks posed by advances in artificial intelligence.
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced legislation to strengthen oversight of technology service providers that support the financial services industry as advances in artificial intelligence (AI) create new risks for financial institutions and their customers.
The Strengthening Oversight for the Financial Sector Act would give the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) and the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) the authority to oversee third-party vendors used by the entities they regulate. This authority, which is available to other federal financial regulators, had been temporarily granted to the NCUA, but has since expired, leaving a dangerous gap in oversight.
As AI makes it easier to identify and exploit vulnerabilities, reliance on third-party technology vendors could provide an attractive opening for attacks on financial institutions. This bill would close that gap and help protect consumers, financial institutions, and the broader financial system from outside threats.
“As AI makes cyberattacks more sophisticated, it is even more important to ensure that third-party vendors don’t become a weak link in our financial system,” said Rep. Foster. “We have learned the hard way how much damage supply chain vulnerabilities can cause, and third-party vendors are attractive targets. This bill will give regulators the tools they need to better protect Americans’ money and sensitive data as AI-assisted cyber threats grow.”
The authority to oversee third-party vendors has been requested by NCUA and FHFA directors from both political parties. The Government Accountability Office and the Financial Stability Oversight Council have made similar recommendations regarding the need for oversight of third-party vendors' vulnerabilities to AI risk.
A version of this legislation passed the House Financial Services Committee in the 117th Congress, but did not receive a floor vote.
A copy of the bill is available here.
###
Rep. Foster Leads Bipartisan Group to Demand Answers Regarding Insufficient USCIS Correspondence
Position: Members of Congress are demanding that DHS and USCIS leadership address deficiencies in agency correspondence with congressional offices regarding casework, including incorrect case references, unaddressed inquiries, and lack of follow-up channels.
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) led a bipartisan coalition of 70 Members of Congress in demanding answers from DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Director Joseph Edlow regarding an alarming pattern in Congressional casework over the past several months.
Despite increased funding for USCIS under H.R. 1, the agency’s correspondence with congressional offices has become increasingly problematic. Congressional caseworkers are receiving responses from USCIS liaison services that reference the wrong constituent or case number, fail to address the questions raised in their inquiries, and provide no clear avenue for staff to ask follow-up questions or request additional information.
Congressional USCIS casework often involves children without a parent or guardian and nowhere to go, spouses who are facing separation, or families that have escaped warfare or other traumatic instability. Additionally, USCIS deals with work permits, meaning insufficient correspondence from the agency impacts local businesses.
In the letter to Secretary Mullin and Director Edlow, the Members wrote:
“Congressional caseworkers have become trapped in a frustrating, never-ending cycle that undermines their ability to effectively assist constituents. The Congressional inquiry process is meant to facilitate communication between USCIS and Members of Congress on behalf of the people they represent.
“When inquiries are met with these inadequate responses—and there is no meaningful avenue for follow-up—that purpose is defeated.”
A copy of the letter and a list of cosigners are available here.
###
Rep. Foster Leads 50 Colleagues in Urging Continued Funding for School and Library Broadband
Position: Urges the FCC to preserve the E-Rate program, which discounts broadband and telecommunications services for low-income schools and libraries, and opposes terminating or restricting it to rural areas over screen-time concerns.
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) led 50 of his colleagues in demanding continued support of the E-Rate program from the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to fund broadband for low-income schools and libraries.
E-Rate provides libraries and schools with discounts of 20 to 90% on telecommunications services and equipment. It has helped libraries and schools afford broadband connectivity since its creation in the Telecommunications Act of 1996, when only 14% of libraries and schools had internet access. Today, that figure is nearly 100%, and the program supports over 12,500 libraries and 106,000 schools nationwide.
The letter comes in response to recent statements from the FCC indicating that they may consider terminating E-Rate, or limiting eligibility exclusively to rural areas, citing concerns about excessive screentime for students. Limiting E-Rate would imperil funding for essential services like internet access at low-income schools and libraries across the country.
In the letter to FCC Chairman Brendan Carr, the Members wrote:
“The FCC has overseen the E-Rate program through both Democratic and Republican administrations, and the program has historically enjoyed broad bipartisan support. The FCC itself has acknowledged E-Rate’s importance, calling it an “extraordinary success as the federal government’s largest education technology program.”
“Cuts to E-Rate would place significant financial strain on schools across the country, particularly those serving low-income communities. As such, we respectfully urge the Commission to preserve the E-Rate program and address any concerns regarding student screen time through policies that do not undermine the digital infrastructure on which libraries and schools depend.”
A copy of the letter and a list of cosigners is available here.
###
Issues:Education
Foster Introduces Bill to Curb Political Self-Branding on Federal Buildings and Programs
Position: Congressman Foster introduced the Federal Naming Standards Act, which would bar naming federal buildings, facilities, and programs after elected officials or political appointees until at least 10 years after they leave office, and permanently for former officials earning over $1 million annually from commercial use of their name or likeness. The release criticizes the naming of federal institutions after President Trump.
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) led 19 of his colleagues in introducing the Federal Naming Standards Act. This legislation would prevent federal buildings, facilities, and programs from being named after elected officials or political appointees until at least 10 years after they leave office. Even beyond that time frame, no former official who makes more than $1 million annually from the commercial use of their name or likeness would be able to have anything named after them.
“At a time when public trust in government is under strain, Congress must ensure that public institutions serve the public—not the interests of any individual officeholder,” said Congressman Foster. “President Trump’s attempts to put his name on the Kennedy Center, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and a new fleet of Navy vessels are especially concerning due to his family's commercial empire. By attaching his personal brand to federally funded institutions and initiatives, he is using the presidency to further his private business interests, raising serious ethical concerns.”
This legislation is endorsed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Public Citizen.
This legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Lou Correa (D-CA), Madeleine Dean (D-PA), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), John Garamendi (D-CA), Jesús "Chuy" García (D-IL), Val Hoyle (D-OR), Sam Liccardo (D-CA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Morgan McGarvey (D-KY), Gwen Moore (D-WI), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Donald Norcross (D-NJ), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Raul Ruiz (D-CA), Brad Sherman (D-CA), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Marc Veasey (D-TX), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
A copy of the bill can be found here.
###
Foster Introduces Legislation to Crack Down on “Notario” Fraud
Position: The release describes legislation introduced to penalize fraudulent immigration legal services, allow reconsideration of cases affected by such fraud, and fund education and nonprofit legal aid for immigrants.
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Protecting Immigrants from Legal Exploitation Act. The legislation would create penalties for those who provide fraudulent immigration legal services and allow immigrants who are victims of fraud to have their cases reconsidered under certain circumstances. It would also create grant programs to educate immigrants on how to avoid legal service fraud and help qualified nonprofit organizations provide legal services to immigrants.
In many Latin American countries, "notario" or "notario público" refers to state-appointed lawyers. However, in the United States, a notary only has the authority to witness and certify legal documents. This linguistic discrepancy can expose many recent immigrants, particularly those from Latin American countries, to the risk of fraudulent immigration legal services.
“My office, like many other Members of Congress, has seen a large increase in people seeking assistance with their immigration cases in the wake of the Trump Administration’s attacks on immigrant communities,” said Rep. Foster. “Now more than ever, well-meaning immigrants are vulnerable to fraudulent immigration lawyers looking to exploit them for money, possibly leading to their deportation. It's time to stop scammers from targeting vulnerable immigrants who are working to follow the legal immigration process in a time of fear and uncertainty.”
The Protecting Immigrants from Legal Exploitation Act is cosponsored by Reps. Salud Carbajal (D-CA), Judy Chu (D-CA), Gil Cisneros (D-CA), Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-IL), Hank Johnson (D-GA), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Seth Moulton (D-MA), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Jimmy Panetta (D-CA), Mike Quigley (D-IL), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL), Paul Tonko (D-NY), Juan Vargas (D-CA), and Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL).
A copy of the legislation is available here.
###
Foster Introduces Legislation to Improve Safety and Sustainability in the Battery Supply Chain
Position: Introduces the Critical Materials Processing Technology Testbed Act of 2026 directing the Department of Energy to develop safer, more sustainable critical materials processing technologies to strengthen the domestic battery supply chain and create manufacturing jobs in the U.S.
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced the Critical Materials Processing Technology Testbed Act of 2026 to help the Department of Energy develop new, safer materials processing technologies needed to bolster our battery supply chain. This testbed would aim to kickstart a domestic materials processing industry in the United States with a focus on environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, and minimizing resource intensiveness.
“As our nation’s clean energy demands continue to grow, there’s more need than ever to safely process the critical materials that are used in electric car batteries, solar panels, and other electronics,” said Foster. “Currently, these materials are typically processed in countries with minimal safety regulations, causing damage to our environment and human health. A testbed managed by the Department of Energy would allow us to not only create a safer and more environmentally friendly battery supply chain, but also bring good manufacturing jobs to the U.S.”
This legislation was prompted by a hearing Foster chaired in the House Science Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, which found that materials processing constitutes a major impediment to strengthening the domestic battery supply chain.
A copy of the bill can be found here.
###
Foster Introduces Two Bills to Help Americans Facing Opioid Use Disorder
Position: Introduces two bills to expand federal grants to states for opioid use disorder prevention and treatment and to direct GAO to evaluate national treatment availability. The release states that access to effective OUD treatments should be expanded.
Washington, DC — Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL) introduced two pieces of legislation to help Americans facing opioid use disorder (OUD) access effective treatments: the Expanding Opportunities for Recovery Act and the Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act.
The Expanding Opportunities for Recovery Act would empower the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment to give new grants to states, allowing each state to expand its capacity for OUD prevention and treatment where it is most needed.
The Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act would direct the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to evaluate and report on outpatient and inpatient treatment availability and scarcity across the country. This information will prove critical as Congress tries to best allocate resources to help Americans struggling with OUD.
“The opioid epidemic has devastated families and communities in Illinois and across the nation for far too long,” said Foster. “Thanks to the success of federally funded medical research, we now have highly effective treatments available. I’m proud to introduce this legislation to make sure everyone who needs these cutting-edge treatments is able to access them.”
A copy of the Expanding Opportunities for Recovery Act is available here, and a copy of the Examining Opioid Treatment Infrastructure Act is available here.
###
Position: Introduces legislation to prohibit pre-dispute mandatory arbitration agreements in certain financial sectors and to preserve consumers' ability to bring or join class action lawsuits against financial advisors and broker-dealers.
Washington, DC – Today, Congressman Bill Foster (D-IL-11) and Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) introduced the Investor Choice Act, legislation to prohibit pre-dispute mandatory, or “forced,” arbitration agreements and preserve customers’ ability to bring or join class action lawsuits in certain financial sectors.
"Individuals shouldn't need to surrender their legal rights because they choose to work with a financial advisor or broker-dealer to plan for their retirement and invest their hard-earned money," said Congressman Foster. "This legislation levels the playing field for consumers and prevents them from being victims of a rigged system that denies them fair legal recourse if they are wronged. I'm proud to work with Senator Merkley on this important legislation for American consumers."
“Every consumer deserves a fair chance to seek justice when they have been wronged by an investment professional,” said Senator Merkley. “Too often, the arbitration system is stacked against consumers—allowing financial firms to select the arbitrators who decide cases, pay them, and keep them in line for future work. That is not a fair process, and we need legislation like the Investor Choice Act to put consumers back on equal footing.”
The legislation is endorsed by Americans for Financial Reform, the North American Securities Administrators Association, the Public Investor Advocate Bar Association, and Public Citizen.
The Investor Choice Act is cosponsored by Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Jack Reed (D-RI) and Representative Nydia Velázquez (D-NY-07).
A copy of the bill can be found here.
###
Foster, Sherman Seek Regulatory Clarity on Agentic AI Trading
Position: Representatives Foster and Sherman, with cosigners, call on the SEC Chair to explain oversight and investor protections for AI agents making autonomous trades for retail investors, and ask whether existing securities laws suffice or Congress must act. The letter argues agentic trading raises investor protection, broker-dealer, market integrity, and AI developer accountability concerns.
Washington, DC — Today, Representatives Bill Foster (D-IL) and Brad Sherman (D-CA) led Members on the House Financial Services Committee in calling on the Chair of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Paul Atkins, to explain what oversight, guidance, and investor protections are in place as brokerage firms begin allowing AI agents to make autonomous trades on behalf of retail investors, and whether the agency has evaluated the risks these systems pose to market integrity and consumer protection.
The letter also asks Chairman Atkins to provide clarity on the legal responsibilities of broker-dealers, AI developers, and AI agents themselves, and whether existing securities laws are sufficient to regulate agentic trading or if additional action from Congress would be needed.
In the letter to Chairman Atkins, the Members wrote:
“While generative AI and associated agents have the potential to help investors make faster and better-informed decisions, the facilitation of agentic trading by retail brokerage platforms raises serious questions for investor protection, broker-dealer responsibilities, market integrity, and the accountability of AI developers.
“The AI firms developing and deploying these agents have thus far operated largely outside the securities regulatory framework, even though their systems are making or enabling consequential investment decisions on behalf of retail investors.
“It is essential that this technology be delivered in a manner that preserves the protections investors expect in regulated financial markets, and not as a tool to conceal conflicts of interest, evade broker-dealer responsibilities, manipulate markets, or provide unsound investment advice.”
This letter was cosigned by Representatives Stephen Lynch (D-MA), Jim Himes (D-CT), Sean Casten (D-IL), Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), Brittany Pettersen (D-CO), and Sylvia Garcia (D-TX). A full copy of the letter can be found here.
###
Source: GDELT 2.0 GKG, filtered to a curated list of national outlets. Inclusion is not endorsement; opinion pieces and reported news are mixed.
Recent stock activity
Periodic transaction reports filed under the STOCK Act — disclosed by the rep, sourced from public filings.
No disclosed trades on record.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
1.AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS PACFinance2 contributionsProfessional accounting association PAC — supports candidates and policies favoring tax simplification, accounting standards, and financial regulation aligned with CPA interests.AI$10,000
2.PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEFinance2 contributionsAccounting and professional-services PAC — supports candidates aligned with business-friendly tax policy, financial regulation, and professional-services industry interests.AI$10,000
3.NEW YORK LIFE INSURANCE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$10,000
4.ERNST & YOUNG POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEFinance3 contributionsAccounting and professional-services PAC — supports candidates aligned with business-friendly tax policy, regulatory efficiency, and professional-services industry interests.AI$10,000
5.BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION FEDERAL PAC3 contributions$10,000
6.STRUCTURED FINANCE COALITION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (STRUCTURED FINANCE PAC)2 contributions$10,000
7.FMR LLC POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE - FEDERAL (FIDELITY PAC)2 contributions$10,000
8.FIFTH THIRD BANCORP POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$10,000
9.BMO FINANCIAL CORP GOOD GOVERNANCE FUND2 contributions$10,000
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.CALTECH$18,350
2.BOSTON UNIVERSITY$16,000
3.HARVARD UNIVERSITY$11,600
4.BLACKSTONE$10,500
5.ANTHROPIC PBC$10,500
6.ARGONNE NATIONAL LABORATORY$9,100
7.FERMILAB$8,030
8.UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO$8,025
9.NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY$7,780
10.ETC INC.$7,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
