See how Deb Fischer actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Deb Fischer'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 Deb Fischer's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
We haven't made any vote predictions for Deb Fischer yet. Predictions are generated for bills with tagged effects; they show up here as soon as the predict-votes job covers this rep's upcoming docket.
Consistency insights
Deb Fischer · statement ↔ vote record
45
Consistency score
Based on 3 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-2882·Mixed signal
Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024
45/100
What they said
Jul 30, 2026
Senator Fischer opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, arguing that secure borders and a controlled immigration system are necessary for national security and public safety. She contends that the U.S. already welcomes over one million immigrants annually and should maintain enforcement mechanisms.
The statement opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, emphasizing border security and enforcement. The bill is a broad FY2024 appropriations measure covering multiple departments including Homeland Security, which funds border enforcement and immigration operations. Fischer's YES vote on this amendment is generally consistent with supporting border security funding, but the vote is procedural (amendment) rather than a direct passage vote on immigration policy, and the bill bundles appropriations across six departments. The specific amendment language is not provided, making it unclear whether it addressed immigration enforcement directly or another provision within the appropriations package.
Senator Fischer opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, arguing that secure borders and a controlled immigration system are necessary for national security and public safety. She contends that the U.S. already welcomes over one million immigrants annually and should maintain enforcement mechanisms.
The statement opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, emphasizing border security and enforcement. The bill is a broad FY2024 appropriations measure covering multiple departments including Homeland Security, which funds border and immigration enforcement operations. Fischer's YES vote on this amendment is generally consistent with supporting funding for immigration enforcement mechanisms, but the vote is procedural (amendment) rather than a direct passage vote on immigration policy, and the bill bundles appropriations across six departments. The specific amendment language is not provided, making it unclear whether this amendment directly addressed immigration enforcement funding or another provision within the appropriations bill.
Senator Fischer opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, arguing that secure borders and a controlled immigration system are necessary for national security and public safety. She contends that the U.S. already welcomes over one million immigrants annually and should maintain enforcement mechanisms.
The statement opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, emphasizing border security and enforcement. The bill is a broad FY2024 appropriations measure covering multiple departments including Homeland Security, which funds border and immigration enforcement operations. Fischer's YES vote on this amendment is generally consistent with supporting funding for immigration enforcement agencies, but the vote is procedural (amendment) rather than a direct substantive choice on immigration policy, and the bill bundles funding across six departments. The specific amendment language is not provided, making it unclear whether it addressed immigration enforcement directly or another provision within the appropriations package.
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 Deb Fischer's full voting record against your stated values — aligned themes, conflicts, notable votes, and what to watch for.
We haven't extracted campaign positions for Deb Fischer yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
No party-break passage votes recorded for Deb Fischer. Either they've voted with Republicans on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.
After Fischer Push, NTIA Announces New Round of Broadband Funding
Position: Senator Fischer supports the BEAD program as essential for rural broadband deployment in Nebraska and advocates for flexibility in using unobligated BEAD funds for additional purposes such as precision agriculture technologies.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Commerce Committee, issued the following statement after the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) announced another round of Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program funding:
"The BEAD program is essential to getting all of Nebraska connected to broadband. I have worked for years to help build this program into something that can truly help rural areas. I'm thankful NTIA answered our call to make additional funding available to serve unconnected locations. We need to keep these funds working for Nebraskans, and I will be working hard to allow unobligated BEAD funding to be utilized for other critical purposes like precision ag technologies."
In the announcement, NTIA states this round of funding is intended to serve locations that remain unserved after the initial deployment round. In the initial deployment, only around $44.5 million of Nebraska's allocation was spent, leaving approximately $340 million to be spent.
NTIA's announcement comes after Fischer's numerous letters and close work with the U.S. Department of Commerce to deploy additional funding:
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/9/after-fischer-push-ntia-announces-new-round-of-broadband-funding
ICYMI: Fischer Makes Case for Strong, Modern U.S. Nuclear Deterrent on Atlantic Council Podcast
Position: Senator Fischer advocates for modernization and strengthening of U.S. nuclear forces, including the Sentinel ICBM program, increased B-21 bomber procurement, and Columbia-class submarine expansion, to maintain a credible nuclear deterrent against China and Russia and assure allies.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), joined the Atlantic Council's "So What's the Strategy?" podcast to share her vision for strengthening America's nuclear deterrent amid growing threats from China and Russia.
During the conversation, Fischer – who chairs the SASC Strategic Forces Subcommittee – outlined the need to modernize U.S. nuclear forces, maintain a credible nuclear triad, and ensure America has the capabilities necessary to deter its adversaries and protect its allies.
Watch the full discussion here or by clicking the image above.
On the cost of nuclear modernization:
"Why spend so much? What's our security worth? That's what it boils down to.
"What risks are we willing to take as a country, as a world, if the United States doesn't follow through and continue our modernization? Can we meet those threats?
"It's a very small percentage of our defense spending in this country. But as I said earlier, it is the bedrock of our security. And it's not just for us. We also offer a secure nuclear umbrella for our allies and partners. That keeps the world safer. We don't see nuclear proliferation around the world because of that. It's called deterrence for a reason.
"We don't ever want to have to use a nuclear weapon, but our adversaries need to know that we have a safe, credible, and secure triad, and we will use it if it becomes necessary."
On nuclear deterrence and assurance:
"We always want our adversaries—we want everyone—to wake up every morning and say, 'Not today. We are not going to do anything against the United States. Not today. Too risky.'"
On the type of nuclear capabilities the U.S. needs:
"I believe we have certain capabilities that are the base of our deterrence. Whether that's our ICBMs—the Sentinel program—that's a program that has to happen. It has had some bumps in the road, but we have General White now … to handle that. We established that position to make sure whoever was in charge of that program, along with the bombers, would have a direct line to the secretary and could make things happen faster.
"The Sentinel program is obviously our land-based leg. That has to remain strong. It's going to give the president more options once it is installed and able to perform. …
"Right now … we have a contract for 100 B-21 bombers. We've had every STRATCOM commander say that's not enough. And it's not enough. Whether it's 150 or, now they're talking about 200, that's another important leg of the triad.
"These bombers have to cover not just STRATCOM's needs but also [PACOM's] needs in a more conventional sense because of the capabilities they have.
"Then, when we look at our subs, we're really focused on the Columbia class to make sure that moves ahead. There's a good argument to be made—and I think we ought to investigate it—that we should probably have more when you look at the maintenance required. That applies to the bombers as well.
"When you look at maintenance time, especially on submarines, and we're facing two peer adversaries who also have triads—land-based missiles, bombers, and subs—we need to make sure that's covered.
"We need more shipbuilding. We need to be able to look at new, more regional options that a president could tap into.
"We heard many years ago in the Senate about Russia's policy to 'escalate to de-escalate.' They never thought, with the size of the weapons the United States has, that we would ever respond. It lowered the credibility of our deterrence. …
"We want to make sure we have what we need to offer the president of the United States options that keep this country and our allies safe."
On the president's $1.5 trillion defense budget request:
"I applaud the president for putting that number forward. I think it's a firm number that addresses many of the threats we have.
"You can look at things like hypersonics. You can look at things like Golden Dome, which I would point out we were able to get into the 2024 NDAA for FY 2025—the framework for the idea that we needed this layered defense system with radars, satellites, and interceptors.
"That came from within Congress. It came from a bipartisan group of senators. I'm very pleased the president picked up on that and named it Golden Dome.
"That is what we need to recognize the threats to our homeland. The missile defense system we need for this country has to be bolstered, and having Golden Dome move forward will help with that.
"We had $24 billion … last year. That's a start, but it's going to take sustained commitment and appropriations to get that done."
"…To me, the lack of [consistent] funding and the lack of certainty are concerns.
"…We're looking at CRs, which are devastating to our defense and national security.
"It's important that we focus on regular order and on working together again in a bipartisan way to make sure we can fund what we need … to keep this country safe."
"I think arms control is important… But let's look at history.
"Russia has never been steady in its support of any treaty… They ignore it or they pull out. They pulled out of New START in 2023…
"China has never participated in any talks and, as far as I know, publicly has never given any indication that they would participate in talks.
"In fact, I was with a small group of senators the week before President Trump went to China, and we met with a number of officials. I asked about arms control. I think that might have thrown them a little bit, but I asked about it.
"Their idea of arms control is that the United States should totally get rid of what we have, and then they'll be happy to talk. Why would we do that? We would make ourselves vulnerable.
"So I believe the strongest position we can take is to continue to strengthen what we need to meet the threats.
"Hopefully, we can engage in arms control, but it has to be with Russia and China. It can't just be with one or the other because all that does is weaken us."
"… If the Chinese didn't want to enter into discussions with Russia and the United States, they still need to enter into discussions with us and have those two tracks move side by side.
"But I think having all three together would be the best way to have a solid arms control treaty come out of it. I don't see that happening."
On the credibility of the U.S. nuclear umbrella for our allies:
"I think it's extremely important for the security not just of our country, but around the world, that we continue to provide that umbrella to our allies.
"Let's not forget that NATO is a nuclear alliance. That's important for our allies to know—that we will continue to provide that.
"It's important that our EUCOM commander is also the Supreme Allied Commander Europe because of that nuclear component in NATO.
"But I also hope it emboldens our allies to step forward, which they are doing in NATO and Europe, and provide more for their own security in their regions.
"It's difficult for the United States. It's expensive for the United States to be everywhere.
"So, when we have our allies in Europe and our partners and friends in the Pacific willing to work with us to provide security in those regions, that only makes America stronger and more secure.
"I believe we have to continue developing and strengthening those relationships."
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/9/icymi-fischer-makes-case-for-strong-modern-u-s-nuclear-deterrent-on-atlantic-council-podcast
Fischer in the Lincoln Journal Star: Take advantage of this real solution to paid family leave
Position: Senator Fischer advocates for her Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit as a voluntary, market-based incentive for employers to offer paid leave, emphasizing it as an alternative to government mandates and highlighting recent Treasury guidance and SBA funding to increase awareness and utilization.
In case you missed it: Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) penned an op-ed in the Lincoln Journal Star encouraging Nebraskans to capitalize on her Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit, made permanent through the Working Families Tax Cuts. Fischer also highlights guidance recently released from the U.S. Department of Treasury on how business owners can claim this credit to offer paid leave to more employees.
Imagine working for a mom-and-pop store in the Haymarket and you're expecting a new baby or need to care for a sick family member. Your boss would like to offer you paid leave to care for your family, but as a small business, the margins are thin.
Your boss wants to do the right thing, but they can't afford it.
This had been the reality for small business owners and their employees for decades — until 2017 when I created the nation's first-ever paid family and medical leave policy.
My Paid Family and Medical Leave Tax Credit allows employers to claim a general business tax credit covering up to 25% of the wages they pay employees who are out on parental or family medical leave. Importantly, this is not a government mandate. It is a voluntary incentive.
I designed the credit with an income cap to ensure that it helps the workers who need it the most: middle-income and hourly workers. That cap adjusts every year. And the more generous the employer is, the more help they get.
Last year, through the Working Families Tax Cuts passed by Congress, we made my tax credit permanent. Now, businesses of all sizes can build paid leave into long-term benefit plans without wondering whether the incentive will disappear. Washington should make it easier — not harder — for a small business to stand by an employee when their family needs them most.
A tax credit only helps if employers know it exists and apply for it. That's why, this year, I used my role on the Senate Appropriations Committee to secure $1 million in federal funds for the U.S. Small Business Administration to help increase awareness of the credit and help employers know how to utilize it. And this month, the U.S. Treasury issued new guidance showing employers how to claim the credit.
This guidance explains additional methods that businesses can receive a tax break if they offer this paid leave to their employees. My original tax credit was based on wages employers pay employees while on leave. Through the Working Families Tax Cuts, I expanded this to also cover insurance policies purchased by employers to cover paid medical and family leave. We are making it even more attainable for businesses of all sizes to offer this important benefit to workers.
I am grateful to Secretary Scott Bessent for working closely with me on this. You can find the guidance at the following link: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-26-28.pdf.
Now, we need to make sure employers know this credit is available. If you own a business, see whether you qualify. If you work for one, make sure your employer knows this option exists.
No small business owner should have to choose between doing the right thing for their employee and keeping their storefront open. And no worker should be forced to choose between receiving a paycheck and taking care of their family. This tax credit helps ensure they don't have to.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/8/fischer-in-the-lincoln-journal-star-take-advantage-of-this-real-solution-to-paid-family-leave
Position: Senator Fischer introduced legislation to establish federal vehicle safety standards as the nationwide baseline, preventing state-level civil litigation from imposing stricter requirements on vehicles that comply with federal standards. The bill would preempt certain lawsuits while preserving claims for manufacturing defects, federal non-compliance, and breach of warranty.
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) has introduced the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act to ensure federal vehicle safety standards set by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration are the nationwide standards.
This legislation comes amid an increase in costly civil lawsuits where damages are awarded based on arbitrary standards, even when vehicles and equipment are compliant with federal standards. This has resulted in an increase in insurance costs and higher trucking prices, which are passed on to consumers.
"These decisions are not being driven by the law, and we need to set the record straight," Fischer said. "Federal standards are drafted for the safety of drivers and others on the road. These regulations should be consistent across states, and consumers should not be forced to pay more because of unfair practices that raise transportation costs."
The Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act would prevent litigation when the safety component at question is fully compliant with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards (FMVSS). Plaintiffs could still bring claims for manufacturing defects, failure to meet FMVSS, breach of warranty, or other independent legal violations.
Representative Mike Flood (NE-01) has introduced companion legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.
The bill is supported by the American Trucking Associations, the Alliance for Automotive Innovation, the International Foodservice Distributors Association, the Truck Trailer Manufacturers Association, the Truckload Carriers Association, the Truck Renting and Leasing Association, American Property Casualty Insurance Association, the American Bus Association, the National Tank Truck Carriers, the National Association of Trailer Manufacturers, the National Motor Freight Traffic Association, the National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, the Transportation Intermediaries Association, the Nebraska Trucking Association, Werner Enterprises, and Timpte.
Alex Rosen, Senior Vice President, American Trucking Associations, said, "When NHTSA establishes a federal safety standard, manufacturers and motor carriers should be able to rely on that determination. Allowing lawsuits to effectively impose equipment mandates that diverge from federal requirements creates uncertainty, drives up costs, and threatens the uniformity that keeps our nation's supply chain moving safely and efficiently. The trucking industry applauds Senator Fischer for introducing this commonsense legislation to affirm NHTSA's role as the nation's expert regulator for motor vehicle safety standards. If NHTSA, after evaluating the available evidence through its rulemaking process, determines that a particular standard strikes the appropriate balance to maximize motor vehicle safety, that expert determination should carry greater weight than the hindsight judgments advanced by profit-seeking trial attorneys in individual courtrooms."
Alliance for Automotive Innovation said, "This is a commonsense bill from Sen. Fischer that makes it clear: if automakers meet the government's mandatory Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards -- and all automakers do -- then they shouldn't also be targeted with lawsuits and litigation."
Kent Grisham, President and CEO, Nebraska Trucking Association, said, "Senator Fischer's record of leadership on critical transportation issues is legendary. She is a true hero to trucking. The Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act is another example of her commitment to maintaining a strong transportation network and ensuring that carriers can continue investing in the people, equipment, and technologies that improve roadway safety. Nebraska's trucking industry plays a vital role in supporting agriculture, manufacturing, retail, construction, and virtually every sector of our state's economy. Senator Fischer knows that when manufacturers and operators have demonstrably adhered to all applicable laws, regulations, and recognized safety practices, they should not face unreasonable liability based on hindsight or inconsistent standards imposed after the fact. Passing this legislation will establish safeguards against such nonsense in our courts."
Ryan Streblow, President and CEO, National Tank Truck Carriers, said, "NTTC strongly supports the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act, and commends Senator Fischer and Representative Flood for their leadership to provide much needed relief to the commercial trucking industry - the backbone of the American economy," said Ryan Streblow, President & CEO of National Tank Truck Carriers. "The American motoring public rightfully expects truck manufacturers to be built to high federal safety standards, but it is unreasonable to hold any industry accountable to 50 standards created through 50 state courts. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration produces world-leading safety regulations, and state suits should not be allowed to supplant federal standards."
Jake Jacoby, President and CEO, Truck Renting and Leasing Association, said, "TRALA strongly supports the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act, which will protect truck rental and leasing companies from unreasonable lawsuits involving vehicles that fully comply with federal safety standards. This legislation will preserve a consistent national framework, reduce costly litigation, and prevent optional safety equipment from being treated as mandatory through state-by-state court decisions."
Jim Mullen, President, Truckload Carriers Association, said, "The Truckload Carriers Association and its membership proudly support the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act, as it reinforces the principle that there should be one national standard for vehicle safety. Motor carriers that comply with federally established safety requirements should not be subjected to inconsistent lawsuits seeking to impose standards beyond those adopted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Recent litigation in the trucking industry has demonstrated the importance of protecting companies that comply with federal safety regulations, providing greater certainty for businesses operating across state lines. By reducing unnecessary litigation costs and preventing conflicting court decisions, this legislation strengthens interstate commerce while preserving the integrity of the federal vehicle safety framework. The truckload industry believes safety is best advanced through clear, uniform federal standards that apply consistently nationwide, rather than through a patchwork of differing legal expectations imposed through litigation."
Fred Ferguson, President and CEO, American Bus Association, said, "Motorcoaches are interstate by nature, and our industry depends on clear, consistent federal vehicle safety standards. Operators and manufacturers should be held to the rigorous safety requirements established by NHTSA, but they should not face a patchwork of after-the-fact lawsuits that effectively impose different vehicle equipment standards from one state to the next. The Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act provides needed certainty while preserving NHTSA's central role in establishing and updating vehicle safety standards. The American Bus Association thanks Congressman Flood and Senator Fischer for their leadership and is proud to support this commonsense legislation.
Jimi Grande, Senior Vice President of Federal and Political Affairs, National Association of Mutual Insurance Companies, said, "Legal system abuse, including excessive litigation and nuclear verdicts, is making things more expensive across the economy for every American. NAMIC applauds Congressman Flood and Senator Fischer for leading on this important issue to provide much needed legal certainty for truckers, insurers, and the consumers who rely on them."
Chris Burroughs, President and CEO, Transportation Intermediaries Association, said, "We are pleased to support this bill which will close this loophole and ensure that standards are set at the federal level, providing much-needed certainty and enhancing safety. Certainty is essential to keeping America's roads safe, and under the current legal framework, motor vehicle manufacturers remain exposed to civil liability at the state level even if they have met the applicable federal safety standards."
Mala Parker, Senior Vice President of Government and Public Affairs, International Foodservice Distributors Association, said, "IFDA thanks Senator Fischer and Representative Flood for introducing the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act. Foodservice distributors operate some of the largest commercial fleets in the country and invest heavily to ensure federal motor vehicle safety requirements are met. This bill gives our industry much needed legal certainty by creating uniformity among safety requirements while keeping our nation's roads safe."
Debbie Sparks, Executive Director, said, National Motor Freight Traffic Association, said, "NMFTA supports the Uniform Vehicle Safety Standards Act of 2026. A single, uniform federal safety standard, rather than a patchwork of common law verdicts second guessing manufacturers who met that standard in good faith, restores consistency to how motor vehicle safety compliance is treated across state lines. We appreciate Senator Fischer and Congressman Flood's attention to this issue."
Nathan Meisgeier, President and Chief Legal Officer, Werner Enterprises, said, "By establishing a uniform standard, this legislation shields carriers from frivolous lawsuits while ensuring motor vehicle manufacturing upholds established, federally mandated safety requirements for all drivers."
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/8/fischer-introduces-legislation-addressing-excessive-trucking-lawsuits
Fischer Statement on Democrats Blocking the Farm Bill in Committee
Position: Senator Fischer opposes the Democratic committee members' vote against advancing the Farm Bill, arguing that the bill includes bipartisan provisions on E15, SNAP, food banks, rural health, water infrastructure, and broadband that benefit farmers, ranchers, and rural communities.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, issued the following statement after Democrats on the committee voted against advancing the Farm Bill:
"It is disgraceful Democrats refused to advance the bipartisan Farm Bill out of committee. First, Senate Democrats refused to stand up for our service members by not moving the bipartisan NDAA. Now, they're turning their backs on farmers, ranchers, and rural America. We worked with them to secure bipartisan support for E15 and offered a compromise on SNAP cost share concerns.
"What did the Democrats do? They voted against every policy they claim to care about: funding food banks, improving rural and mental health services, increasing access to safe drinking water, and expanded broadband connectivity.
"This is a massive disservice to producers and communities across the country. I certainly hope they wake up and realize the pain this will inflict on American families."
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/8/fischer-statement-on-democrats-blocking-the-farm-bill-in-committee
Position: Senator Fischer voted for and championed the Sanctioning Russia Act, which imposes mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, and energy sector to pressure Moscow to end its war against Ukraine.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued the following statement after the Senate passed and she voted for the Sanctioning Russia Act, which she championed as an original cosponsor:
"The Kremlin's war machine runs on the money it makes from selling cheap oil and gas to countries like China, India, and Brazil who then profit by reselling Russian energy at a markup. It is long overdue for these enablers to pay a price. The Sanctioning Russia Act will pressure the world's largest purchasers of Russian energy to reduce their dependence on Moscow. I urge the House to take it up swiftly and send it to the president's desk."
Fischer recently spoke on the Senate floor in support of the bill to tout its mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, and energy sector — which will put economic pressure on Moscow to end Vladimir Putin's illegal war against Ukraine.
Fischer was an original cosponsor when the late Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) first introduced this legislation with Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) in 2025. She was also an original cosponsor of the updated version when Senator Darline Graham (R-SC) introduced it on July 16, 2026.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/8/fischer-votes-for-sanctioning-russia-act
ICYMI: Fischer Joins “America Reports” on FOX News
Position: Senator Fischer opposes open borders and unrestricted immigration, arguing that secure borders and a controlled immigration system are necessary for national security and public safety. She contends that the U.S. already welcomes over one million immigrants annually and should maintain enforcement mechanisms.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE) joined "America Reports" on FOX News with hosts Sandra Smith and Bill Melugin to discuss the Democratic Socialists of America platform and what it means for the future of the country.
The interview comes after Fischer penned an op-ed in FOX News: 'The left's war on the Senate and Supreme Court puts our republic at risk."
Click here to download video of Fischer's interview
Transcript of Fischer's interview:
MELUGIN: Nebraska Republican Senator Deb Fischer writing an op-ed for Fox News today, saying that the DSA's calls to abolish the Senate and undermine the Supreme Court put the Republic at risk. Senator Fischer joins us now to talk all about it. Senator, great to see you this afternoon. Thanks for joining us.
FISCHER: Good to see you. Thank you.
MELUGIN: I kind of want to segue off what Jason and Sandra were just talking about, that wild video in Spain, right? We've been talking about socialism. We know what the socialist platform is here in the United States. They literally went on Fox News on Sunday and said, "Yes, we want to get rid of all borders. Yes, we want to get rid of ICE. Yes, we want to get rid of all immigration enforcement. We want complete freedom of movement with no restriction whatsoever between countries." That video we're looking at from Spain right now on the right side of our screen - that is what the socialists want in a future United States. Give us your thoughts.
FISCHER: Well, we're seeing it. You know, if this doesn't wake up the people in this country when they see what an open border is going to cause. They need to tune in and start watching. This is frightening. It's very sobering, but it's also really sad. A lot of people think, "Oh, we need to open our borders and open our country and offer opportunity to all those who need it, who want it, who desire it." No, this is what you end up with, and that the people that come into this country without a shirt on their back, mostly young men, what are they going to do? … How are they going to find jobs? How are they going to find any place to stay? How are they going to be able to pay for what they need in life, for food, for shelter, for transportation? They're not. They're going to expect the government to do it or they're going to go out on their own, and we're going to see a lot of public safety being threatened in the process.
I think Americans understand that; they get that. You have to have a border to be a country, and you have to have an immigration system that we have here in the United States. We have secure borders. We welcome over a million people from around the world to this country every year. We are the most welcoming country in the world, and so when a lot of people say, open the borders and let people in who want to come here, watch TV, watch your station here, and you'll see what it looks like.
MELUGIN: Well, a lot of your Democratic colleagues have been having to answer questions about the socialist wing within the party, and the answer a lot of them have been giving is: Look, we're a big tent party. We like a bunch of different ideas, and we let anybody in. Here's your colleague, Senator Dick Durbin, talking about that.
DURBIN [RECORDED]: Let me tell you, labels, of course, are being thrown around on both sides. I look for progressive values that I have supported over the years and continue to. There are some who are more aggressive than others, but that part, the party that I belong to, has that kind of dialog and reflects what is really going through the minds of families in America who are struggling economically to survive. Progressives are joining us in this effort, and we need them.
MELUGIN: Senator, there's a big difference between some progressive ideas and abolishing the police, abolishing borders, abolishing the Senate, and abolishing the presidency and the Supreme Court.
FISCHER: Exactly. You know, I like Senator Durbin. And I respect him, but I disagree with him totally on this. When you say you have a big tent party, that means you agree on basic values. You agree on the role of government in society. You agree on people being able to have opportunities to start their own businesses. You know that's an American dream to start your own business. It doesn't mean that you bring in people with radical ideas totally different from what your party used to be.
The Democrat Party used to be for working people. Does that mean working people who are working who are going to take care of all these people entering the country, all these illegal immigrants coming into your country - is that what a working person in America is going to have to do in the future? Because they're going to be called upon to pay taxes, to pay more in order to handle an open border situation. And if you if you defund the police, if you defund our Department of Defense, which means our military men and women, you're not going to have the protection there.
When you defund our military men and women, how are they going to be able to accomplish the missions that we give them to do? We're putting our military at risk there, let alone our entire country. So, I think the more that Americans learn about what so-called Democratic socialist is, they're going to reject that.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/7/icymi-fischer-joins-america-reports-on-fox-news
Fischer in Fox News: The left’s war on the Senate and Supreme Court puts our republic at risk
Position: Senator Fischer argues that Democratic rhetoric attacking the Supreme Court's legitimacy and calls to abolish the Senate undermine constitutional institutions and contribute to threats against justices. She distinguishes between legitimate policy criticism and rhetoric that delegitimizes institutions.
In case you missed it: U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, penned an op-ed in Fox News calling for a renewed commitment to preserving America's institutions. After hearing testimony from Supreme Court Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan detailing threats to their safety, Fischer denounces the Democratic Socialists of America's platform to abolish the Supreme Court and Senate and condemns escalatory rhetoric undermining the legitimacy of these institutions.
Read the op-ed here or below.
The Democratic Socialists of America recently rolled out a policy platform wrapped in delusional promises — free government-run healthcare, the abolition of the police and prison systems and the defunding of our military. While those proposals sound crazy enough, something far more radical is buried underneath: a call to abolish the Senate and subordinate the presidency and the Supreme Court to a new unicameral body that would choose and control the executive and judicial branches.
That proposal is not just unserious — it is a direct assault on the Constitution. The attacks on the Supreme Court's legitimacy and the calls to abolish the Senate spring from the same impulse: impatience with constitutional limits on political power. When institutions become obstacles to ideological goals, the answer should never be to tear them down.
That dangerous mindset has consequences beyond political rhetoric. Our Supreme Court justices and their families have been subject to escalating threats in recent years.
During a recent Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, I heard directly from Justices Amy Coney Barrett and Elena Kagan. Both described a security posture that has not kept pace with the threats they now face. In fact, after the leak of the court's decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Justice Barrett came home from work wearing a bulletproof vest given to her by her security detail. She recounted placing the vest on a table and having to explain to her 12-year-old son what it was and why she had it.
No justice should fear for their safety because they faithfully discharge their constitutional duty. Yet instead of treating this as the urgent, nonpartisan security matter it is, we continue to hear rhetoric that attacks the very legitimacy of the court as an institution. In 2020, Sen. Chuck Schumer said Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch would "pay the price" if they acted to restrict abortion. His comments were inappropriate and dangerous. Unfortunately, this sentiment has continued to proliferate and fuel physical threats. More recently, congressional Democrats have called the Supreme Court "corrupt," "rigged" and "a disgrace."
Criticism of the court's decisions is part of a healthy democracy. Justice Kagan said as much herself. But there is a clear difference between criticizing a ruling and undermining the legitimacy of the institution or inciting threats against those who serve on it.
The same impatience animates the DSA's call to abolish the Senate. The Senate provides a necessary counterbalance to the House of Representatives. It balances power by granting each state equal representation, protecting smaller states from being steamrolled by larger ones. Because senators serve staggered six-year terms, the body is insulated from drastic swings in public opinion. That deliberate friction is what has allowed the republic to endure for generations.
The three branches of government conceived by the Founders have served our democracy well. Republicans and Democrats alike should reject calls to dismantle our constitutional order.
Now is the time to reaffirm our commitment to those institutions. Congress can ensure that Supreme Court justices have the security resources necessary to carry out their duties without fear or intimidation.
I will continue making this a priority through my role on the Appropriations Committee. But we need every American to reject the DSA's reckless calls to dismantle the constitutional framework that has preserved our republic for 250 years.
The answer to political disagreement is not to weaken the Constitution — it is to defend it.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/7/fischer-in-fox-news-the-left-s-war-on-the-senate-and-supreme-court-puts-our-republic-at-risk
ICYMI: Fischer Joins “Mornings with Maria” on FOX Business
Position: Senator Fischer advocates for advancing the National Defense Authorization Act and increasing military funding to meet national security threats, and criticizes Senate Democrats for blocking the NDAA. She also emphasizes the need to keep the government open through a transparent appropriations process.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and member of the Appropriations Committee, joined "Mornings with Maria" on FOX Business with host Cheryl Casone to discuss government funding and Senate Democrats' refusal to advance the National Defense Authorization Act(NDAA).
Fischer's exchange with Casone:
CASONE: There are just a few legislative days here before the August recess for you and your colleagues. The House sent a wave of bills up to the Senate last week: reconciliation 3.0, the Congressional Stock Trading Ban. There's a CR [Continuing Resolution] there, the NDAA. All of these bills have elements, however, of the Save America Act included. I know that you're a supporter of that, but there's also this push to confirm more nominees of the president. DNI [Director of National Intelligence] nominee Jay Clayton. Senator, what is your top priority right now? Is it funding and what else?
FISCHER: Well, I want to make sure that we keep the government open. I know Chuck Schumer and the Democrats—they want to shut down. They want to shut down before the election, so they can try and blame Republicans for that.
Republicans are working to keep this government open, and that includes funding. We need to work through an appropriations process where it's very transparent, where we're accountable. We need to look at the supplemental that the president sent over. That's extremely important in Appropriations.
We had a hearing last week where Secretary Hegseth and General Caine came before the committee. They stressed the need in order to meet the threats that this country faces. We need to fund our military. We need to make sure that we have the munitions necessary and to bolster that production for munitions.
I think it's just unconscionable that Democrats didn't advance the National Defense Authorization Act. You know, this takes care of our military men and women. They turned their backs on our military men and women. They would not even move forward on the bill that we were able to get out of the Armed Services Committee.
So, we have a lot going on here that's going to directly impact the safety and security of this country. And number one is to make sure that we fund our national defense.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/7/icymi-fischer-joins-mornings-with-maria-on-fox-business
Fischer on Senate Floor: Pass the Sanctioning Russia Act
Position: Senator Fischer advocates for passage of the Sanctioning Russia Act, which would impose mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, and energy sector to pressure Moscow to end its war against Ukraine.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Deb Fischer (R-NE), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke on the Senate floor in support of the Sanctioning Russia Act, which she is an original cosponsor of. The legislation will impose mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, and energy sector — putting economic pressure on Moscow to end Putin's war against Ukraine.
Click the image above to watch a video of Fischer's remarks.
Click here to download audio.
Click here to download video.
Fischer's Senate floor speech as prepared for delivery:
M. President,
Lindsey Graham. Friend. Colleague. Tireless national security advocate.
He was a true leader in strengthening our military and our country's defense.
I miss him dearly.
I am so pleased his beloved sister, Darline, now serves here in this institution.
She is carrying on his legacy and honoring his commitment to the people of South Carolina and this country.
M. President, I rise here today to, yes, pay tribute to Lindsey Graham – but to also call on my colleagues to help us carry on one of his greatest efforts: ending Putin's barbaric and unjust war against sovereign Ukraine.
For more than four years, the Ukrainian people have shown extraordinary resilience and resolve. They have defended their homeland with courage that has inspired the world.
In 2022, Vladimir Putin thought he could seize eastern Ukraine in days.
He thought he could drag Europe back into the dark shadow of the Soviet Union.
He thought he would be feared and respected.
But he is neither strong nor powerful. He is a war criminal.
Putin has made clear his intentions to push beyond Ukraine and into NATO territory.
Russian drones have encroached on Polish, Finnish, Lithuanian, Latvian, Estonian, and Romanian airspace.
These were deliberate provocations to test NATO's resolve.
Putin seeks to push deeper into Europe, to see just how far he can go before we push back.
That is why the United States and our allies must raise the stakes through tougher sanctions and a stronger U.S. deterrence posture along NATO's eastern flank.
I commend the Polish, Dutch, German, and Italian Armed Forces for their swift and professional response in intercepting drones that could have killed innocent civilians during these incursions.
Their actions remind us that NATO's strength lies in unity and readiness.
President Trump has made clear that Europe must carry more of the burden for its own security.
Poland, in particular, has answered that call, committing 5 percent of its GDP to defense. Other allies are stepping up as well.
This is the path forward: a stronger, more capable NATO prepared to deter and defeat any threat.
But make no mistake — Putin understands only one language: power.
And the surest road to peace in Europe lies in NATO's strength and Ukraine's survival.
Yet strength must also be economic.
The Kremlin's war machine runs on the money it makes from selling cheap oil and gas to countries like China, India, and Brazil.
Those nations then profit by reselling Russian energy at a markup.
That must end.
It is long overdue for the financial enablers of Russia's atrocities to pay a price.
They cannot keep fueling Putin's war and expect business as usual with the United States.
That is why Congress must pass the Sanctioning Russia Act.
This legislation would impose mandatory sanctions on Russia's political leadership, financial institutions, energy sector, and sanctions evasion networks.
By employing targeted tariffs, this policy would pressure the world's largest purchasers of Russian energy to reduce their dependence on Moscow.
This bill gives the president maximum flexibility to enforce these measures, ensuring both legal strength and political durability.
I am grateful to Senator Blumenthal, who worked closely with Lindsey on this important bipartisan legislation.
And I am encouraged to see him carry this effort forward.
I was proud to be an early supporter of this bill, and I am proud to support this updated version now.
The Sanctioning Russia Act is the sledgehammer we need: decisive economic pressure that cripples Putin's lifeline and hastens the day his war with Ukraine finally ends.
Peace will not come from weakness or hesitation. It will come from strength — military, economic, and moral strength — wielded together by the free nations of the world.
I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to join our broad coalition in supporting this bill.
Let us carry on Lindsey's mission.
Let us stand up to evil.
Let us bring freedom and security to the people of Ukraine.
Thank you, M. President. I yield the floor.
Permalink: https://www.fischer.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/2026/7/fischer-on-senate-floor-pass-the-sanctioning-russia-act
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.
3.REINVENTING A NEW DIRECTION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEIdeological1 contributionPolitical action committee with a generic reform-oriented name — specific policy positions and affiliations not inferable from the name alone.AI · low$10,000
4.NEBRASKA SANDHILLS PAC1 contribution$10,000
5.TOMORROW IS MEANINGFUL PAC1 contribution$10,000
6.THOMPAC1 contribution$10,000
7.BLUEGRASS COMMITTEELeadership1 contributionMember-of-Congress leadership PAC affiliated with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Directs contributions to Republican candidates and allied party committees.AI$10,000
8.OORAH PAC1 contribution$10,000
9.LETS GET TO WORK PACLeadership1 contributionLeadership or member-affiliated PAC — specific positions not clearly inferable from the name alone.AI · low$10,000
10.DENALI LEADERSHIP PAC1 contribution$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.MARQUIS MANAGEMENT$30,000
2.WEXFORD CAPITAL$28,000
3.SELF$13,100
4.CQUENCE HEALTH GROUP$7,000
5.HAWKINS CONSTRUCTION$7,000
6.1ST FINANCIAL BANK USA$7,000
7.KANA SYSTEMS$7,000
8.UNION PACIFIC$7,000
9.ERGON$7,000
10.SAMPSON CONSTRUCTION$6,600
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.
