See how Martin Heinrich actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Martin Heinrich'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 Martin Heinrich's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Martin Heinrich's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
73 predictions on record · none have been resolved by a passage vote yet. Check back as bills move.
Based on 3 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-sjres-10·Consistent
A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans Affairs relating to "Reproductive Health Services".
90/100
What they said
Jun 24, 2026
Senator Heinrich opposes the Dobbs decision and supports federal legislation to protect abortion access nationwide, restore Roe v. Wade protections, ensure access to abortion medication mifepristone, and protect fertility treatments including IVF.
Voted Nay on A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Veterans Affairs relating to "Reproductive Health Services".
Senator Heinrich's statement strongly supports abortion access and fertility treatments, including for veterans. The bill would nullify a VA rule authorizing abortion-related care for veterans. Heinrich's NO vote on the disapproval resolution is consistent with his stated position—voting against nullification preserves the VA's authority to provide reproductive health services, directly supporting the access he advocates for in his statement.
Senator Heinrich opposes the Trump administration's tariff policy, arguing that tariffs increase housing construction costs and exacerbate the housing affordability crisis. He advocates for repealing the tariffs and passing legislation to expand housing supply and provide relief to consumers affected by tariff-driven price increases.
Senator Heinrich's statement opposes tariffs and advocates for housing affordability legislation. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 includes the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations bill, which funds HUD programs that support housing supply and affordability. His YES vote on passage is generally consistent with his stated commitment to expand housing supply and address the housing crisis, though the bill is a broad omnibus appropriations measure that does not specifically address tariff repeal or tariff exclusions—the core focus of his statement.
Senator Heinrich opposes the Trump administration's tariff policy, arguing that tariffs increase housing construction costs and exacerbate the housing affordability crisis. He advocates for repealing the tariffs and passing legislation to expand housing supply and provide relief to consumers affected by tariff-driven price increases.
Senator Heinrich's statement opposes tariffs and advocates for housing affordability legislation. His yes vote on cloture for the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024 is generally consistent, as the bill includes the Transportation, Housing and Urban Development appropriations division, which funds housing programs. However, the cloture vote is procedural rather than a direct vote on housing policy, and the omnibus bill bundles multiple unrelated appropriations (veterans, agriculture, energy, interior), making the vote less directly aligned with his stated housing priorities than a targeted housing bill would be.
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 Martin Heinrich'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 Martin Heinrich 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 Martin Heinrich. Either they've voted with Democrats on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.
Heinrich Demands Answers from Trump Admin on U.S. Park Police Vehicle Pursuit Policy After Killing of Nolberto Armando Sanabria Meza | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich opposes the Trump administration's relaxed U.S. Park Police vehicle pursuit policy, arguing that the policy change has increased dangerous car chases over nonviolent offenses and resulted in civilian deaths without demonstrable crime-reduction benefits.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum and U.S Park Chief of Police Scott Brecht demanding answers and transparency about the U.S. Park Police’s new vehicle pursuit policy following news reports that an innocent bystander, Nolberto Armando Sanabria Meza, 46-year-old food delivery driver, was hit and tragically killed in D.C. by a driver being chased by U.S. Park Police.
Under President Trump’s Executive Order 14339, “Additional Measures to Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,” there has been an increase in USPP car chases spurred by nonviolent actions ending in collisions.
“I write to express serious concern about U.S. Park Police’s (USPP) new vehicle pursuit policy. Following the fatal accident of a Venezuelan delivery driver during a USPP police pursuit in June 2026, I request that your Department provide full transparency and answers concerning the Departments revised pursuit policy, and the measures being implemented to reduce the risk of future accidents and fatalities,” the Senator began.
The Senator continued, highlighting the change to USPP’s vehicle pursuit policy, “Prior to President Trump’s Executive Order, USPP operated under General Order 2205, which placed firm limits on when officers could initiate vehicular pursuits. Under the order, officers could initiate a vehicular pursuit only if the suspect was wanted for or suspected of committing a violent felony offense, or if they were known to be carrying a firearm and had explicit approval from a supervisor prior to initiating a pursuit. However, since then, Executive Order 14339 has directed the National Park Service to hire additional USPP officers and instructed NPS to “ensure enforcement of all applicable laws within their jurisdiction” as part of the administration’s broader response to the “crime emergency” in Washington, D.C.”
The Senator continued, highlighting the tragic killing of Nolberto Armando Sanabria Meza, “On August 14, 2025, USPP formally issued an “emergency modification” to General Order 2205... Weeks after Trump’s Executive Order, reports indicated an increase of USPP car chases ending in collisions and chases being initiated over nonviolent offenses, such as traffic violations or suspected stolen vehicles. Last month, Nolberto Armando Sanabria Meza, a 46-year-old food delivery driver, was tragically killed on the William Howard Taft Bridge in Northwest D.C. when a stolen vehicle being chased by USPP crossed into oncoming traffic and struck Nolberto’s moped. Mr. Meza was an innocent bystander who tragically lost his life. His death is the second reported death caused by a USPP car chase since the change in policy last August.”
“Nearly a year after the change in USPP’s pursuit policy, there is little to no evidence that it has reduced crime or improved outcomes. The public deserves answers as to whether this policy change is working as intended,” the Senator continued.
Heinrich concluded the letter by requesting information on the oversight of USPP’s revised pursuit standard, officer training, and the number of vehicle pursuits that have led to injury or fatality.
Read the full letter here and below:
Secretary Burgum and Chief of Police Brecht:
I write to express serious concern about U.S. Park Police’s (USPP) new vehicle pursuit policy. Following the fatal accident of a Venezuelan delivery driver during a USPP police car chase in June 2026, I request that your Department provide full transparency and answers concerning the Department’s revised pursuit policy, and the measures being implemented to reduce the risk of future accidents and fatalities.
USPP’s vehicle pursuit policy has significantly changed since President Trump declared a crime emergency in the District of Columbia. Prior to that declaration, USPP operated under General Order 2205, which placed firm limits on when officers could initiate vehicular pursuits. Under the order, officers could initiate a vehicular pursuit only if the suspect was wanted for or suspected of committing a violent felony offense, or if they were known to be carrying a firearm and had explicit approval from a supervisor prior to initiating a pursuit. On August 11, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14333, “Declaring a Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia”. On August 14, 2025, citing that order, USPP formally issued an “emergency modification” to General Order 2205. Under the revised order, USPP officers may now initiate vehicular pursuits whenever a suspect is wanted for or suspected of committing a felony offense, or when a threat to the public exists based on the suspect's actions. Additionally, officers must notify supervisors when engaging in vehicular pursuits, but supervisor approval is not required to initiate one.
Weeks later, on August 25, 2025, President Trump issued a follow-on order, Executive Order, 14339, “Additional Measures to Address the Crime Emergency in the District of Columbia,”, which directed the NPS to hire additional USPP officers and instructed NPS to “ensure enforcement of all applicable laws within their jurisdiction”. Since then, reports indicated an increase in USPP car chases ending in collisions and chases being initiated over nonviolent offenses, such as traffic violations or suspected stolen vehicles. Last month, Nolberto Armando Sanabria Meza, a 46-year-old food delivery driver, was tragically killed on the William Howard Taft Bridge in Northwest D.C. when a stolen vehicle being chased by USPP crossed into oncoming traffic and struck Mr. Meza’s moped. Mr. Meza was an innocent bystander who tragically lost his life.
Studies have found that vehicle pursuits are among the most lethal activities in policing, and a high percentage of pursuit-related deaths and injuries include individuals who were not involved in the underlying offense. Studies have consistently shown that vehicle pursuits do not protect or make communities safer and may, in fact, put officers, suspects, and bystanders at greater risk. Nearly a year after the change in USPP’s pursuit policy, there is little to no evidence that it has reduced crime or improved outcomes. The public deserves answers as to whether this policy change is working as intended.
In light of these concerns, I request comprehensive responses to the following questions by August 3, 2026:
What specific training have USPP officers received on the revised pursuit standards since it took effect in August 2025, and how does training differ from what officers received under the prior General Order?
What supervisory oversight or after-action review process is currently in place for USPP pursuits, given that supervisors are no longer required to provide approval to initiate vehicular pursuits?
What resources, including staffing and risk-assessment tools, have USPP provided officers to help evaluate whether a pursuit should be initiated or terminated in real time?
How many vehicle pursuits has USPP initiated since August 2025? Please provide the month and the underlying offense. In responding to this question, please indicate whether the underlying offense was a violent offense or a non-violent offense.
How many USPP vehicle pursuits since August 2025 have resulted in crashes, injuries, or fatalities, and how many of the individuals harmed were bystanders with no connection to the pursuit?
Does USPP or the Department of the Interior intend to review, revise, or make permanent the current “emergency modification” to General Order 2205? If so, will the Department be allowing public input?
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
Heinrich: Trump Admin’s War on Renewables is Raising Families’ Energy Costs as Demand Surges | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich opposes the Trump administration's efforts to block or delay renewable energy projects, arguing that constraining renewable buildout increases utility costs for consumers and hampers efforts to meet growing electricity demand. He supports FERC's independence and its actions to address electricity supply challenges.
WASHINGTON – Today, during a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing to conduct oversight of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Committee, criticized the Trump administration’s efforts to block renewable energy projects that could increase electricity costs for consumers, highlighted his Grid for Growth initiative to meet surging electricity demand, and emphasized the importance of preserving FERC’s independence as the nation faces growing energy needs.
VIDEO: U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, delivers opening remarks during a Committee hearing to conduct oversight of FERC, July 22, 2026.
“Electricity prices are rising, and electricity supply cannot keep up with demand,” said Heinrich. “We are seeing a rapid increase in electricity demand and are being hampered by not getting enough power from generators to end-users and struggling to quickly add new, needed generation sources.”
Heinrich criticized the Trump administration for stalling renewable energy projects that could help meet growing electricity demand and keep costs down.
“The administration is slow walking and stalling 73 GW of solar, 43 GW of storage, 30 GW of onshore wind, and 16 GW of offshore wind. Constraining the renewable buildout would increase economy-wide utility costs by approximately $11.6 billion per year,” continued Heinrich.
Heinrich also commended FERC for taking steps to address the growing electricity needs of large energy users, including data centers and advanced manufacturing facilities. Last month, FERC issued six show cause orders requiring grid operations and transmission owners to justify or propose changes to their tariffs governing large load customers.
“FERC choosing to address major electricity users, like data centers and advanced manufacturers, is an important step in the right direction,” said Heinrich. “Now, more than ever, FERC’s mission to ensure that utility rates remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential is critical to making sure millions of Americans can keep their lights on. During this once in a generation moment, I continue to believe that regulatory certainty, and the freedom for commissioners of independent agencies like FERC to act in a way to provide that certainty, will be critical in meeting the energy challenges of today.”
A video of Heinrich’s opening remarks is here.
A transcript of Heinrich’s remarks as delivered is below:
Thank you, Chairman Lee, and special thanks to all five of our FERC Commissioners for attending this hearing today. We very much appreciate having you here.
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has long been an important independent agency. It serves the public interest by regulating electricity, hydroelectric dams, natural gas, and oil in a manner that is both fair and impartial from the president and Congress, as required by statute.
Historically considered by some to be bit of a “sleepy” agency, FERC faces a pivotal time in our nation’s history right now.
Electricity prices are rising, and electricity supply cannot keep up with demand.
According to a recent report, 75% of U.S. adults say that they’ve noticed their home energy costs increasing in recent years.
Some of that blame can be squarely placed on our current president.
I recently released a report on how this administration is waging a war on renewables that is raising energy costs. The Administration is slow walking and stalling 73 GW of solar, 43 GW of storage, 30 GW of onshore wind, and 16 GW of offshore wind.
Constraining the renewable buildout would increase economy-wide utility costs by approximately $11.6 billion per year.
But that is not the only reason costs are rising. We are seeing a rapid increase in electricity demand and are being hampered by not getting enough power from generators to end-users and struggling to quickly add new, needed generation sources.
Luckily, we can take steps to improve our grid to help move electricity more efficiently and bring new power sources online.
I recently launched an initiative called Grid for Growth, a plan to meet surging electricity demand without shifting the cost of that to consumers. This effort complements ongoing efforts to pass a bipartisan permitting reform.
As part of the effort, last week I introduced the Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act to create a faster path for generator interconnection. Modeled after ERCOT’s connect and manage process, projects are rewarded for being flexible in their output by getting onto the grid faster.
Other bills will follow in the next few weeks and months, but our ability to meet the rising needs of the grid are based, in large part, on our ability to build more interregional transmission lines.
That is why permitting reform is so important.
Interregional transmission lines can be the best line of defense against extreme weather conditions, improving reliability, and reducing consumer costs.
While FERC requires some interregional transmission planning under Order Numbers 1000 and 1920, this coordination has not produced a substantial number of interregional transmission projects in the last decade.
We need to find a way to build more high voltage transmission lines in the next decade—our ability to grow our economy depends on it.
To FERC’s credit, the agency has taken active steps to confront energy challenges.
Last month, FERC issued six “show cause” orders, requiring grid operators and their transmission owners to justify or propose changes to their current tariffs with respect to large load customers.
These steps by FERC can help protect consumers and encourage grid operators to integrate new advanced technologies when adding new large loads to the grid.
FERC choosing to address major electricity users, like data centers and manufacturers, is an important step in the right direction.
Nevertheless, more action can, and should be, taken to ensure that consumers are protected from sky-high costs associated with data centers, manufacturers, and other large loads. I have been working on a bill intended to do just that and hope to speak more about that soon.
However, all of these efforts that I mentioned will be meaningless if the independence of FERC is erased.
The Supreme Court’s recent decision has put the impartiality of independent agencies at risk.
Now, more than ever, FERC’s mission to ensure that utility rates remain just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory or preferential is critical to making sure millions of Americans can keep their lights on.
During this once in a generation moment, I continue to believe that regulatory certainty, and the freedom for commissioners of independent agencies like FERC to act in a way to provide that certainty, will be critical in meeting the energy challenges of today.
I hope to discuss these issues with each of you during this hearing and look forward to it.
Heinrich, ENR Members Release Statement Urging Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to Reject Rule Gutting Tribal Consultation | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich and co-signers oppose the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's proposed rule changes to the Section 106 consultation process, arguing that the draft regulations would eliminate meaningful Tribal consultation on decisions affecting sacred and historic sites. They support modernizing the consultation process but only if it preserves Tribal and state input.
WASHINGTON – This week, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation — the federal agency that oversees historic preservation reviews — is considering a draft rule that would make sweeping changes to the Section 106 consultation process under the National Historic Preservation Act, allowing government agencies and developers to move forward without consultation with Tribes and states. The proposed changes would undermine critical protections for historic, cultural, and religious sites and eliminate the role of Tribal communities in decisions that directly affect places of deep cultural and spiritual significance.
In response to the news, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Senator Ron Wyden (D-Ore), U.S. Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), U.S. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai‘i), U.S. Senator Angus King (I-Maine), U.S. Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), U.S. Senator John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and U.S. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), released the following statement:
“These draft regulations by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation are unacceptable — eliminating Tribal consultation as we know it. This proposal disrespects the expertise that states and Tribes have in protecting our national history and culture, and it erases the requirement for the federal government to meaningfully consult with Tribal governments before they take actions that would negatively impact sacred, historic, and cultural sites for Tribal communities.
“Let’s be clear: there is a difference between making the consultation process work better and cutting Tribes out of the process. We support efforts to modernize and improve the Section 106 review process, but that cannot come at the expense of meaningful Tribal consultation or the expertise of the people who have protected these places for generations.
“We urge the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation to go back to the drawing board and work directly with Tribes and states on a new proposal that actually improves the consultation process without undermining the rights and voices of those most directly affected."
Last October, during a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing on the National Historic Preservation Act, Senate Democrats on the Committee emphasized the need to ensure that Tribes and local communities have a meaningful voice in the federal permitting approval process.
Heinrich Releases Fact Sheet Outlining How Trump’s Attacks on Renewable Energy Projects Are Skyrocketing Utility Costs for Americans | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich opposes the Trump administration's blocking of renewable energy projects, arguing that such actions increase utility costs for households and businesses while constraining electricity supply and economic growth.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released a fact sheet detailing how President Trump’s war on affordable, homegrown energy is driving up utility bills for families and businesses across the country.
The fact sheet finds that by blocking new renewable energy projects, the Trump administration is making it harder to meet growing electricity demand and forcing Americans to pay more for power. If renewable energy deployment continues to be constrained, the average household will pay an estimated $85 more on annual utility bills, while economy-wide electricity costs will increase by approximately $11.6 billion each year from 2027 through 2033.
“The fastest and most affordable way to meet America’s growing energy demand is to build clean, homegrown energy. Instead, President Trump is blocking those projects, raising utility bills, and making it harder for families and businesses to get ahead,” said Heinrich. “Families are already being squeezed by higher costs — and rather than finding ways to lower their bills, this administration is driving them even higher.”
Despite renewable energy being cheaper and faster to deploy, the Trump administration has consistently blocked renewable energy projects across the country. If those actions continue, over 90% of planned new electricity generation capacity could be prevented from coming online in the next several years.
Ranking Members Heinrich and Huffman Demand Answers on Trump Administration’s Fast-Track of Pro-Oil Rule for Alaska’s Western Arctic | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: The lawmakers oppose a Trump administration rule that would expedite oil and gas permitting in Alaska's National Petroleum Reserve, arguing it weakens environmental protections, limits tribal consultation, and reflects conflicts of interest between the Department of Interior and the oil industry.
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, and U.S. Representative Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the U.S. House Natural Resources Committee, sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum demanding answers about the Department of the Interior’s effort to fast-track an oil industry-backed rule that would weaken environmental protections and expedite oil and gas permitting across the Western Arctic. The lawmakers raised conflict-of-interest concerns after Interior moved to implement the industry-written proposal just days after receiving the petition.
The lawmakers are seeking documents and communications related to the Department's proposed rule, Production Site Development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, after the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) submitted a petition requesting the rule on May 12, 2026. Just three days later, the Department initiated the rulemaking process.
“This proposal, which would rubber-stamp future drilling operations in the Western Arctic, guts key environmental protections and opportunities for tribal consultation in a blatant giveaway of public lands to the oil and gas industry. This would open the door for hundreds of permits to not sufficiently balance wildlife and habitat, subsistence uses, or cultural resources across 23 million acres of public lands,” the lawmakers wrote.
The lawmakers continue, “The short timeline combined with AOGA’s involvement in this proposal raises serious concerns about not only the Department’s lack of environmental review and public input process, but its clear partiality to the oil industry’s interest in managing the largest tract of public land in the country.”
The letter also raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest involving current and former AOGA officials serving in senior positions at the Department. AOGA's current CEO, Steve Wackowski, served as the Department's Senior Advisor for Alaska Affairs during the first Trump administration, and the Department's current Senior Advisor for Alaska Affairs, Kara Moriarty, led AOGA as its President and CEO for more than a decade before joining the administration.
Ranking Members Heinrich and Huffman demanded documents and information related to the development of the proposed rule, including communications between Interior and AOGA, ethics safeguards governing current and former AOGA officials, calendars of senior officials, and records showing when the Department first began developing the proposal.
Read the full text of the letter here and below:
As Ranking Members of the House Natural Resources and Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committees, we write to express our deep concern regarding the proposed rule titled “Production Site Development in the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.”
On May 12, 2026, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association (AOGA) filed a petition for a new rule to expedite oil and gas permitting in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska (Western Arctic). Just three days later, the Department of the Interior (Department) initiated the first steps toward implementing the rule. Your remarks, as well as the statement from the Department, indicate that implementing all or most of the AOGA-drafted rule, despite an upcoming public comment period, may be a foregone conclusion.
This proposal, which would rubber-stamp future drilling operations in the Western Arctic, guts key environmental protections and opportunities for tribal consultation in a blatant giveaway of public lands to the oil and gas industry. This would open the door for hundreds of permits to not sufficiently balance wildlife and habitat, subsistence uses, or cultural resources across 23 million acres of public lands.
The short timeline combined with the AOGA’s involvement in this proposal raise serious questions about not only the Department’s lack of environmental review and public input process, but its clear partiality to the oil industry’s interest in managing the largest tract of public land in the country.
This potentially record-setting adoption of an industry-proposed rule by the Department also raises serious conflict of interest concerns. AOGA’s current chief executive officer, Steve Wackowski, served as the Senior Advisor for Alaska Affairs at the Department during the first Trump administration. Kara Moriarty, the Department’s current Senior Advisor for Alaska Affairs, previously served as President and CEO of AOGA for over a decade, and worked at AOGA up until her time in the administration.
We therefore respectfully request that you provide answers to the following questions:
1. When did the Department first decide to pursue this rulemaking?
2. What roles did Kara Moriarty and Steve Wackowski play in the decision to pursue the rulemaking, and in any subsequent steps related to its development, review, or implementation?
3. What ethics safeguards were implemented to avoid conflicts of interest between current and former employees of AOGA and the Department?
4. Please provide a list of petitions for rulemakings that have been submitted to the Department of the Interior, or any of its bureaus or offices, since January 20, 2025, and the accompanying agency/departmental response time;
5. Please provide any and all communications between officials at the Department of the Interior and its agencies, bureaus, or offices and the Alaska Oil and Gas Association regarding permitting in the NPR-A dated on or after January 20, 2025;
6. Please provide all entries in Doug Burgum’s calendar relating to AOGA or any representative of AOGA between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2026;
7. Please provide all entries in Kara Moriarty’s calendar relating to AOGA or any representative of AOGA between January 20, 2025, and June 15, 2026;
8. Please any and all draft rulemaking documents, briefing papers, or decision documents created before May 12, 2026, related to the proposed rule; and
9. Please provide all ethics documents associated with Kara Moriarty, including all ethics agreements, certificates of divestiture, recusal statements, screening arrangements, OGE Form 278e Public Financial Disclosure Reports, OGE Form 278-T Periodic Transaction Reports, and any waivers issued pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 208.
We look forward to your prompt and comprehensive response to these requests.
Heinrich Introduces Legislation and Grid Initiative Aimed at Delivering Cheap, Reliable Power to Working Families and Businesses | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich introduced legislation to establish a fast-track process for connecting new energy projects to the electric grid, aiming to reduce interconnection delays, lower electricity costs, and improve grid reliability.
The Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act aims to offer a fast-track solution for electricity generators to connect to the grid
WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich, Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, introduced the Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act, which would require grid operators to establish a fast-track process for connecting new energy projects to the electric grid, reducing delays and easing congestion.
"As electricity demand grows, we need to find better, faster ways to add more affordable, reliable power to the grid,”said Heinrich. “Right now, unnecessary delays are slowing projects that could help lower energy costs and deliver the low-cost energy we need. My Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act creates a fast-track to connect new energy projects so we can meet growing demand, improve reliability, and help keep electricity costs down for families and businesses.”
Across the country, new energy projects are stuck waiting years to connect to the electric grid in what are known as “interconnection queues,” delaying the affordable, reliable power that families and businesses need. Today, more than 2,000 gigawatts (GW) of energy generation and storage — more than twice the nation's existing electric generation capacity — are waiting in interconnection queues, with projects spending more than five years on average waiting to connect and roughly five years before they begin operating. These delays are driven in part by outdated rules that make it harder and more expensive to bring new energy online. Since 2017, the average cost of connecting a project to the grid has nearly doubled, rising from $225 per kilowatt (kW) to $422 per kW. In the PJM region alone, bringing just 10 percent of the projects currently waiting in interconnection queues online would have saved customers an estimated $3.5 billion, or 22 percent. Moving projects through the interconnection process faster is one of the quickest ways to increase energy supply, strengthen grid reliability, and help lower electricity costs.
The Grid Connection and Management Act aims to speed up that process by requiring regional transmission organizations (RTOs) to establish a fast-track pathway for qualifying energy projects to connect to the grid. In exchange for moving through an expedited review process, participating projects would agree to reduce their electricity output when requested by grid operators to maintain reliability. By shortening study times and creating a more predictable interconnection process, the bill will help bring new, cheap energy online faster.
The introduction of the Grid Congestion and Management Act is part of Heinrich’s Grid for Growth initiative, a roadmap to modernize the nation’s electrical grid and bring new, affordable energy online. Grid for Growth is a plan to meet surging electricity demand without shifting costs onto consumers and complements Heinrich’s ongoing efforts to pass a bipartisan permitting reform bill — ensuring that new transmission lines and clean energy projects can be built to meet rising electricity demand.
Heinrich’s Grid Congestion and Management Act is endorsed by GridLab, Solar Energy Industries Association (SEIA), RMI, and Electricity Customer Alliance.
“We cannot build a modern, high-demand economy on an outdated interconnection framework. Transitioning to a 'connect and manage' model is a reliable, proven way to connect new energy resources quickly while managing congestion in real time. The energy-only provisions in the Grid Congestion and Management Act represent a critical leap forward for U.S. grid policy,” said Ric O’Connell, Executive Director of GridLab.
“Too many of the solar and storage projects that America needs to meet growing energy demand and keep costs down for families are sitting in years-long interconnection queues. The Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act takes a significant step toward updating our interconnection policies for today’s critical energy technologies. The solar and storage industry thanks Ranking Member Heinrich for championing policies like the Grid Connection and Congestion Management Act that will keep costs down for Americans and bring solar and storage projects online faster,” said Erin Duncan, Vice President of Congressional Affairs at the Solar Energy Industries Association.
“Throughout most of the US, we are struggling to connect new electricity generators to our grid. The exception is Texas who has used their “connect and manage” approach to add more generation and load to their grid than any other region. Learning from the successful Texas approach, this bill brings a “connect & manage” option to the rest of the country without interfering with how those grids operate. The Grid Congestion and Management Act will increase competition and reduce power costs, benefitting rate payers and industry alike,”said Chaz Teplin, who leads Clean Competitive Grids team within RMI’s Carbon-Free Electricity program.
“With electricity demand and prices continuing to rise, customers urgently need new power supply options and a grid that powers economic growth and affordability,” said Jeff Dennis, Executive Director of the Electricity Customer Alliance. “Reforming interconnection processes to speed the connection of low-cost, ready-to-go, generation resources that can safely and reliably add needed new electrons in short order will help put downward pressure on power prices and expand the options for economically serving new demands."
Grid for Growth: A Three-Principle Plan
The first principle, Connect What’s Ready, Fast, focuses on clearing the interconnection backlog that is driving up energy costs. The second principle, Get More from the Grid, calls for optimizing the grid with new technologies, such as dynamic line ratings, power flow control, and topology optimization, which have been shown to raise the capacity of existing lines by 50%. The third principle, Build Big, Lower Costs for Everyone, ensures the largest new users, driven primarily by data centers, manufacturing, and electrification, fund the grid investments their growth requires, rather than passing it to ratepayers. Together, the principles inform policies that will connect ready projects faster, get more capacity from the grid we already have, and build big while keeping costs fair.
Heinrich’s Leadership on Transmission and Grid Infrastructure
Heinrich has long been one of the Senate’s leading advocates for expanding and modernizing America's electric grid. He has consistently pushed to build more high-voltage transmission, reform the permitting process for major transmission projects, strengthen interregional planning, reduce interconnection delays, and ensure the grid can reliably deliver cheap, American-made energy while supporting economic growth. For the last decade and a half, Heinrich has been a steadfast champion of SunZia, one of the largest energy infrastructure projects in the Western Hemisphere, shepherding the project through lengthy permitting processes for nearly two decades. The project, based in New Mexico, is now fully operational and is delivering up to 3,650 megawatts (MW) of energy across the Southwest.
In March, Heinrich organized a U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee hearing examining the state of America's electric grid and solutions to lower electricity costs. During the hearing, Heinrich highlighted the need to expand interregional transmission, reduce transmission congestion, accelerate interconnection of new generation, and modernize the grid to meet growing electricity demand driven by manufacturing, data centers, and electrification. He called for investing in a "Grid for Growth" to strengthen reliability while lowering costs for consumers.
In July 2024, Heinrich voted to advance the Energy Permitting Reform Act of 2024 out of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. The legislation incorporated several provisions Heinrich had championed, including his Interregional Transmission Planning Improvement Act, provisions based on his FASTER Act and his bipartisan Geothermal Energy Optimization (GEO) Act, which puts geothermal projects on an equal footing with oil and gas projects on public land and will help accelerate the adoption of geothermal energy nationwide.
In May 2024, Heinrich welcomed the Biden administration’s Federal-State Initiative to Bolster America’s Power Grid, which brought together 21 states, including New Mexico, to meet electricity demand while delivering reliable, affordable, and resilient power. The initiative supports deployment of grid-enhancing technologies and better coordination between federal and state governments on transmission planning.
In April 2024, Heinrich welcomed U.S. Secretary of Energy Jennifer Granholm to New Mexico to highlight how investments from recent landmark legislation like the Inflation Reduction Act created a clean energy manufacturing renaissance in communities like Albuquerque and Belén, N.M.
In June 2023, Heinrich introduced the Facilitating America's Siting of Transmission and Electric Reliability (FASTER) Act, landmark legislation to modernize the permitting process for major interregional transmission projects. The legislation would designate the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) as the lead permitting agency for qualifying transmission projects, establish a predictable permitting timeline, strengthen coordination among federal agencies, encourage community benefit agreements, and invest in local communities hosting transmission infrastructure.
Also in 2023, Heinrich introduced the Interregional Transmission Planning Improvement Act, legislation to improve planning and cost allocation for multi-state transmission projects. The bill would give FERC greater authority to ensure the costs of new transmission are allocated fairly among states that benefit from new infrastructure, helping remove one of the largest barriers to building interregional transmission.
In 2023, Heinrich delivered a keynote address at the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE) Policy Forum, where he laid out his vision for expanding America's transmission network and announced his legislative priorities to improve how the nation plans, permits, and pays for transmission infrastructure. Heinrich argued that transmission must become "the central piece" of America's clean energy strategy and emphasized that future projects cannot spend more than a decade navigating permitting processes like SunZia did.
In 2023, Heinrich also published an op-ed, "The Backbone of Our Clean Energy Future," arguing that expanding transmission is essential to improving grid reliability, lowering energy costs, strengthening resilience during extreme weather, and fully utilizing America's domestic energy resources. In the piece, Heinrich called for faster permitting, new federal financing tools, and investment incentives for nationally significant transmission projects.
A one-page factsheet of the bill is here.
A section-by-section summary of the bill is here.
The full text of the bill is here.
Heinrich, Padilla, Schumer, Schatz, King, Lead Investigation Into Trump Administration Efforts to Abandon Offshore Wind Projects | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senators oppose the Trump Administration's efforts to terminate offshore wind projects through lease buyout agreements, arguing that abandoning these projects will eliminate tens of thousands of jobs, raise energy costs, and undermine U.S. clean energy leadership.
Trump actions will kill more than 30,000 jobs and raise energy costs.
WASHINGTON – This week, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, joined U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawai‘i), and Angus King (I-Maine) in launching an investigation into the Trump Administration’s efforts to kill offshore wind energy projects and seeking answers from four offshore wind companies about the lease buyout agreements.
“These buyouts have been announced amid a larger effort by the Trump Administration to stall wind and solar projects – the energy sources that are cheap, clean, and fastest to bring online – across the country,” the Senators wrote. “At a time when gas prices have spiked by an average of more than $1 dollar per gallon due to the President’s war in Iran and electricity prices are rising twice as fast as inflation, clean energy offers a critical opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and relieve costs for people across the country. Dismantling the burgeoning offshore wind industry now and creating broader uncertainty for investment in cheap, clean energy will have consequences for decades to come.”
The Trump administration has agreed to pay the four companies nearly $2.6 billion in taxpayer funding to abandon projects that could have delivered energy to millions of homes and created tens of thousands of jobs up and down the East and West Coasts.
“These projects were poised not only to advance U.S. leadership in clean energy technology and generation capacity, but also to unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state investment in research and development, port upgrades, workforce development, and community benefit agreements,” the Senators continued. “The two Invenergy projects in the Gulf of Maine were expected to help power more than 2 million homes and support over 18,000 jobs. The Leading Light Wind project in the New York Bight was projected to generate more than $3.7 billion in economic development benefits and over 7,000 jobs. The Golden State Wind project off California’s Central Coast would have powered 1.1 million homes, created more than 8,000 jobs, and delivered a $30 million commitment to workforce development and supply chain initiatives.”
The Senators called on the companies to turn over internal communications and posed a series of questions: whether the Administration had raised legitimate national security concerns, whether the companies had struck a deal with the Department of the Interior involving a pledge to invest in fossil fuel projects, and whether any conditions were attached to the payouts.
Read the full text of the letters here and below:
Dear [TotalEnergies, Ocean Winds, Duke Energy, Invenergy]:
We write to express deep concern with your company’s voluntary termination of [two] leases to develop offshore wind energy in the United States. Over the last few months, President Trump’s Administration has agreed to pay companies, including [TotalEnergies], a total of nearly $2.6 billion in taxpayer dollars to abandon projects that could have delivered energy to communities spanning from California to North Carolina to Maine. We are concerned that these decisions will harm grid reliability, job opportunities, and economic development in states across the country, and we request your response to several inquiries.
Since March, 2026, the Department of the Interior (DOI) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) have announced agreements to terminate eight leases for offshore wind projects, including TotalEnergies’ leases for Attentive Energy in the New York Bight and Carolina Long Bay; Ocean Winds’ leases for Bluepoint Wind in the New York Bight and Golden State Wind off Morro Bay in California; and Invenergy’s leases in the New York Bight, Gulf of Maine, and Morro Bay in California’s Central Coast. The Trump Administration agreed to reimburse companies for their leases in exchange for investments in oil, gas, and geothermal projects that, in large part, will be hundreds of miles away from the states that were planning for these offshore wind projects. In total, the Trump Administration’s agreements could result in the loss of more than 15 GW of planned, fixed-price clean energy, which would have helped meet increasing energy demand in regions such as New England and the Mid-Atlantic that are already facing supply constraints.
These projects were poised not only to advance U.S. leadership in clean energy technology and generation capacity, but also to unlock hundreds of millions of dollars in federal and state investment in research and development, port upgrades, workforce development, and community benefit agreements. The two Invenergy projects in the Gulf of Maine were expected to help power more than 2 million homes and support over 18,000 jobs. The Leading Light Wind project in the New York Bight was projected to generate more than $3.7 billion in economic development benefits and over 7,000 jobs. The Golden State Wind project off California’s Central Coast would have powered 1.1 million homes, created more than 8,000 jobs, and delivered a $30 million commitment to workforce development and supply chain initiatives.
Several states have already begun making substantial investments to prepare for offshore wind projects to move forward, including over $100 million in investments by California to modernize ports and support planning. By accepting DOI’s buyout deals, you are stranding these investments, undermining job expectations, and disrupting the yearslong process of electricity capacity planning by states and utilities.
These buyouts have been announced amid a larger effort by the Trump Administration to stall wind and solar projects – the energy sources that are cheap, clean, and fastest to bring online – across the country. In December 2025, the Administration paused the construction of five largescale offshore wind projects, claiming “national security risks.” Secretary Burgum issued a directive requiring his personal review and approval of every wind and solar energy project on public lands, holding up at least 57GW as identified in court documents. The Department of Defense is holding up all new wind projects on private land, a total of more than 30 GW of onshore wind capacity. At a time when gas prices have spiked by an average of more than $1 dollar per gallon due to the President’s war in Iran and electricity prices are rising twice as fast as inflation, clean energy offers a critical opportunity to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and relieve costs for people across the country. Dismantling the burgeoning offshore wind industry now and creating broader uncertainty for investment in cheap, clean energy will have consequences for decades to come.
There is no law that entitles leaseholders to refunds for voluntarily surrendering a lease, and lease cancellations must be executed according to the law. The Trump Administration has asserted that these payments can be made from the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Judgment Fund—a position that may not be permissible under statute and that is the subject of ongoing litigation brought by the attorneys general of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. These buyouts risk setting a dangerous precedent that could encourage further misuse of public funds to terminate clean energy projects in certain states in favor of fossil fuel investments that benefit other states.
In light of these questions and concerns, and to better understand the legal basis for the lease buyout agreements between your company and DOI, we request the following information by August 6, 2026:
1. Please state when initial conversations began between your company and the Administration regarding initiating a lease buyout agreement.
2. Please state if anyone in the Trump Administration communicated to your company, whether verbal or written, that it would suspend your offshore wind projects if the project moved forward. If communication occurred, please provide responses to the following:
3. Please state what national security issues, if any, the Trump Administration raised or identified with your company with respect to the terminated leases.
4. Please state if your company or any representative of DOI or the Trump Administration provided notice to the states affected by the lease terminations. If not, why not?
5. Please state whether DOI held a hearing related to the planned termination of your company’s leases. If so, please describe.
6. Please state which projects your company has agreed to reinvest in and the settled payments amount. In responding to this question, please provide the following information:
7. If your company accepted an agreement with DOI in exchange for a pledge to invest in fossil fuel projects, describe the nature of the pledge and note whether any aspects of the pledge are legally binding.
8. Please state whether your company currently has other clean energy projects that are pending review by DOI, the Department of Defense, or any other federal government agency. In responding to this question, please provide the following information:
9. Please provide all correspondence with DOI, including with the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) and any email correspondence, papers, books, records, and documents in your possession or under your control relating to these agreements.
We look forward to your prompt response with the information requested above.
Heinrich Leads Colleagues in Urging Senate Committees to Regulate Prediction Markets, Protect Tribal Sovereignty & States’ Rights | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senators urge Senate committees to regulate prediction markets more strictly to protect tribal gaming sovereignty and state regulatory authority, and oppose provisions in the CLARITY Act and DCIA that would expand CFTC jurisdiction over prediction markets without safeguards for tribal and state gaming protections.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) led U.S. Senators Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.) in sending a letter urging the leadership of the U.S. Senate Committees on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs; and Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry to rein in prediction markets offering nationwide sports and event wagering, which abuse federal commodity and derivatives rules — infringing on state regulatory powers and violating Tribal gaming rights and sovereignty.
“We write with urgency regarding the continued lack of proper regulation over prediction markets and the resulting circumvention of state and Tribal gaming regulatory frameworks. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) and Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act (DCIA), as currently drafted, will only serve to exacerbate these issues by further removing regulatory accountability for decentralized finance (DeFi) betting protocols that deploy unvetted prediction and wagering markets, directly infringing on instances of Tribal gaming exclusivity and state police powers,”the senators wrote to U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Chairman Tim Scott (R-S.C.) and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry Chairman John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Ranking Member Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.).
The rapid expansion of sports event contracts through prediction markets and online casino-style gaming poses an existential threat to Tribal sovereignty by undermining the revenue that tribes rely on for government services such as healthcare, public safety, education, housing and social services.
The legal and jurisdictional framework governing all gambling operations, including sports wagers, on Tribal lands is established pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA) of 1988. Eventually, Tribes also entered the legalized sports betting market in 2018 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Currently, prediction markets claim to derive their operational authority from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which has asserted its exclusive jurisdiction to oversee and regulate all prediction markets and continues to erroneously classify these products as financial swaps or derivatives rather than gambling.
“Any further Congressional grant of exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over digital asset markets without ample guardrails for prediction market contracts will reinforce the CFTC’s claimed exclusive authority over event contracts and permanently circumvent the hard-won regulatory and economic protections established under IGRA and states’ police powers,” the senators underscored.
The senators continued, “Moreover, as currently drafted, the DCIA contains explicit exemptions from CFTC regulatory jurisdiction, and the CLARITY Act contains parallel exemptions from federal securities oversight for platform developers and non-custodial DeFi infrastructure providers that would effectively allow prediction markets to offer online casino-style gaming and sports betting across the United States, entirely bypassing the localized Tribal-state regulatory systems required by IGRA.”
The senators concluded their letter by urging the leadership of both committees to amend both the CLARITY Act and the Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act to include:
The letter is supported by the Indian Gaming Association (IGA), National Congress of American Indians (NCAI), Santa Ana Pueblo, Sandia Pueblo, Ohkay Owingeh Pueblo, Laguna Pueblo, San Felipe Pueblo, Kewa Pueblo, Cochiti Pueblo, Acoma Pueblo, Jemez Pueblo, Santa Clara Pueblo, Taos Pueblo, Tesuque Pueblo, Zia Pueblo, Isleta Pueblo, Pojoaque Pueblo, and Mescalero Apache Tribe.
The full text of the letter is here and below:
Dear Chair Scott, Ranking Member Warren, Chair Boozman, and Ranking Member Klobuchar:
We write with urgency regarding the continued lack of proper regulation over prediction markets and the resulting circumvention of state and tribal gaming regulatory frameworks. The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY Act) and Digital Commodity Intermediaries Act (DCIA), as currently drafted, will only serve to exacerbate these issues by further removing regulatory accountability for decentralized finance (DeFi) betting protocols that deploy unvetted prediction and wagering markets, directly infringing on instances of tribal gaming exclusivity and state police powers. As negotiating efforts between the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and U.S. Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry continue, we submit that failing to address these concerns through forthcoming legislation would constitute a direct conflict with the basic tenets of tribal sovereignty, dereliction of U.S. trust and treaty obligations to tribes across the country, and a violation of states’ police powers.
The rapid expansion of sports event contracts through prediction markets and online casino-style gaming poses an existential threat to tribal sovereignty by undermining the revenue that tribes rely on for government services. The legal and jurisdictional framework governing all gambling operations, including sports wagers, on tribal lands is established pursuant to the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA). Upon its passage in 1988, IGRA’s stated purpose was "to provide a statutory basis for the operation of gaming by Indian tribes as a means of promoting tribal economic development, self-sufficiency, and strong tribal governments.” The framework established by IGRA created a regulatory environment that helped make tribal gaming revenue one of the largest contributors to tribal government services such as healthcare, public safety, education, housing and social services. For instance, since the 1990 census, the real income of Native people living on a reservation has grown by 63%, and the poverty rate for reservation families with children was down to 27% by 2018, compared to more than 47% in 1989.[3] Following IGRA’s passage, the number of U.S. census tracts with an American Indian Tribal casino operation surged from near zero in 1989 to nearly 600 by 2019, leading to skyrocketing gaming revenues for tribes. Eventually, tribes also entered the legalized sports betting market in 2018 following the Supreme Court’s decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association.
Currently, prediction markets are misusing federal commodity and derivatives rules to offer nationwide sports and event wagering, completely ignoring state and tribal gaming licenses and regulations. These platforms claim to derive their operational authority from the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), which has asserted its exclusive jurisdiction to oversee and regulate all prediction markets and continues to erroneously classify these products as financial swaps or derivatives rather than gambling. Any further Congressional grant of exclusive CFTC jurisdiction over digital asset markets without ample guardrails for prediction market contracts will reinforce the CFTC’s claimed exclusive authority over event contracts and permanently circumvent the hard-won regulatory and economic protections established under IGRA and states’ police powers. Moreover, as currently drafted, the DCIA contains explicit exemptions from CFTC regulatory jurisdiction, and the CLARITY Act contains parallel exemptions from federal securities oversight for platform developers and non-custodial DeFi infrastructure providers that would effectively allow prediction markets to offer online casino-style gaming and sports betting across the United States, entirely bypassing the localized tribal-state regulatory systems required by IGRA.
Accordingly, we urge the adoption of two amended protections through any forthcoming legislation: 1) an IGRA and tribal-state compacts savings clause; and 2) prohibitions on CFTC-registered entities from listing prediction contracts that resemble sports bets or casino-style gaming products. This should include an explicit statement that nothing shall preempt, repeal, or limit tribal authority under the IGRA, along with clear assurances that CFTC-regulated prediction or digital commodity markets cannot be used to circumvent existing tribal-state gaming compacts. It should also limit any carve-outs for digital asset platforms by prohibiting online sports wagering or event-based prediction markets in jurisdictions where tribes hold gaming rights. Any exemptions for DeFi must be limited solely to the spot market regulatory provisions added by this bill (e.g., new sections 4k(7), 4u, and 5i) and not extend to existing derivatives regulatory provisions. This will prevent derivatives, event contracts, sports bets or casino style games from evading regulation by migrating onto unregulated DeFi platforms. If Congress fails to address these concerns imminently, prediction markets will continue to violate tribal sovereignty and states’ rights, while the CLARITY Act and DCIA provide for fully unregulated online gaming platforms, further eroding the federal framework intended to guarantee a primary pillar of tribal sovereignty.
Heinrich Statement on Supreme Court Decision Reaffirming Birthright Citizenship | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich affirms that birthright citizenship is a constitutional guarantee and welcomes the Supreme Court's reaffirmation of this principle.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) issued the following statement after the Supreme Court reaffirmed the constitutional guarantee of birthright citizenship in Trump v. Barbara:
“Birthright citizenship isn't up for debate — it's enshrined in our Constitution. Today's decision reaffirms what has long been settled law: if you're born in the United States, you're an American citizen.”
Heinrich Statement Denouncing Supreme Court for Failing to Protect Americans’ Health & Refusing to Hold Weedkiller Manufacturers Accountable | U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico
Position: Senator Heinrich opposes a Supreme Court decision granting immunity to glyphosate manufacturers and advocates for passage of the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to restore civil liability for manufacturers and protect public health from potential cancer risks.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) released the following statement denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision, in Monsanto Company v. John L. Durnell, to overturn lower court verdicts that have held Monsanto liable for failing to adequately warn users of the potential cancer risks of glyphosate.
Glyphosate is the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup — a widely used herbicide developed by Monsanto. Roundup is primarily used in corn, soybean, and cotton production to control weeds, where 90% of those crops are genetically engineered to be resistant to glyphosate.
This Congress, Heinrich led the introduction of the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, legislation that aims to protect Americans’ health by ensuring manufactures of glyphosate — the active ingredient in the weedkiller Roundup — can be held liable under federal and state law should the chemical be proven to cause cancer. The bill overturns President Trump's executive order that promotes the production of glyphosate and insulates manufacturers of the chemical from liability. Heinrich’s bill, if enacted, would affirm that glyphosate manufacturers are not immune from civil liability — restoring the rights the Supreme Court took away with today’s ruling.
“Juries across the country looked at the evidence and delivered clear verdicts: They found that exposure to glyphosate can cause cancer. Today, the Supreme Court overturned those verdicts and handed immunity to the very billion-dollar corporations putting Americans’ health and safety at risk. It's infuriating,” said Heinrich. “I will not stand by while President Trump and his hand-picked Supreme Court give immunity to those who put my constituents' health and safety at risk. Congress needs to pass my No Immunity for Glyphosate Act to restore real accountability and protect the health and well-being of families in New Mexico and across the country.”
Specifically, the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act:
The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act is led by Heinrich and U.S. Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.). U.S. Senators Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.) joined the senators in introducing this bill. Companion legislation is led in the House by U.S. Representatives Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) and Chellie Pingree (D-Maine).
The No Immunity for Glyphosate Act is endorsed by Farm Action Fund.
The full text of the bill is 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.MORTGAGE BANKERS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (MORPAC)2 contributions$10,000
2.HEALTH JOBS JUSTICEIdeological2 contributionsLabor and healthcare advocacy PAC — supports candidates backing union organizing rights, healthcare worker protections, and expanded access to healthcare.AI$10,000
3.EMPLOYEE OWNED S CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA PAC (ESCA PAC)2 contributions$10,000
5.NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATIONLabor2 contributionsPAC of the National Education Association, the largest U.S. teachers' union. Backs candidates supporting public education funding, teacher compensation, and collective bargaining rights.AI$10,000
6.NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEReal Estate2 contributionsTrade association PAC for U.S. real estate agents and brokers — backs candidates supporting property-rights protections, mortgage-lending access, and tax incentives for homeownership.AI$10,000
7.NATIONAL ASSOC. OF LETTER CARRIERS OF U.S.A. POLITICAL FUND (LETTER CARRIER POLITICAL FUND)2 contributions$10,000
9.NATIONAL TREASURY EMPLOYEES UNION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEPublic Sector1 contributionPublic-sector employee union PAC — backs candidates supporting federal employee benefits, workplace protections, and collective bargaining rights.AI$5,000
10.KIDNEY CARE PARTNERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE1 contribution$5,000
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.HOLLAND & KNIGHT LLP$14,500
2.CORVID TECHNOLOGIES, LLC$10,000
3.CASSIDY & ASSOCIATES, INC.$10,000
4.BGR GROUP$9,500
5.MMR GROUP$7,500
6.CORNERSTONE GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS INC.$7,250
7.CRUX CLIMATE, LLC$7,000
8.ICEBREAKER STRATEGIES, LLC$7,000
9.VAN SCOYOC ASSOCIATES INC.$6,000
10.HDM CAPITAL LLC$6,000
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.
