See how Chrissy Houlahan's votes line up with your values.
DeepSyte scores Chrissy Houlahan'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 Chrissy Houlahan's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Chrissy Houlahan's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
To prohibit the disclosure of records by the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development of individuals for the purposes of immigration enforcement, and for other purposes.
No paired statements and votes yet for Chrissy Houlahan
We haven't yet found statement/vote pairs on the same topic for Chrissy Houlahan. This usually means either the rep hasn't taken public positions on bills that have come to a passage vote, or those bills haven't been tagged yet. The checker runs as new press releases and votes come in.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Chrissy Houlahan'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 Chrissy Houlahan yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
Passage votes where Chrissy Houlahan broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
13
Cross-aisle votes
119-hres-1335·Jun 11, 2026·89% of D voted NO
Condemning actors seeking to defraud the United States Government, and expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that governmentwide fraud and improper payment prevention reforms will meaningfully improve the financial prosperity of the United States, and that Federal program eligibility should be verified before payment.
Houlahan, Smith Respond to Inaccurate Casualty Reporting, Lack of Transparency on Human Cost of Trump's War
Position: Representatives Houlahan and Smith criticize the Department of Defense for miscounting U.S. service member deaths in the Central Command area of responsibility and call for greater transparency and corrective policy changes. They describe the military action against Iran as a war of choice and call for accountability from the executive branch.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – House Military Personnel Subcommittee Ranking Member Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) and Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Adam Smith (WA-09) released the following statement responding to the Department of Defense announcing publicly that it had miscounted the number of U.S. service members who have died in the Central Command Area of Responsibility as part of Operation Epic Fury and other Overseas Operations.
“Today’s public correction in the number of U.S. service members who have died in the Middle East since President Trump launched his disastrous war of choice against Iran was the direct result of congressional oversight. Specifically, this committee discovered a discrepancy in the Pentagon’s reporting of casualty numbers, brought it to the Trump Administration’s attention, and worked to ensure they publicly corrected this incredibly important record.
“There is no excuse for a mistake of this magnitude. While we take seriously our duty to serve as the voice of the American people and hold the executive branch accountable as a co-equal branch of government, requiring Congress to step in to rectify such an egregious error is an embarrassment for the Department. The failure of Secretary Hegseth to immediately take ownership of the problem also does a grave disservice to the men and women putting their lives on the line in service to our country.
“We are glad to see the error has been corrected, and we will continue to fight for transparency and accountability. While this public correction is an important first step, we expect the Department to make the necessary changes to policies and procedures to ensure this mistake is not repeated and that they are more transparent with the public going forward.”
--end--
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Rep. Houlahan Statement on Sec. Hegseth Announcing Execution of Fort Hood Shooter Will Be Livestreamed
Position: Opposes the Defense Secretary's decision to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan, arguing that public execution is not appropriate and urging reconsideration. Affirms that the defendant should face justice through due process.
"Nidal Hasan is a murderer and terrorist who will face justice as determined by the unanimous verdict of a jury, in accordance with the principles of due process that our democracy is built on.
What did the jury not have a say in? Livestreaming the execution for the public to see. The U.S. hasn’t held a public execution in over a century, and with good reason. We are not Iran or North Korea. We know that justice is not entertainment, nor is it the glorification of violence. I urge Secretary Hegseth to reconsider this decision and to treat justice for this heinous act with the seriousness it requires."
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Reps. Houlahan, Smith Lead Members of Congress Demanding Answers on End to Tenured Appointments at Military Service Academies
Position: Representatives Houlahan and Smith question the Department of Defense's legal authority and intended scope for ending tenured faculty appointments at military service academies, and request a response from Secretary Hegseth by October 16, 2026.
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, Representatives Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) and Adam Smith (WA-09) demanded answers on the Department of Defense’s decision to end appointments to tenured positions at military service academies. Specifically, the lawmakers questioned Secretary Pete Hegseth about the Department’s legal authority for this action, its intended application, and effects on existing faculty.
“Congress has long recognized that the service academies have a dual mission: preparing cadets and midshipmen for military service while providing a rigorous academic education,” wrote the lawmakers. “Civilian faculty play an important role in making that possible.”
The lawmakers continued, “Given this statutory and institutional history, we are concerned about the legal basis for the Department’s new policy and whether the directive is intended to prohibit future grants of tenure or to alter the status and employment protections of faculty who are currently tenured.”
Rep. Houlahan is Ranking Member of the House Military Personnel Subcommittee and Rep. Smith is Ranking Member of the House Armed Services Committee. The Members were joined by Representatives Bobby Scott (VA-03), Ranking Member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, Pat Ryan (NY-18), representing the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), representing the U.S. Naval Academy, Joe Courtney (CT-02), representing the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, and Chris Deluzio (PA-17).
Secretary Hegseth is asked to provide a response by October 16, 2026. The full letter can be found here.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Hegseth Is Pushing Testosterone. The VA Has Already Struggled With the Treatment.
Position: The release reports on a Department of Defense testosterone screening and hormone-replacement initiative, citing concerns about overprescription and prior VA documentation problems with testosterone therapy. It implies skepticism of the program's proactive screening approach.
Providing continuing hormone-replacement therapy at “the High-T Department of War,” as Secretary Pete Hegseth is calling it, may prove difficult for the federal government because the department in charge of healthcare for veterans has already documented a struggle to manage service members’ hormone therapy, The Intercept has found.
A person on testosterone therapy can’t just stop it abruptly. Dr. Adrian Dobs, a professor of medicine and oncology at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told The Intercept testosterone therapy can suppress the body’s natural production of the hormone and sperm, as well as create medical needs that persist after treatment stops. “We’re sort of creating a dependency on testosterone,” she said.
Under Hegseth’s new initiative, service members age 30 and older are slated for annual testosterone screening, regardless of whether they have any symptoms, while troops under 30 may request screening during their periodic health assessments. Doctors and endocrinologists warned that this proactive screening could lead to overprescription of hormone-replacement therapy for people who don’t need it. This could affect their fertility in the short term, Dobs said, because “men who take testosterone will have a reduction in their sperm counts.”
And after a service member leaves the military, they may require continued medical care. That care could eventually fall to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which has previously struggled with the same treatment.
In a 2018 review of testosterone replacement therapy, the VA Office of Inspector General found that providers often started patients on testosterone without adequately documenting symptoms or confirming low testosterone levels and frequently failed to conduct recommended follow-up after treatment began. Approximately 2 out of 3 patients did not get a documented discussion of the risks and benefits of the treatment before starting.
Dr. Alvin Matsumoto, a professor emeritus at the University of Washington School of Medicine and former attending physician and associate director at the VA Puget Sound Health Care System, said the findings show why testing for low testosterone is not enough to determine whether someone should receive treatment. Matsumoto helped develop the Endocrine Society’s clinical practice guidelines for testosterone treatment, which the inspector general found the VA had routinely violated in its 2018 review.
Testosterone levels can change depending on when a patient is tested, whether they have recently eaten, exercised heavily, or are sick, among other factors, Matsumoto said. In about a third of men whose testosterone initially tests low, a second test produces a normal result.
That creates a risk under a program that will routinely screen otherwise healthy troops and make testosterone therapy available to those subsequently diagnosed with a deficiency.
“Initiating testosterone therapy in men who have a single low testosterone [test] but no clinical manifestations of testosterone deficiency will likely result in treatment of some men who do not have hypogonadism,” Matsumoto told The Intercept.
Medical guidelines instead call for doctors to establish that a patient has symptoms and repeatedly low testosterone levels before beginning treatment. Matsumoto said those steps would need to occur either while a service member remains under Pentagon care or after they transition to Veterans Affairs.
The question becomes particularly important when those patients move between the two systems. Matsumoto said a VA provider inheriting a patient already receiving testosterone should review why treatment was started in the first place, including whether the patient had symptoms and repeatedly low testosterone levels.
But he does not expect that reassessment to routinely happen. Usually, “the diagnosis will be assumed to be correct,” Matsumoto said.
It’s a similar problem to one the inspector general identified in its review of VA care. Some providers appeared to be testing patients for low testosterone without first documenting symptoms suggesting a deficiency.
The inspector general made seven recommendations to bring VA practices up to standards, including repeat testing and monitoring. According to the inspector general, the VA implemented all seven recommendations and closed them as implemented, as the VA noted in response to questions from The Intercept.
Among the changes the VA implemented was a requirement that providers establish signs and symptoms of testosterone deficiency before testing a patient’s testosterone level for confirmation — a higher standard than Hegseth’s call for annual testosterone screening based on age alone.
“I would be against universal screening, which is what we’re talking about here,” said Dobs, a position consistent with guidance from the Endocrine Society, which represents physicians and researchers specializing in hormonal health.
The Pentagon’s new initiative presents a different question: What happens when service members arrive at the VA already receiving testosterone treatment initiated while they were on active duty?
The Intercept asked the VA whether it has the clinical capacity to continue testosterone treatment for veterans who begin therapy under the Pentagon’s new initiative, whether those prescriptions would automatically continue after separation or require a new VA evaluation, and whether the VA and the Pentagon have coordinated on transitioning those patients between the two healthcare systems.
The Department of Veterans Affairs did not answer any of those questions.
“VA provides testosterone testing and replacement therapy when medically necessary,” VA Press Secretary Quinn Slaven told The Intercept.
Defense Department personnel data from 2024 show roughly 451,000 active-duty troops were age 31 or older, a conservative figure that excludes 30-year-olds, who would also fall under Hegseth’s screening requirement. More than 1 million of the military’s 1.27 million active-duty service members were men.
“Here we have men who are in their prime of reproduction, and we’re causing a drop in their sperm counts when there really may not be sufficient benefit,” Dobs said.
The Pentagon did not provide The Intercept with the scientific evidence behind the mandate, say whether it assessed the fertility consequences that can follow testosterone treatment, or address safeguards to prevent unnecessary treatment.
Screening asymptomatic patients is “sort of opening up a can of worms,” Dobs said, citing the difficulty of interpreting test results and determining when treatment is warranted. She was particularly concerned about treating otherwise asymptomatic men whose levels fall within a low or low-normal range — a likely risk in a military overwhelmingly composed of young adults.
The Endocrine Society also recommends against starting testosterone therapy in men who are planning to father children in the near term.
In response to The Intercept’s questions, Defense Department officials pointed to Hegseth’s health and human performance directives, statements from Pentagon officials, and the “High-T Department of War” video.
“It’s not about artificial enhancement,” Hegseth said in his video. “It’s about restoring and optimizing your natural capabilities, protecting your longevity and ensuring you have the biological foundation required to sustain the fight.”
But testosterone treatment can interfere with overall health. Patients placed on testosterone may require continued clinical monitoring to ensure they are not receiving excessive amounts of the hormone. Testosterone can also increase the proportion of red blood cells in a person’s blood, requiring additional monitoring during treatment. It introduces a complex treatment regimen with “very little real proven benefit in this healthy population,” Dobs said.
And there’s the financial cost.
“Who is going to pay for this testosterone while they’re in the service, and who is going to pay for it after,” Dobs asked, “if they require it for many years afterwards?”
The virility program Hegseth introduced also intersects with a long-running gap in military reproductive healthcare.
In May, a Congressional Research Service report identified testosterone exposure among the factors that can contribute to infertility. Yet TRICARE, the health insurance military members have, generally does not cover assisted reproductive technologies, including in vitro fertilization, intrauterine insemination, and cryopreservation, which can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.
Congress nearly expanded that coverage last year. Both the House and Senate versions of the fiscal year 2026 defense authorization bill included provisions requiring TRICARE coverage of certain assisted reproductive technologies. Neither provision survived the final legislation.
The Pentagon is now preparing to routinely screen hundreds of thousands of troops and offer potentially unnecessary testosterone therapy even as TRICARE generally excludes treatments for infertility, one of its potential consequences.
And the plan gives scant consideration to another massive population.
“Nobody’s discussing women,” Dobs said.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Pa., an Air Force veteran and member of the House Armed Services Committee, raised the same concern.
“Testosterone is important for both men and women,” Houlahan told The Intercept. “But when [Hegseth] says ‘biological foundation,’ clearly, he has only one sex in mind.”
Houlahan pointed to years of congressional efforts to expand access to fertility treatment for service members and their families.
“This administration not only has opposed efforts to expand access to IVF for service members and their families but has rolled back policies that enable them to take time off to get the full suite of health care they need,” Houlahan said.
She has pushed for research into how military service affects women entering perimenopause and menopause, including the potential effects of toxic exposure, combat, military sexual trauma, and post-traumatic stress disorder. “There is little to no research” on how those risk factors affect women’s health, Houlahan said.
Hegseth has repeatedly framed the testosterone initiative around military readiness and lethality. But “if Secretary Hegseth was truly looking to improve readiness, he would consider ways to support all service members, not just 49% of the population,” Houlahan said.
She was blunter about what she believes the testosterone initiative says about Hegseth’s priorities.
“This announcement about testosterone proves that Secretary Hegseth is only concerned about reproductive health when it serves his own political and misogynistic agenda,” Houlahan said.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Hegseth Ordered a New Study of Women in Combat. Critics Say It’s Built to Reach One Conclusion
Position: The release reports on a Pentagon study of women in ground combat roles and describes critics' concerns that it may be used to remove women from combat arms. It also cites Secretary Hegseth's past statements opposing women in combat roles.
Two months before Pete Hegseth appeared in front of Congress to testify in his confirmation to be secretary of defense, he sat across from the podcaster Shawn Ryan, talking about the Pentagon’s 2015 decision to open ground combat roles to women.
“It hasn’t made us more effective. It hasn’t made us more lethal,” Hegseth said. “I’m straight up just saying we should not have women in combat roles.”
By the time of Hegseth’s appearance on the show in late 2024, women had been serving in combat positions for nearly a decade across the military. The decision to integrate women had been thoroughly studied—before, during, and after the process—and thousands of women had served in roles ranging from infantry to combat engineers to special operations. The debate over women in combat was largely considered to be over.
But Hegseth was looking to reignite that debate. His book, “The War on Warriors,” which he was on the show to promote, dedicated a full chapter to the idea.
“Dads take us to push risks. Moms put the training wheels on our bikes,” he wrote in the book. “We need moms. But not in the military, especially in combat units.”
Hegseth softened his rhetoric during his January 2025 confirmation hearing, telling senators that women service members deserved the opportunity to serve in any role they qualified for.
“Women in our military, as I’ve said publicly, have and continue to make amazing contributions across all aspects of our battlefield,” he said.
Yet barely two months into his tenure at the Pentagon, Hegseth was already laying the groundwork to call into question those contributions. In March, he created a task force to review standards. Then, in December, the Pentagon’s personnel chief, Anthony Tata, announced a “review of the operational effectiveness” of ground combat units in the Army and Marine Corps, according to an internal memo obtained by The War Horse.
Now, that study is raising fears among military researchers and advocates for service women.
“We’re all concerned that this study is going to be used as a pretext to remove women from combat arms,” said Sue Fulton, the executive director of the Women in the Service Coalition, which advocates for women in the military.
Advocates have reason to worry: The researcher leading the current study on the issue, Jane Pinelis, helped lead a controversial review for the Marine Corps in 2015 that found mixed-gender units did not perform as well as all-male units. In his book, Hegseth drew heavily on that study to support the argument that women should not serve in combat arms.
“It was a flawed design from the get-go,” retired Army Col. Ellen Haring told NPR in 2015.
Defense officials initially assigned the current study to the Institute for Defense Analyses in December—only to change course and move the study to the Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory, where Pinelis works, in April.
The highly unusual decision raises questions about the study’s independence, according to advocates and defense analysts.
“Why was this removed from IDA, where this kind of research is in their wheelhouse, and given to [the Applied Physics Lab], where this is clearly outside their expertise?” Fulton asked.
At his confirmation hearings, Hegseth told lawmakers that his concerns were not about women in combat, but rather, that standards had fallen to facilitate the integration of women in those units.
This February, after the Pentagon began its review, Sen. Mazie Hirono, a Democrat from Hawaii, asked the senior enlisted leaders from each military branch to testify on whether standards had been lowered. All of them said no.
“I’ve seen no data that supports that there’s been any lowering of standards or that there’s lowering of the readiness of units with those females in those units,” Navy Master Chief David Isom, a SEAL serving as the senior enlisted advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified.
Women who have served in combat roles agree.
“It becomes abundantly apparent very quickly if you are contributing to the team or detracting from the team when you have to move 40 ammo cans from point A to point B,” a female officer who served in the 75th Ranger Regiment told the military news website Task & Purpose earlier this year.
Even before combat units were integrated, women guarded convoys in Iraq and Afghanistan, accompanied special operations soldiers on missions, and frequently came under enemy fire.
“Women were already serving in combat,” said Rita Graham, the policy director at Service Women’s Action Network, an advocacy group for women in the military. The decision to open all combat roles to women came in part because four women service members, along with SWAN, sued the military for sex discrimination.
“They were being denied the recognition, the training, the medals, leadership opportunities, but most importantly, the career advancement,” Graham said.
Yet almost since he assumed office, Hegseth has been searching for evidence that standards have slipped.
Early on, Hegseth convened a team of advisors to evaluate standards at the Army’s Ranger School and special operations training programs. Hegseth served in Iraq with the team’s leader, Eric Geressy, who retired from the Army as a sergeant major. In “The War on Warriors,” Hegseth notes that Geressy was critical of women moving into frontline positions, which he called “chicken shit.”
The team quickly moved to lay the groundwork for a new study of women in combat, beginning with visits to Ranger School in March 2025 to “review and restore” standards, according to documents reviewed by The War Horse. Tata announced the study internally nine months later.
“Service members want a challenge[,] they do not want to be part of a loosing [sic] team and want to serve alongside the best,” a briefing document from the team’s visit to Ranger School said.
Laura Junor Pulzone, who served as the Pentagon’s principal deputy undersecretary for personnel and readiness as the military prepared for full gender integration in 2014, questioned whether a new study was even necessary.
“I was the readiness person,” said Junor Pulzone. “The only thing that mattered to me was making sure that we had a predictably ready force that was capable of executing the national defense strategy, full stop.”
“What I saw was an analytically based, sound way of doing this,” she said, noting that she would have raised red flags if she felt the military had not fully studied and prepared for the transition to gender-integrated combat units.
Gender-neutral standards for jobs open to men and women in the military were first required more than 30 years ago, as the military began training women to fly fighter jets. The same requirement held true for combat roles as they opened to women, and there is scant evidence that standards for those positions have declined in the past decade.
“This study has already been done,” Rep. Chrissy Houlahan, D-Penn., an Air Force veteran, told The War Horse. “We know that women who serve continue to perform and meet the same standards in ground combat as their male colleagues.”
Since 2015, thousands of women have served in Army ground combat units, and hundreds more have served in similar Marine units. Multiple women have completed Army Special Forces training and the Air Force’s special warfare training pipeline. More than 180 women have graduated from the Army’s Ranger School, one of the military’s most demanding combat leadership courses. And a recent Army study found that women who completed the course showed fewer signs of physiological stress at the end of training than men.
Critics also note that the Marine Corps’ summary of the study omitted findings favorable to mixed-gender units, which had better problem-solving skills, higher morale, and fewer disciplinary issues than all-male units.
Advocates for women in combat argue that Hegseth’s fixation on standards—which he often ties to physical fitness—reflects a limited understanding of the reality of modern combat, which requires soldiers to be flexible, solve complex problems, and increasingly demonstrate technical proficiency.
Designing a study to clearly answer the question of whether women should be in combat units is exceptionally difficult, said Michael McGurk, the former director of research and analysis at the Army’s Center for Initial Military Training, because so many issues come into play.
“How do you determine that women are the factor that’s causing the difference, and not the company commander’s leadership, the sergeant’s leadership?” he said. “You can always find the tactical reason why we shouldn’t do this.”
This March, Houlahan introduced a bill addressing the Pentagon’s decision to reexamine women in combat.
“Now more than ever, we should be supporting each and every servicemember willing to wear the uniform, not scrutinizing and pushing out qualified women simply because they are women,” Houlahan said in a statement.
The bill, called the WARRIOR Act, would prohibit gender-based exclusion in the military and ensure that positions have clear standards reflecting the needs of the job—not only physical requirements, but tactical, technical, and cognitive demands.
Advocates who spoke to The War Horse agree that not every woman is up to the task of serving in combat roles. But if the military is to operate as a true meritocracy, they argue, then everyone—men and women—should be given an opportunity to serve as long as they meet the high standards those jobs require.
“We can’t claim something as the Army’s premier leadership school, and say, well, you know, it’s only for leaders that are male,” said Thomas Stone, a former Army Ranger who oversaw training given to soldiers prior to Ranger School when women were first permitted to attend the course.
And as the nature of combat evolves, so do the skills required of a soldier to excel in it.
Stone pointed out that fitness standards—like the Army Ranger requirement to hike 12 miles with a 35-pound pack—are rooted in earlier conflicts, from a different time. He argued that focusing so much attention on a question of standards developed for older conflicts risks misunderstanding the requirements of a future conflict. The Pentagon, Stone noted, recently earmarked $54 billion for autonomous warfare in its upcoming budget.
“What does the future of war look like?” he said. “Don’t you want the best human being, regardless of gender, piloting that humanoid robot?”
Researchers who spoke with The War Horse said a new study makes sense if at least some anecdotal evidence found problems in mixed-gender combat units. But that has not been the case, they said.
“What is the evidence of the problem?” Junor Pulzone said. “What is the problem we’re trying to solve?”
Researchers also told The War Horse the timeframe of the study—initially six months, though extended to a year when it was transferred to Johns Hopkins—was unusually compressed.
“If I were to set up doing a study like this, it would be a large mixed-methods [study]. There would be a lot of data from the past. There’d also be a lot of conversations that would have to happen—interviews, focus groups, which are going to require some pretty significant institutional review board proposals, as well as data-sharing agreements,” said another researcher who has studied women in the military extensively and who declined to be named over potential career impacts.
“It’s a very short time for a study like this.”
On its website, the Applied Physics Lab at Johns Hopkins lists 39 areas of expertise, ranging from “space technology” to “tactical and ballistic missile defense systems” to “cyber-physical security.” It does not list anything related to military readiness, personnel, or ground combat.
That has raised suspicions among military researchers, who told The War Horse they were surprised the Pentagon moved the study from the Institute for Defense Analyses to Johns Hopkins’ Applied Physics Laboratory. It’s unusual for the Pentagon to change the institution conducting a study, particularly in the middle of it, they said.
“Shopping around for researchers is not a good look,” Junor Pulzone said.
And the choice of the Applied Physics Laboratory struck researchers as especially unusual.
“They have robotics people, AI people, chemists. I don’t understand why they have [the study]. I really don’t. It doesn’t make any sense,” said one researcher, who spoke on condition of anonymity over fears of potential career impacts.
A Pentagon spokesperson declined to answer The War Horse’s questions on the record. But in a response provided on background, a Pentagon official said that after the study was assigned to the Institute for Defense Analyses, the Defense Department “recognized the need to incorporate combat-relevant field tests” into the assessment.
The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory “has the capability to examine existing personnel and operational data, as well as conduct the field tests,” the official said.
The Applied Physics Laboratory did not respond to requests for comment.
“The Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory is a world-renowned research institution focused on artificial intelligence, robotics, and emerging scientific discoveries—no doubt vital and urgent work,” Houlahan said. “However, the Applied Physics Lab is not the first place that comes to mind when examining the role of women in ground combat.”
On Pinelis’ LinkedIn profile, the study’s lead researcher describes her current role as chief AI engineer at the Applied Physics Lab. She also lists work as the chief scientist for special operations. Years before, in 2015, as a statistician, she led the design and analysis of the Marine Corps study into gender-integrated units.
That study concluded that all-male units outperformed mixed-gender units on 69% of tasks. At its conclusion, the Marine Corps requested an exemption from the Pentagon’s directive to open all combat roles to women.
“This was a very politically unpopular conclusion,” Pinelis told an interviewer from Forbes in 2022. “There’s no room for compromise when it comes to scientific rigor.”
Pinelis did not respond to a request for comment from The War Horse.
The methodology behind the 2015 study drew sharp critiques. Critics pointed out that the units drew experienced male Marines, while female Marine volunteers had just gone through the Marine Corps’ initial nine-week infantry training course and only had to meet the minimum male physical fitness score to participate. It also evaluated women based on average scores, rather than assessing how capable individual female Marines were of meeting a standard.
“The fear is that something similar could happen,” said SWAN’s Graham, who previously served as an Army field artillery officer after the specialty was opened to women. “We’re really not opposed to an evidence-based review, if it’s done legitimately, if it’s done with the proper research questions, if it’s done with the proper sample sizes.”
In “The War on Warriors,” subtitled “Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free,” Hegseth cites the study’s finding that female Marines were injured at a higher rate than male Marines as evidence that women should not serve in combat. But Marine Corps briefing materials on the study found that better screening for physical fitness would have eliminated that issue.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Position: The release describes Rep. Houlahan's concern about childcare costs and income-based financial aid eligibility, and her role in developing a House Democratic affordability agenda. It does not state a specific bill position.
Originally published in The Philadelphia Inquirer.
Written by Sam Janesch
In the back of a classroom where she had just read to 20 attentive preschool kids, U.S. Rep. Chrissy Houlahan was concerned about what the staff of the West Chester YMCA was telling her.
Nearly a third of the families who rely on the facility’s childcare programs — in the richest county in Pennsylvania, and one of the wealthiest in the country — receive financial assistance to cover the $1,900 monthly cost, the staffers said.
Houlahan, a Democrat who is soft-spoken when she is not grilling President Donald Trump’s cabinet secretaries or House Speaker Mike Johnson (R., La.) on Capitol Hill, asked about the income qualifications for financial aid. At a certain point, the YMCA staff told her, some parents have a
disincentive to earn more, lest they become disqualified and then stuck with a higher bill.
“It’s terrible, no matter how you do the math,” Houlahan said a few hours later at a Malvern restaurant, relaying the story to her daughter, Molly Rosa Houlahan, and daughter-in-law, Kristen Rosa Houlahan.
The YMCA’s fee was about the same amount the couple were paying for their 18-month-old, Lucy. With another child due in September, it is also an amount they still are unsure how to afford twice over.
“We’re very fortunate in our jobs, and we’re both trying to get promotions in order to be able to afford a second daycare,” said Molly Rosa Houlahan, 33, a local theater director and producer. “But we are not in that position yet. I don’t totally know what will happen when this second child arrives.”
From childcare to healthcare, groceries to gas prices, affordability concerns have remained top of mind for Americans this year — dominating discussions on Capitol Hill ahead of the high-stakes midterm elections.
Republicans, who control Congress and the White House, say they have made real progress in raising wages and lowering costs. They marked the first anniversary of Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — since rebranded by Republicans as the Working Families Tax Cut Act — this month by celebrating the law’s more generous tax refunds and other benefits, like new investment savings accounts for children under 18.
Democrats have pointed to the bill’s simultaneous cuts to Medicaid spending and food assistance for low-income families. They say Trump signaled he has no interest in lowering costs when he refused to sign a bipartisan housing bill and said he doesn’t “think about Americans’ financial situation” when handling the war in Iran.
Houlahan, who has represented most of Chester and Berks Counties since 2019, routinely highlights the broader scope of cost-of-living issues alongside her colleagues. She has taken a leading role among centrist House Democrats to help craft a detailed “affordability agenda.”
Whether her party can advance any of those policies in Washington, even if it wins control of one or both chambers of Congress in November, remains an open question as Trump remains in office and the International Monetary Fund warns of a worsening global economy.
But as the fight drags out, it has also become increasingly personal for Houlahan and her family.
In addition to occasionally helping fill the gaps in their granddaughter’s care, Houlahan and her husband’s own home in Devon, Chester County, has transformed into a version of a so-called sandwich generation household within the last year. The couple’s other adult daughter, her husband, and both of Houlahan’s parents, who are 80 and 84, have all moved in.
The underlying circumstances for the multigenerational home, as they would be for any family, are various and personal. And Houlahan emphasized across multiple interviews that she is fortunate to have the means to welcome her family under her roof. (Houlahan is an Air Force veteran and a former executive at the athletic apparel company AND1. Her husband, Bart, is a partner at an investment research firm.)
But the larger realities — like skyrocketing costs for childcare and senior living — have also now played a role in her own life. Her mother has a Parkinson’s diagnosis, and her parents were unable to find a one-floor living space that was affordable and fit their other needs as they looked to move closer to their family.
“We’re having these conversations, and you know people all over our community are having these conversations,” she said. “It’s an acute issue for families in our area: How do you balance all of this?”
Houlahan has shared parts of her family’s story as she has traveled her district this year — prioritizing events and meetings that aim for a deeper understanding of an affordability crisis that has not spared her home county, where the median household income is about $131,000, or 40% more than the statewide average.
On back-to-back days this spring, that meant a focus on the kinds of childcare and senior-care issues she has become familiar with.
“We call it ‘from zero to Edna,’” Laura Schoefield-Pierson, executive director of the YMCA of Greater Brandywine, said of the facility’s programs aimed at all ages, from infants to seniors.
Walking Houlahan through the pre-K classes and a gym with a dozen seniors playing table tennis, Schoefield-Pierson spoke about the organization’s exercise programs aimed at offsetting symptoms of Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, and about the complexities of providing assistance for families with young children.
In addition to the “many children” whose care is subsidized through the state’s Child Care Works program — set for families earning 200% or less of the federal poverty level, or $66,000 for a family of four — others receive aid through the YMCA, Schoefield-Pierson said. The facility’s fundraising goal this year is $237,000, she said. On the day of Houlahan’s visit, Schoefield-Pierson said “the kiddos” were writing thank-you notes to donors.
Though the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services recommends childcare should not exceed 7% of household income, Houlahan said she was surprised to learn a family would have to earn $327,000 to meet that benchmark at the YMCA for one child.
Nationally, the average annual cost of childcare in 2024 was $13,128, an increase of 29% over the previous five years and far exceeding the national recommendation for the average household’s budget.
“It’s crazy how much healthcare and childcare plays into your family planning,” said Helena Cordoba, a 35-year-old mother of two who said at a roundtable hosted by Houlahan that she had been hoping to grow her family.
A Colombian immigrant who owns Café Com Leite in Phoenixville, Cordoba said she thought she had been living the American dream. But a recent miscarriage and the rising costs of both childcare and healthcare, which she does not currently have, have made her rethink her family’s plans.
“I never thought I was going to say, ‘Maybe the miscarriage is a blessing.’ That thought on its own is very saddening,” Cordoba said. “I don’t know if we were going to be able to afford another baby. Our life would have been completely turned upside down.”
Others voiced similar struggles while Houlahan sympathized and shared her daughter’s own experience with a $2,000 monthly daycare bill.
Zack Hathaway, who owns the restaurant Sweet Amelia’s in Kennett Square with his wife, Karessa, said their business “makes just enough” to cover the $700 to $800 weekly cost for their babysitter amid a demanding restaurant schedule. Thomas Smith, who works at the Cleveland-Cliffs steel plate production facility in Coatesville, said he makes too much to qualify for subsidies for his grandchildren but still struggles to cover the cost.
“It’s like a big balancing act to be able to put your kids in a place that you want to feel comfortable with them being and with being able to afford it,” said Amarte Grove, another Cleveland-Cliffs employee and a father of five daughters.
In another tour focused on the other end of the age spectrum, Houlahan peppered staffers at Brandywine Valley Active Aging in Downingtown about their work to offer free meals, housing services, and activities to about 120 seniors daily.
According to the organization, Chester County’s homeless population has decreased in recent years — from 916 in 2023 to 747 in 2025. But the percentage of that population that is over 60 has increased from 9% in 2023 to 14% in 2026. About 45 older adults in the county were homeless as of early May, according to the organization, which works alongside other independent and government groups to connect seniors with stable housing.
“It is really difficult to live in Chester County,” said Jen Manthey, BVAA’s director of information and assistance. “It takes a long time for them to get out of homelessness, partly because it takes a long time for us to build the trust with them and get that rapport — that they trust what we’re saying, and there aren’t $400 room rentals out there that we’re just hiding from you.”
Nick Popov, BVAA’s chief operating officer, said demand remains high for the 5,000 free lunches the organization provides every month to individuals age 60 and older. The cost for those meals is reimbursed through the Pennsylvania Department of Aging, though the organization raises most of its funding in total, he said.
“The services are out there. We’re doing everything we can to provide them,” Popov said. “But it’s always a struggle to kind of balance the bottom line between our goals and what we can actually affordably accomplish.”
Houlahan’s parents said they had never expected to move in with their daughter. Even as they looked to move closer to their family and could not find a spot that fit their financial and physical needs, it took some convincing, mostly from their son-in-law, Bart Houlahan.
“It was an inspiration that permits us to enter old age — serious old age, not just the kid stuff right now — with greater confidence that our health will be sustained,” said Andy Jampoler, Houlahan’s father, a Holocaust survivor born in German-occupied Poland in 1942.
In May, Houlahan introduced legislation that would require the federal government to collect data on the sandwich generation, a step she said is critical to creating better policies for an “undervalued role in the nation’s economy.”
It would require at least one federal survey to ask whether individuals provide unpaid care to both children and older adults. U.S. Sen. Andy Kim (D., N.J.), who has two young sons and cares for his father with Alzheimer’s, sponsored a companion bill in the Senate.
Houlahan is also the chair of an “economic growth and cost of living” working group within the New Democrat Coalition, a group of self-described centrist Democrats that includes about half of the entire caucus. The group rolled out an “affordability agenda” earlier this year that is considered a framework for how Democrats would tackle housing, healthcare, energy, paid family leave, and much more if they win control of the House.
U.S. Rep. Brad Schneider (D., Ill.), chair of the New Democrat Coalition, credited Houlahan for her leadership with the agenda, describing her as having a “quiet wisdom that focuses on the core of a problem” while bringing her own life experience to the work.
“Everyone’s experience is unique, but her experience shares many of the aspects of what people across the country are facing,” Schneider said. “The sandwich generation, taking care of kids and parents, for whatever circumstance, while at the same time seeing the cost of just everyday living … is putting a burden on families.”
Houlahan said she has been aggravated by the pace of progress in Washington, including Trump’s decision to not sign the bipartisan 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act in an attempt to force a vote on stricter voter-ID laws.
The legislation aims to incentivize housing construction, restrict large investors from buying single-family homes, help families with home repairs, and more. The president reiterated Friday that he would not sign it, allowing the bill to become law without his signature.
In her Capitol Hill office about an hour after Trump canceled that bill signing late last month, Houlahan described the president as “so obtuse that he can’t see in front of him that this is something that the people want.” After spending much of the last year calling out Johnson, the House speaker, for not standing up to Trump, she said there should be “counterinsurgents” and an “uprising” in the Republican Party.
At the same time, she expressed some hope. The housing bill may have been a rare moment of bipartisanship, but it was also a sign that Congress can still act on affordability even before the end of the year, she said.
“We don’t have time, for all of this stuff, to wait until somebody else is in charge,” Houlahan said. “We can do this ourselves.”
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Houlahan Reintroduces Bill to Expand Donor Breast Milk Access, Support WIC
Position: The representatives support legislation to expand access to donated breast milk for medically vulnerable infants by allowing WIC programs to cover donor milk, clarifying FDA regulations, and supporting nonprofit milk banks.
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Today, U.S. Representatives Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-06), Stephanie Bice (R-OK-05) and Maria Salazar (R-FL-27) reintroduced bipartisan legislation to expand access to donated breast milk for medically vulnerable infants at nonprofit milk banks nationwide. The Access to Donor Milk Act would allow state agencies to support donor milk programs with Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC), enable nonprofit milk banks to ramp up production in critical shortages, promote the benefits of and need for donor milk, and solve wonky regulation issues that impact access for our most vulnerable.
“This legislation started as a conversation with a lactation consultant in my home community at Paoli Hospital. After learning how parents are struggling to access safe donor breast milk for their vulnerable infants, I knew we needed to provide more support,” said Rep. Houlahan. “The Access to Donor Milk Act is the solution. This bill offers parents the safe, reliable nutrition options their babies need to grow and thrive.”
Donor milk is recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics for high-risk infants when a mother’s own milk is absent or insufficient in quantity. But the FDA has left donor breast milk in a grey regulatory zone, limiting WIC’s ability to cover donor milk for medically vulnerable infants and leaving low-income women and families behind. The lack of official regulation has also caused a lack of awareness about the availability of this life-saving option. Women don’t know that they can donate milk, and many women, families, and medical professionals do not know they can access it when in need.
Through close collaboration with stakeholders, Houlahan championed the Access to Donor Milk Act to address these barriers and ensure no family is left without the food they need to feed their babies. The bill has a history of bipartisan support in both the House and Senate – and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is also advocating for expanded donor milk supply.
“As a parent of two children, I am pleased to help lead this bipartisan initiative that aims to provide vital nutrients for infants and guard against future shortages of infant formula,” said Rep. Bice. “Our community in Oklahoma’s Fifth Congressional District is fortunate to have the Oklahoma Mother’s Milk Bank, which enables mothers to provide safe, pasteurized milk to infants in need. I will continue working to advance efforts that support families throughout the nation and appreciate the support of Rep. Houlahan on this issue.”
“As a mother of two beautiful daughters, I know every baby deserves the healthiest possible start in life,” said Rep. Salazar. “When a mother’s milk is unavailable or supply runs short, safe donor breast milk can be a lifeline for families and be critical to the health and survival of premature and medically vulnerable babies. I am proud to help lead this bipartisan effort to expand access to donor milk, support nonprofit milk banks, and help more families get the nutrition their babies need.”
The Access to Donor Milk Act is supported by a wide-ranging coalition of organizations, including: 1,000 Days, an Initiative of FHI Solutions; 2020 Mom; African American Breastfeeding Network; American Academy of Family Physicians; American Academy of Pediatrics; Association of Maternal & Child Health Programs; Human Milk Banking Association of North America (HMBANA); Institute for the Advancement of Breastfeeding & Lactation Education; March of Dimes; Mom Congress; MomsRising; National Partnership for Women & Families; National WIC Association; National Women’s Health Network; NEC Society; Reaching Our Sisters Everywhere; The Lactation Network; US Breastfeeding Committee; United States Lactation Consultant Association and ZERO TO THREE.
“Donor milk is a safe, evidence-based intervention that protects premature and ill infants. Nonprofit milk banks have a long track record of providing safe, high-quality donor milk to hospitals and families at home,” said Lindsay Groff, Executive Director of HMBANA. “Expanding access ensures more medically vulnerable babies receive the care they need, and we appreciate the sponsors of the Access to Donor Milk Act for prioritizing this.”
“Far too often, infants who could benefit from donor milk – especially those with very low birth weight – lack access to it, which means they can miss out on vital nutrition support when they need it most. The bipartisan Access to Donor Milk Act would provide much-needed funding, resources, and education to help connect families to donor milk,” said Andrew D. Racine, MD, PhD, FAAP, President of American Academy of Pediatrics. “Pediatricians applaud Representatives Chrissy Houlahan (D-Pa.), Maria Salazar (R-Fla.), and Stephanie Bice (R-Okla.) for raising the awareness of infants' nutritional needs through their commitment to this issue and their vision in crafting this important legislation. We urge Congress to pass this important bill.”
The bipartisan Access to Donor Milk Act would:
Empower State Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infant and Children (WIC) Agencies to use excess funds to purchase coolers to collect and store donated milk before it is collected by a donor milk bank;
Provide $3 million in emergency funding to nonprofit donor milk banks to support donor milk demand following an event that causes an urgent spike in demand for donor milk;
Establish a donor milk awareness program at the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) and a develop public awareness campaign at HRSA educate the public on donor milk from donor milk banks registered with the FDA; and
Require FDA to convene a public meeting of stakeholders to examine potential donor milk regulation and then develop guidance on the best practices for donor milk donation, processing, storage and distribution.
Read the full text of the bill here.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
Rep. Houlahan, Sens. Ossoff, Duckworth Introduce Legislation to Support Servicemembers’ Transition Out of the Armed Forces
Position: The release advocates for legislation that would designate a senior Department of Defense official to oversee servicemember transition programs and improve coordination between DoD, VA, Labor, Education, and other agencies to better support servicemembers transitioning to civilian life.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representative Chrissy Houlahan (PA-06) introduced the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act to smooth servicemembers’ transition into civilian life, or the reserves, and ensure they get the support they and their families need.
Sens. Ossoff and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL) introduced the companion bill in the U.S. Senate.
The new bill would designate a senior Department of Defense (DoD) official to serve as the principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense overseeing all programs and activities related to transitioning servicemembers. The official would also work in close coordination with the Secretaries of Veterans Affairs (VA), Labor, and Education, as well as state and local governments, and nongovernmental organizations to improve transition programs and support services.
"As our men and women in uniform reenter civilian life and try to secure housing, find work, and get the healthcare they need, we owe them our support. But too often, servicemembers are falling through the gaps," said Rep. Houlahan. "I'm proud to introduce the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act to bridge these gaps, making VA transition support services more effective and easier for servicemembers to access."
“Our servicemembers make tremendous sacrifices to keep our families safe. We owe it to them to ensure they are well-equipped and supported as they transition back to civilian life,” said Sen. Ossoff. “My new legislation with Senator Duckworth will help servicemembers access resources they’ve earned and help make their transition smoother for themselves and their families.”
“As our servicemembers hang up their uniform, they deserve comprehensive support in helping them transition back into civilian life,” said Sen. Duckworth. “Too often, DoD’s transition programs fall short of the standard our Veterans deserve before they are handed off to the VA. Our commonsense bill would make necessary improvements and streamline coordination within DoD of these critical services. It’s the least we can do to help our heroes when they return home.”
The Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act is backed by the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Fleet Reserve Association, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America, Military Officers Association of America, Veterans Education Success, Vietnam Veterans of America, and With Honor Action.
“Each year, approximately 200,000 service members transition to civilian life—a critical juncture that can shape their future success or lead to serious challenges if not properly managed. Transition is the final warfighting mission, and like any successful operation, it demands unity of command and strategic coordination. The VFW strongly supports the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act, which would designate a senior DOD official to oversee all transition programs, including the Transition Assistance Program (TAP), and provide essential support to our reserve components. This role is vital to improving TAP attendance accountability, strengthening interagency coordination, and ensuring that transitioning service members and their families receive the support they’ve earned. We thank Senators Ossoff and Duckworth for introducing this important legislation and urge its swift passage,” said Carol Whitmore, Commander-in-Chief of the Veterans of Foreign Wars.
“On behalf of the Fleet Reserve Association, we proudly endorse the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act, introduced by Senators Jon Ossoff and Tammy Duckworth, and express our deep gratitude for their leadership in championing this critical legislation. The transition from military to civilian life is a defining moment for servicemembers, often fraught with challenges due to the lack of structure in the civilian world. This bill’s provisions, designating a Senior DoD Official to oversee all military-to-civilian transition programs, including for the reserve component, ensuring centralized accountability for initiatives like TAP and SkillBridge, fostering enhanced coordination with agencies such as the VA, Department of Labor, Education, and SBA, and mandating a congressional briefing within 90 days to detail implementation, provide vital support during the critical early days, weeks, and months of this transition. These measures strengthen the foundation for the Department of Veterans Affairs’ ongoing efforts, ensuring our servicemembers receive the comprehensive assistance they need to succeed in civilian life," said the Fleet Reserve Association.
“IAVA strongly supports the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act. This is an essential piece of legislation that will help to ensure a smooth transition from active-duty service into the civilian world. By designating a senior official to oversee and strengthen transition programs, this bill ensures accountability, coordination, and a higher standard of care for those who have served. Too often, servicemembers and their families face unnecessary challenges as they move from military service into civilian life or the reserve force. Our veterans deserve a seamless and well-supported transition, and this legislation is a critical step toward making that a reality," said Dr. Kyleanne Hunter, CEO of the Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America.
“Vietnam veterans were forced to navigate a system that was unprepared, fragmented, and at times indifferent to their needs. We learned the hard way what happens when a nation fails to properly receive its warriors. This legislation is about correcting those failures ensuring that today’s and future veterans are met with dignity, structure, and real support. Honoring Vietnam veterans is not just about remembering their service; it is about building a system worthy of every generation that follows. Never again shall one generation of veterans abandon another,” said James L. McCormick II, Captain, USA (Ret.), Executive Director of Government Affairs at Vietnam Veterans of America.
“The transition from military to civilian life is a critical point in a service member’s journey. Centralizing oversight of transition programs and streamlining collaboration between agencies and departments ensures that service members enter their next chapter with the essential tools to succeed. With Honor Action is proud to endorse this legislation that elevates the importance of the military-to-civilian transition and puts our veterans first,” said Rye Barcott, Co-Founder and CEO of With Honor Action.
Click here to read the Servicemember Civilian Transition Support Act.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
34 Former Military Members Were Put on Deportation Track in the Past Year
Position: The Trump administration has rescinded protections for military members and their relatives from immigration enforcement, resulting in deportation proceedings against 34 former service members and 248 relatives over the past year. Democratic lawmakers and immigration advocates argue this policy does not enhance public safety and disrespects veterans' service.
The Trump administration began deportation proceedings for 34 former members of the military over the past year, according to federal data obtained by The New York Times, after immigration authorities were directed to ignore previous guidance that gave service members and their relatives more deference.
The 34 are among 125 former service members who were arrested over immigration violations over the past year, according to the data. Officials also placed 248 relatives of former military members into deportation proceedings.
The actions represent a break from policies in recent years, including under President Joseph R. Biden Jr.’s administration, which made it less of a priority to detain and deport members of the military who committed crimes. The Biden administration also avoided targeting for immigration enforcement family members of people who had served.
But the Trump administration rescinded that policy last year, arguing that no one should be protected from the law, which says immigrants who are convicted of certain crimes may be deported.
The Department of Homeland Security did not answer questions, including about whether any of the veterans or family members detained over the past year were ultimately deported. It defended its policy and said no one was exempt from the penalties of violating immigration law.
In a high-profile example of the new policy, Sae Joon Park left Hawaii for South Korea in June under the threat of deportation, even though he had not lived there since he was seven years old. Mr. Park, who earned a Purple Heart for his service, joined the military after high school and was deployed to Panama in 1989, returning with a disability and undiagnosed post-traumatic stress disorder.
In the following years, he was convicted of drug possession, served two years and then missed a bail hearing, which sent him back to prison.
While he was serving his second prison stint, a judge ordered that he be deported. When he was released, he fought his deportation orders and was allowed to stay in the country, according to a Hawaii news report, as long as he stayed out of further trouble and regularly checked in with immigration officials.
Last May, however, an immigration officer told him he would be deported if he did not leave on his own.
Lawmakers and immigration advocates have argued that this new policy does little to make the country safer and insults people who put their lives on the line for the nation.
“Donald Trump’s way of thanking our veterans for their service is by targeting and deporting them and their families,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, Democrat of Massachusetts, said in a statement on Monday.
The data was disclosed in a Feb. 18 letter from the Homeland Security Department to Democratic lawmakers, including Ms. Warren. It covered the period between Jan. 20, 2025, and Jan. 26, 2026.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement publishes annual data on arrests and deportations of immigrant military members. In the 2024 fiscal year, the government said it arrested 24 immigrant members of the Armed Forces for immigration violations, but did not say whether that number included active duty, former members or a combination of both. The Trump administration arrested 125 former members of the military for immigration violations during its first year.
Only U.S. citizens and green-card holders can join the military. And doing so can expedite a green-card holder’s path to citizenship. The first Trump administration and the current one issued policies that required a longer wait to be eligible to apply. The number of green-card holders who served in the military and applied for citizenship declined significantly during President Trump’s first term.
According to federal data, as of July 31, 2025, there were 26,708 active duty immigrants and another 20,350 in the Selected Reserve and National Guard. Veterans Affairs did not respond to a question about the current number of immigrant veterans. In 2022, there were 115,000 immigrant veterans, according to a report by the Congressional Research Service.
Military recruiters continue to trumpet the U.S. policy that promises a swift path to citizenship for immigrants who join the armed services as well as temporary protection for their family members. Spouses, children and parents of immigrant veterans and active duty members can apply for temporary permission to stay in the country.
Now some relatives are afraid to apply for the benefit out of fear that doing so will turn them into a target for deportation. The agency does not regularly track military family members placed in deportation proceedings, so it is not clear how the number compares to previous years.
The Trump administration has targeted other groups of immigrants who were previously not considered priorities for enforcement, including undocumented immigrants who have lived in the country for decades and have no criminal records.
Between Jan. 21 and Nov. 19 of last year, the administration deported 86 immigrants who had protections from removal because they were brought to the country illegally as young children, according to a separate set of federal data provided to lawmakers.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
We're Democrats. From food to housing, costs keep rising — here’s a serious fix
Position: Democrats propose an affordability agenda addressing five core cost areas: healthcare, housing, energy, family care, and household goods. The agenda emphasizes supply-side solutions, competition, and opposition to tariffs and recent Republican healthcare legislation that would reduce coverage.
That’s why we’ve worked with our colleagues in the New Democrat Coalition to craft the New Dem Affordability Agenda, which lays out a commonsense roadmap to lower the five core costs that are crushing working Americans: healthcare, housing, energy, family care and everyday household goods like groceries.
The New Democrat Coalition is the largest Democratic ideological caucus in the House of Representatives, with 115 lawmakers focused on breaking through gridlock and getting things done. Our agenda isn’t just another white paper wish list — it’s a workable path forward grounded in competition, expanded supply and policies that put working families first.
Prices at the checkout line remain high, in part because supply chains are fragile and markets are increasingly concentrated. President Trump’s trade policies have made matters worse. Broad tariffs function like a sales tax on everyday goods, and we all pay the price. Recent analyses estimate that tariff-related costs add roughly $1,600 per year to the average household’s expenses. The Affordability Agenda strengthens domestic supply chains, supports family and small farmers, and promotes competition to lower prices.
Healthcare costs continue to rise faster than wages, squeezing families and employers alike. Recent Republican healthcare legislation would make matters worse by shifting costs onto households and small businesses. Independent estimates project that more than 15 million Americans will lose coverage, while premiums double or triple for 22 million more. When coverage disappears or becomes unaffordable, families delay care, and employers face higher costs that limit hiring and wage growth. Our approach protects healthcare coverage, increases transparency, enforces accountability and expands competition so health care is affordable and predictable.
The United States faces a severe housing shortage, estimated at roughly 4 million homes nationwide, and the consequences are playing out in rising rents and fewer paths to homeownership. Years of red tape and outdated regulations have limited new construction. Our agenda cuts those barriers and commits to building at least 4 million new homes over the next decade. More supply will not fix everything overnight, but without it, affordability will continue to slip out of reach.
Household energy bills are rising, driven by underinvestment, permitting delays and uncertainty that slows progress. Families should not be left wondering whether next month’s utility bill will blow their budget. Our plan accelerates responsible energy development and modernizes the electric grid to keep power reliable and affordable.
Childcare and elder care costs are forcing families into impossible choices. Too many parents cut back hours or leave the workforce entirely because care is unavailable or unaffordable. Too many seniors worry about how they will age safely. We’re working to expand access to child and elder care so that families can afford to work, care for loved ones and plan for their future.
Affordability is a core component of the government’s promise to the American people: if you work hard in this country, you should be able to provide a safe and comfortable life for yourself and your family.
We believe everyone should be able to afford the essentials — housing, healthcare, food, childcare, education, a retirement and more — with enough left over to buy that car, take that vacation and save for your future.
That’s what our Affordability Agenda is about: renewing the promise of affordability to every American, not just to get by, but to get ahead.
This is not about ideology. It is about whether Washington is willing to take affordability seriously and act with urgency. Families across the country are asking for relief. The New Dem Affordability Agenda is our answer.
Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (@repchrissyhoulahan) • Instagram photos and videos
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.LIFTOFF PAC2 contributions$10,000
2.DELOITTE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$10,000
3.PAC TO THE FUTURELeadership2 contributionsMember-of-Congress leadership PAC — specific affiliations and policy positions not inferable from the name.AI · low$10,000
4.VOTEVETSIdeological4 contributionsMilitary-veteran advocacy PAC — supports candidates backing veterans' benefits, healthcare access, and foreign policy positions aligned with veteran community priorities.AI$10,000
5.THE BOEING COMPANY PAC8 contributions$9,500
6.VANGUARD GROUP COMMITTEE FOR RESPONSIBLE GOV'T5 contributions$8,500
7.HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL PACDefense5 contributionsDefense and aerospace contractor PAC — backs candidates supporting federal defense spending, military modernization, and aerospace manufacturing.AI$8,000
8.HUMANA INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEHealth2 contributionsHealth insurance and managed-care PAC — backs candidates supporting policies favorable to HMO operations, Medicare Advantage expansion, and healthcare industry regulatory positions.AI$7,500
10.AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES P E O P L E3 contributions$7,500
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.MORGAN LEWIS & BOCKIUS, LLP$14,000
2.BLACKROCK$10,500
3.CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF PHILADELPHIA$9,000
4.ARNOLD VENTURES$8,750
5.ALL STAR PEDIATRICS$8,500
6.PETER G. PETERSON FOUNDATION$7,000
7.PEPSI-COLA$7,000
8.SULLIVAN & CROMWELL$7,000
9.PIVOTAL VENTURES$7,000
10.THE CARSON FAMILY CHARITABLE TRUST$7,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
