See how Nancy Pelosi's votes line up with your values.
DeepSyte scores Nancy Pelosi'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 Nancy Pelosi's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Nancy Pelosi's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
10 predictions on record · none have been resolved by a passage vote yet. Check back as bills move.
No paired statements and votes yet for Nancy Pelosi
We haven't yet found statement/vote pairs on the same topic for Nancy Pelosi. 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 Nancy Pelosi'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 Nancy Pelosi 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 Nancy Pelosi broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
ICYMI: Pelosi Joins Congressional Efforts to Protect Federal Services and Uphold Americans’ Rights
Position: Members urge federal agencies to reverse decisions ending the Medicare Part D premium stabilization demonstration, withdraw proposed cuts to Head Start performance standards, release delayed HUD funding for Emergency Housing Vouchers and HOPWA, and distribute LIHEAP energy assistance funds.
Washington, D.C. — Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joined Congressional Democratic colleagues in a series of recent letters, legislative proposals and court briefs addressing federal policies affecting San Franciscans. The efforts include calls to release housing and energy assistance funding, maintain Medicare and Head Start protections, preserve public lands and access to historical records, and protect voting rights and student survivors of sexual assault.
Protecting health care and essential services for children and families:
Pelosi joined colleagues in urging the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to reverse its decision to end the Medicare Part D Premium Stabilization Demonstration, which has helped lower prescription drug coverage premiums for nearly 25 million seniors and people with disabilities. Ending the program without a plan to maintain lower costs would increase out of pocket costs for the most vulnerable San Franciscans.
Read the full letter here.
To defend early childhood education, Pelosi joined 190 of her colleagues in a bicameral letter demanding that the Department of Health and Human Services withdraw its proposal to remove more than 90 percent of Head Start’s federal performance standards. Members warned that the proposal would weaken classroom safety protections, diminish the already struggling child care workforce and reduce critical health screenings and essential services. Members warned the Administration that these changes would undermine critical childhood development and leave working families without reliable child care.
Read the full letter here.
Keeping San Franciscans housed and helping them afford their energy bills:
Pelosi joined colleagues in urging the Department of Housing and Urban Development to release overdue guidance on preventing Emergency Housing Voucher funding shortfalls, warning that delays put families at risk of losing their critical rental assistance and becoming unhoused. With more than 44,000 vouchers still in use, including 920 in San Francisco, Members demanded answers from HUD to prevent interruptions in housing assistance.
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi also joined colleagues in urging the Department of Housing and Urban Development to immediately release the delayed funding notice for Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS grants and expedite renewal awards. As a proud author of HOPWA, the only federal program dedicated to the housing needs of people living with HIV/AIDS, this initiative supports housing development and provides critical rental assistance and resources for individuals and their families. Any disruptions to HOPWA, including expiring grants and uncertainty over renewals, threatens to interrupt these critical services and put people at risk of homelessness.
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi joined 116 of her colleagues in a bipartisan letter urging the Department of Health and Human Services to distribute Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program funding as soon as possible, which impacts 3,052 households in San Francisco. Members warned the Administration that repeated funding delays and high energy costs could leave families without heat or force them to choose between heating their homes and paying for food, medication or rent.
Read the full letter here.
Defending California’s public lands:
Pelosi joined 156 of her colleagues in a bipartisan, bicameral letter urging Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to abandon a proposed transfer of land within Yosemite National Park to provide access to a privately owned ranch. Members argued that the unprecedented transaction would brazenly benefit a private landowner and diminish public access to the historic, world-renowned park, and vigorously opposed the misuse use of the Land and Water Conservation Fund.
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi joined colleagues in overwhelmingly opposing the Administration’s shameless actions with the Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments, which removed nearly three million acres from protection. Members warned that opening these lands to mining and drilling threatens sacred Tribal sites, wildlife habitats, scientific resources and local recreation economies. The letter also condemns the dissolution of the Bears Ears Commission and the lack of meaningful Tribal consultation.
Read the full letter here.
Preserving San Francisco’s history:
Pelosi joined a bipartisan, bicameral letter led by Representatives Kevin Mullin and Judy Chu urging the National Archives and Records Administration to oppose closure of its San Bruno facility. Members warned the Archives that dispersing its records to six facilities across the country would make it harder for families and researchers to access California’s history, including records related to the Chinese Exclusion Act and the incarceration of Japanese Americans during World War II.
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi also cosponsored the National Archives Protection Act, which would require congressional approval before the National Archives and Records Administration could close or significantly restrict access to existing regional facilities. The legislation would protect access to historical and personal records, many of which have not been digitized and can only be viewed in person, helping families and ensure researchers easily explore our history.
Read the full bill here.
Safeguarding voting rights and Americans’ personal information:
Pelosi joined a bipartisan group of current and former Members of Congress in urging the Supreme Court to sustain an injunction blocking the Administration’s new Postal Service restrictions on mail-in voting in place. The brief argues that the Administration cannot unilaterally impose mail-ballot requirements on states or bar election officials from using the Postal Service to send ballots. Members emphasized that the Constitution assigns authority over federal election rules to states and Congress, and that Congress has not authorized the Postal Service to exercise the powers claimed by the Administration.
Read the full brief here.
Pelosi joined a bipartisan group of current and former Members of Congress in urging the Supreme Court to reject the Administration’s emergency request to implement a federal citizenship verification database that risks disenfranchising voters. The brief argues that linking Social Security records to a government-wide system for bulk searches of sensitive personal information is illegal This action is another overt effort by this Administration to undermine the Congress and violate the separation of powers as envisioned by our Founders.
Read the full brief here.
Protecting students from sexual harassment and assault:
Pelosi joined colleagues in calling for an immediate investigation by the Department of Education’s Office of Inspector General into the Department’s failure to adequately enforce Title IX protections for student survivors. The letter urges investigators to examine whether staffing cuts, regional office closures and changes in enforcement priorities have delayed investigations and undermined accountability for campus sexual harassment and assault.
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi Joins Democratic Women's Caucus In Slamming HHS For Plan To Gut Head Start
Position: Members of the Democratic Women's Caucus oppose a proposed HHS rule that would revise or remove 90% of the Head Start Program Performance Standards, and they urge the Secretary to withdraw it, arguing it would raise costs for families and reduce program quality.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (NM-03), DWC Whip Kristen McDonald Rivet (MI-08), DWC Senate Liaison and Caregiving Task Force Co-Chair Debbie Dingell (MI-06), and Caregiving Task Force Co-Chairs Brittany Pettersen (CO-07) & Lateefah Simon (CA-12) in sending a letter to Health and Human Services (HHS) demanding HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. withdraw their proposed rule to gut 90% of Head Start Program Performance Standards (HSPPS) that would increase costs for families and eliminate educational resources women and families rely on. The letter was signed by 87 House Democrats.
For 60 years, Head Start has served over 40 million families and children with accessible social services, healthcare, and improved early learning standards. The program provides low-income children, children with disabilities, dual language learners, and children experiencing homelessness with the resources needed to succeed in school. Even after six decades, Head Start remains popular, with four in five Americans saying they’re in support of the program— evidence that Trump’s efforts to gut it are out of step with what Americans want.
The proposed rule would diminish the quality of Head Start services and undermine its ability to develop evidence-based programs that improve education, health, nutrition, parental involvement, and social services—forcing families to either lose these resources or turn to more expensive options elsewhere. Head Start could no longer connect families to jobs, education, and housing opportunities or effectively help children succeed in school.
In the letter, Members highlighted how the proposed rule would undermine Congressional authority and intent:
“The administration claims to be removing red tape and saving money. In reality, this proposed rule would override Congressional intent by removing standards that make Head Start the program that it is today and that Congress explicitly directed HHS to create based on research and consultation with experts.”
The Members also explained how the elimination of National Head Start Standards for education would be detrimental to the programs success:
“Rigorous research has found that Head Start generates substantial long-term economic benefits, including an estimated $1.86 in benefits for every dollar invested. That return depends on strong teachers, strong ratios, and strong services—qualified staff, appropriate classroom size and teacher to child ratios that support learning, developmental screening and follow-up, health and mental health services, family engagement and support services, and evidence-based early learning—not a patchwork of state requirements that would create different standards throughout the country.”
The Members also warned the proposed cuts would erode the safety and the quality of the program and possibly put students in danger:
“The proposed rule would eliminate Head Start’s specific federal requirement that children be supervised at all times, reduce mandatory annual staff training on preventing abuse and neglect, repeal the prohibition on corporal punishment, shaming, humiliation, and seclusion practices, and remove the timelines that ensure a child’s developmental, dental, and medical needs are actually screened and followed up on.”
Lastly, the Members explain how the cuts would roll back its strict student support systems that keep children in school:
“This proposed rule would strip Head Start’s ban on expelling children and its strict limits on suspension which is deeply concerning. These protections exist because preschoolers are already suspended and expelled at rates far above K-12 students. Additionally, disparities in suspension and expulsion are already significant for children of color, boys, and children with disabilities. Federal data show that children of color account for a disproportionate share of preschool suspensions, while children served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) make up 23 percent of enrollment but 74 percent of expulsions.7 Removing these federal protections will not close those gaps. It will widen them.”
Read the full letter here.
Pelosi Joins Democratic Colleagues in Challenging Trump Administration’s Involvement in the Sable Offshore Pipeline Restart
Position: Representatives and Senators, including Speaker Emerita Pelosi, filed an amicus brief opposing the Trump Administration's use of the Defense Production Act to facilitate restarting the Sable Offshore oil pipeline system, arguing the administration has not identified a legitimate national defense need for the company's crude oil.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined Representative Salud Carbajal (D-CA-24), along with Senate Environment and Public Works Committee Top Democrat Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), and 13 of their colleagues in filing an amicus brief in California v. Wright, pending in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, to challenge the Trump Administration’s use of the Defense Production Act (DPA) to facilitate the restart of the Sable Offshore oil pipeline system along the California Central Coast.
The brief argues that the Administration has failed to identify a legitimate national defense need for Sable’s crude oil and that the DPA order does not satisfy the statutory requirements for invoking this extraordinary authority. Sable produces crude oil—not finished fuels used by the military—and the order does not establish a connection between Sable’s production and an unmet military fuel requirement.
“The Trump Administration’s abuse of the Defense Production Act to revive the Sable pipeline is an unlawful corporate giveaway masquerading as a national security measure,” said Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi. “California communities know the devastating consequences of offshore oil spills. Congress created the Defense Production Act to protect our national security—not to reward political allies, endanger our coastline and override vital environmental safeguards.”
An excerpt from the brief is below.
“This case is not about national defense. It is about a heavily leveraged, crude oil company asking the President to transform the Defense Production Act (DPA) from a statute designed to ‘assure the availability of domestic energy supplies for national defense needs,’ 50 U.S.C. § 4502(a)(5), into a corporate rescue operation for political allies; a rescue that advances the Administration’s political preference for fossil-fuel development at the expense of all other concerns. The Department of Energy’s (‘DOE’) March 13, 2026 order (the ‘Wright Order’) comes nowhere close to identifying a need for Sable crude oil or pipelines in the Order’s generalized invocation of California’s military presence and increased reliance on foreign crude. DOE never explains why those general circumstances create a national-defense need for Sable’s crude, much less how restarting its beleaguered pipelines would meet one.
“Merely invoking “national defense” or an “emergency” does not insulate executive action from the statutory prerequisites that Congress imposed in the DPA on the exercise of delegated authority. Enforcing these requirements, i.e., that the Secretary establish the statutory predicates for invoking the DPA, does not amount to second-guessing genuine executive judgments about national defense. Instead, enforcement honors the conditions precedent Congress imposed to prevent abuse of the DPA. DOE’s failure to satisfy these statutory prerequisites invalidates the Wright Order.”
The full amicus brief is available HERE.
Pelosi Calls for Joshua Wong's Freedom on House Floor: “We Want to Be Sure That They Know We Remember Them”
Position: Calls on Congress and the international community to demand the release of pro-democracy advocates Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai, and condemns Beijing's national security law as repressive.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi delivered remarks on the House Floor calling attention to the ongoing persecution of pro-democracy advocates in Hong Kong, including Joshua Wong and Jimmy Lai, and urging Congress and the international community to demand their freedom.
In her remarks, Pelosi condemned Beijing’s repressive national security law, warned that Wong could face life in prison for peacefully advocating for democracy and reaffirmed Congress’ longstanding bipartisan commitment to defending human rights in China.
Watch Pelosi’s Floor remarks here.
Image
Pelosi Joins California Democrats in Pressing The Trump Administration to Release $867 Million in Withheld Medicaid Funding
Position: The California Democratic Congressional Delegation urges HHS and CMS to work with California to resolve concerns and release $867.5 million in deferred federal Medicaid payments, arguing that withholding funds without identifying specific fraud harms patients and providers. The letter also disputes that increased spending on in-home care is by itself evidence of fraud.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined the California Democratic Congressional Delegation, along with Senators Alex Padilla and Adam Schiff, in sending a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Administrator Dr. Mehmet Oz urging the agencies to work with California to resolve outstanding concerns and release $867.5 million in deferred federal Medicaid payments.
The effort comes in response to CMS’s decision in July to defer $867.5 million in federal Medicaid payments to California while the state provides additional documentation related to certain Medicaid claims.
In their letter, the Delegation raises concerns that the payment deferral could put additional strain on the state and threaten access to care for vulnerable Californians. For Central Valley families, doctors, hospitals, and care providers, reliable Medicaid funding is essential to making sure patients can get the care they need.
“We should always take fraud, waste, and abuse seriously and make sure taxpayer dollars are being used responsibly. But withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in Medicaid payments without identifying specific fraud puts patients and providers in the middle of a dispute they didn't create,” wrote the Delegation.
“California is working with CMS to provide the information being requested. The federal government should work with the state to resolve these concerns quickly and make sure patients continue to have access to the care they need,” the Delegation continued.
The letter also pushes back on the suggestion that increased spending on California’s in-home care programs is, on its own, evidence of fraud. The Delegation notes that the growth of these programs has been intentional because in-home care can be less costly than institutional care, while California has also implemented additional safeguards to address areas of concern.
The letter is signed by the entire California Democratic Congressional Delegation.
Read the full text of the letter here.
Pelosi Marks Women’s Equality Day: “They Said Women Would Have to Wait. Women Did Not Wait.”
Position: The release opposes the SAVE America Act, which would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, and opposes a federal executive order on election administration, including restrictions on mail voting and centralized federal voter lists.
San Francisco – Today, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joined San Francisco women leaders, workers, small-business owners and disability advocates at San Francisco City Hall to commemorate Women’s Equality Day and the 106th anniversary of the certification of the 19th Amendment.
The event featured Kim Tavaglione, Executive Director of the San Francisco Labor Council; Lauren Crabbe, Owner and Founder of Andytown Coffee Roasters; Kelly Dearman, Executive Director of the San Francisco Department of Disability and Aging Services; and Sascha Bittner, Commissioner on the San Francisco Disability and Aging Services Commission.
Speakers celebrated the generations of women who fought to secure and expand the right to vote while sounding the alarm over renewed Republican efforts to restrict access to the ballot. The SAVE America Act would require documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote, threatening to disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans—including nearly 70 million married women whose current names do not match their birth certificates.
The event also highlighted the Trump Administration’s assault on mail voting and attempt to seize federal control over elections, including an executive order directing federal agencies to create centralized voter lists and subject state and local election officials to new federal mandates.
View photos from today's event here.
Image
Pelosi Joins Colleagues in Slamming EEOC's Proposal to End Workplace Demographic Data Collection
Position: Representative Pelosi joined colleagues in a letter urging the EEOC to withdraw its proposed rule ending EEO-1 workplace demographic data collection, arguing the data is legal and essential for enforcing Title VII and related employment protections.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined 123 Members of Congress and Senators in a letter urging the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to reverse its proposed rule that would end the Equal Employment Opportunity reporting requirements to collect demographic data.
Established in 1964, the EEOC was commissioned with bipartisan support to serve as an independent, multi-member body tasked with preventing and addressing employment discrimination. Despite workers coming to rely on the EEOC as a fair and independent regulatory body, the commission’s proposal claims the data reports are inconsistent with equal employment opportunity law, and may raise constitutional concerns.
The EEOC’s proposal would directly undermine its regulatory power. The proposal would undermine the Commission's ability to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that makes it illegal for employers to discriminate based on race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, and would delay justice for workers across America who are facing unlawful discrimination.
For over 60 years, the EEOC and Congress have relied on this demographic data legally collected by the EEOC as a foundational tool for enforcing equal employment laws, such as the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Pregnant Workers Fairness Act, and used it to identify discrimination that would have otherwise gone unchecked.
The Members outline how the proposal would undermine Title VII protections:
“This proposal would rescind this longstanding data collection framework and create confusion regarding employers’ responsibilities, as employers would remain legally required to comply with Title VII, including maintaining employment records that help demonstrate that compliance.”
The Members continue by highlighting how the data is essential for ending workforce discrimination:
“Ultimately, eliminating the EEO reporting requirements would not eliminate the need for demographic data—it would merely make that information more difficult, more expensive, and more time-consuming for the Commission to obtain. Workers who experience discrimination would wait longer for justice, and systemic violations affecting hundreds or thousands of employees would be less likely to be identified before additional workers are harmed.”
Members also emphasized that the collection of data was both legal and vital:
“Even if strict scrutiny did apply, the Supreme Court has long recognized eliminating discrimination as a compelling government interest, and the collection of demographic data is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. In fact, the Commission’s proposal cites no cases where a Court has found that its data collection is subject to heightened scrutiny or is in any way unconstitutional… Ultimately, the Commission asks the public to conclude that a reporting framework every administration has utilized for nearly sixty years and courts have repeatedly permitted is suddenly unlawful. The proposed rule fails to provide a persuasive legal basis for such a dramatic departure from longstanding law and practice.”
Lastly, members concluded by outlining the long-term damage this proposal would have on Congress’s ability to reduce systemic discrimination:
“Rescinding these reporting requirements would reduce the Commission’s capacity to detect systemic discrimination, weaken enforcement efforts, and diminish the availability of reliable data that benefits employers, workers, researchers, and policymakers alike. The elimination of this comprehensive reporting tool would further reduce transparency, exacerbate inconsistencies, and limit the Commission’s ability to assess national employment trends over time. We must not further hinder the Commission’s ability to enforce federal laws and prevent discrimination, especially at a time when the Commission’s own workforce has been reduced by nearly 25 percent since fiscal year 2025 under the recent federal staffing reductions.”
Read the full letter here.
# # #
Pelosi Joins California Lawmakers in Push to End Politically Motivated Attack on California’s Ability to Protect Coastline
Position: Pelosi and 30 California lawmakers oppose the federal review of California's coastal management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act, arguing it is politically motivated and should respect state authority and cooperative federalism.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Speaker Emerita Pelosi joined Senators Adam Schiff and Alex Padilla (D-CA) and 30 of her California colleagues in condemning the administration’s recent decision to initiate a formal review of California’s coastal management program under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) — emphasizing their ideologically driven intent to trample on states’ rights and jeopardize California’s shoreline.
“This extraordinary federal review which singles out California is based upon a thinly veiled and non-evidential argument. It is an attempt to curb our state’s federally approved authority to evaluate offshore energy, infrastructure, and commercial activities. We ask that if you proceed with this review, you commit to respecting states’ rights and cooperative federalism as is consistent with the CZMA,” the lawmakers wrote in a new letter to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Administrator Neil Jacobs.
The CZMA authorizes California’s ability to preserve and manage its coastline – giving the state the power to review and approve of projects impacting the coastal zone in coordination with the federal government. For 50 years, California and NOAA have successfully worked together to mitigate the effects of coastal projects on California’s coastal ecosystems and economy.
The lawmakers rebut U.S. Department of Commerce’s Howard Lutnick’s claim that “California has repeatedly obstructed spaceport development in bad faith,” and that California’s objections were “unfounded.”
“Complementing this strong record is the reality that California is the world’s fourth largest economy, home to Silicon Valley, 400 unicorn startups, unmatched high-tech enterprise, world-renowned research institutions. California’s global leadership in research and innovation supports a coastal economy that attracts visitors and entrepreneurs from all over the world and positions us as the nation’s leading agricultural state. California contributes nearly $700 billion to the federal government, which is $83 billion more than it receives. Each dollar invested in California’s coastal management creates important returns for the rest of the United States. Simply put, far from obstructing innovation and economic development, California’s success subsidizes the success of the nation,” the lawmakers continued.
“If NOAA chooses to proceed with its review under these patently misinformed and unreasonable circumstances and decides California should no longer manage a coastal zone program, the State will lose the ability to collaborate with the federal government on effective and responsible project development, to offer meaningful mitigation measures for coastal development projects, or to access federal financial opportunities that support the protection and security of America’s Pacific Coast...Both California and NOAA should share a strong interest in ensuring federal projects in America’s coastal areas have minimal impacts on the environment and fisheries, promote responsible economic development, and guarantee national security,” the lawmakers concluded.
The full text of the letter can be found here.
Pelosi Statement on Eight Years Since the Iran Nuclear Agreement Withdrawal
Position: Speaker Emerita Pelosi argues that President Trump's withdrawal from the Iran Nuclear Agreement was a strategic error that destabilized the region and increased conflict, and that serious diplomacy rather than military action is necessary to address Iran's nuclear and terrorism concerns.
San Francisco – Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi issued the following statement marking eight years since President Trump withdrew from the Iran Nuclear Agreement:
“Eight years ago, Donald Trump followed through on a misguided and uninformed campaign promise by recklessly ripping up the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—a landmark multilateral diplomatic agreement masterfully negotiated by President Obama that successfully strengthened global security and verifiably prevented Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.
"Eight years after destroying that working agreement, Donald Trump has cost American lives by engulfing the region in the very conflict that serious diplomacy was meant to prevent. Even now, the President seeks concessions to end his war of choice that would leave the world less secure than under the very deal he dismantled.”
"Democrats have never had any illusions about the Iranian regime. We remain firmly committed to countering Iran’s support for terrorism, confronting its ballistic missile program and preventing it from obtaining a nuclear weapon. But the President’s reckless decisions are no substitute for serious statecraft.”
Pelosi Joins Over 250 Congressional Democrats To Protect Mifepristone Access
Position: Congressional Democrats filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing a Fifth Circuit decision that would restrict mifepristone access by reimposing an in-person dispensing requirement. The lawmakers argue that mifepristone has been repeatedly affirmed as safe by the FDA, that the court decision undermines the FDA's evidence-based approval process, and that restricting access exacerbates reproductive health care access disparities.
Washington, D.C. – Yesterday, Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi joined more than 250 Senate and House Democrats—led by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY); Senators Patty Murray (D-WA), Dick Durbin (D-IL), and Ron Wyden (D-OR); House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY); and Representatives Katherine Clark (D-MA), Frank Pallone Jr. (D-NJ), Diana DeGette (D-CO), Jamie Raskin (D-MD), and Ayanna Pressley (D-MA)—in filing an amicus brief to the Supreme Court urging them to overturn a Fifth Circuit decision that would upend the FDA approval process and restrict access to mifepristone. This brief follows emergency appeals from the manufacturers of mifepristone; the Supreme Court issuing a temporary stay of the decision Monday morning until next Monday, May 11; and the announcement that the Court has ordered briefing on the stay by this Thursday, May 7.
The lawmakers argued that mifepristone already undergoes a rigorous FDA approval process, and the medication has repeatedly been found to be safe and effective. For a court to overturn this decision not only limits who is able to receive this vital and life-saving medication, putting lives at risk, but it also undermines the longstanding, congressionally mandated, and evidence-based decision-making process at the FDA.
“For more than a quarter century, FDA has repeatedly and consistently affirmed that mifepristone is safe. Over seven million patients in the U.S. have safely used mifepristone. And as with other drugs, FDA continues to monitor the post-marketing safety data on mifepristone—data confirming that mifepristone is safe without regard to how it is dispensed,” the members wrote.
The lawmakers also argued that the Fifth Circuit ruling was clearly not based on the merits of the distribution method of mifepristone, or the scientific backing of the medication, but rather a desire to limit the ability of individuals to receive abortion medication. The emergency stay is necessary to ensure that Louisiana is not able to deny medically appropriate care to patients far beyond the state’s borders.
“Decades after FDA’s initial approval of mifepristone and years after the in-person dispensing requirement was eliminated, the Fifth Circuit on an ‘emergency’ basis ordered FDA to re-impose this onerous nationwide restriction on all Americans. Allowing that decision to remain in place undermines the science-based statutory framework Congress commands and threatens patient access to reproductive health care,” the members continued. “As has been well publicized, many U.S. residents in states where abortion is legal live far from any reproductive health care provider. Reinstating an in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone exacerbates an already significant reproductive health crisis by limiting access to the most common method of early abortion.”
The members argued that this is a clear case of judicial overreach by a lower district court.
“Preserving evidence-based access to mifepristone, including when dispensed by mail or retail pharmacy, is necessary to mitigate the imminent harm facing members of the public. Women deserve access to mifepristone for reproductive health care, and all Americans deserve integrity in the congressionally mandated, evidence-based process for FDA’s drug regulatory decisions,” the members concluded.
In the Senate, the amicus brief was signed by all 47 Democratic U.S. Senators.
In the House, the brief was signed by 212 Democratic U.S. Representatives.
The lawmakers’ amicus brief to the Supreme Court can be read in full HERE.
Source: open-data mirrors of the Senate eFD and House Clerk financial-disclosure systems. Disclosure within 30 days of trade is required by law (45 for spouse/dependent trades).
Top PAC donors · 2026 cycle
Political action committees that gave the most to this rep's principal campaign committee this cycle. PAC giving is direct organizational support — industry, ideological, or leadership.
1.AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY PACAgriculture2 contributionsAgricultural company PAC for a major sugar producer — backs candidates supporting farm subsidies, tariff protections, and agricultural trade policies.AI$10,000
2.MACHINISTS NON-PARTISAN POLITICAL LEAGUELabor1 contributionTrade-union PAC of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers — backs candidates supporting union organizing, prevailing wages, and aerospace/manufacturing jobs.AI$5,000
3.AMERICAN FEDERATION OF STATE COUNTY & MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PEOPLE2 contributions$5,000
4.AMERICAN SUGAR CANE LEAGUE PAC1 contribution$3,000
5.AMERICAN FEDERATION OF TEACHERS COPELabor1 contributionTrade-union PAC for the American Federation of Teachers — backs candidates supporting public education funding, teacher compensation, and collective-bargaining rights.AI$2,500
6.BLACKROCK FUND SERVICES GROUP LLC PAC1 contribution$2,500
7.NEA FUND FOR CHILDREN AND PUBLIC EDUCATIONLabor1 contributionPAC of the National Education Association, the largest U.S. teachers' union. Backs candidates supporting public education funding, teacher compensation, and collective bargaining rights.AI$2,000
9.AMALGAMATED SUGAR COMPANY PAC1 contribution$1,000
10.PFIZER INC. PAC1 contribution$1,000
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.STANFORD UNIVERSITY$7,700
2.HMI CAPITAL$7,000
3.KLEINER, PERKINS, CAUFIELD, & BYERS$7,000
4.GREYLOCK PARTNERS$7,000
5.TPG CAPITAL$7,000
6.UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, SAN FRANCISC$6,357
7.CHARLES SCHWAB BOYS & GIRLS CLUB FOUND$5,000
8.QUOTIDIAN GALLERY CORPORATION$5,000
9.PARS EQUALITY CENTER$5,000
10.LW LACROSSE LLC$5,000
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.
