See how Scott H. Peters actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Scott H. Peters'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 Scott H. Peters's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Scott H. Peters'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.
Based on 18 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-4367·Consistent
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024
92/100
What they said
Mar 26, 2026
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters explicitly opposed the Republican DHS bill for allocating $28.8 billion to immigration enforcement, calling it 'unserious.' His recorded 'no' vote on passage of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act is directly consistent with this stated opposition to the bill's immigration enforcement funding priorities.
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters stated opposition to the Republican DHS bill allocating $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious. The Secure the Border Act of 2023, which Peters voted against on passage, directly implements expanded immigration enforcement through increased border wall construction (900 miles vs. current 700 miles), asylum restrictions, and employer verification requirements. Peters's stated opposition and his no vote on passage are strongly aligned on the shared question of whether to support this immigration enforcement legislation.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
92/100
What they said
Mar 26, 2026
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters stated opposition to the Republican DHS bill allocating $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, calling it unserious. His recorded vote against passage of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025 is directly consistent with this stated opposition. Both the statement and the vote point in the same direction—rejection of the bill.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
The statement advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which streamlines permitting timelines, strengthens interagency coordination, and protects issued permits from revocation—all measures that reinforce agency decision-making authority and finality. The bill Peters voted against (SOPRA) eliminates judicial deference to agency interpretations and authorizes de novo review of agency actions, which would undermine permit finality and increase legal challenges to issued permits. These positions point in opposite directions on the question of agency permitting authority and permit stability.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
Rep. Peters's statement advocates for streamlined federal permitting that protects lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation and political interference. The Trust the Science Act directs removal of gray wolf protections and bars judicial review of that removal—a unilateral agency action insulated from court challenge. These positions point in opposite directions: Peters supports permit stability and judicial oversight of agency decisions, while voting no on a bill that mandates permit revocation and eliminates judicial review of that action.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
Rep. Peters' statement advocates for protecting lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation and political interference, emphasizing that once projects undergo fair review and obtain permits, they should move forward. However, the bill he voted against (H.R. 1435) requires the EPA to revoke existing waivers granted between 2022 and enactment if they limit internal combustion engine vehicle sales. This is a direct mandate to revoke previously issued permits/waivers, which directly contradicts Peters' stated position against arbitrary permit revocation. The votes point in opposite directions on the core question of permit stability.
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters issued a statement opposing the Republican DHS funding bill with $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, calling it 'unserious.' However, Peters voted yes on passage of HR 2882, the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2024, which includes the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024. This vote directly contradicts the stated opposition to the DHS immigration enforcement funding.
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters opposed the Republican DHS bill allocating $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious. His no vote on the No Bailout for Sanctuary Cities Act—which restricts federal funding to jurisdictions that limit cooperation with immigration enforcement—aligns with this stated opposition to aggressive immigration enforcement measures. Both the statement and vote reflect resistance to Republican immigration enforcement priorities.
Continuing Appropriations and Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024
85/100
What they said
Mar 26, 2026
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters opposed the bill in his statement, characterizing the Republican DHS funding allocation for immigration enforcement as unserious, and voted against passage. The bill does include $28.8 billion in immigration enforcement funding and imposes limits on asylum eligibility, directly matching the subject of his criticism. His NO vote on passage is consistent with his stated opposition to the bill's immigration enforcement provisions.
Representative Peters opposes additional ICE and CBP funding, arguing that these agencies have unspent allocations and have been accused of serious abuses. He advocates for legislative guardrails on immigration enforcement rather than increased appropriations.
Peters opposes increased ICE/CBP funding and advocates for legislative guardrails on immigration enforcement rather than expanded enforcement capacity. The Stop Illegal Entry Act increases criminal penalties for illegal reentry—a measure that expands enforcement tools and severity rather than imposing guardrails on agency conduct. His NO vote on this amendment aligns with his stated opposition to expanding immigration enforcement without oversight. However, the vote is procedural (amendment) rather than on final passage, and the bill addresses criminal penalties rather than agency funding or conduct standards directly, creating some ambiguity about whether the vote reflects opposition to the substance or to the amendment's procedural context.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
The statement advocates for streamlined federal energy permitting, stronger interagency coordination, and protection of issued permits from revocation—all core elements of the CERTAIN Act. The Atomic Energy Advancement Act addresses nuclear energy permitting specifically, directing the NRC to efficiently license reactors, expedite licensing decisions, and implement timely environmental reviews. The rep's YES vote on nuclear permitting acceleration is directionally consistent with the stated support for permitting reform and streamlined energy project deployment. However, the CERTAIN Act is technology-neutral and applies broadly to all energy projects, while this bill focuses narrowly on nuclear reactors, creating a granularity mismatch between the broad permitting reform statement and this specific nuclear-focused bill.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans".
25/100
What they said
Apr 14, 2026
The release opposes the Trump Administration's changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, arguing that recent restrictions on eligibility exceed statutory authority and undermine the program's original purpose of rewarding public service careers.
Voted Nay on Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of Education relating to "Waivers and Modifications of Federal Student Loans".
The statement opposes Trump Administration restrictions on PSLF eligibility and calls for a Congressional Review Act to block those changes. However, the bill being voted on (H.J.Res. 45) is a 2023 CRA that nullifies a 2022 Department of Education rule suspending loan payments and discharging debt—a Biden-era policy, not a Trump restriction. Peters voted NO on this 2022-rule disapproval, which would have blocked debt relief, while his statement opposes restrictions on PSLF. The specific policy questions differ: the statement addresses Trump-era PSLF eligibility narrowing; the bill addresses a prior Biden-era payment suspension and debt discharge rule. Peters' NO vote on the 2022-rule CRA is inconsistent with his stated opposition to restricting public service loan forgiveness benefits.
Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act
25/100
What they said
Mar 26, 2026
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Representative Peters' statement opposes a Republican DHS bill allocating $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious. However, he voted YES on passage of HR 7343, which mandates DHS detention and deportation of non-U.S. nationals who assault law enforcement. The statement and vote directly contradict on the specific question of supporting Republican immigration enforcement measures: Peters publicly opposed such a bill while voting to pass legislation that implements a core immigration enforcement mechanism.
Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Rep. Peters' statement opposes a Republican DHS bill allocating $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious. The Police Our Border Act requires DOJ reporting on border policies' impact on law enforcement. Peters voted no on passage. While both address immigration enforcement policy, the bill's specific mechanism (reporting requirement on Biden-era policies' law enforcement impact) differs from the statement's focus (opposing increased enforcement funding). The no vote is directionally consistent with opposing Republican immigration enforcement priorities, though the bill itself is narrower in scope than the statement suggests.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
The statement advocates for streamlined permitting with enforceable accountability, stronger interagency coordination, and protection of lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation. The HEATS Act does the opposite on the core question: it exempts geothermal activities from federal drilling permits, NEPA environmental review, Endangered Species Act consultation, and historic preservation review—eliminating rather than strengthening federal oversight and coordination. Peters's NO vote aligns with his stated position that permitting should be fair, thorough, and coordinated across agencies, not exempted from federal review.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
Peters' statement advocates for streamlined permitting with maintained environmental and historic preservation reviews, stronger interagency coordination, and protection of lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation. The HEATS Act, by contrast, exempts geothermal activities from NEPA environmental review, Endangered Species Act consultation, and National Historic Preservation Act review. Peters voted yes on this procedural motion, but the bill's approach of categorical exemptions from environmental and historic review conflicts with his stated position that permitting should be 'fair and thorough' with proper agency coordination and review protections.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
Peters' statement advocates for streamlined permitting with stronger interagency coordination and protection of lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation. However, the Alaska's Right to Produce Act does the opposite on a key dimension: it nullifies presidential and Interior Department actions, overrides normal environmental review processes (deeming reissued leases to meet ESA requirements without full review), and limits executive authority over future leases. While both involve energy permitting, Peters' bill emphasizes fair process and agency coordination, whereas this bill circumvents normal permitting procedures for a specific project. The procedural vote adds uncertainty about whether the yes vote reflects support for the underlying policy or other considerations.
The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
Peters' statement advocates for streamlined permitting with enforceable timelines, stronger interagency coordination, and protection of lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation—a framework that preserves environmental and historic review processes while reducing delays. The HEATS Act takes the opposite approach by exempting geothermal activities from NEPA environmental review, Endangered Species Act consultation, and National Historic Preservation Act review entirely. Peters' NO vote aligns with his stated position that permitting reform should maintain substantive environmental and historic protections while improving efficiency, not eliminate them.
Pairs with ambiguous language and high uncertainty are withheld until more data is available. Procedural, cloture, and amendment votes are excluded — they don't cleanly signal substantive support or opposition.
Pro analysis
AI rep analysis — Pro
Get an AI-narrated read on Scott H. Peters'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 Scott H. Peters 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 Scott H. Peters broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the National Labor Relations Board relating to "Standard for Determining Joint Employer Status".
Peters Statement on GOP Push for Additional ICE Funding
Position: Representative Peters opposes additional ICE and CBP funding, arguing that these agencies have unspent allocations and have been accused of serious abuses. He advocates for legislative guardrails on immigration enforcement rather than increased appropriations.
Washington, D.C. – Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) released the following statement after House Republicans passed a resolution late last night to give an additional $70 billion in funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) through 2028.
“ICE and CBP don’t need another dime from Congress. Last year, Republicans handed them $170 billion over four years in their so-called ‘One Big Beautiful Bill.’ Today, $150 billion of that remains unspent. That’s more than the budgets of the U.S. Marines, FBI, or the DEA.
“Homeland Security has been shut down for over 70 days—the longest shutdown in U.S. history. President Trump and Secretary Mullin have already warned that the stopgap funding keeping DHS staff paid will run out by the end of the month. We’re out of time to reopen this agency, yet Republicans are choosing to prioritize Trump’s extreme mass deportation agenda over getting DHS back up and running.
“My constituents, and Americans across the country, are demanding an end to ICE’s reckless conduct. Congress cannot keep writing blank checks to agencies accused of serious abuses. Rather than additional funding for ICE, we should pass my Stop Excessive Force in Immigration Act and other commonsense guardrails.”
###
Peters Votes to Reauthorize FISA, Protect National Security
Position: Representative Peters voted to reauthorize FISA Section 702, expressing support for the surveillance authority as necessary for national security.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) released the following statement after voting to reauthorize the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) Section 702:
Peters, Lawler Call for Building Code Reforms to Lower Multifamily Housing Costs
Position: Representatives Peters and Lawler call for the International Code Council to reform building codes to reduce unnecessary costs in multifamily housing construction while maintaining safety standards, arguing that outdated or overly prescriptive provisions drive up housing costs without improving safety.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representatives Scott Peters (CA-50) and Mike Lawler (NY-17) led 9 Members on a bipartisan letter to International Code Council (ICC) President Mike Boso calling for stronger action to address the rising costs of multifamily housing in upcoming updates to the International Building Code (IBC). The ICC is the leading global source of building codes and standards to ensure safe, sustainable, and affordable construction.
As families across the country continue to face rising costs, the letter underscores the growing burden of housing expenses and the need for building standards that better reflect today’s housing landscape.
“Families across the country continue to face rising costs, and housing remains one of the most significant pressures on their budgets,” the Members wrote. “As Members of Congress, we know affordability is a top concern for our constituents.”
The letter emphasizes that while building codes play a critical role in ensuring safety, outdated or overly prescriptive standards can unnecessarily drive-up construction costs, particularly for multifamily housing, which is increasingly in demand.
To address these challenges, the Members urge the ICC to expand its focus on affordability within the IBC and consider incorporating internationally recognized standards that maintain safety while reducing costs.
“We believe the ICC and other standard-writing organizations have a responsibility to ensure their codes strike the right balance: maintaining the life-safety systems that protect occupants and first responders while eliminating duplicative, outdated, or unnecessarily prescriptive provisions that drive up costs without improving safety,” the Members wrote.
The letter calls for increased research, stakeholder engagement, and policy updates to ensure that future building codes support the development of high-quality, affordable housing; “These actions would help ensure that future code updates support the development of safe, high-quality, and affordable housing at the scale Americans need,” the Members concluded.
Read the full letter here.
Background:
Rep. Peters has made addressing housing affordability and homelessness a central focus of his work in Congress, particularly in response to rising rents and housing shortages in San Diego. He has championed policies to increase the supply of affordable housing, support building higher-density housing near transit, and ban income discrimination in housing. He is also a member of the Build American Caucus – a bipartisan group of lawmakers working to expedite infrastructure development.
###
Peters Leads Sweeping, Bipartisan Federal Permitting Overhaul
Position: The release advocates for the CERTAIN Act, which would streamline federal energy permitting timelines, strengthen interagency coordination, protect issued permits from revocation, and reduce political interference in the permitting process.
CERTAIN Act would deliver the energy America needs, end political permitting pendulum swing
Washington, D.C. — Today, Reps. Scott Peters (D-CA), Gabe Evans (R-CO), Gabe Vasquez (D-NM), Andrew Garbarino (R-NY), Adam Gray (D-CA), Juan Ciscomani (R-AZ), Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA), and Jen Kiggans (R-VA) formally introduced the Create Expedited Reviews to Transform American Infrastructure Now (CERTAIN) Act, a bipartisan bill to fix our federal permitting system and ensure all energy projects are built efficiently, fairly, and on-time.
America’s energy demand is surging, but the infrastructure we need to meet this demand is not being built fast enough. Without reform, these delays will slow energy development, drive up costs, and impose real consequences on American workers, businesses, and consumers.
The CERTAIN Act would streamline the federal permitting process from when an application is submitted to when agencies reach a final decision. It would provide enforceable accountability measures, stronger coordination between agencies, and ensure agencies are fully staffed. Critically, the bill would protect lawfully issued permits from arbitrary revocation or political interference, giving developers, investors, and workers the certainty they need to build.
“Californians are already being crushed by skyrocketing energy costs. They cannot wait years for political battles to play out while their bills keep climbing. The CERTAIN Act ends the partisan whiplash that has stalled infrastructure projects for years. Once a project has undergone a fair and thorough review and obtained its permits, it should be able to move forward. That's not a Democratic or Republican idea. It's common sense,” said Rep. Peters.
“For decades, unpredictable and burdensome permitting processes have stood in the way of investment and innovation in Colorado and across the country. Communities have been deprived of the reliable and affordable energy they need. The bipartisan and tech-neutral CERTAIN Act is the long-term solution to permitting reform. This legislation cuts through red tape to deliver American infrastructure projects of all types, sooner, so we can build a stronger America for generations to come. It depoliticizes the permitting process and secures jobs, lowers costs for American families, and prioritize American energy dominance,” said Rep. Evans.
“Over the past decade, we’ve seen how shifting policies from one administration to the next lead to stalled energy projects and make long-term planning impossible, and we cannot afford to leave our energy producers exposed to this political pendulum,” said Rep. Vasquez. “That’s why I’m proud to be leading the CERTAIN Act, a bipartisan solution that protects the permitting process for all types of energy projects from undue political interference.”
“Too often, critical infrastructure and energy projects get stuck in a broken permitting process that lacks transparency and accountability. That drives up costs for families and holds back communities. I’m proud to help introduce the bipartisan CERTAIN Act to bring more certainty to the process and ensure projects that meet the requirements can move forward. We must get this bill across the finish line as soon as possible so we can start delivering real results for our communities,” said Rep. Garbarino.
“We need major reforms to our permitting process that ensure transparency, timelines, and certainty for all applicants.” said Rep. Gray. “By working together to fix our permitting processes, we can save taxpayer dollars, strengthen our economy, and once again show that America can build great things.”
“Arizona families and businesses are counting on smart, reliable energy solutions that support growth and opportunity,” said Rep. Ciscomani. “The CERTAIN Act brings clarity, coordination, and common sense to the federal permitting process so we can responsibly build the energy infrastructure our communities need. We can and should increase energy production while protecting our environment, and this bipartisan effort sets clear timelines and accountability to create jobs, strengthen our grid, and power America’s future responsibly.”
“In Pennsylvania, I hear from business leaders, manufacturers, and energy developers who are ready to build but are waiting years for a permit, which puts us behind competitors like China and drives up costs here at home. The CERTAIN Act brings accountability to the process with clear timelines and fewer unnecessary delays so we can get projects done while still protecting our communities and environment. I’m grateful to Representatives Peters and Evans for their bipartisan leadership to help us build smarter, faster, and more affordably here at home,” said Rep. Houlahan.
Rep. Kiggans said, “In order to combat rising energy costs, we must ensure that our permitting process is efficient, transparent, and accountable for future energy infrastructure development. The CERTAIN Act eliminates unnecessary red tape and improves coordination across agencies to ensure critical energy projects aren’t delayed by political gridlock. I am proud to support this bipartisan effort that will lower costs, strengthen energy security, and deliver real relief for families in Virginia’s Second District.”
Key provisions of the CERTAIN Act include:
Firm timelines and milestones for all federal permitting decisions
Clear legal remedies when agencies miss deadlines
Stronger interagency coordination to eliminate redundant reviews
Protection for lawfully issued permits against arbitrary revocation
Accountability measures to address capacity constraints at permitting agencies
The CERTAIN Act builds on a discussion draft circulated by Reps. Peters, Evans, Vasquez, and Garbarino in January. That input helped shape the final legislation introduced today. The CERTAIN Act is also supported by a broad coalition of organizations. You can read their statements of support HERE. See bill text HERE, a one-pager HERE, and a section-by-section HERE.
###
Peters Joins Bicameral Resolution to Stop the Politicization of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program
Position: The release opposes the Trump Administration's changes to the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program, arguing that recent restrictions on eligibility exceed statutory authority and undermine the program's original purpose of rewarding public service careers.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Representatives Scott Peters (CA-50), Joe Courtney (CT-02), and Alma Adams (NC-12), along with U.S. Senators Tim Kaine (D-VA), Corey Booker (D-NJ), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced the introduction of a bicameral Congressional Review Act to prevent President Trump and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon from restricting eligibility for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program beyond the stature of the law, which was passed by Congress and signed into law in 2007.
"San Diego's public servants, teachers, nurses, and doctors tirelessly serve our community and rely on the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program's promise that their student loans will eventually be forgiven. The PSLF program was created to reward those who choose to pursue careers in public service, yet the recent changes by the Trump Administration threaten to drive essential public servants out of these lines of work. We should strengthen this program, not undermine it. I am proud to co-lead this effort to protect the PSLF program for current and future public servants," said Peters.
“The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was created in 2007 as a nonpolitical program to lower the cost of college, reward careers in public service ranging from military service, nursing, teaching, and public safety, and help fill critical positions that our communities need. This new rule by President Trump and Secretary of Education McMahon would pick and choose which public servants are eligible for forgiveness based on the Trump Administration’s ideological agenda, which clearly goes against Congressional intent,” said Courtney. “I will continue to fight against the Trump Department of Education’s unlawful degradation of PSLF, and I will continue working to improve this patriotic program so that it lives up to the promise it makes to America’s hardworking public servants.”
"The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program is a lifeline for countless Americans who have chosen careers in teaching, nursing, social work, and other vital roles in public service," said Adams. "In North Carolina, 1 in every 14 classrooms lacks a teacher with proper licensure and 13 percent of nursing positions sit unfilled. Easing the financial burden of education for these careers is vital. Allowing the Trump Administration to weaponize this program for political purposes is a betrayal of the promise we made to these dedicated workers. I am proud to stand with my colleagues in defending PSLF and ensuring that our public servants receive the loan forgiveness they have earned."
“Americans benefit from highly qualified teachers, firefighters, nonprofit hospital staff, social workers, and other critical public servants,” said Kaine. “But now the Department of Education wants to turn those incredible people into pawns in the Trump Administration’s ridiculous, politically motivated crusades. That’s unfair to the millions of Americans who have dedicated their careers to serving their fellow citizens and is a direct threat to the quality of the services our communities rely on. I’m proud to join my colleagues in leading an effort to protect the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program from needless and dangerous politicization.”
“Student loan forgiveness should not be ripped away from public servants based on the president’s political agenda,” said Gillibrand. “Student borrowers who have chosen to serve their communities in the nonprofit or public sector, often for less pay than they could have otherwise earned, are counting on a promise from their government that their loans will ultimately be forgiven. The Trump administration’s move to retroactively deny student borrowers this benefit is disgraceful. I urge the Department of Education to focus on lowering costs for the constituents we all serve, not furthering Donald Trump’s partisan games.”
“Public Service Loan Forgiveness represents a promise we made to Americans who dedicate their careers to serving others,” said Booker. “Efforts to weaponize that promise for political purposes or to exclude eligible public servants undermines both the integrity of the program and our commitment to public service.”
BACKGROUND
Congress enacted the PSLF program with strong bipartisan support through legislation that was signed into law by President George W. Bush. The Trump Administration’s new rule would undermine the intent of the program. Specifically, the Trump Administration’s changes would:
Politicize and destabilize the PSLF program, by allowing Secretary McMahon to limit eligibility based on a nonprofit’s mission or perceived ideological alignment, making the program vulnerable to shifting political priorities under any future administration.
Grant overly broad and subjective discretion to the Department of Education, by permitting disqualification of employers deemed to have a “substantial illegal purpose”—an undefined and subjective standard that invites arbitrary and inconsistent enforcement.
Target marginalized communities and the nonprofits that serve them.
Discourage public service careers and weaken the nonprofit workforce.
Read the full text of the Congressional Review Act here.
###
Position: Rep. Peters opposes President Trump's threat of military action against Iran without congressional authorization, arguing that such unilateral action violates the Constitution and the War Powers Act, and calls for Congress to reassert its constitutional authority over military decisions.
San Diego, CA — Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) released the following statement after President Trump posted on social media that a “whole civilization will die tonight” if an agreement is not reached to end the conflict with Iran.
"This crossed a serious line. Suggesting action to wipe out Iran is not only a war crime and unconstitutional, but reflects the kind of erratic, dangerous behavior for which the 25th Amendment was written. Foreign policy through impulsive, unplanned tweets is detached from strategy and reality. Yet Trump has continued to jeopardize a global order that has helped sustain American safety and prosperity for 80 years. It’s time for Republican leadership to bring Congress back to Washington and immediately vote to reassert its constitutional war powers.”
###
Rep. Peters Demands Congress Fund Essential DHS Services, Negotiate ICE and CBP Reforms
Position: Rep. Peters advocates for funding DHS agencies except ICE and CBP during the shutdown, and calls for reforms to ICE and Border Patrol to ensure accountability standards comparable to other law enforcement.
San Diego, CA – Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) hosted a press conference to discuss the harm that the ongoing Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown has on federal workers, travelers, and community members who rely on DHS programs. The department has been shut down since February 13th and is now the longest partial government shutdown in our nation’s history.
In March, Rep. Peters introduced the Homeland Security Continuity and Accountability Act. During shutdowns, the bill would authorize the Secretary of Homeland Security to transfer funds previously allocated for immigration enforcement to other agencies within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that play a critical role in securing the nation.
“I'm glad President Trump recently decided to pay TSA employees, using unspent funds from the ‘Big Beautiful Bill.’ I introduced a bill to do exactly that for every DHS agency except ICE and CBP – and we should codify his effort by passing my bill so the livelihoods of essential federal workers don't depend on the whims of any one person. We cannot allow hardworking employees at TSA, FEMA, the Coast Guard, Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA), and other DHS agencies to be used as leverage during this shutdown. I look forward to voting on the bill the Senate passed – as is – while we continue to fight for badly needed reforms to ICE,” said Rep. Scott Peters (CA-50).
“TSA officers are frontline professionals who show up every day to protect the safety of the traveling public, all while making difficult personal sacrifices of their own, and I am very grateful for their continued dedication and service. Maintaining stable staffing at security checkpoints is critical to keeping our airports running safely and efficiently and our TSA officers play an essential role in making that happen,” said San Diego County Board of Supervisors Vice Chair and San Diego Airport Authority Board Member, Monica Montgomery Steppe.
“Today, as the government shutdown drags on, our union members and workers are enduring the brunt of the unknown. Families are struggling, livelihoods are stalling, and the economic ripple effects being felt more than ever. We call on our leaders to end this shutdown and ensure that working families do not pay the price for political stalemates and disagreements,” said Nyrine Washington, Director of Strategic Communications, AFGE TSA Local 1260, AFL-CIO.
Legislation to fund every component of DHS except ICE and Border Patrol passed unanimously in the Senate, yet DHS remains shut down. House Republicans continue to refuse Democrats’ demands to hold Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol to the same standard as other law enforcement officers who ensure accountability and make communities safer. Rep. Peters will continue to push for good faith negotiations on our federal appropriations.
A livestreamed recording of the event can be viewed here.
Additional photos from the event, courtesy of the office of Rep. Scott Peters, can be viewed here.
###
Position: Representative Peters opposes the Republican DHS funding bill that allocates $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement, characterizing it as unserious.
Washington, D.C. — Today, Representative Scott Peters (CA-50) released the following statement after House Republicans passed their partisan Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding bill to allocate an additional $28.8 billion for immigration enforcement.
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.NEW DEMOCRAT COALITION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEELeadership5 contributionsMember-of-Congress leadership PAC affiliated with the New Democrat Coalition caucus — directs contributions to allied moderate and centrist Democrats.AI$25,000
2.CATERPILLAR INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (CATPAC)4 contributions$20,000
3.AT&T INC. FEDERAL POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (AT&T FEDERAL PAC)4 contributions$20,000
4.SEMPRA ENERGY EMPLOYEES POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE- FEDERAL3 contributions$15,000
5.ABBVIE POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$15,000
6.GENERAL ATOMICS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$10,000
7.TAKEDA PHARMACEUTICALS AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$10,000
8.NATIONAL CABLE AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS ASSOCIATION PAC2 contributions$10,000
9.AMERICAN HOTEL AND LODGING ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$10,000
10.PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE IFinance2 contributionsAccounting and professional-services PAC — supports candidates aligned with business-friendly tax policy, financial regulation, and corporate governance standards.AI$10,000
Source: OpenFEC (api.open.fec.gov) Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “committee.” Aggregated by contributing committee. Self-transfers from joint-fundraising / victory committees are excluded.
Top individual contributors · 2026 cycle
Itemized individual contributions over $200 to this rep's campaign committee, aggregated by donor employer. PAC giving is shown above; this section is people, not organizations.
1.RA CAPITAL MANAGEMENT LP$17,500
2.ARNOLD VENTURES$14,000
3.GENERAL ATOMICS$13,500
4.ROBBINS GELLER$8,000
5.ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP$8,000
6.ENDEAVOR BIOMEDICINES$7,500
7.SILBEY STRATEGIES$7,000
8.SOLV ENERGY$7,000
9.INVESTMENT ASSOCIATE$7,000
10.SHIELD AI$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.
