See how Linda T. Sánchez's votes line up with your values.
DeepSyte scores Linda T. Sánchez'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 Linda T. Sánchez's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Linda T. Sánchez's passage votes correctly, from their stated positions on each bill's tagged topics. Excludes “unclear” calls and abstentions.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
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.
A joint resolution to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities within or against the Islamic Republic of Iran that have not been authorized by Congress.
Based on 6 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-2·Consistent
Secure the Border Act of 2023
92/100
What they said
Apr 30, 2026
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez's statement opposes additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities. The Secure the Border Act substantially expands CBP authority and funding through border wall construction mandates, technology investments, and related border security measures. Her NO vote on passage is directly consistent with her stated opposition to rewarding these agencies with additional resources.
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez's statement opposes additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities. The bill penalizes jurisdictions that limit cooperation with ICE detainers and immigration status information-sharing. Her NO vote on a bill that would enforce ICE cooperation aligns directly with her stated opposition to rewarding ICE with funding and her commitment to blocking ICE funding until abuses end. The positions point in the same direction on the specific question of ICE enforcement and funding.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2025
90/100
What they said
Apr 30, 2026
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez stated opposition to additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses, and stated she would 'continue to fight to block their funding.' The bill provides appropriations for both ICE and CBP among other DHS agencies. Her NO vote on passage is consistent with her stated position to block funding for those agencies.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2024
85/100
What they said
Apr 30, 2026
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez's statement opposes additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of alleged abuses, and welcomes a DHS funding agreement that excludes those agencies. The bill provides appropriations for DHS including ICE and CBP. Her NO vote on passage is consistent with her stated opposition to funding ICE and CBP without conditions. The statement and vote align on the core question: whether to approve DHS appropriations that include ICE and CBP funding.
Continuing Appropriations and Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024
85/100
What they said
Apr 30, 2026
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez's statement opposes additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of alleged abuses, and welcomes a DHS funding agreement that excludes those agencies. The bill provides continuing appropriations for FY2024 and includes provisions prohibiting DHS from using funds for certain immigration-related purposes. Her NO vote on passage is consistent with her stated opposition to funding ICE and CBP without addressing the abuses she identifies. The bill's restrictions on DHS immigration funding align directionally with her position, though the bill also contains broader appropriations provisions unrelated to her specific concern.
Rep. Sánchez welcomes the DHS funding agreement that excludes ICE and CBP, but opposes additional funding for those agencies pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities.
Rep. Sánchez's statement opposes additional funding for ICE and CBP pending resolution of what she characterizes as abuses in immigrant communities. The Laken Riley Act expands ICE detention authority and creates new enforcement mechanisms that would increase ICE's operational scope and enforcement capacity. Her NO vote on the bill's passage is consistent with her stated opposition to expanding ICE's resources and authority absent accountability for alleged abuses. The bill does not directly address the abuses she references, but rather expands the agency's detention and enforcement powers.
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 Linda T. Sánchez'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 Linda T. Sánchez 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 Linda T. Sánchez broke ranks with ≥75% of Democrats. Threshold catches substantively partisan splits; unanimous-ish or close votes are excluded.
1
Cross-aisle vote
118-hr-7024·Feb 1, 2024·89% of D voted YES
Tax Relief for American Families and Workers Act of 2024
Sánchez, L.A. County members spotlight cost of Trump’s trade polices at Port of Los Angeles
Position: The release states that President Trump's tariffs and trade policies have raised costs for households, created uncertainty for businesses and farmers, and disrupted cargo at the Port of Los Angeles, and calls for ending harmful tariffs, restoring supply chain stability, and lowering costs for families.
LOS ANGELES – Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) was joined on Tuesday by fellow Los Angeles County delegation members Representatives Nanette Barragán, Judy Chu, Jimmy Gomez, Sydney Kamlager-Dove, Ted Lieu, Derek Tran and George Whitesides (all D-Calif.) for a roundtable discussion on the impact of President Trump’s trade policies on the Port of Los Angeles and the local and national economy.
The members heard from port officials, union members, business leaders, and other stakeholders about the damage caused by President Trump’s trade policies. His tariffs cost the average American household about $1,700 last year, while creating uncertainty for businesses, hurting farmers and exporters, and disrupting cargo at the port that supports one in nine Southern California jobs.
High-resolution photos are available HERE courtesy of the Port of Los Angeles.
“It’s clear that President Trump’s chaotic trade policies are hurting Americans,” said Ranking Member Sánchez, the top Democrat on the Trade Subcommittee. “Families are paying more for everyday goods. Small businesses can’t plan from one month to the next. Farmers are losing access to overseas markets. And the workers who keep the nation’s busiest port running are left wondering what comes next. Southern California’s workers and families deserve better, and so does the rest of the country.”
“We heard directly from the businesses, truckers, farmers, and workers paying the price for the Trump administration’s reckless economic policies,” said Congresswoman Barragán. “Between skyrocketing fuel costs from Trump’s war on Iran and his constantly changing tariffs, businesses are struggling, truckers are being squeezed, and working families are footing the bill. The Port of Los Angeles is an economic engine for the entire country, and we must end these harmful tariff taxes, restore stability to our supply chains, and lower costs for American families.”
“President Trump promised his tariffs would revive American manufacturing and boost exports. But as we heard firsthand at the Port of Los Angeles, his chaotic trade policies are undermining American businesses, disrupting supply chains, and leaving working families to foot the bill,” said Congresswoman Chu. “Families are paying more for everyday essentials, while businesses are still waiting for refunds on tariffs the Supreme Court struck down. That’s unacceptable. As a member of the Ways and Means Committee, I’ll keep fighting to lower costs, ensure businesses receive the refunds they’re owed, and advance trade policies that support American workers and grow our economy. I thank Congresswoman Sánchez for bringing us together to hear directly from those impacted by these policies.”
“The Port of Los Angeles is the backbone of our national supply chain and the lifeblood of working families across CA-37,” said Congresswoman Kamlager-Dove. “But Trump’s temper tariffs have injected chaos into port operations, burdened small businesses, and driven up costs by $1,000 a year for consumers already struggling to make ends meet. I was proud to join Rep. Sánchez and colleagues to hear directly from port stakeholders about how erratic trade policies are hurting our nation’s busiest port and entire economy. As a member of the Foreign Affairs Committee, I’ll keep fighting to strengthen the Port of LA, support the workers who keep goods moving, and ensure our region remains a leader in the global economy.”
“The Port of Los Angeles is the largest container port in the United States, bringing essential goods to American businesses and consumers while connecting California businesses with markets around the world,” said Congressman Lieu. “But the Trump administration’s reckless tariffs and chaotic trade policies are driving up costs and putting businesses at risk. I’m grateful to Congresswoman Sánchez for organizing this event and for port leadership, labor leadership, and industry stakeholders for bringing attention to these challenges. I will continue fighting to protect California’s businesses and the workers and communities that depend on them.”
“All across Los Angeles County, businesses and entire industries have been devastated by rising costs caused by the administration’s tariffs,” said Congressman Whitesides. “I’m grateful to have had the chance to join Reps. Sanchez, Barragán, and other colleagues to speak directly with Port of LA officials and other stakeholders to talk about the issues they are facing and how we can ensure California’s economy stays strong even in the midst of harmful federal actions. I’ll keep pushing to reverse the administration’s erratic trade policies that force the American consumer to pay the price.”
Background
The Port of Los Angeles is the nation’s busiest port, handling more than 10 million containers a year. Together with the Port of Long Beach, the two ports move about 31 percent of the nation’s container trade. The port is run by the City of Los Angeles and covers 7,500 acres of land and water, with 43 miles of waterfront, 25 cargo terminals, 85 container cranes and 122 miles of on-dock rail.
###
Issues:Labor and Trade
Sánchez, Sewell lead 55 Democrats in opposing U.S. Withdrawal from International Labor Organization
Position: Representatives Sánchez and Sewell, leading 55 House Democrats, urge the administration to maintain U.S. participation in the International Labor Organization, arguing that its labor standards protect American workers and that withdrawal runs counter to U.S. interests.
WASHINGTON – Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) and Oversight Subcommittee Ranking Member Terri Sewell (D-Ala.) today led 55 of their House Democratic colleagues in calling on the Trump administration to maintain United States participation in the International Labor Organization (ILO), which brings together governments, workers and employers to establish international labor standards. Those standards help protect American workers from being undercut by other countries with weaker labor standards.
Reports that the administration is considering withdrawal come amid a severe budget crisis at the ILO, driven largely by the Trump administration’s failure to pay approximately $300 million in outstanding U.S. membership dues.
“At the same time that the Administration has called on countries to improve labor standards, it is reportedly considering a withdrawal from the very institution that develops those standards and helps governments implement them,” the members wrote. “Notably, USTR relied on ILO data in conducting [its Section 301] investigations, underscoring the organization’s value to U.S. efforts to identify and combat forced labor.
“If the Administration believes that weak labor standards distort trade and disadvantage American workers and firms, withdrawing from an institution whose standards, research, and expertise it relies upon to address those concerns runs counter to American interests.”
In addition to Sánchez and Sewell, the letter was signed by Representatives Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), Donald Beyer (D-Va.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), Suzan DelBene (D-Wash.), Christopher Deluzio (D-Pa.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Val Hoyle (D-Ore.), Glenn Ivey (D-Md.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), William Keating (D-Mass.), Robin Kelly (D-Ill.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), Greg Landsman (D-Ohio), John Larson (D-Conn.), Stephen Lynch (D-Mass.), John Mannion (D-N.Y.), Morgan McGarvey (D-Ky.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Gregory Meeks (D-N.Y.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Richard Neal (D-Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Stacey Plaskett (D-V.I.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Emily Randall (D-Wash.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), Robert Scott (D-Va.), Terri Sewell (D-Ala.), Brad Sherman (D-Calif.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Greg Stanton (D-Ariz.), Thomas Suozzi (D-N.Y.), Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Norma Torres (D-Calif.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.).
The full text of the letter is available HERE and follows:
October 15, 2026
Secretary Rubio
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Dear Secretary Rubio:
We write to express our deep concern regarding reports that the Administration is preparing to withdraw the United States from the International Labor Organization (ILO). Such a decision would undermine the organization’s core mission of establishing and promoting international labor standards in the global economy and would be difficult to reconcile with the Administration’s stated pro-worker trade agenda. These reports come amid a severe budget crisis at the ILO, which is largely due to the Administration’s failure to pay approximately $300 million in outstanding U.S. membership dues. Unlike most international organizations, the ILO’s unique tripartite structure gives governments, workers, and employers the central role of developing international labor standards to combat the global “race to the bottom” that has undermined wages and working conditions here in the United States and around the globe.
The labor standards developed and articulated by the constituents of the ILO underpin the labor provisions in U.S. trade agreements, which require trading partners to adopt, maintain, and effectively enforce labor laws related to eliminating forced labor, child labor, and employment discrimination, while also protecting workers’ fundamental right to organize unions and bargain collectively. Such obligations are vital to levelling the playing field by preventing other countries from gaining an unfair advantage through common forms of labor exploitation. But negotiated commitments are only as effective as the institutions that implement them. For decades, the ILO has helped governments put these commitments into practice through technical assistance, training, advisory services, reporting, investigations, and capacity-building support to labor inspectorates.
Several U.S. trading partners have reportedly sought ILO assistance in response to the Administration’s recent imposition of Section 301 tariffs on 60 economies for failing to impose or effectively enforce prohibitions on imports produced with forced labor. Other partners have sought to extend ILO programming that is a key U.S. trade condition for access to the U.S. market. Yet, at the same time that the Administration has called on countries to improve labor standards, it is reportedly considering a withdrawal from the very institution that develops those standards and helps governments implement them. Notably, USTR relied on ILO data in conducting these investigations, underscoring the organization’s value to U.S. efforts to identify and combat forced labor. If the Administration believes that weak labor standards distort trade and disadvantage American workers and firms, withdrawing from an institution whose standards, research, and expertise it relies upon to address those concerns runs counter to American interests.
The ILO’s value extends beyond government enforcement and directly benefits American companies operating in global supply chains. Through programs such as Better Work, a joint initiative of the ILO and the International Finance Corporation, factories receive auditing, training, and support to improve compliance with national laws and international labor standards. Improved transparency at the factory level enables companies to identify risks in their supply chains, address problems before they become more serious, and avoid reputational damage through responsible sourcing practices. The American Apparel & Footwear Association and other U.S. business organizations recently highlighted the important role of the ILO in strengthening labor enforcement in sourcing countries, addressing forced labor, and maintaining a competitive environment for American companies and workers.
The ILO’s role in advancing U.S. trade policy is well illustrated in Haiti, where U.S. law ties preferential market access to labor law compliance and integrates the ILO into that statutory framework. In September, Congress reauthorized the Haitian Hemispheric Opportunity through Partnership Encouragement Act (HOPE) and the Haiti Economic Lift Program Act (HELP). Under these programs, Haiti is mandated to work with the ILO to implement the Technical Assistance Improvement and Compliance Needs Assessment and Remediation (TAICNAR) program. The ILO’s Better Work program in Haiti operates the core compliance component of TAICNAR, conducting factory assessments, supporting remediation, and providing technical assistance to strengthen industrial relations and labor law enforcement. If the ILO is unable to continue performing these functions, Haiti will be unable to meet the labor compliance requirements Congress established as a condition of these trade preferences—programs that continue to enjoy strong bipartisan support.
Finally, the United States withdrawal from the ILO will only serve to expand China’s influence at the organization and deprive us of a key forum for holding them accountable for systemic labor rights violations. For example, in 2022 the United States delegation to the ILO’s annual conference played a decisive role in rallying support from governments, workers, and employers to condemn China’s use of forced labor camps to “re-educate” Uyghurs and other ethnic minorities in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR). A U.S. withdrawal will not halt the development of international labor standards; rather, it will strip American policymakers, workers, and employers of their ability to shape their creation and implementation in a manner that reflects our values. Walking away cedes strategic leverage to a major economic competitor over the very rules that govern fair competition in the global marketplace. This exposure is particularly critical as the ILO facilitates the development of standards for emerging issues, including the platform economy, artificial intelligence, and workplace health and safety. American workers and companies will ultimately be impacted by these international standards, regardless of whether the United States chooses to participate in their creation.
Accordingly, we urge the Administration to maintain full United States membership in the ILO and utilize appropriated Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) funds to expeditiously pay the approximately $300 million in arrears. Abandoning the ILO does not protect American interests. Instead, it diminishes our ability to enforce trade agreements, taints our supply chains, and hands a strategic victory to our economic competitors. The United States must maintain its seat at the table to ensure that global labor standards are driven by American values, interests, and priorities.
To assist Congress in monitoring the implementation of U.S. trade policy and funding mandates, please provide comprehensive responses to the following questions by October 30, 2026:
Given the Administration’s extensive reliance on ILO data to execute recent Section 301 tariff enforcement actions, what concrete steps is the Department of State taking to ensure the ILO remains fully funded and operationally viable so that U.S. trade enforcement mechanisms are not compromised?
Because Congress has explicitly tied preferential market access for Haiti to the execution of the TAICNAR program, what immediate actions is the Department taking to ensure that the U.S. remains fully engaged in the ILO framework so as not to jeopardize the legal compliance of these congressional trade preferences?
In alignment with the 2025 National Security Strategy’s mandate to protect American workers from foreign economic distortion, what is the Department’s explicit plan to utilize the United States' permanent seat on the ILO Governing Body to actively counter China's expanding influence over global standard-setting?
Out of funds appropriated by Congress under the CIO account for Fiscal Years 2024, 2025, and 2026, what is the exact timeline for the Department to release the necessary funds to clear the outstanding $300 million in arrears and stabilize U.S. standing and voting rights within the organization?
###
Issues:Labor and Trade
Position: Members of the House Democratic caucus urge the Trump administration and IRS to withdraw a proposed rule that would classify certain refundable tax credits as federal public benefits under PRWORA, restricting eligibility for some legal immigrants.
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.) led her House Democratic colleagues today in calling on the Trump administration to withdraw a proposed IRS rule that would strip certain legal immigrants of refundable tax credits.
The rule would reclassify these credits as “Federal public benefits” under the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA), imposing strict citizenship requirements on recipients. It is similar to a failed attempt by the Department of Health and Human Services last year to block certain legal immigrants from health services, an effort the courts struck down.
“The rules regarding the eligibility criteria for refundable tax credits are clearly defined by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code, and PRWORA was clearly never intended to separately address them,” the members wrote. “Yet, this proposed regulation would strip hundreds of thousands of people of their deserved tax refunds by redefining refundable tax credits as ‘Federal public benefits’ under PRWORA, harming our constituents, their families, and our communities.”
The members continued, “The administration’s apparent desire to change the law to attack immigrant communities does not change Congress’s intent when it passed PRWORA, nor does it change the law.”
In addition to Sánchez, the letter was signed by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-Calif.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), Gwen Moore (D-Wis.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Jesús “Chuy” García (D-Ill.), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Jimmy Panetta (D-Calif.), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.)
The full text of the letter is available HERE and follows:
October 7, 2026
Honorable Frank Bisignano
Chief Executive Officer
U.S. Internal Revenue Service
1111 Constitution Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20224
Honorable Scott Bessent
Secretary
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20220
Dear Secretary Bessent and CEO Bisignano,
We write to express our strong opposition to the proposed rule on the Application of the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) to the Refunded Portion of Certain Federal Refundable Tax Credits. The rules regarding the eligibility criteria for refundable tax credits are clearly defined by Congress in the Internal Revenue Code, and PRWORA was clearly never intended to separately address them. Yet, this proposed regulation would strip hundreds of thousands of people of their deserved tax refunds by redefining refundable tax credits as “Federal public benefits” under PRWORA, harming our constituents, their families, and our communities.
Congress has modified these credits since PRWORA was enacted (most recently in Public Law 119-21 (2025)) but never made the changes Treasury proposes in this rule. Therefore, Congress clearly did not intend to import PRWORA’s limits on eligibility for federal public benefits into these refundable tax credits. In fact, Congress’s decision in P.L. 119-21 to limit the American Opportunity Tax Credit to people with a valid Social Security number would be nonsensical under Treasury’s reading of the statute, because those without one would have already been excluded. The Congressional Budget Office would not have estimated this provision to reduce the deficit by $247 million had the assertions in this proposed rule been accurate. Similarly, Congress’s decision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (2018) to limit Child Tax Credit eligibility to people with a valid Social Security number would not have made sense if PRWORA already imposed a much stricter interpretation.
The administration’s apparent desire to change the law to attack immigrant communities does not change Congress’s intent when it passed PRWORA, nor does it change the law. As the notice of rulemaking states, “Section 401(c)(1)(B) of PRWORA (8 U.S.C. 1611(c)(1)(B)) defines the term “Federal public benefit,” in relevant part, as “any retirement, welfare, health, disability, public or assisted housing, postsecondary education, food assistance, unemployment benefit, or any other similar benefit for which payments or assistance are provided to an individual, household, or family eligibility unit by an agency of the United States or by appropriated funds of the United States. ” Tax credits are absent from that list, which clearly consists of direct assistance programs delivered through federally funded programs. Congress would have explicitly specified tax credits if it had intended their inclusion. Wholly adopting a novel and unsupported interpretation of PRWORA to fit President Trump’s anti-immigrant agenda goes directly against the law as written and congressional intent.
In fact, PRWORA separately addressed the issue of immigrants qualifying for refundable credits when it originally passed in 1996. Section 451 of PRWORA restricted the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) by barring those without a Social Security Number from the tax credit. The remaining eligible population is a much broader group than those deemed “qualified” immigrants under that law. If Congress intended to restrict refundable tax credits to only “qualified” immigrants, it would have not included this separate section in a distinct section of that law.
The proposed regulation relies on the 2020 Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel opinion stating that any payment to a taxpayer may be classified as a benefit under PRWORA regardless of congressional intent and history. The proposal fails to justify why this new interpretation, upending 30 years of precedent, is valid given Congress’s past decisions to make very clear which immigrants were or were not eligible for refundable tax credits. Had Congress intended to bar immigrants from taking advantage of refundable tax credits, it would have clarified the statute in any of the numerous changes made to PRWORA or refundable tax credits in the years since 1996.
We urge you to withdraw this proposed regulation, which has no basis in the law, upends decades of precedent and runs counter to congressional intent.
Sincerely,
###
Issues:ImmigrationTax Policy
Sánchez, colleagues introduce bipartisan bill to bring film jobs home
Position: Supports introducing a bipartisan federal tax credit for film and television productions made in the United States to reverse job losses to foreign countries and revive domestic production jobs.
WASHINGTON — Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.), along with Congressman Nathaniel Moran (R-Texas), today introduced the Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, a bipartisan bill to revive film and television production in the United States and drive economic growth in local communities.
The bill would create a federal tax credit for productions made in the United States to reverse the flow of film and television jobs to foreign countries that are luring these productions away. It would bring that work back to American production crews, small businesses and communities that depend on the industry.Sánchez and Moran were joined by Representatives Brian Jack (R-Ga.), Laura Friedman (D-Calif.), David Kustoff (R-Tenn.), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Mike Carey (R-Ohio) and Tom Suozzi (D-N.Y.) in introducing the bill. Senators Tim Scott (R-S.C.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), John Cornyn (R-Texas) and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.
“The United States is losing good-paying union jobs because it’s become too expensive to film here,” said Congresswoman Sánchez. “This isn’t about the actors who star in films and can travel for a shoot. It’s about the production crews and set builders, the backbone of the film industry. Our bill would create incentives to bring those jobs back home and boost local economies, not just in California, but across the country.”
“When a production comes to a community – from rural East Texas to urban New York – that money doesn’t just benefit the production company,” said Congressman Moran. “It helps the local caterer, the hardware store, the hoteliers, and every tradesman in between who makes film and television production possible. Those jobs are going overseas right now simply because other countries are offering bigger handouts. If we want to keep American storytelling in America, we have to level the playing field, and that’s exactly what this bill does. This isn’t about subsidizing Hollywood – it’s about supporting the American worker, one story and one production at a time. I’m proud to work with Senator Scott and our bipartisan group in both chambers to get this done, and I’m grateful to Ambassador Jon Voight and Sean Astin for the work they’ve put into pushing this forward.”
“My Congressional District is home to Trilith Studios, and I proudly represent the craftsmen, electricians, and carpenters who work hard to create movies that inspire generations of Americans,” said Congressman Jack. “Study after study has demonstrated that American film production delivers substantial economic benefits to communities across our country by creating jobs, supporting local businesses, and generating millions of dollars in local economic Activity. I applaud President Trump’s leadership in calling for a legislative solution to bring film production back to the United States, and I look forward to working with him and my colleagues in Congress to advance our legislation and achieve this important goal.”
“For over a year, I’ve worked to build a coalition of unions, studios, Republicans and Democrats, and the White House, because we knew that a national film tax credit would bring hundreds of thousands of jobs back to our country,” said Congresswoman Friedman. “This bill is a result of that coalition. It tells every country that has been outbidding us for American work that we are done losing.”
“For generations, Southern California has been the heart of America’s film and television industry, supporting thousands of workers and small businesses in the San Gabriel Valley and across our region,” said Congresswoman Chu. “But today, too many productions are leaving for other countries, taking good-paying jobs and economic opportunity with them. We cannot stand by while communities across the United States lose these productions and the jobs they support. That’s why I am so proud to co-lead the bipartisan, bicameral Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act, which will create a new federal tax credit to incentivize film and television production here in America. This bill will help bring productions and jobs back home, support our creative workforce, and keep Southern California the entertainment capital of the world.”
“Ohio has a rich history in film production, from ‘The Deer Hunter’ and ‘The Shawshank Redemption’ to ‘The Avengers’ and ‘A Christmas Story,’” said Congressman Carey. “Many of these filming locations have become tourist attractions and are economic drivers to this day. The film industry provides high-paying jobs for artists, small businesses, and union workers. As other countries implement beneficial tax incentives to draw production away from the United States, Congress must work to ensure the United States stays competitive. I would like to commend Representative Moran for introducing this important legislation. As Chairman of the Humanities Caucus and a member of the tax-writing committee, I am confident this bill will help the United States maintain its global influence, as well as the high-paying jobs, associated with film production.”
“The film and TV industry is an economic engine in New York. It supports thousands of good jobs at good wages,” said Congressman Suozzi. “America is the entertainment leader of the world and this bill incentivizes filmmakers and studios to hire American workers. I’m proud to help lead this commonsense, bipartisan effort.”
“Having worked in a movie theater growing up, I saw early on how films can move and inspire generations of Americans. Films like ‘The Notebook’ bring us to tears, and films like ‘Forrest Gump’ inspire us to see the world differently. That is the power of film, and South Carolina is blessed to serve as the backdrop for both of these iconic American stories,” said Senator Scott. “We cannot stand by as more and more American film production moves overseas, taking jobs, investment, and an important source of American cultural influence with it. This legislation will create jobs in communities across America, support local economies, and help ensure that the next generation of iconic American films is made right here in America.”
“For years, I’ve been championing a federal film tax credit to stop the exodus of TV and film production leaving the United States for countries offering higher incentives,” said Senator Schiff. “Now, we have the best opportunity in decades to get it done. The direct and indirect jobs created by this creative and talented workforce are enormously important, and we want to make sure they stay in this country. With the support of the White House, our bill will create an overdue federal program to bring the movie magic back to America while creating thousands of jobs and spurring local economic growth across the nation. This legislation has bipartisan, bicameral support, and it’s time we get this passed.”
The Motion Picture, Television, and Entertainment Revitalization Act would:
Spur American jobs and economic development by providing a 20 percent federal, labor-based tax credit to U.S. film and television productions with minimum spend of $1 million and where at least 75 percent of the principal photography days occur within the United States;
Offer 5 percent bonus credit allowances, increasing the base credit up to a maximum of 30 percent, for productions in rural opportunity zones and areas impacted by disasters, independent productions, multi-state producers in 10+ states, and producers who show a measurable onshoring of productions;
Make the credit available to traditional post-production and visual effects activities when at least 75 percent of the respective post-production and visual effects production takes place in the U.S; and
Support the investments of states currently offering incentives by allowing the federal incentive to supplement state credits.
The bill is endorsed by the American Federation of Musicians, American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers; the Coalition for American Production; CreativeFuture; the Directors Guild of America; FilmUSA; the Independent Film and Television Alliance; the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees; the Motion Picture Association; Netflix; Paramount; the Producers Guild of America; the Screen Actors Guild – American Federation of Television and Radio Artists; Sony Pictures Entertainment; the Teamsters, the Television Academy; the Walt Disney Company; Warner Bros Discovery; the Writers Guild of America East and the Writers Guild of America West; and the U.S. Film and Television Production Coalition.
Statements of support from these organizations and industry leaders are available HERE.
Full text of the bill is available HERE.
###
Issues:Labor and TradeTax Policy
CHANGE Act to improve Alzheimer’s assessment, diagnosis advances out of committee
Position: The release states that the Ways and Means Committee unanimously advanced the bipartisan CHANGE Act, which would direct CMS to identify cognitive impairment detection tools to support earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Representatives supporting the bill say they will continue working to see it enacted.
WASHINGTON – The Ways and Means Committee yesterday unanimously passed the bipartisan Concentrating on High-Value Alzheimer’s Needs to Get to an End (CHANGE) Act, a bill introduced by Representatives Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.), Darin LaHood (R-Ill.), Doris Matsui (D-Calif.) and Gus Bilirakis (R-Fla.) that would promote early detection and diagnosis of Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias.
The CHANGE Act directs the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services to identify cognitive impairment detection tools to help clinicians more effectively detect, refer and diagnose Alzheimer’s and related dementias in their earliest stages when intervention can be most impactful.
The bill was included as part of the Alzheimer’s Screening and Prevention (ASAP) Act, a bipartisan, comprehensive bill to improve the early detection and treatment of Alzheimer’s disease.
“This is deeply personal for me. I lost both of my parents to Alzheimer’s, and I know firsthand how much earlier detection could have meant for our family,” said Congresswoman Sánchez. “Advancing this bill out of committee brings us one step closer to giving other families that chance. I’m grateful to my Ways and Means colleagues for passing our bipartisan bill and will keep fighting to get it signed into law.”
“Alzheimer’s impacts millions of Americans, and we must do everything we can to support the search for a cure. This bipartisan bill provides help to patients and clinicians through expanded early detection support and improved data collection,” said Congressman LaHood. “The CHANGE Act, coupled with the ASAP Act, will strengthen existing tools to help streamline and broaden the ability for earlier diagnosis of Alzheimer's and other forms dementia. I thank Congresswoman Sánchez for her collaboration on this critical legislation and my Ways and Means colleagues for advancing this bill as we work to find ways to support patients, their families, and caregivers.”
“Alzheimer’s touches millions of families, and identifying the disease early can make a meaningful difference for patients and their loved ones,” said Congresswoman Matsui. “The CHANGE Act brings us closer to giving healthcare providers the tools to recognize the warning signs sooner and connect families with the care and support they need. I’m proud this bipartisan legislation is moving forward so more families can have more time, better care, and greater hope.”
“Alzheimer’s is a devastating disease that has touched my family personally, so I understand the tremendous toll it takes not only on patients, but also on the loved ones who care for them,” said Congressman Bilirakis. “As promising new treatments continue to emerge, early detection and diagnosis are more important than ever. The bipartisan CHANGE Act will help ensure patients and their doctors have better tools to identify cognitive decline earlier, when interventions may have the greatest impact. I am pleased to see this important legislation advance out of Committee as part of a broader package, bringing us another step closer to improving care, preserving quality of life, and ultimately finding a cure for this terrible disease.”
An estimated 13.8 million Americans aged 65 and older are projected to develop Alzheimer's by 2060. The CHANGE Act would provide critical support for caregivers and accelerate progress toward effective disease-modifying treatments.
Alzheimer’s disease is the fifth-leading cause of death in America, and it is estimated that Black Americans are twice as likely and Latinos are 1.5 times as likely to develop the disease.
The CHANGE Act is endorsed by UsAgainstAlzheimer’s, American Academy of Neurology, Alzheimer’s Association, Alzheimer’s Foundation of America, AMDA – The Society for Post-Acute and Long-Term Care Medicine, Alliance for Aging Research, Partnership to Fight Chronic Disease, Gerontological Society of America, American Society of Consultant Pharmacists, Latinos Against Alzheimer’s and USAging.
Senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) and Mark Warner (D-Va.) previously introduced companion legislation to the CHANGE Act in the Senate.
###
Issues:Health CareSeniors
Sánchez opening statement at hearing on critical resources, supply chains
Position: Rep. Sánchez argues that the administration's critical minerals agenda has been shaped by conflicts of interest and corrupt conduct, citing federal support for companies tied to administration officials' families, while stating that Democrats support strengthening U.S. critical minerals supply chains and disagree with the administration on how to do so. She also criticizes the administration's tariffs, handling of the Iran conflict, and energy and food prices.
WASHINGTON – Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) delivered opening remarks at the full committee hearing on “Strategic Partnerships to Secure Critical Resources and Supply Chains.”
Video of her opening statement is available HERE and the text follows:
“Thank you, Chairman Smith. I’d like to begin this morning by congratulating Ranking Member Richie Neal on his primary victory last night.
We look forward to serving with him in his next term.
I also want to thank the witnesses for joining us today.
Critical minerals are a timely and important topic. But we really need to put this hearing into perspective.
Americans’ pocketbooks are feeling the squeeze, thanks to Trump’s nonsensical war with Iran and his disastrous economic policies.
Gas is up 38% in just six months. Beef prices are up nearly 10% just this year.
And meanwhile, Trump is doubling down on his illegal tariffs, even after his Supreme Court defeat and starting a self-defeating trade war with Canada.
Instead of stroking his own ego and renaming lakes, Trump should listen to what’s worrying American households.
Though despicable, the president’s actions are not surprising. What is disheartening, however, is the silence from congressional Republicans, which allows this circus to continue.
With Congress stepping back, shady backroom deals have become a defining feature of this administration. Just this week, we learned of a murky oil deal the president struck with Venezuela.
Meanwhile, the American people are kept in the dark because Republicans don’t want us asking “Who really profits from this chaos?”
To answer that, one needs to look no further than President Trump’s critical minerals agenda.
Let me be clear: Ways and Means Democrats have long supported strengthening U.S. critical minerals supply chains. We need to invest in clean energy and technology, create good-paying American jobs and reduce our reliance on China.
That is not where we disagree. The issue is how we get there and who gets rich along the way.
Democrats will not turn a blind eye to the Trump administration’s corrupt conduct.
For example:
The New York Times found that 14 companies tied to Trump cabinet officials’ families are seeking or receiving nearly $9 billion in federal support, including a lucrative critical minerals project in Kazakhstan.
Another example is Vulcan Elements.
Donald Trump Jr.’s investment firm took a stake in the company and, just months later, the Pentagon announced a $620 million loan to Vulcan, followed by another $50 million in federal support.
ProPublica reported that the loan process was accelerated after the White House intervened on the company’s behalf.
Then there is USA Rare Earth.
With Cantor Fitzgerald as its lead placement agent, the company raised $1.5 billion in private capital while seeking an equity stake and $1.6 billion gift from Commerce.
And who leads Cantor Fitzgerald? Secretary Lutnick’s sons.
These cases demand answers.
We are not talking about pocket change—we’re talking about hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars that are on the line.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is weakening oversight at institutions like EXIM and DFC, laying the groundwork for politically connected insiders to profit at the public’s expense.
Competition with China is no excuse for abandoning safeguards which prevent taxpayer funds from being misused for private enrichment.
We also cannot say that because China is a strategic competitor, every mining deal is automatically a good deal.
Securing our supply chains does not mean we have to sacrifice labor rights, human rights or environmental protections.
[America] can compete with China and uphold democratic values.
We can secure critical minerals and create jobs for American workers.
We can also build supply chains without recreating the exploitative systems that have historically defined global mining.
Congress has a duty to ensure that American taxpayer dollars are invested in projects that serve the national interests.
The resources of the United States government belong to the American people — not to the president’s family, not to cabinet officials’ families nor to their business associates.
So, I challenge my Republican colleagues: Do not waste this hearing by digging for fool’s gold while real conflicts of interest stare us in the face.
And with that I yield back.”
###
Issues:National Security and Foreign PolicyTax Policy
Sánchez introduces bill to strengthen Social Security benefits for widows, widowers
Position: Introduces the POWR Act, which would adjust Social Security survivor benefit calculations for surviving spouses in two-income households, including an alternative benefit equal to 75% of a couple's combined benefits.
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.), a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee, today introduced the Protecting Our Widows and Widowers in Retirement (POWR) Act, a bill to improve financial security for widows and widowers by adjusting the way the Social Security Administration calculates insurance benefits for surviving spouses in two-income households.
“The grief of losing a loved one shouldn’t be compounded by the stress of financial hardship,” said Congresswoman Sánchez. “Sadly, that’s the reality for too many surviving spouses, who can lose half their household income overnight. The POWR Act moves to fix that. After decades of hard work and paying into the system, widows and widowers deserve to keep the benefits they earned together.”
“The nonpartisan Elder Justice Coalition is proud to support the POWR Act,” said Bob Blancato, national coordinator of the Elder Justice Coalition. “Social Security is about promoting economic security. The two provisions of the POWR Act aim to remedy shortcomings that prevent widows, widowers and those on SSI from achieving that. We commend Rep. Sánchez for leading this important reform effort.”
According to the National Academy of Social Insurance, women are more likely to suffer a greater financial hit following the loss of a spouse. Despite higher workforce participation rates, women continue to rely more heavily on Social Security than men. The average widow sees a 33% to 50% drop in her benefits after the death of a spouse.
However, surviving spouses typically need 79% of the couple’s prior combined income just to maintain their standard of living. The POWR Act closes that gap, creating an alternative benefit equal to 75% of a couple’s combined Social Security benefits.
The POWR Act is cosponsored by Representatives Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), Steve Cohen (D-Tenn.), Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.) and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).
It is endorsed by the Elder Justice Coalition, Alliance for Retired Americans and National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
The full text of the bill is available HERE.
###
Issues:Seniors
54 House Democrats raise concerns over Trump administration’s critical minerals agreements
Position: Democratic members of the House call on the Trump administration to address concerns about recently announced critical minerals agreements, citing lack of transparency and enforceable labor, human rights, and environmental protections, and call for a transparent, accountable negotiation process and sustainable critical minerals mining.
WASHINGTON – Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), Natural Resources Committee Ranking Member Jared Huffman (D-Calif.) and Congressman Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.) today led 51 of their House Democratic colleagues in calling on the Trump administration to address concerns about its recently announced critical minerals agreements.
The deals lack transparency and enforceable protections for labor rights, human rights and the environment, while potentially enriching Trump administration insiders and placing financial risk onto American taxpayers without congressional oversight.
The New York Times has even reported that companies linked to the families of President Trump and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick would profit from a U.S.-backed critical minerals agreement in Kazakhstan.
“In light of these concerns, we call for a transparent and accountable negotiation process, alongside a clear commitment to advancing high-road, sustainable critical minerals mining and processing,” the members wrote. “The United States must also engage partner countries with respect for their sovereignty and support value-addition in critical minerals supply chains that strengthens emerging economies and ensures exploitative practices of the past are not repeated.”
In addition to Sánchez, Huffman and Jackson, the letter was signed by Gabe Amo (D-R.I.), Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), Becca Balint (D-Vt.), Donald Beyer (D-Va.), Suzanne Bonamici (D-Ore.), Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Salud Carbajal (D-Calif.), Greg Casar (D-Texas), Kathy Castor (D-Fla.), Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), Judy Chu (D-Calif.), Danny Davis (D-Ill.), Diana DeGette (D-Colo.), Mark DeSaulnier (D-Calif.), Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.), Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.), Lloyd Doggett (D-Texas), Sarah Elfreth (D-Md.), Dwight Evans (D-Pa.), John Garamendi (D-Calif.), Jesús García (D-Ill.), Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Pablo Hernández (D-Puerto Rico), Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), John Larson (D-Conn.), Summer Lee (D-Pa.), Mike Levin (D-Calif.), Betty McCollum (D-Minn.), James McGovern (D-Mass.), Kelly Morrison (D-Minn.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Johnny Olszewski (D-Md.), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), Frank Pallone (D-N.J.), Mark Pocan (D-Wis.), Nellie Pou (D-N.J.), Mike Quigley (D-Ill.), Luz Rivas (D-Calif.), Deborah Ross (D-N.C.), Andrea Salinas (D-Ore.), Janice Schakowsky (D-Ill.), Melanie Stansbury (D-N.M.), Shri Thanedar (D-Mich.), Dina Titus (D-Nev.), Paul Tonko (D-N.Y.), Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-N.J.).
Full text of the letter is available HERE and follows:
August 17, 2026
Ambassador Greer
U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th St. NW,
Washington, D.C. 20508
Secretary Rubio
U.S. Department of State
2201 C Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20520
Secretary Lutnick
U.S. Department of Commerce
1401 Constitution Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20230
Secretary Bessent
U.S. Department of the Treasury
1500 Pennsylvania Ave., NW
Washington, D.C. 20220
Dear Ambassador Greer, Secretary Rubio, Secretary Lutnick, and Secretary Bessent:
We write to raise serious concerns with the administration’s recent international agreements related to critical minerals, including framework agreements, agreements on reciprocal trade, action plans, memoranda of understanding (MOU), and a potential Plurilateral Agreement on Trade in Critical Minerals. While we have long supported efforts to strengthen U.S. critical minerals supply chains to build our clean energy and technology industries and to reduce reliance on China, several of these “deals” raise concerns regarding transparency, labor and human rights, environmental protections, and insufficient congressional oversight.
As you know, poorly regulated mining and minerals processing has a well-documented record of environmental damage, displacement and harm to Indigenous communities, and widespread labor and human rights violations. Any agreement facilitating trade in critical minerals must directly address these harms and avoid reinforcing extractive models that prioritize mining profits over communities and workers.
All minerals-related trade negotiations must also allow for broad public participation and congressional review and approval, as required by Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. We were alarmed to hear about the administration’s threats to use “trade-restricting measures” in negotiating critical minerals agreements which directly usurp Congressional prerogatives on trade.
Our scrutiny of executive overreach in critical minerals agreements is not new. Republican and Democratic congressional leaders alike sharply criticized the Biden administration’s critical minerals trade deal with Japan for circumventing Congress’s trade authority and lacking enforceable labor, human rights, and environmental standards.
Unfortunately, the Trump administration expanded this approach, announcing critical minerals deals and related provisions in the broader “reciprocal” trade deals without meaningful consultation with Congress nor the communities that would be most impacted. A letter sent to Secretary Rubio by more than 50 House members last August requesting basic information about the negotiations of a critical minerals deal with the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) went unanswered.
We were alarmed to learn the Trump administration has since signed a “Strategic Partnership Agreement” (SPA) with the DRC which calls for sweeping changes to the DRC’s constitution and grants U.S. companies a “right of first offer” on mining concessions. The SPA has paved the way for foreign mining companies to extract the DRC’s mineral wealth amid a violent conflict, all while mass violence and human rights violations continue. In this context, reports the U.S. helped fund a paramilitary force to guard mining operations in the DRC and may lift Magnitsky Act sanctions on businessman Dan Gertler to facilitate a cobalt deal, are especially troubling.
We were further troubled to learn that U.S. development assistance is being used as leverage in critical minerals negotiations. It is callous and unacceptable that the State Department threatened to withhold HIV medicines and other lifesaving assistance for the Zambian people to pressure the Zambian government into signing a critical minerals agreement with the U.S. The Trump administration’s cuts to foreign aid, particularly for healthcare assistance, have also threatened workforce stability, economic development, and broader U.S. strategic interests in partner countries.
We also note significant issues with the critical minerals provisions included in several Agreements on Reciprocal Trade (ART). The ART with Malaysia prevents export restrictions on critical minerals which some emerging economies rely on to promote value addition, increase government revenue, and support downstream development. ARTs with Argentina, Ecuador, Cambodia and Bangladesh explicitly require countries to facilitate U.S. mining investment in their countries without requiring any binding environmental, labor, or human rights commitments.
In addition, provisions within the MOU concluded with Malaysia establish an institutional channel for the United States to influence mining policy and governance in Malaysia while skirting Congressional involvement, international agreements, and public debate. The text explicitly encourages “streamlining permitting processes”. Under the Trump administration “streamlining” policies for domestic mining has included dramatically limiting environmental review, eliminating opportunities for public input, and weakening or repealing environmental protections. This MOU, and others modeled on it, could therefore provide a channel for the Trump administration to push its deregulatory agenda onto partner countries without scrutiny.
Finally, we are deeply concerned these deals commit U.S. taxpayers to billions in direct loans and loan guarantees by the Development Finance Corporation (DFC) and Export-Import Bank and other federal equity investments in mining and processing. These structures shift risk onto U.S. taxpayers while encouraging companies to take on riskier projects. If projects succeed, companies keep the profits; if they fail, taxpayers help absorb losses.
Absent strong transparency and accountability measures, these investments and loan guarantees raise risks of conflicts of interest, self-dealing, preferential treatment, and weakened oversight. The Export-Import Bank inspector general position has remained vacant for months, and the recent DFC reauthorization expanded the agency’s authorities while reducing congressional oversight, leaving hundreds of billions of dollars in U.S. government-backed financing without credible safeguards against corruption or misuse of taxpayer funds. Recent reporting by the New York Times that members of the Trump and Lutnick families could be enriched through U.S.-financed critical minerals deals underscores this concern.
These risks are compounded by the Trump administration’s pursuit of critical minerals agreements that include price floors. Depending on the goals and design of coordinated price support mechanisms, they could facilitate cartel-like behavior inconsistent with U.S. antitrust law and inadvertently benefit Chinese firms elsewhere in the critical minerals supply chain. Without rigorous safeguards, traceability requirements, and restrictions on participation by Chinese state-linked firms, these mechanisms could inadvertently reinforce China’s dominance in global supply chains rather than reduce U.S. dependence on it.
In light of these concerns, we call for a transparent and accountable negotiation process, alongside a clear commitment to advancing high-road, sustainable critical minerals mining and processing. The United States must also engage partner countries with respect for their sovereignty and support value-addition in critical minerals supply chains that strengthens emerging economies and ensures exploitative practices of the past are not repeated.
In addition, we request answers to the following questions:
Will the Trump administration include binding standards and enforcement mechanisms in its critical minerals arrangements to protect the environment, communities, and the full range of internationally recognized labor rights, not only the prohibition of forced labor? How will compliance be measured, verified, and reported? And what penalties will apply when violations occur?
How will the administration ensure that the U.S.-backed paramilitary force in the Democratic Republic of the Congo respects human rights and does not interfere with the exercise of internationally recognized labor rights, including freedom of association?
What assessment, if any, has the administration conducted regarding the impact of recent reductions or disruptions in U.S. foreign assistance, particularly healthcare and HIV/AIDS programming, on U.S. mining companies operating abroad and the local workforce on which those companies rely?
Mineral circularity, the practice of minimizing waste and maximizing the lifespan of minerals, has the potential to create American jobs, improve supply chain resilience, and reduce unnecessary waste. Will the U.S. integrate circularity requirements or incentives into its critical minerals arrangements to ensure that minerals are reused, refurbished, and recycled as often as possible?
What specific safeguards are in place to ensure that U.S. taxpayer-financed DFC and Export-Import Bank-backed guarantees do not incentivize excessively risky overseas mining projects or unfairly benefit specific firms, investors, or political interests? How will the projects supported by this financing benefit workers in the United States and in the countries where the projects are located?
How will the administration ensure that the U.S. government’s acquisition of equity stakes in critical minerals firms will not result in conflicts of interest, self-dealing, preferential treatment, or weakened regulatory oversight and enforcement?
What safeguards are in place to ensure that a proposed price floor for critical minerals does not enable coordination among firms or otherwise create antitrust risks associated with price-setting?
How will the administration ensure that any price floor arrangement does not allow Chinese firms or state-linked entities to benefit from third-country production, concentration of downstream processing and refining capacity, or transshipment?
The administration has worked to accelerate deep-sea mining of critical minerals including with the recent U.S.-Japan MOU on deep-sea mineral resource development, ordering agencies to commence mapping and expedite permitting despite a lack of scientific studies. Has the administration conducted environmental impact assessments of how these activities could affect fisheries, ocean carbon storage, and coastal economies? Does the administration have a plan to address potential harm and, if so, what has been proposed?
Strong, mutually beneficial trade partnerships are essential to securing U.S. critical minerals supply chains. How is the administration ensuring that its critical minerals strategy does not limit partner countries to extractive roles, but instead supports their ability to develop value-added processing and manufacturing capacity that promotes economic development rather than dependence?
###
Issues:Labor and TradeNational Security and Foreign Policy
Sánchez, CHC colleagues lead amicus brief in fight over IRS-ICE taxpayer data sharing
Position: Members of Congress filed an amicus brief urging the First Circuit to uphold a court order blocking ICE from using or viewing taxpayer addresses obtained from the IRS, arguing the disclosures violate federal tax confidentiality protections and Congress's prerogatives.
WASHINGTON – Congresswoman Linda Sánchez (D-Calif.), along with fellow Congressional Hispanic Caucus members Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Senator Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) and Congressman Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), led 85 House and Senate Democrats in filing a bicameral amicus brief urging the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit to uphold a lower court’s order blocking Immigration and Customs Enforcement from using – or even viewing – tens of thousands of taxpayers’ addresses obtained from the IRS.
The brief was filed in Community Economic Development Center of Southeastern Massachusetts v. Bessent, the government’s appeal of preliminary relief ordered by Judge Indira Talwani of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
In February, Judge Talwani found that the IRS’s transfer of more than 47,000 taxpayer addresses to ICE in August 2025 likely violated federal tax law, which permits disclosures to law enforcement only when tied to a specific, individualized criminal investigation. Her order froze the underlying data-sharing arrangement and barred ICE from making any further use of the information it had already received.
The lawmakers’ brief argues that reversing Judge Talwani’s order would gut a confidentiality standard Congress has repeatedly declined to loosen for immigration enforcement – rejecting proposals to do so as recently as 2006 – and that the IRS itself assured ITIN filers for nearly three decades would hold. The brief also warns that ICE’s request was so broad, and so stripped of individual identifiers, that it risked sweeping in the wrong people entirely.
“Amici submit this brief to make clear how the Administration’s actions and change in policy encroach upon powers reserved by the Constitution for Congress and contravenes Congress’s longstanding prerogative to prioritize collection of federal tax revenues by preserving the confidentiality of return information,” wrote the amici curiae. “[The] disclosure to ICE imperils effective tax administration, the reliance of millions of taxpayers, and Congress’s clear prerogative to decide when and how sensitive tax information may be used for non-tax purposes.”
This is the fifth brief CHC members have led in litigation challenging the IRS-ICE data-sharing arrangement, part of a continued push in Congress to hold the administration accountable after IRS leadership has repeatedly declined to answer lawmakers’ questions about the disclosures. Unlike two earlier cases, which addressed the data-sharing agreement on paper and how the IRS carried it out, this case is the only one where a court has stopped ICE from using taxpayer data already in its possession.
A copy of the brief is available HERE.
###
Issues:ImmigrationTax Policy
Position: Criticizes the administration's new tariffs, which it says are framed as combating forced labor, arguing the tariffs are not a serious effort against forced labor, are an effort to bypass the Supreme Court and Congress, and that the administration has weakened forced-labor enforcement and worker protections. Calls for addressing domestic prison labor exports.
WASHINGTON – Ways and Means Trade Subcommittee Ranking Member Linda T. Sánchez (D-Calif.) released the following statement in response to the latest round of tariffs, which the Trump administration claims are to combat forced labor:
“President Trump isn’t serious about combating forced labor. He’s trying to make an end-run around the Supreme Court and Congress to reimpose his illegal tariffs.
“If he was serious, he would not be applying the same tariff rate to China, one of the worst forced labor abusers in the world, as he does to countries like Australia. Then again, unlike China, Australia doesn't manufacture any Trump corporation products.
“This is the same administration that gutted funding to combat forced labor through cuts to the Bureau of International Labor Affairs and rolled back worker protections here at home, while encouraging companies to profit off some of the world’s worst forced labor abusers through his proposed U.S.-China Board of Trade.
“We need to take forced labor seriously. But that includes addressing our problems here at home, including by taking on the export of goods made with American prison labor. Slapping more tariffs on every country that upsets the president isn’t the way to do it.”
###
Issues:Labor and TradeNational Security and Foreign Policy
Articles from a curated list of national outlets that mention Linda T. Sánchez.
No recent news mentions yet.
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.FEDERATION OF AMERICAN HOSPITALS PAC3 contributions$15,000
2.AMERICAN CRYSTAL SUGAR COMPANY POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEAgriculture2 contributionsAgricultural processing PAC for American Crystal Sugar — backs candidates supporting farm subsidies, sugar price supports, and agricultural trade policies.AI$10,000
3.INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SHEET METAL, AIR, RAIL AND TRANSPORTATION WORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUELabor2 contributionsTrade-union PAC for sheet metal, air, rail, and transportation workers — backs candidates supporting union organizing, prevailing wages, and infrastructure investment.AI$10,000
4.KPMG PARTNERS/PRINCIPALS AND EMPLOYEES PACFinance2 contributionsPAC of KPMG, a multinational professional-services and accounting firm. Backs candidates supporting business-friendly tax policy, regulatory efficiency, and professional-services industry interests.AI$10,000
5.UNITED PARCEL SERVICE INC. PAC2 contributions$10,000
6.BURNS & MCDONNELL INC. PAC2 contributions$10,000
7.THE COUNCIL OF INSURANCE AGENTS & BROKERS POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEEFinance3 contributionsInsurance-industry PAC representing agents and brokers — backs candidates supporting favorable regulatory and tax treatment of insurance distribution and sales.AI$10,000
8.SELECT MEDICAL CORPORATION PAC2 contributions$10,000
9.NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE3 contributions$10,000
10.WINE & SPIRITS WHOLESALERS OF AMERICA, INC. POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE2 contributions$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.INVARIANT$14,000
2.RESOLUTION PUBLIC AFFAIRS$7,500
3.COMCAST$7,000
4.HACKMAN CAPITAL PARTNERS$7,000
5.CASSIDY & ASSOC$7,000
6.MILLER BARONDESS$7,000
7.S-3 GROUP$6,000
8.RIDGELINE ADVOCACY GROUP$6,000
9.NFP$6,000
10.ROCK CREEK COUNSEL$6,000
Source: OpenFEC Schedule A receipts where contributor type is “individual,” aggregated by the donor's self-reported employer. This is a geographic / industry correlation, not a corporate endorsement.
