See how Lori Trahan actually votes — against your values.
DeepSyte scores Lori Trahan'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 Lori Trahan's votes line up with your views.
Prediction track record
How often we called Lori Trahan'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.
Based on 9 data points across public statements and recorded votes · AI analysis of public records
118-hr-7511·Consistent
Laken Riley Act
78/100
What they said
Sep 9, 2026
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes oversight, transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration detention operations. The Laken Riley Act mandates detention of non-U.S. nationals arrested for certain property crimes and authorizes state lawsuits against the federal government over immigration enforcement decisions. The rep's NO vote aligns with the statement's focus on humane treatment and accountability—the bill's mandatory detention requirements and state-lawsuit provisions could be seen as expanding detention without addressing the detention conditions and transparency concerns the statement raises. However, the bill and statement address somewhat different specific questions: the statement focuses on facility conditions and oversight access, while the bill addresses detention mandates and enforcement liability.
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in ICE detention operations. The POLICE Act focuses on deportability for assaults on law enforcement and does not directly address detention conditions or facility oversight. The rep's NO vote is consistent with a broader concern for immigrant rights and due process, though the bill and statement address different specific aspects of immigration enforcement—one procedural/punitive, the other about facility conditions and oversight.
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in immigration enforcement. The bill creates deportation grounds for Social Security and identity document fraud. While the statement does not directly address fraud-based deportation policy, it reflects a broader concern for due process and fair treatment of immigrants in custody. A NO vote on a bill that expands deportation grounds is generally consistent with advocacy for humane immigration enforcement and accountability, though the statement's focus on detention conditions and the bill's focus on fraud-based deportability are distinct policy questions within the immigration domain.
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in immigration detention operations. The bill prohibits using school facilities to shelter undocumented immigrants. While the rep's NO vote aligns with a broader pro-immigrant stance reflected in the statement's call for humane treatment, the bill addresses a specific operational question (use of school facilities for shelter) that the statement does not directly discuss. The vote is consistent with the statement's general orientation toward immigrant welfare, but the specific policy mechanism differs.
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in ICE detention operations. The bill penalizes jurisdictions that restrict cooperation with immigration enforcement and information-sharing with DHS. While the statement does not explicitly address sanctuary city policies or federal funding conditions, the rep's NO vote aligns with a broader concern for detainee protections and skepticism toward enforcement-focused immigration measures. The vote is consistent with the statement's emphasis on oversight and humane treatment, though the bill addresses a different specific mechanism (funding penalties for non-cooperation) than the statement's focus on detention conditions.
Continuing Appropriations and Border Security Enhancement Act, 2024
75/100
What they said
Sep 9, 2026
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes oversight, transparency, and humane treatment of ICE detainees. The bill is a continuing appropriations measure that includes restrictions on DHS immigration-related spending. While the statement does not explicitly address appropriations levels or asylum eligibility limits, a NO vote on a bill that restricts DHS immigration funding and limits asylum eligibility is generally consistent with advocacy for detainee protections and accountability—such restrictions could limit resources for detention operations or enforcement. However, the bill bundles multiple provisions (general appropriations, asylum limits, DHS restrictions) and the statement does not directly address the specific policy trade-offs, creating some ambiguity about what drove the vote.
Transnational Criminal Organization Illicit Spotter Prevention and Elimination Act
75/100
What they said
Sep 9, 2026
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations. The bill criminalizes interference with border control and enhances penalties for immigration-related crimes. While the statement does not directly address criminal penalties for border interference, the rep's NO vote is consistent with a broader posture skeptical of enforcement-focused immigration measures that lack emphasis on due process protections or humanitarian safeguards. The statement's focus on detainee conditions and accountability aligns with potential concerns about enforcement-heavy legislation, though the bill's specific provisions (criminal penalties for spotters, border device destruction) are not explicitly addressed in the statement.
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in immigration detention operations. The Secure the Border Act focuses on border wall construction and asylum restrictions rather than detention facility conditions or oversight mechanisms. The rep's NO vote aligns with concern for detainee welfare and skepticism of enforcement-focused immigration policy, but the bill and statement address different specific aspects of immigration enforcement—detention conditions versus border security infrastructure. The vote is consistent with the statement's general orientation but not directly responsive to its core concern.
Detain and Deport Illegal Aliens Who Assault Cops Act
45/100
What they said
Sep 9, 2026
The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
The statement emphasizes humane treatment, transparency, and accountability in ICE detention operations. The bill mandates detention of non-U.S. nationals who assault law enforcement. While both address immigration enforcement, they target different specific questions: the statement calls for improved conditions and oversight of existing detention; the bill expands mandatory detention authority for a specific category of offenders. The rep's NO vote aligns with skepticism toward expanded detention mandates, consistent with the statement's focus on humane treatment and accountability, but the bill does not directly address detention conditions or transparency—the core concerns raised in the statement.
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 Lori Trahan'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 Lori Trahan yet. Once their campaign website or position pages are processed, this card will track what they said vs how they voted.
Crossing the aisle
No party-break passage votes recorded for Lori Trahan. Either they've voted with Democrats on every substantive passage vote in the corpus, or their tenure overlaps few high-threshold party-line votes so far.
Trahan, Warren Statement Following Burlington ICE Facility Site Visit
Position: The representatives conducted an oversight visit to an ICE detention facility and expressed concern about conditions for detainees, calling for transparency, humane treatment, and accountability in immigration enforcement operations.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03) and U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) released the following statement following a congressional oversight visit to Burlington ICE facility yesterday, where dozens of individuals have been detained:
“Today we exercised our constitutional duty to conduct unannounced Congressional oversight of an ICE facility. Immigration attorneys and community advocates have shared deeply concerning testimonies with our offices of individuals being detained by ICE for multiple days without access to adequate food, medical care, or sleeping conditions. During the hour-long inspection of the Burlington facility, we witnessed over a dozen individuals held for processing, questioned ICE on our constituents’ concerns, and pressed for humane treatment of those in custody. We’ll continue showing up and fighting for transparency, decency, and accountability.”
Trahan Joins Over 250 Current & Former Members of Congress Urging Supreme Court to Block Trump’s Executive Order Limiting Mail Voting
Position: Congresswoman Trahan joined 260 other current and former members of Congress in filing an amicus brief with the Supreme Court opposing President Trump's executive order and USPS rule that would restrict mail-in voting, arguing the executive branch lacks constitutional authority to unilaterally regulate federal elections.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03) joined a bipartisan effort to challenge President Donald Trump’s efforts to limit mail-in voting. The court filing questions the legality of Donald Trump’s Executive Order seeking to exert federal control over mail-in ballots ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
“As current and former legislators, amici took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States—including its guarantee of the separation of powers. Amici have a particular interest in defending the institutional role of the Legislative Branch under Article I of the Constitution and in vindicating the long-settled principle that the Constitution commits ultimate regulatory authority over federal elections to Congress. The Constitution does not contemplate the Executive Branch acting unilaterally to assert power over federal elections. Yet that is what the Order and Final Rule do,” the lawmakers wrote.
Te group, made up of a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of 261 lawmakers, filed an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of the United States in the matter of United States Postal Service, et al., v. State of California, et al., a lawsuit brought by a coalition of State Attorneys General against the U.S. Postal Service. The court case challenges a Final Rule issued by the USPS pursuant to Trump’s directive that imposes unconstitutional and unworkable restrictions on mail-in voting, including requiring states to provide a “citizenship verification list” and attempting to give USPS control over who can vote by mail.
The amici also pointed to a recent federal court ruling blocking the USPS from implementing its newly finalized mail ballot rule for the midterm elections, saying the agency lacked the authority to implement the rule and that its actions are “substantively unconstitutional and contrary to law.”
“The district court correctly concluded that Appellees are likely to succeed on the merits of their claims that USPS lacked authority to issue the Final Rule, that the Final Rule unconstitutionally imposes mail-ballot requirements on the States, and that the Final Rule unconstitutionally bars non-compliant State and local election officials from using the USPS to mail ballots at all,” the lawmakers continued.
The group concluded by asserting states’ power to administer elections and Congress’s power to make or alter rules regulating elections, which the Supreme Court itself has described as an “override” authority. The president’s illegal incursion on this authority is an attempt to disenfranchise people who depend on mail-in ballots to vote.
The lawmakers concluded: “The integrity of our constitutional system depends on each branch keeping to its assigned role. The Framers set up a two-part system that gave the States default authority to regulate federal elections subject to Congress’s authority to override the States. The Framers did not provide the President with any authority to interfere in that system, nor has Congress imbued the Executive Branch with any such authority by statute.”
In the court filing, the amici curiae argue that Trump’s Executive Order 14399, “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” violates the separation of powers and usurps congressional authorities outlined in Article I of the U.S. Constitution, which gives the states and Congress exclusive authority over election administration.
One-third of Americans are expected to vote by mail in the upcoming midterm elections, a voting practice Donald Trump himself used as recently as August 2026, when the president voted in Florida’s Republican primary.
Trahan has been a fierce voice against Donald Trump’s attack on mail-in voting. In 2025, she led calls against the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act, which requires voters to provide a birth certificate, naturalization papers, or passport matching their current name to vote in a federal election. Since arriving to Congress, Trahan has championed legislation to make voting more accessible for all Americans, including co-sponsoring the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and securing House passage of proposals to enhance ballot access for the families of servicemembers and prohibit the agents of foreign governments from exercising influence over the drawing of new congressional districts.
Click HERE to view the full brief.
Trahan, Bacon Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Support 988 Call Centers
Position: The release introduces bipartisan legislation to authorize $441 million in federal funding for 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline call centers, including support for technology, trained mental health professionals, peer support workers, and evidence-based intervention training.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03), Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Task Force, and Congressman Don Bacon (R-NE-02) introduced the bipartisan 988 Call Center Improvement Act. The legislation would authorize $441 million in federal funding for technology and support staff for the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline, including licensed mental health professionals and training in evidence-based interventions.
“Every call to 988 is an act of courage made in a moment of crisis,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “Making sure the people answering those calls have what they need to help is the least we can do. This bill is one piece of the puzzle, not the whole thing. That’s wh
I am working alongside my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support 988 services across the board, so no call goes unanswered and no center is left without what it needs.”
“When someone calls 988 during a mental health crisis, they should be able to quickly reach trained professionals who can connect them with the care they need,” said Congressman Bacon. “The 988 Call Center Improvement Act will strengthen local call centers by improving technology, supporting trained staff and expanding follow-up services so more people receive timely, effective help. I’m pleased to join Rep. Trahan on this bipartisan legislation to strengthen our mental health crisis response system.”
Specifically, the 988 Call Center Improvement Act would:
Invest in technology necessary to expand capacity and increase local response rates;
Provide follow-up and follow-through services so that individuals are effectively engaged with local behavioral health crisis options;
Support staff, including licensed mental health professionals and peer support workers;
Train staff and volunteers in providing evidence-based interventions, including for high-risk populations.
The 988 Call Center Improvement Act was included as part of the 988 Implementation Act, a comprehensive legislative package of bipartisan bills led by Trahan, Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA-07), and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01) to address gaps in care for individuals experiencing mental health crises. The broader bipartisan package would strengthen federal funding for 988 regional and local call centers to deliver timely, 24/7 response to callers while expanding community-based and mobile crisis response and increasing awareness of 988 services.
Since being sworn into Congress in 2019, Trahan has led efforts to expand access to quality mental health care and improve the resources and support of those in need of care. In 2022, President Joe Biden signed into law Trahan’s Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Memorial Reauthorization Act, which reauthorized and strengthening community-based youth and young adult suicide prevention efforts.
Earlier this year, she led a bipartisan group of 100 House members demanding the Trump administration reverse its decision to terminate thousands of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grants that fund local mental health and addiction prevention, treatment, and recovery programs across the country. This past May, Trahan introduced the bipartisan Campus Lifeline Act of 2026, legislation aiming to expand awareness and access to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for students and young adults.
Full text of the 988 Call Center Improvement Act can be found HERE.
Trahan Introduces Bipartisan Legislation to Improve 988 Services
Position: The release advocates for federal legislation to expand and strengthen the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline through increased federal funding, mobile crisis response services, insurance coverage requirements, and workforce development.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03), Co-Chair of the Bipartisan Mental Health and Substance Use Disorder Task Force, introduced the bipartisan 988 Implementation Act, a comprehensive bipartisan legislative package that will provide states with federal funding and resources to build a crisis response infrastructure behind the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline. The legislative package is also co-led by Congresswoman Doris Matsui (D-CA-07) and Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01).
“Calling 988 takes courage, and answering takes patience and care. Our job is to support both,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “We all know someone who has struggled with mental health or substance use and wished there was more help within reach. This bill delivers it, with a faster response, a real place to turn, and trained professionals ready to pick up the phone.”
“When someone reaches out for help in a moment of crisis, we have a responsibility to make sure help is there,” said Congresswoman Matsui. “988 has become a lifesaving resource for millions of Americans, but answering the call cannot be where our responsibility ends. We built a national front door to crisis care with 988. Now we need to strengthen what comes next by expanding mobile crisis response, increasing access to immediate community-based care, and connecting people to the treatment and support they need.”
“Everyday, millions of Americans face mental challenges and are unsure where to go for help,” said Congressman Fitzpatrick. “The 988 hotline streamlines resources for those in need, as part of a network of over 200 local crisis centers, yet only thirteen-percent of adults are aware of this critical resource. I am proud to join a bipartisan group of colleagues in introducing the 988 Implementation Act to build upon the critical progress we have made, and further ensure that our communities are properly equipped with crisis-response services.”
As America’s mental health crisis worsens, 988 has spent the past four years demonstrating the lifesaving power of connecting people in crisis with the right help at the right time. A study published this year by the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) found that suicide deaths among children and young adults fell 11% below projected levels following the launch of 988, the largest declines were seen in states where 988 use increased most.
The 988 Implementation Act will help address those gaps in access to care by:
Strengthening federal funding for 988 regional and local call centers to deliver timely, 24/7 response to callers;
Expanding community-based and mobile crisis response so trained behavioral health professionals can reach someone who needs in-person support;
Improving access and affordability by requiring health insurance plans to cover crisis services;
Growing crisis workforce development with more funding for training and scholarship opportunities;
Increasing awareness of 988 through a national suicide prevention and crisis services campaign.
Trahan, Matsui and Fitzpatrick are joined by original cosponsors Representatives Nanette Barragán (D-CA-44), Troy Carter (D-LA-02), Seth Moulton (D-MA-06), Dan Goldman (D-NY-10), Don Beyer (D-VA-08), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), and Becca Balint (D-VT-AL).
Since being sworn into Congress in 2019, Trahan has led efforts to expand access to quality mental health care and improve the resources and support of those in need of care. In 2022, President Joe Biden signed Trahan’s Garrett Lee Smith (GLS) Memorial Reauthorization Act which ensured the continuation and strengthening of community-based youth and young adult suicide prevention efforts.
Earlier this year, she spearheaded a bipartisan group of 100 House members demanding the Trump administration reverse its decision to terminate thousands of Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration grants that fund local mental health and addiction prevention, treatment, and recovery programs across the country. This past May, Trahan led the bipartisan introduction of the Campus Lifeline Act of 2026, legislation aiming to expand awareness and access to the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline for students and young adults.
Full text of the 988 Implementation Act can be found HERE.
ICYMI: Public Knowledge Calls the FRONTIER Act “the best proposal (so far)” for Reining In Frontier AI
Position: Congresswoman Trahan supports the FRONTIER Act, which establishes a federal risk-based framework for overseeing advanced AI models, requiring developers to publish safety frameworks, undergo independent audits, and report critical incidents to a new Commerce Department office.
In a new analysis, the consumer advocacy group Public Knowledge backed Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) and Congressman Jay Obernolte’s (R-CA-23) Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting (FRONTIER) Act, calling it the strongest proposal yet to manage the risks of the most powerful AI systems.
“The frontier needs real rules, not voluntary guardrails. That requires binding legal regimes for evaluating and managing the risks from frontier models: as they are being developed, before they are deployed, and after they are in widespread use,” wrote Nicholas Garcia, Senior Policy Counsel at Public Knowledge. “The best proposal (so far) to move past frameworks, lists of principles, or nibbling at the edges of this challenge is the ‘Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting (FRONTIER) Act’ from Representatives Jay Obernolte and Lori Trahan.”
“For years, Public Knowledge has been one of the most serious and principled voices fighting to protect the public from the risks posed by cutting edge technologies. When they engaged in the discussion draft process, we took their criticisms seriously and worked with them to address their concerns,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “That kind of rigorous, good-faith feedback is a big reason the FRONTIER Act is the strongest frontier AI safety legislation ever introduced. Public Knowledge’s support is critical as we work to broaden the coalition backing this bipartisan bill and push for its consideration. We’re in a race against the clock right now, and Congress needs to act before the next major incident.”
The FRONTIER Act would establish a tiered, risk-based national framework for overseeing the most advanced AI models. It requires the largest developers to publish their safety frameworks, submit to independent third-party audits and verification, and report critical safety incidents to a new Under Secretary of Commerce for AI Security. The bill is an updated version of the Commerce-focused portions of Trahan and Obernolte's Great American AI Act (GAAIA) discussion draft. The sponsors reworked it over seven weeks of stakeholder feedback, narrowing its preemption of state law and sharpening its auditing and reporting provisions.
Public Knowledge's endorsement marks a notable evolution. When the sponsors released the GAAIA discussion draft in June, Public Knowledge opposed it, warning that its preemption clause reached too far and would lock states out of even light-touch AI transparency and evaluation rules. At the same time, the group made clear it was ready to work with the sponsors to get the policy right.
Trahan and Obernolte took that feedback and rewrote the bill. When they introduced the FRONTIER Act in July, the preemption had been narrowed to cover only the catastrophic-risk issues the federal framework itself addresses, leaving state authority over child safety, privacy, consumer protection, and procurement intact. That change answered Public Knowledge's central concern, and the group now backs the bill.
Public Knowledge joins a broad, bipartisan coalition of AI policy experts and organizations that have praised the FRONTIER Act as the strongest federal AI safety proposal introduced to date.
What They’re Saying: Broad Coalition Lauds Bipartisan FRONTIER Act
Position: The release presents stakeholder praise for the bipartisan FRONTIER Act, which establishes a federal risk-based framework for oversight of advanced AI models, requiring large developers to publish safety frameworks, undergo independent audits, and report critical safety incidents.
Less than a week after Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) and Congressman Jay Obernolte (R-CA-23) introduced the Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting (FRONTIER) Act, a broad coalition of stakeholders is praising the bipartisan legislation that would establish a federal risk-based framework governing the development and deployment of the most advanced artificial intelligence models.
The FRONTIER Act would establish a tiered, risk-based national framework for oversight of the most advanced AI models, requiring the largest developers to publish safety frameworks, submit to independent third-party audits and verification, and report critical safety incidents to a new Under Secretary of Commerce for AI Security. It is an updated version of the Commerce-focused portions of the lawmakers’ Great American AI Act (GAAIA) discussion draft, reworked over seven weeks of stakeholder feedback to narrow its preemption of state law and sharpen its auditing and reporting provisions.
“Not too long ago, a bipartisan bill this good and serious would have been a pipe dream. But things change quickly. This is by far the best AI safety bill ever introduced, in any jurisdiction,” said Charlie Bullock, Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Law & AI. “There are still some flaws that I would like to see fixed, and some improvements to be made, but overall I'm very impressed with how well Reps. Trahan and Obernolte did on this. The next step is actually *passing* this kind of legislation, which unfortunately still seems like a pretty heavy lift. But this is a very promising first step.”
“AI governance keeps running into the same wall. The technology is hard to measure and it moves faster than any law can keep up with,”said Andrew Freedman, Co-Founder and CEO of Fathom. “Trying to write the perfect rules and freezing them in place won’t work. What will work is a competitive market of independent verifiers who are accountable for real-world outcomes and who the government can actually count on. The FRONTIER Act shows we can move fast and still get this right.”
“The latest version of the bipartisan Obernolte–Trahan framework, FRONTIER Act, is a serious step forward. It's one of the strongest efforts yet to establish a federal AI framework that protects Americans while preserving America's leadership in AI,” said the Alliance for a Better Future. “The bill gets several things right. Frontier developers would publish safety frameworks, file transparency reports before deployment, report serious safety incidents, and provide rapid notification when an imminent threat emerges. It also establishes meaningful emergency response authority and independent oversight for the most advanced AI systems. That's a targeted, risk-based approach that puts oversight where it's actually needed.”
“Rep. Lori Trahan and Rep. Jay Obernolte's bipartisan FRONTIER Act deserves a lot of credit here; they are clearly engaged with stakeholders and civil society across the spectrum and have incorporated extensive feedback,” said Caleb Knapp, Senior Policy Manager at the Alliance for Secure AI. “In an ideal world, federal standards for frontier AI model pre-deployment would have crossed the finish line a year ago. Strongly addressing these issues is even more imperative as the technology develops further. We are seeing more instances of AI misalignment with OpenAI/Hugging Face, Kimi, and otherwise. Is the bill perfect? No. But it is the strongest federal frontier bill to date and builds on all the great work occurring at the state level in CA, NY, IL, and elsewhere.”
“The FRONTIER Act is a meaningful bipartisan effort to strengthen oversight of the most advanced Al systems, and it's the strongest federal proposal to date. It builds on state regulations in many ways and incorporates a lot of the feedback that various stakeholders gave on the earlier discussion draft,” said the AI Verification & Evaluation Research Institute (AVERI). “There are some remaining areas for improvement, including making sure that state laws are not preempted until their federal replacements are ready and clarifying some of the auditing provisions. But this is undoubtedly a step in the right direction and we look forward to working with Representatives Trahan and Obernolte, their staff, and other members of Congress to strengthen this proposal and advance effective oversight of frontier Al.”
“Like a lot of people on [Twitter], I had some concerns regarding the initial federal framework discussion draft that Reps. Lori Trahan and Jay Obernolte released a couple weeks ago. I am happy to say that, after substantial engagement and feedback, they’ve crafted the strongest ai safety proposal to date in the FRONTIER Act. There’s still some improvements I’d like to see in the text, and I look forward to continued conversation with the sponsors. But! The narrower preemption and strong auditing provisions should inspire confidence that congress is evolving their approach quickly and worth engaging,” said Nat Purser, Director of U.S. Policy at AVERI.
“The revised FRONTIER Act is meaningfully better than GAAIA, the earlier draft from Representative Trahan and Representative Obernolte. They deserve credit for engaging constructively with stakeholders and taking feedback seriously,” said Nathan Calvin, General Counsel Encode AI. “Overall, this is very much a step in the right direction. Some important issues remain, but we’ll continue engaging with the authors and appreciate the work they’ve put into improving the bill.”
“It's a good bill—actually worth going for, I think,” said Anton Leicht, a Fellow with the Carnegie Endowment’s Technology and International Affairs team. “[Especially] after the past few weeks, federal third-party evaluation seems like a very good way to build capacity beyond exec branch scrambles fast, and to get actual insight into labs-as-entities and their internal deployments.”
“The FRONTIER Act gets the AI regulatory balance right: focus transparency and oversight on the handful of companies pushing the frontier through a coherent federal standard, and leave the rest of the ecosystem alone. Rather than micromanaging model development, it builds audit-and-disclosure infrastructure so that Congress, courts, and the American people can stay informed. Independent verification organizations make the framework adaptive in a way static rules never could, letting oversight evolve as fast as the technology. This is what right-sized AI governance looks like: light-touch with dynamic, third-party oversight where the risks are greatest,” said Samuel Hammond, Chief Economist & AI Policy Director at the Foundation for American Innovation.
“Seven weeks from discussion draft to introduced legislation is fast for Congress on anything; for AI, where the complaint is that they’ve been asleep at the wheel, it’s astounding. This wasn’t a panic bill scribbled over a weekend; the revision shows seven weeks of actual work, with gaps closed, clocks tightened, and new teeth added. The sponsor statements make it clear that they were watching the same news as the rest of us,” said Daniel Parshall, Ph.D., Founder and Director of the Canary Institute for AI Policy.
A copy of the legislation introduced last week can be accessed HERE.
A section-by-section summary can be accessed HERE.
Trahan, Obernolte Introduce Bipartisan FRONTIER Act to Strengthen Oversight of Advanced AI
Position: The release advocates for federal legislation establishing a risk-based regulatory framework for advanced AI models, requiring transparency, independent audits, incident reporting, and uniform national standards for frontier AI developers.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) and Congressman Jay Obernolte (R-CA-23), alongside Representatives Scott Peters (D-CA-50), Scott Franklin (R-FL-18), Suhas Subramanyan (D-VA-10), and Erin Houchin (R-IN-09), introduced the Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting (FRONTIER) Act. introduced the Frontier Risk Oversight, National Transparency, Independent Evaluation, and Reporting Act, or the FRONTIER Act. The bipartisan legislation, which was developed as part of the broader Great American AI Act framework, establishes a national, risk-based framework governing the development and deployment of the most advanced artificial intelligence models.
The FRONTIER Act establishes tiered requirements based on the size of a frontier AI developer, including model cards, risk-management frameworks, independent audits, incident reporting, and ongoing assessments. It also creates a uniform national standard for transparency, auditing, and reporting of catastrophic risk to prevent a patchwork of state regulations.
“As AI systems grow more capable, Americans deserve confidence that the most powerful models are being developed responsibly,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “The bipartisan FRONTIER Act delivers commonsense transparency and independent oversight for the largest AI developers while giving them a single, clear national standard to build on. This is how we protect the public from catastrophic risks without slowing the innovation that keeps America competitive.”
"Artificial intelligence is advancing rapidly, and Congress must ensure our regulatory framework keeps pace without undermining American innovation,” said Congressman Obernolte. “The FRONTIER Act focuses oversight on the largest developers and most advanced models, requiring transparency, independent evaluation, and timely reporting of serious safety incidents. This legislation will protect Americans from catastrophic risk, provide developers with clear rules of the road, and ensure the United States remains the global leader in AI.”
“The window to get AI policy right is closing, and Congress can't afford to miss it,” said Congressman Peters. “I supported Representatives Trahan and Obernolte's initial draft so we could develop a better bill that reflects how this technology works and where it's headed. Thanks to input from researchers, experts, and civil society advocates, that process worked. The FRONTIER Act is a targeted bill with clear, uniform transparency, and safety standards, instead of a fifty-state patchwork. I'm glad to support this bipartisan effort so that Congress acts before this technology outruns us.”
"The FRONTIER Act recognizes that not every AI developer should be regulated the same way. It takes a targeted approach by focusing only on the handful of companies developing the most powerful frontier AI models, not the startups and innovators driving America's AI ecosystem,” said Congressman Franklin. “By tying coverage to substantial AI research and development investments and requiring transparency and independent assessments from those developers, the bill avoids one-size-fits-all mandates and allows smaller innovators to spend their time building new technologies instead of navigating unnecessary federal red tape."
“This is a four-alarm fire. We need to take action now. These frontier models could have the power to create serious chaos and harm without adequate regulations. This bill, while not perfect, is an important, bipartisan step in the right direction. We need a bill like this that can actually pass this Congress and get signed into law. But this is only the first step, and more action needs to be taken to protect people from the harm these models can cause,” said Congressman Subramanyan.
"America must lead the world in artificial intelligence, and we can do that while being clear-eyed about the risks,” said Congresswoman Houchin. “Just this week, one of the most advanced AI systems in the country broke out of its own developer's testing environment, reaching systems it was never supposed to touch. This is exactly the kind of incident that shouldn't stay behind closed doors. The FRONTIER Act delivers transparency and accountability from the largest AI developers. Innovation and guardrails are not opposites—both are necessary to stay ahead of our adversaries."
A copy of the legislation introduced today can be accessed HERE.
A section-by-section summary can be accessed HERE.
Trahan, DeLauro, Larsen, Walkinshaw, Gillen Introduce Right to IVF Act
Position: The representatives support federal legislation establishing a nationwide right to access in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technologies, lowering treatment costs, expanding coverage for military families and federal employees, and requiring employer-sponsored insurance programs to cover IVF.
Today, Representatives Lori Trahan (MA-03), Rosa DeLauro (CT-01), Rick Larsen (WA-02), James Walkinshaw (VA-11), and Laura Gillen (NY-04) led the introduction of the Right to IVF Act of 2026. Introduced ahead of World IVF Day on July 25th, the sweeping legislative package that would make it easier to access in-vitro fertilization (IVF) and other assisted reproductive technology (ART) for the millions of hopeful parents who depend on it to build their family. This pro-family legislation would establish a nationwide right to access IVF, lower the costs of IVF treatment, expand IVF coverage for military families and require all employer-sponsored insurance programs to cover IVF.
“Like so many people in our country facing fertility challenges, my husband and I turned to IVF as our last hope to have kids. After years of appointments, injections, and setbacks, and thanks to our remarkable physicians, we have two beautiful daughters,” said Congresswoman Trahan. “No one should lose the chance to start or grow a family because of their zip code. The Right to IVF Act guarantees the right to family-creating fertility care in every state and puts it within reach for the millions of families who need it.”
“There are few experiences as hard as wanting to start a family and not being able to,” said Congresswoman DeLauro. “That is why I am fighting to ensure Americans have access to IVF treatments when they want to start one. I am proud to join my colleagues in introducing the Right to IVF Act – because building a family in the United States should never be difficult.”
“For many Americans, fertility treatments like IVF are essential to start families of their own,” said Congressman Larsen. “This comprehensive legislation will guarantee access and expand coverage for IVF and other fertility services. The legislation also includes my bill with Senator Murray, the Veteran Families Health Services Act, to ensure fertility treatments are included in servicemembers’ and veterans’ health benefits. I will keep working with my colleagues in the House and the Senate to make sure that women and men in uniform and working families do not have to sacrifice their dreams of having a family.”
“Deciding when and how to build a family is a deeply personal choice that belongs to families, not politicians,” said Congressman Walkinshaw, Co-Chair of the Federal Workforce Caucus. “For millions struggling with infertility, IVF offers hope and a path to parenthood. I’m especially proud the Right to IVF Act includes my legislation requiring IVF coverage through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, ensuring the federal government leads by example. I’m honored to join Senator Duckworth, Congresswoman Trahan, and this coalition to protect IVF nationwide and expand access for servicemembers, veterans, federal employees, and working families.”
“I am proud to help lead this critical bill ensuring millions of Americans can access IVF to build their families, no matter where they live,” said Congresswoman Gillen. “Families struggling to conceive go through indescribable heartbreak and stress. The last thing they should worry about is legal challenges to IVF delaying or outright halting procedures. Infertility is not a partisan issue. I will continue to work across the aisle in Congress to protect access to IVF and adjacent reproductive technologies that have helped countless individuals experience the joy of parenthood.”
After the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, fertility care has been threatened in states where sloppily written laws, including Republican abortion bans, have swept up standard medical practice. In some states, lawmakers and judges have moved to redefine legal personhood to include frozen, extrauterine embryos, turning standard IVF practice into potentially criminal activity. In 2024, IVF services were halted in Alabama after a state court ruled that embryos lost before implantation could trigger the state’s Wrongful Death of a Minor Act, effectively exposing IVF providers to wrongful death liability. Care only resumed after lawmakers rushed through an emergency fix to a mess of their own making.
The Right to IVF Act of 2026 is comprehensive, bicameral legislation that would establish an enforceable nationwide right to access and provide IVF and other fertility treatments and ensure every family can receive affordable insurance coverage of fertility care. Specifically, the bill:
Creates a statutory right for an individual to access, a provider to provide, and an insurer to cover assisted reproductive technology (ART), including IVF and intrauterine insemination (IUI), without prohibition, limitation, or interference.
Ensures coverage for ART, including IVF and IUI, for servicemembers, veterans, government employees, and people with employer-sponsored insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, and ACA plans.
“Every person deserves to build their family on their terms. For millions, including several Members of our caucus, that journey includes use of fertility care,” said Representative Diana DeGette (CO-01) and Representative Ayanna Pressley (MA-07), Co-Chairs of the Congressional Reproductive Freedom Caucus. “Across the country, extreme Republican legislators are doubling down on dangerous abortion bans, and the consequences only continue to grow. But these bans were never going to stop at abortion. The truth was put on display for all to see in Alabama: that they will not stop until they eliminate access to all reproductive health care, including birth control and IVF. The Reproductive Freedom Caucus is proud to support this critical bill and to stand with Representative Trahan in the fight to safeguard your right and access to the fertility care you need.”
A Senate companion bill was introduced by Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Patty Murray (D-WA), Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Chuck Schumer (D-NY).
“Almost two years after promising free IVF for all Americans if he were elected, Donald Trump has still failed to deliver,” said Senator Duckworth. “Trump and Republicans’ ‘support’ for IVF is nothing but lip service. They want us to have more babies, yet they’ll do nothing to actually help make it easier for the millions who struggle with infertility to start and grow their families. The Right to IVF Act would immediately make IVF treatment more affordable for millions of hopeful parents across the country. From middle class families, to our brave servicemembers and Veterans, to federal employees and more—every American deserves the right to access the treatment and tools they need to build the family of their dreams without burning through their savings. If Republicans really support IVF, then let’s get this done. No more delays.”
“Republicans are not pro-family and they won’t lift a finger to help families get IVF—the Texas Republican Party just recently made banning IVF a part of their official party platform,” said Senator Murray. “I have fought for a long time to make sure at least servicemembers and veterans , especially wounded warriors, can get the IVF care they need to build a family. But the reality is that we have a Republican Speaker of the House who believes an embryo should have the same rights as an adult woman with children who count on her. America’s pro-IVF majority should wake up to the fact that Trump could not care less about IVF—he broke that promise and he is happy to let Republicans attack IVF and all of our reproductive rights. Meanwhile, Democrats are standing with families and fighting to make sure can access and afford health care to build their families.”
“No one chooses infertility,” said Senator Booker. “It’s a medical condition that leaves too many families and individuals feeling alone long before they ever seek treatment. When people turn to IVF, they’re choosing hope. They’re choosing the chance to build the family they’ve always dreamed of. But that hope comes with a price tag that is simply out of reach for far too many. The medications, procedures, and cycles can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Families and individuals already carrying the emotional weight of infertility are then hit with financial barriers that no one should have to face trying to bring a child into this world. We have to change that. We have to remove those barriers and make IVF affordable and accessible to everyone who needs it. Because the ability to build a family should not be reserved for the wealthy or the lucky, it should be within reach for us all.”
“For millions of American families, IVF isn’t politics—it’s hope,” said Leader Schumer. “Donald Trump ran on a promise that he would make IVF free, and yet he has done nothing but attack women’s reproductive rights and undermine access to fertility care—another lie in his long list of broken promises to American families. Our Right to IVF Act is essential to putting a deeply personal health care decision back in the hands of American families. While Donald Trump and Republicans erect barriers between hopeful parents and IVF, Democrats will never stop fighting to protect access so that every family can build the future they dream of.”
The legislation introduced today was cosponsored by 119 House members and 46 Senators. A copy of the bill can be accessed HERE.
The Right to IVF Act is supported by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM), RESOLVE: The National Infertility and Family Building Association, Center for Reproductive Rights (CRR), Planned Parenthood Federation of America (PPFA), National Women’s Law Center (NWLC), American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and GLBTQ Legal Advocates and Defenders (GLAD).
“The American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM) welcomes the bicameral reintroduction of the Right to IVF Act, which would achieve accessible and affordable fertility care for all Americans,” said ASRM Chief Advocacy and Policy Officer Sean Tipton. “This visionary and comprehensive effort would protect patients' ability to build their families through safe, evidence-based treatments like in vitro fertilization (IVF). By safeguarding access to assisted reproductive technology (ART), preserving the physician-patient relationship, and expanding coverage for the individuals and families who need it most, this legislation reflects the standard of care that all patients deserve.”
“No one should have to wonder whether they'll be able to access the care they need to build their family,” said Danielle Melfi, CEO of RESOLVE: The National Infertility and Family Building Association. “By safeguarding the right to IVF and expanding insurance coverage for veterans, federal employees, and the individuals and families who need it most, this legislation reflects a comprehensive commitment to helping more people build the families they dream of. RESOLVE applauds Senator Duckworth and the bill's sponsors for continuing to put patients and families first.”
Trahan Opposes GOP Bill to Protect Trump’s Stock Trading, Suppress Voting Rights
Position: Congresswoman Trahan opposes H.R. 7008 and H.R. 9368, arguing that H.R. 7008 does not effectively ban stock trading by members of Congress and exempts the President and judicial branch, while H.R. 9368 imposes voter ID requirements more restrictive than any state law and would effectively end vote-by-mail.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (MA-03), a member of House Democratic Leadership, voted against a partisan measure combining H.R. 7008, the so-called Stop Insider Trading Act, with H.R. 9368, the Voter ID Act, a provision carved out of the broader SAVE America Act.
Despite Republican claims, H.R. 7008 is not a stock trading ban. It would let Members keep owning and selling stocks, and in some cases buying them, while leaving untouched the ability to trade equity in privately held companies on the strength of nonpublic information. Additionally, by only limiting the bill’s jurisdiction to members of Congress, it exempts the executive and judicial branches entirely, including the President, Vice President, and federal judges.
H.R. 9368 would require voters to produce one of a narrow set of documents to cast a ballot, in person or by mail. The list is more restrictive than any voter ID law currently on the books in any of the 50 states. It leaves out hunting and firearm licenses, fishing licenses, and student IDs. And because mail voters would have to send in copies of their ID, the bill would effectively end Americans’ ability to vote-by-mail as it exists today.
"House Republicans wrote a corruption bill that carefully avoids the most obvious corruption in Washington," said Congresswoman Trahan. "It exempts the President. Days before Trump talked up dozens of companies online, he was buying their stock. Now his media company is preparing to sell Wall Street a faster line to those posts. Republicans looked at that and wrote him an exemption.”
“Then they used the cover of a fake stock trading ban to jam through the most extreme voter suppression bill this Congress has seen – harsher than any voter ID law in any of the 50 states and the end of vote by mail as Americans know it,” continued Congresswoman Trahan. “This is the worst kind of politics. Shield the corruption, lie about the reform, and grab power at the expense of the most basic right Americans have.”
Trahan is a cosponsor of the HONEST Act, bipartisan legislation that would ban stock trading by Members of Congress, the President, and the Vice President. More than 70 percent of Americans support a ban across party lines. Last year, she called for Congress to take up legislation to ban members of Congress, the President, and Vice President from being able to profit off their public service.
Trahan’s Bipartisan App Store Freedom Act Featured in Legislative Hearing
Position: Congresswoman Trahan advocates for the App Store Freedom Act, which would require Apple and Google to allow third-party app stores, sideloading, and deletion of pre-installed apps, and would prohibit dominant app stores from forcing developers into proprietary payment systems or retaliating against developers offering lower prices elsewhere.
Today, Congresswoman Lori Trahan (D-MA-03) touted her App Store Freedom Act (H.R. 3209) during a House Energy and Commerce Committee hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace.” The bipartisan bill, introduced alongside Congresswoman Kat Cammack (R-FL-03) last year, would open up the mobile app marketplace to real competition.
“Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution,” Congresswoman Trahan said. “That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly. Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation.”
During the Committee hearing, Trahan spoke about the importance of the legislation. Footage of her remarks can be accessed HERE or by clicking the image below. A transcript is embedded below.
During her remarks, Trahan pointed out that just two companies – Apple and Google – control almost all of the app distribution on iOS and Android devices. Together, they have taken steps to eliminate competition, allowing them to set their own rules, charge extreme fees to app developers, and copy, punish, or outright block apps that they view as conflicting with their own business priorities.
The App Store Freedom Act would ensure that consumers have the ability to install third-party app stores, sideload apps, and delete pre-installed ones they don't want. It would also give developers free, equal access to the tools they need to compete and stop dominant app stores from forcing developers into proprietary payment systems or punishing them for offering better deals elsewhere.
“H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners,” Congresswoman Trahan continued. “It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.”
The bipartisan bill is backed by a broad coalition of small and medium sized developers and pro-consumer and pro-competition advocacy groups.
---------------------------------------
House Energy and Commerce Committee Hearing on “Legislative Proposals to Strengthen Consumer Protection in a Changing Marketplace”
Well. Thank you, Ranking Member Schakowsky, I also want to thank the Chairman. Today I’m so glad to see H.R. 3209, the bipartisan App Store Freedom Act, on today’s agenda, and I’m grateful to my co-lead Congresswoman Kat Cammack for her tireless work on this bipartisan legislation.
Smartphones are the front door to modern life, but Apple and Google control that door. Together, their operating systems power more than 99 percent of U.S. smartphones. Apple controls all native iOS app distribution in this country, while Google controls roughly 90 percent of Android app distribution. That’s not a competitive market, it’s a duopoly.
Apple and Google can force developers into their payment systems, charge commissions of up to 30 percent, block customers from hearing about lower prices, and give their own apps an edge. That means consumers pay more for less choice and less innovation. A new economic analysis published this week quantifies the harm. Americans spend $52.3 billion annually through Apple and Google’s app stores. If competition pushed down app store fees, consumers could save about $8.9 billion each year.
The App Store Freedom Act targets only the largest gatekeepers and offers a pro-market fix.
It lets consumers choose alternative stores and default apps, install apps outside the dominant stores, and remove unwanted preloaded apps. It stops forced payment systems and gag rules, and it gives developers fair access to operating-system features so they can compete on merit.
Opponents say exclusivity is the price of security. It’s not. They argue that opening app distribution and alternative app stores will invite malware, scams, and threats to children. And sure, alternative distribution can create risks if poorly managed, but the status quo is already unacceptable. Documented scams and unsafe apps like nudify apps routinely slip through Apple’s and Google’s security reviews. The answer is strong safeguards, not permanent monopoly control.
To be absolutely clear, nothing in this bill forces someone to use an alternative app store. Apple and Google can keep operating and vetting their own stores. It does not require them to provide support for third-party apps, and it preserves intellectual-property and national-security safeguards.
We know openness and security can coexist. Google’s Play Protect scans Android apps from outside its store and Apple secures software outside the Mac App Store. Competition could also produce safer choices, including stores designed specifically for families and children.
Security is an engineering challenge, not a monopoly entitlement.
H.R. 3209 does not set prices or pick winners. It makes powerful gatekeepers compete, so consumers – not corporations – decide which apps and services work best for them.
Chairman Guthrie, Chairman Bilirakis today is an important first step. I urge the committee to continue to work with Congresswoman Cammack and myself to break the duopoly and allow competition in the mobile app space. American consumers have waited long enough.
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.MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION PAC5 contributions$25,000
2.IRONWORKERS POLITICAL ACTION LEAGUE MULTI CANDIDATE COMMITTEE4 contributions$20,000
3.D.R.I.V.E. - (THE PAC OF THE INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS)4 contributions$20,000
4.UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION ACTIVE BALLOT CLUBLabor4 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the United Food and Commercial Workers — backs candidates supporting union organizing, collective bargaining, worker protections, and labor-friendly workplace standards.AI$20,000
5.INTERNATIONAL UNION OF PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES POLITICAL ACTION TOGETHER POLITICAL COMMITTEELabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades — backs prevailing-wage protections, apprenticeship funding, project labor agreements, and pro-union labor policies.AI$15,000
6.LABORERS' INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA (LIUNA) PACLabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for construction laborers — backs prevailing-wage standards, infrastructure investment, apprenticeship programs, and project labor agreements.AI$15,000
7.ENGINEERS POLITICAL EDUCATION COMMITTEE (EPEC)/INTERNATIONAL UNION OF OPERATING ENGINEERSLabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for the International Union of Operating Engineers — backs candidates supporting prevailing-wage standards, infrastructure investment, and project labor agreements.AI$15,000
8.INT'L UNION OF BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED CRAFTWORKERS PACLabor3 contributionsTrade-union PAC for bricklayers and allied construction workers — backs prevailing-wage protections, federal infrastructure funding, and project labor agreements.AI$15,000
9.PAC TO THE FUTURELeadership3 contributionsMember-of-Congress leadership PAC — specific affiliations and policy positions not inferable from the name.AI · low$15,000
10.UA UNION PLUMBERS & PIPEFITTERS VOTE! PAC (UNITED ASSOCIATION OF JOURNEYMEN AND APPRENTICES OF THE PLUMBING & PIPEFITTING INDUSTRY OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA3 contributions$15,000
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.SELF$37,715
2.MARKLEY GROUP$17,500
3.KEYSER PUBLIC STRATEGIES$8,000
4.BENCHMARK SENIOR LIVING$8,000
5.RED+BLUE STRATEGIES$8,000
6.WORLDCOM EXCHANGE INC.$7,000
7.MEDICAL DEVICE MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATI$7,000
8.GRANITE TELECOM$7,000
9.BARR FOUNDATION$7,000
10.PBC$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.
