Floor Statements

Mr. President, the Senate is now debating section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which expires on Friday. Last week, the Senate resoundingly rejected a bill that would have continued the surveillance status quo.

It is clear the path to 60 votes in the Senate on section 702 runs through real reforms. There is no reason why the Senate can't start moving forward with surveillance reform now.

I and other colleagues have introduced comprehensive, bipartisan, bicameral surveillance reform legislation, which would protect both Americans' rights and national security.

We have been championing these reforms for some time, but I understand the Senate is divided on the issue. So Senators are going to need to get to work trying to forge a path forward.

So I am prepared to put some real offers on the table right now. So I am going to start by asking unanimous consent to pass a simple bill that makes one very important reform. It would require government agencies to get a warrant before using section 702 to read the communications of Americans. It contains a number of exceptions, including for emergencies, and our analysis is that it would be very feasible for the executive branch and the FISA Court to implement it.

Most importantly, it would finally bring section 702 in line with the principles of the Fourth Amendment. Law-abiding Americans are getting swept up in section 702 now, and this bill would require that government agencies get a warrant if they want to read Americans' emails, text messages, or other sensitive communications.

And let me note: A number of Republicans in both the Senate and the House have sponsored or cosponsored legislation to create the kind of warrant I am talking about.

This bill is only one part of my comprehensive surveillance reform bill. It doesn't address numerous other concerns related to FISA or other intelligence authorities and the sale of Americans' location data. It is not a long-term solution by itself; it will, however, extend section 702 of FISA for 9 months, well into next year.

So I would ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4738, that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I think it is unfortunate what my friend from Texas is saying.

Let me be clear. The warrant requirements that I am talking about are sponsored or cosponsored by Republican Members both in the Senate and in the House. And my bill does not require a warrant to search metadata. A warrant is only required to read the contents of Americans' communications.

Of course.

Mr. President, without continuing this well into the evening, let me just say that I am quite certain that the senior Republicans who have sponsored or cosponsored these ideas understand what this is all about, and I believe we will continue this conversation.

Mr. President, I am now going to move to another unanimous consent request to pass an even narrower bill that is hard to see anybody objecting to. It would not make any changes to surveillance law, but it would significantly increase public transparency about the impact of surveillance on Americans' rights.

It would create some new reporting requirements that would help inform Congress and the public about surveillance activities that impact American citizens. It would direct the executive branch to declassify a March 2026 FISA Court ruling on section 702 that found significant violations affecting Americans. The executive branch is already legally required to declassify the report, and they have had 3 months to work on it; in my judgment, it needs to be redacted and released in the next couple of weeks so they can inform the surveillance debate here in the Senate.

The chairman and the vice chairman of the Select Committee on Intelligence, which I am honored to serve on, called on the executive branch to redact and release this court ruling by May 15, but the executive branch simply disregarded their request. This bill also extends 702 for 5 weeks.

On this point, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4740; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, I have served on the committee for many years with my friend, and I appreciate him and don't want to give him a hard time. I am a U.S. Senator from Oregon, though, and I think I have been called the Senator from Washington.

Our friendship will continue.

Now, Mr. President, I think, at this point, my colleague has a unanimous consent request that he wishes to make. Then I will respond, and we will complete our business for the night. So my colleague, I would say, ought to make his unanimous consent at this point.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object.

I would only close my remarks by saying every day that section 702 is in effect without reforms is a day that Americans' rights are, unfortunately, under threat. If there is going to be an extension of these authorities, there need to be some guardrails or at least some transparency that would allow Congress and the American people to understand the abuses that have taken place and the need for the kind of reforms that I and, as I say, senior Republicans in both the Senate and the House have been backing.

For those reasons, I object.

Mr. President, just very briefly before I leave the floor, I only want to say to my friend that I am always interested in talking to him about ideas, to bring people together and find some common ground. I have said, as we have gone through this debate, that Ben Franklin summed it up as, basically, liberty and security aren't mutually exclusive.

We can figure this out, but we are going to have to start talking. We are going to have to have some negotiations. I have enjoyed talking with my friend from Texas and would be happy to continue it in the future.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, I ask further reading of the motion be dispensed with.

Mr. President, there is nothing in this budget bill that is as important as holding down prescription drug costs for Americans. Meanwhile, Donald Trump says that he signed a deal with 17 pharmaceutical companies to get, and I quote here ``the lowest priced drugs in the world.''

Now, Trump wants Congress to put his deals into black letter law sight unseen.

My amendment requires the administration to publicly disclose the details on these Trump deals, and to find out what the savings are, and also to protect trade secrets and confidential information.

The Trump prescription drug deals are shrouded in secrecy. If they are what Donald Trump claims, there should be nothing to hide. This amendment gives Congress and the public the specifics on these drug deals once and for all. Patients, families, and taxpayers deserve nothing less.

I urge Senators to vote for this proposal.

Mr. President, very briefly--

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Mr. President, I have a motion to commit at the desk.

Mr. President, as of a few days ago, every American taxpayer is subject to audit except for Donald Trump and all the members of the Trump family.

No matter what you think about the Trump family finances, no one can deny that this is a double standard: one set of rules for an ultrawealthy individual--the most powerful person in the world--and another set of rules for everybody else.

This is unjustifiable, and all of us here know it. My amendment would send the bill back to committee so that the Senate can wipe out this egregious double standard.

The same tax rules ought to apply to everybody across the board. That is how you maintain fairness in the tax system. That is what my amendment is about.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, when the Senate considers the reconciliation bill, S. 2, it is my intention to make the following motions to the bill:

A motion to commit the bill S. 2 to the Committee on the

Judiciary of the Senate with instructions to report the same

back to the Senate in 3 days, not counting any day on which

the Senate is not in session, with changes that--

(1) are within the jurisdiction of such committee; and

(2) would require--

(A) the Department of Justice to evaluate confidential drug

pricing agreements entered into by any Federal department,

agency, or office with any pharmaceutical manufacturer; and

(B) that the provision of law commonly referred to as the

``Freedom of Information Act'' be amended in a manner that

would require the public release of all such agreements,

while protecting proprietary pricing information.

Mr. President, I expect that the Senate will soon pass by unanimous consent the Blackburn-Klobuchar Safe Cloud Storage Act. This bill will enable Federal, State, and local law enforcement agencies to use modern cloud computing services to store and process digital evidence when investigating online sexual abuse and exploitation. Senators Blackburn and Klobuchar worked closely with me to make important changes to this bill to strengthen the cyber security requirements for the tech companies storing such sensitive digital evidence so that hackers are not able to steal and then redistribute the extremely sensitive images and videos documenting abuse that law enforcement agencies have entrusted to these companies. I sincerely appreciate their partnership on this important issue.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the following GAO opinion letter dated May 12, 2026, be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I move to proceed to Calendar No. 394, S.J. Res. 145.

Mr. President, I rise today to offer a joint resolution of disapproval that would restore critical privacy protections for consumers that the Trump administration did away with.

The Fair Credit Reporting Act is one of our foremost laws aimed at protecting the privacy of the American people. The law requires that a consumer report, like a credit report or a background check, can only be provided if the report's requestor, like a creditor, landlord, or employer, certifies that it has a permissible purpose to obtain a report on a specific person.

Despite these requirements, far too many Americans have been subjected to serious, outrageous breaches of privacy when companies sharing the report for one person include information pertaining to someone else.

In 2022, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau--our Nation's consumer watchdog--took action to protect Americans' privacy and crack down by issuing new guidance on the rules that surround crucial credit report privacy.

The advisory opinion did something that ought to be common sense: It made it clear that your sensitive financial information couldn't be shared with landlords, loan sharks, or used car salesmen just because you had a similar name to somebody else.

Once your credit info is in the wrong hands, scammers, criminals, and shady data brokers can easily use your personal information, and then they go rip you off.

This was a huge win for consumer privacy, and Donald Trump gutted it.

I will close with this: My resolution is simple. It would restore this advisory opinion that Trump withdrew as part of this administration's ongoing war against consumers and privacy.

I urge all of my colleagues to join me in rolling back Trump's war on consumers by supporting this joint resolution that will once again restore important privacy measures for the American people.

I yield the floor.

Vote on Motion to Proceed

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President, I call up S. 4444, a bill to extend the surveillance law known as section 702, for 3 weeks and to require the declassification of the FISA Court's recent ruling on section 702. That ruling found serious violations of Americans' constitutional rights in how the Trump administration has used section 702. The Congress should not vote--should not vote--to renew section 702 while Americans are left in the dark about these troubling abuses.

Today is the expiration date for section 702. Nonetheless, because of a court order, the government's surveillance can continue without interruption until March of 2027. Several Senators have made it clear to me that they are uncomfortable with section 702 expiring. I believe it will be easier to negotiate reforms to section 702 if the Congress passes a short-term extension. The bill that I seek to pass is straightforward: a 3-week extension.

Every day that section 702 is extended without meaningful reforms is a day that the program can continue to be abused. I am willing to allow a short-term extension so long as important information currently hidden from the public is declassified so that Congress can have a full public debate. A 3-week extension is more than reasonable. Senators from both parties introduced legislation months ago, and we have been prepared to negotiate.

Unfortunately, Senators willing to accept business as usual decided to wait. They wanted to just wait around until just before expiration to try to jam through whatever they wanted. That approach failed 2 weeks ago. Senators for business as usual decided they weren't going to use that extra time to do any negotiating.

If the House and Senate are given the opportunity to vote on a long- term extension with meaningful reforms to protect the privacy rights of Americans, it is going to pass. Three weeks is more than enough time to negotiate a reform bill; that is, if Members are serious about negotiating.

My legislation requires the government to declassify the FISA Court's March 17 ruling on section 702. The government is already required by law to declassify this court ruling. This is an important part of the debate. Let me repeat that. Declassification is already required by law. All that my bill requires is that the opinion be declassified now--now--before Congress votes on renewing section 702.

The law requiring declassification and public release of the court's rulings isn't even remotely controversial. Each year, the FISA Court issues a ruling approving the program, and every year the government follows the law and comes around to declassifying the ruling. These declassified rulings inform Congress and the public about how the administration and the FISA Court interpret the law. It sheds light on past abuses. These opinions are critical to congressional oversight and to the public.

So what might be different this year? First, the March 17 ruling describes serious abuses of section 702 and violations of Americans' constitutional rights. The Congress is debating section 702 reauthorization right now. So maybe there are some who would rather have Congress just go out and vote in the dark--vote in the dark before the public hears about the Trump administration's latest violation of Americans' constitutional rights.

So I am going to wrap up by addressing the arguments of some of our opponents. First, what about protecting what is called sources and methods? My bill allows the executive branch to make redactions to protect sources and methods, just as they have done for all previous section 702 FISA rulings that have been released to the public.

Second, you may hear there is not enough time to do this. The Trump administration has known for over a month that they are legally required to declassify the opinion that I am seeking. My bill would give them 2 more weeks to do it. That is more than enough time to carefully redact a single document. Believe me, when the government wants to declassify something, they sure as hell move fast.

To sum up, my bill gives Congress more than enough time to negotiate a section 702 reauthorization bill with meaningful reforms, and it requires the declassification of information that, in my view, is critical to the debate and the public's understanding of what is being voted on.

So, Mr. President, as in legislative session, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4444, which is at the desk; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Mr. President, so let me repeat the central business in a key area, and that is: I am prepared today to pass a short-term extension of section 702. I am doing that because I have listened to colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

I don't think it is really necessary because of the FISA Court ruling recently, but in the interest of comity and working together--which is something I have tried to make a priority--I want to state again: I am prepared to pass a short-term extension of section 702 today.

What I am also extraordinarily concerned about, though, is there is a classified ruling of the FISA Court that found troubling abuses of section 702 that violate Americans' constitutional rights.

Let me just repeat that. That is a finding that the court found of troubling abuses of Americans' constitutional rights.

What I am beginning to get a sense of is the Trump administration is now so desperate to keep this ruling secret they would rather let section 702 expire than make it public, which I believe is the key here--make it public before the vote.

The American people deserve to know what the Trump administration is up to. Before the Congress votes on whether to give Americans greater protections, Congress must use a short-term extension to openly debate the critical issues in front of the American people, and I am disappointed that instead, it sure feels right now that the other side of the aisle is covering the abuses up.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, my colleague on the other side of the aisle is now ducking the issue that I have brought to light. I am clear that I am for a short-term extension. I have said it now three or four times.

But I also believe that the government, which is already required to declassify the ruling I am seeking, it ought to get out to the American people. That is what this is all about. I would just say to my colleague the chairman: Let's let the American people decide whether it is not a big deal as my colleague has said.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, reserving the right to object, let me pick up on where I think the majority leader wants to go as well. We have been working hard on the 702 legislation with the kind of lodestar that we want to prove that, for the first time, the government is saying that liberty and security are not mutually exclusive; that we can do both.

To do that, we now have a letter that will be sent very shortly from Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member Warner to the DNI and the Attorney General. I just want to read this--it is very short--into the Record that will reflect this, and then we will have a brief colloquy, the majority leader and I, that is along the lines of what we talked about.

So Chairman Cotton and Ranking Member Warner write to the DNI and the Attorney General:

Earlier this month, the Department of Justice delivered to

Congress a classified Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court

(FISC) opinion and order, dated March 17, 2026. Under the

law, your offices are currently conducting a declassification

review for the purposes of making this FISC opinion and order

publicly available, consistent with the protection of sources

and methods, as soon as practicable. In order to inform the

Senate debate on reauthorization of section 702 of the

Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, we expect that this

declassification review will be completed, and the FISC

opinion released publicly, within 15 days.

So, again, this is coming from the chairman of our committee, Chairman Cotton, and Senator Warner, our vice chairman. It is going to the DNI and the Attorney General, and to make sure that everybody understands the state of play here, a formal letter is being written, and we are just getting the signatures on that now. Everyone is waiting to hear where things stand.

And with that, let me yield to my colleague the majority leader.

Mr. President, the majority leader states it correctly. That is my understanding as well. The point of this is to have some additional time. This is a very new period in this debate with, for example, AI driving so much of this. And you know, new tools require new rules, and we are going to be able to think about how to proceed with that in the future.

I yield my time. I thank the majority leader for, in effect, reaffirming what we have been working on. I think that this letter from the chair and the ranking member of the Intelligence Committee, where I am proud to serve, to DNI and the Attorney General is a step in the right direction.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Mr. President, the Senate is now delaying a vote on FISA because Members are waking up to the fact that this surveillance authority is too dangerous to hand to any President without new reforms. And here is the bottom line. If there were the votes today to advance this bill right now, we would be voting. But when it comes to reauthorizing section 702, I am here to offer the judgment that the only path forward is reform.

Here is how we got here. Two weeks ago, the leadership in the House executed the oldest play in the book when it comes to surveillance: They waited until a week before the bill was set to expire, there was no time to debate, and they tried to pass a straight reauthorization without reforms.

What happened? A bipartisan coalition said: No way.

Then they came back with a new bill that week, but it turned out that these so-called reforms made FISA 702 less accountable. That bill failed.

Then the House voted on a straight extension of the law--again with no reforms. A bipartisan coalition voted that down.

And now, this week, the House Republican leadership tried to sell a fake reform to their Members a third time. Once again, the body is in disarray.

It is clear that Senators who voted to support the current FISA surveillance law in the past are now rethinking their positions. Every day, this administration demonstrates its contempt for the rule of law and its thirst for absolute power. They have destroyed

oversight and guardrails and trampled on the rights of the American people. They have attacked and killed protesters and observers, seized the records of journalists, and gone after political enemies, including Members of Congress.

There are many ways in which 702 can be abused by the administration, including warrantless searches of Americans' communications in 702 data. The fact is, there are alarm bells pointing to administration abuses. What kind of abuses? Month after month, Trump administration officials have been trotting out conspiracy theories about elections and voting. These theories include accusations of foreign involvement. The Director of National Intelligence even showed up at the FBI's ballot-seizing raid in Fulton, GA. And one of her excuses: She was there to protect against foreign interference. These conspiracy theories open the door for more warrantless 702 searches, all to try to discredit American elections.

The Trump administration has also been abusing its authorities to go after journalists whose stories they don't like. All it takes is an accusation of a foreign connection and they can be subjected to 702 searches. Then there are protesters who the administration could accuse of being connected to antifa groups.

When the guardrails are gone and the abuses are clear, there is only one solution: Congress must require court-ordered warrants to conduct searches on Americans. There ought to be exceptions, but only for emergencies.

I am going to close with one last important issue that colleagues are approaching all of us to ask about, and that is the role of AI in supercharging surveillance abuses. The Trump administration is going full speed ahead on AI, and Americans are rightly concerned about how artificial intelligence is going to affect their privacy rights.

In the case of section 702, the government could use artificial intelligence to process huge amounts of data to identify Americans for warrantless searches. These technological advances are happening so fast, and Congress needs to step up and protect Americans. New tools require new rules, and it really applies to artificial intelligence.

So when the Senate returns to vote on government surveillance, I am here to say another effort to jam this bill through without reforms is also going to be dead as a doornail.

I urge all Members to come forward and work in a bipartisan way because security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. Smart policies get you both; not so smart policies get you neither.

I urge my colleagues to recognize that at this moment it is right for the Senate to postpone the vote. It is the second time we have postponed a vote because the country doesn't buy this argument that we should sacrifice our liberty in order to have security. We can find both.

I urge my colleagues to use this interim period to make sure that actually happens, and I intend to be on the floor objecting at every opportunity if it doesn't.

I yield the floor.

Mr. President, just so we are clear, there is authority to continue the protections for the American people already. We will have that debate. I am eager to work with colleagues on both sides of the aisle.

We have to recognize that the only path forward for the American people is actual reform and not just cliche's.

I yield the floor.

I ask for the yeas and nays.

Madam President, it has been a year since Republicans gutted Medicaid funding for Planned Parenthood clinics. For many women, Planned Parenthood is their only source of primary care and prevention, like cancer screenings and STI testing. There are 23 Planned Parenthood clinics that have closed, and 75 percent of the clinics that have shuttered their doors have been in rural or underserved areas. The number of breast exam visits fell by 25 percent. Fewer women are getting essential preventive care, heightening their risk of cancer.

All of this lifesaving care is on the chopping block if this amendment passes. This amendment is just the Republicans' latest attempt to strip women of the healthcare they need and depend on so that they can go score some political points.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the amendment--to strongly oppose it.

Point of Order

Madam President, I raise a point of order that the pending amendment is not germane; therefore, it violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

Mr. President, I call up my amendment No. 5336 and ask that it be reported by number.

Mr. President, the amendment would require that the Government Accountability Office analyze Donald Trump's agreement with the pharmaceutical companies. He claims that he signed deals with 16 pharmaceutical companies to get Americans the lowest prescription drug prices in the world, but the details of these so-called deals are completely shrouded in secrecy.

Donald Trump wants Congress to put these deals into black letter law, sight unseen. So my amendment would require the Government Accountability Office to analyze the deals and provide a clear analysis of the savings, if any, to taxpayers and to patients.

And for any of my Senate colleagues who are concerned about disclosing trade secrets, this amendment protects all confidential information.

If these Trump deals are so great, there should be nothing to hide. This amendment would give Congress and the public the specifics for the first time on these Trump pharmaceutical deals. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote yes.

Mr. President, I rise today to request unanimous consent to pass the Speedy Tariff Refund Act.

The bill forces the Trump administration to immediately return the money it has stolen from American businesses under Donald Trump's illegal tariffs. Nothing illustrates the hostility that Donald Trump has shown toward helping Americans seek refunds better than his comments to CNBC this morning.

Donald Trump said this morning that it would be ``brilliant'' if companies do not seek refunds and that he will remember those who don't. That sounds like a threat to me. The President of the United States basically said he will remember those who don't seek a refund or come forward.

Earlier this year, the Supreme Court struck down President Trump's so-called ``emergency'' IEEPA tariffs. The Court's ruling was clear: the tariffs were illegal, and the administration must refund the money to the American importers that paid the tariffs. It has now been 2 months since the Supreme Court's decision. Not a single penny has been paid back.

The Trump administration is deliberately delaying these refunds, even after Trump's own lawyers claimed that they would be issued.

While Donald Trump funnels money to his vanity projects and illegal war, his administration is doing everything it can to avoid returning the money it stole from American companies. That is why I quoted the President's threat this morning.

I have heard from countless small business owners who paid the tariffs but still have no idea when or if they will ever get their money back. This leaves businesses and workers on a financial rollercoaster, questioning if they are going to be able to keep their doors open.

Yesterday, Customs and Border Protection began accepting refund requests through yet another online system, which is already riddled with glitches and errors. But instead of paying refunds automatically, Customs and Border Protection is requiring businesses in America to file yet another round of paperwork to get a refund. This is just more bureaucratic red tape, making it harder for Americans to get their money back.

Customs and Border Protection is even excluding whole categories of imports from the refund system for now, and they are doing it despite the Court of International Trade's order to pay refunds of all IEEPA tariffs.

It is as clear as Crater Lake that Oregonians can't rely on this administration to return their money, so Congress needs to step up. My bill requires the administration to pay tariff refunds, with interest, within 30 days. It applies to every importer who paid IEEPA tariffs, not just certain imports, and it makes it clear that CBP must pay the refunds automatically without requiring additional paperwork.

I am sure my Republican colleagues are also hearing from small businesses in their States that are desperate to get a tariff refund. I urge them to join me, Senator Markey, Senator Shaheen, and to do it today. The Senate can act today to put money back in the pockets of small businesses and ensure Donald Trump no longer keeps scamming Americans out of the tariff refunds they are owed.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. 4364, the Speedy Tariff Refund Act; that the bill be considered read a third time and passed; and that the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.

Just very briefly, as I know Senator Merkley is waiting to speak, we are talking about CBP. If we really want to know what they are in the process of doing, they are in the process of playing more stall ball, making it tough for small businesses to get access to these tariff refunds.

As I said, it is all summed up by what Donald Trump said to CNBC. I interpret that as, point blank, a threat to people who go out and try to advance their rights, and I think it is wrong for the President to do it.

I yield the floor.

Reserving the right to object.

Madam President, Americans understand that every single day there are abuses of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. And the reality is, a growing number of Democrats and Republicans are now saying that a straight extension of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act law is absolutely unacceptable in any way, shape, or form.

So it is clear it is time for real reforms to protect Americans from warrantless surveillance by a government that they rightly do not trust.

So for the last hour or so, I have been speaking to colleagues in the other body of the House. And they have told me, unequivocally, that this short-term extension makes reform more likely and expiration makes reform less likely.

But make no mistake about it, opponents of reform have shown no willingness, for years and years, to negotiate meaningful reform. And those of us in a bipartisan, bicameral way who have insisted that this time will be different want to emphasize that this morning.

The reality is that the country believes that security and liberty are not mutually exclusive. We can have both. A good bill that we are insisting on will do that. A bad bill will give us less security and less liberty.

So I hope that opponents of reform are going to understand what is going on in the Congress and in the country and start talking about what is genuinely good reform and what it would look like.

I will say that I am now the longest serving member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and I have never seen the concern on both sides of the aisle, that is bicameral, for real reform.

So I have talked to my colleagues in the House, and their views have been particularly important because they have told us about their work last night and what it means for real reform.

And we are going to be following that here every single day because Ben Franklin said--you are going to hear me talk about that--anybody who gives up their liberty for security doesn't deserve either.

We are going to insist on it.

I yield the floor.

Madam President, I release my hold on the promotion of Col. Thomas M. Siverts, PN793-2, on the Executive Calendar.

In March 2026, I raised concerns about Colonel Siverts' appearance on an episode of a podcast known as The Berm Pit, which is anti-Semitic and racist.

I requested the Marine Corps to provide me with a copy of this podcast episode, so I could review the nature of his participation in this podcast. I was first told the podcast was not accessible, but the Marine Corps provided me with a copy of the episode after I objected to the promotion of Colonel Siverts. I have since been able to review the podcast episode, and I did not have any concerns with the exchange on the podcast.

Further, Colonel Siverts wrote a letter to me unequivocally condemning anti-Semitism and racism, noting that at the time of his appearance on the podcast, the podcast had no association with the hateful ideologies expressed by others on different episodes of the podcast months later.

Colonel Siverts made clear that the ideologies of anti-Semitism and racism are antithetical not only to the values of the Marine Corps, but to who he is too.

My concerns have been addressed, and I support the Senate confirming Colonel Siverts' promotion to brigadier general.