WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, joined U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) in sending a letter to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Secretary Brooke Rollins demanding answers from the Trump administration following reports that USDA Undersecretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment Michael Boren diverted federal firefighting resources away from active wildfires, in order to fight a seven acre fire near his personal ranch in Idaho.

“Mr. Boren’s actions constitute potentially a misuse of taxpayer funds and put American families at further risk by diverting scarce resources from high-priority wildfires threatening communities elsewhere in the region and country,” the Senators wrote. “We request a full investigation into the nature and extent of Boren’s involvement in response to the Cabin Creek Fire and a detailed accounting of the safeguards the agency has implemented or plans to implement to prevent political interference and conflicts of interest in wildfire response.”

Earlier this month, it was reported that Mr. Boren used his position to pressure U.S. Forest Service personnel to divert already scarce firefighting resources away from other fires to suppress a small fire near his 480-acre ranch in the Sawtooth National Forest.

Nine aircraft were reportedly assigned to the fire, an extremely high number for a fire of this size. Western states are already facing a shortage of firefighting personnel and resources as a direct result of the Trump administration’s staffing and funding cuts. During this record setting fire season, fires of much larger size threatening American lives and homes have not received even a fraction of the same commitment of resources.

In their letter, the Senators requested details on how the Department would prevent similar interference by administration officials for personal gain in the future and requested the findings of a Department investigation of the incident be provided to the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Read the full text of the letter here and below.

Secretary Rollins:

We write to express serious concern regarding reports that Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment Michael Boren used his position to remove firefighting personnel and resources from active fires elsewhere to suppress a fire near his private ranch in Idaho. We request a full investigation into the nature and extent of Boren’s involvement in response to the Cabin Creek Fire and a detailed accounting of the safeguards the agency has implemented or plans to implement to prevent political interference and conflicts of interest in wildfire response.

Earlier this month, The Washington Post reported that Mr. Boren used his position to pressure U.S. Forest Service personnel to divert much-needed resources away from other fires to instead suppress a fire near his own property. The Cabin Creek Fire began on July 12, 2026, near Mr. Boren’s 480-acre ranch on the Sawtooth National Forest in Idaho. The fire burned seven acres before it was fully contained. During that time, nine aircraft were reportedly assigned to the fire, an extremely high number for a fire of this size. Mr. Boren reportedly called Forest Service officials multiple times – questioning why more aircrafts were not deployed to fight the fire and asking when more assets would arrive at the scene. One official quoted in the Post’s report described Boren’s interactions as “putting pressure on [staff] to throw more resources” to fight the fire.

During this record setting fire season, fires of much larger size have not received even a fraction of the same commitment of resources. For example, the Grasshopper Fire on the Mt. Hood National Forest is over 90,000 acres and less than 50% contained with a similar number of aviation resources assigned to it. The personal interests of political employees should not be a factor that influences the allocation of wildfire resources to communities threatened with devastation. Most states are already lacking the sufficient personnel and resources needed for this historic fire season due to the Trump administration’s own budget and staffing cuts and illconceived reorganization plans. Mr. Boren’s actions constitute potentially a misuse of taxpayer funds and put American families at further risk by diverting scarce resources from high-priority wildfires threatening communities elsewhere in the region and country.

As Under Secretary of Agriculture for Natural Resources and Environment, Mr. Boren’s duties include overseeing the Forest Service. His history of conflict with the agency is well documented and came up during the pendency of his nomination before the Senate. In fact, Mr. Boren was pointedly asked during the nomination process whether he would commit to recusing himself from matters involving his properties. Those concerns now appear to be validated by this incident. It has been nearly a year since Mr. Boren was confirmed by the Senate to serve in his current role. We must ask what, if any, safeguards have the administration put in place to ensure against this type of reported abuse of power. Political interference in wildfire response jeopardizes lives, property and federal resources.

We request that you respond by Thursday, September 10th detailing how the Department will prevent this type of inappropriate interference, or even the appearance of it, in wildfire response going forward. Additionally, we request transparent communication of the findings of the investigation to all members of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry, and the Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources.

Thank you for your prompt attention to this serious matter.

Sincerely

The BLM’s reversal of this commonsense rule will increase pollution on public lands, reduce domestic energy supply, expose nearby communities to avoidable health risks, and waste publicly owned natural gas, costing Americans tens of millions in foregone revenue.

“Reversing these common-sense standards will waste publicly owned natural gas, cost the American people tens of millions in foregone revenue, and increase pollution on our public lands,” the lawmakers wrote.

“We strongly urge BLM to reject this proposed rescission and maintain the 2024 Waste Prevention rule. The oil and gas resources on these lands belong to the American public and Tribal nations, and they deserve to benefit from the full value and benefits of responsible resource stewardship,” the lawmakers continued.

Read the full text of the letter HERE and below. 

Dear Secretary Burgum and Director Pearce,

We write to express our strong opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposed rule to overturn the 2024 Waste Prevention, Production Subject to Royalties, and Resource Conservation rule (the “2024 Waste Prevention Rule”).  Reversing these common-sense standards will waste publicly owned natural gas, cost the American people tens of millions in foregone revenue, and increase pollution on our public lands.

Between 2012 and 2021, operators lost an estimated 300 billion cubic feet of natural gas on federal lands to flaring and venting, valued at nearly $950 million, and resulting in a loss of between $76 and $135 million in potential taxpayer revenue. Routine venting and flaring of natural gas is unnecessary and harmful, turning natural gas into a waste product instead of a valuable energy commodity.

In addition to creating this financial loss, rolling back the 2024 Waste Prevention Rule would reduce our domestic energy supply and expose nearby communities to avoidable health risks. Methane is a greenhouse gas over 20 times as powerful as carbon dioxide. In addition to methane, the primary component of natural gas, venting and flaring releases volatile organic compounds that are carcinogenic, increase ground-level ozone, and lead directly to illness for both individuals and communities exposed.

Many states across the country have already demonstrated that limiting venting and flaring is compatible with robust energy production. Colorado adopted regulations in 2020 and New Mexico in 2021 that ended almost all venting and flaring. In addition, many major oil and gas producers have voluntarily agreed to avoid routine flaring on new wells by 2030. Furthermore, cost-effective technologies to detect and reduce methane waste, such as satellite monitoring, drones, and infrared cameras, are widely used across the oil and gas industry. Reversing the 2024 Waste Prevention Rule would prolong years of regulatory uncertainty, penalizing proactive operators that have invested in efficient operations while rewarding those that have not.

We strongly urge BLM to reject this proposed rescission and maintain the 2024 Waste Prevention rule. The oil and gas resources on these lands belong to the American public and Tribal nations, and they deserve to benefit from the full value and benefits of responsible resource stewardship.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON – Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the following statement celebrating the 110th anniversary of the National Park Service (NPS) today, August 25, 2026, during National Park Week, which runs from August 22 to August 30 this year. All entrance fees to national parks are waived for U.S. citizens and residents today, August 25, 2026. 

The 2024 Onshore Leasing Rule ensured that the concerns of states, Tribes, and local communities were included in decision-making and was a long-overdue correction to decades of BLM policies that favored oil and gas development over other uses and led to tens of thousands of dangerous abandoned wells that became the financial responsibility of taxpayers instead of the oil and gas companies. This rule had immense public support and established a balanced framework that saved taxpayer money, ensured multi-use management of public lands, and protected cultural resources and rural communities that depend on public lands.

In this letter, the lawmakers ask that the administration specifically reconsider oil and gas bonding requirements; public participation, Tribal consultation, and landowner involvement; and leasing preference criteria. 

“We write to express our strong opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposal to rescind the 2024 Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process rule (“2024 Leasing Rule”). The proposed replacement undermines the agency’s multiple-use mandate, promotes irresponsible oil and gas leasing, and fails to protect American taxpayers and private landowners,” the lawmakers began.

“[…] BLM’s newly proposed rule threatens to dismantle this common-sense progress. We are deeply concerned that the proposed changes shift cleanup liabilities back to the public, restrict community and private landowner participation, and distort the balance required to manage America’s public lands responsibly,” the lawmakers continued. 

Read the full text of the letter HERE and below. 

Dear Secretary Burgum and Director Pearce,

We write to express our strong opposition to the Bureau of Land Management’s (BLM) proposal to rescind the 2024 Fluid Mineral Leases and Leasing Process rule (“2024 Leasing Rule”). The proposed replacement undermines the agency’s multiple-use mandate, promotes irresponsible oil and gas leasing, and fails to protect American taxpayers and private landowners.

Our public lands support diverse economies rooted in fishing, hunting, livestock grazing, energy development, and outdoor recreation. For decades, as documented in the Department of Interior’s 2021 Report on the Federal Oil and Gas Leasing Program, BLM’s policies and management favored oil and gas development at the expense of other multiple uses. The 2024 Leasing Rule provided a long-overdue correction by directly addressing Government Accountability Office findings showing that BLM’s outdated leasing practices shortchanged the American public, invited speculation, and left taxpayers to foot the bill for cleaning up toxic, dangerous orphaned wells.

As the first comprehensive update to the onshore oil and gas program in nearly forty years, the 2024 Leasing Rule was finalized after robust public engagement, with 99 percent of the 260,000 public comments in support. It established a balanced framework that saves taxpayer dollars, ensures multi-use management, and protects cultural resources and rural communities that depend on public lands.

By contrast, BLM’s newly proposed rule threatens to dismantle this common-sense progress. We are deeply concerned that the proposed changes shift cleanup liabilities back to the public, restrict community and private landowner participation, and distort the balance required to manage America’s public lands responsibly. In particular, we request that you reconsider the following provisions:

Oil and Gas Bonding Requirements

The bonding requirements in the 2024 Leasing Rule represent a pragmatic, responsible approach to public land stewardship. Modernizing individual and statewide lease bonds is a fiscal necessity to ensure the “complete” and “timely” reclamation of federal well sites, as required by the Mineral Leasing Act (MLA). Reverting to outdated 1950s-era bonding levels is fiscally irresponsible, going against the wishes of Western states, many of which are increasing bonding rates for state lands, not decreasing them. Lowering bonding levels could also allow companies to abandon wells and shift hundreds of millions of dollars in clean-up costs to the American public. Furthermore, reinstating nationwide bonds allows operators to cover vast, multi-state liabilities, potentially up to thousands of wells, with a single, inadequate financial assurance. We urge BLM not to reauthorize nationwide bonding.

Over 89% of Westerners believe that energy developers, not taxpayers, should pay to clean up their own drilling sites. Weakening these federal bonding requirements ignores this overwhelming majority and the potential $753 billion in clean-up liability across 200 million acres of federal lands that would shift to taxpayers.

Public Participation, Tribal Consultation, & Landowner Involvement

Public participation and meaningful consultation with states, Tribes, and local stakeholders enables the agency to produce better, more thoughtful leasing decisions. Truncating public notice and comment periods unnecessarily and unfairly sidelines the Tribes, rural communities, hunters, anglers, and local business owners who know these lands best. Restricting public input does not streamline operations. It reduces transparency and degrades the quality of land-use decisions.

Further, it is illegal, as federal courts have specifically rejected efforts to cut the public out of the oil and gas leasing decision-making process. We urge BLM to maintain robust public comment and Tribal consultation periods.

In addition, there are over 57 million acres across the country of “split-estate” lands, where the federal government owns oil and gas resources, but the surface lands are privately owned. Since 2009 BLM has required oil and gas companies to identify the owners of split-estate lands prior to leasing, a requirement based on a recommendation from the George W. Bush administration. This proposed rule eliminates the long-standing notification requirements for private landowners, stripping ranchers, farmers, and homeowners of their ability to negotiate on how developers access and use their land while leaving them vulnerable to the permanent surface disruptions of industrial drilling.

Leasing Preference Criteria

The leasing preference criteria, adopted to ensure BLM’s multi-use mandate, have been highly effective at proactively directing leasing away from critical wildlife habitats and high-value recreation and livestock management areas, providing certainty to local communities, energy developers, ranchers, and local businesses. Erasing these clear criteria will inevitably revive conflicts between users, leading to costly litigation and regulatory uncertainty. A predictable leasing framework benefits everyone, and abandoning it is a step backwards.

For these reasons, we strongly oppose BLM’s proposal to rescind the 2024 Leasing Rule and urge BLM to maintain and continue to implement the current, balanced regulations. The 2024 Leasing Rule brought much-needed fiscal responsibility and balance for federal land management. The proposed rollbacks would jeopardize Western economies, abandon fiscal discipline, and undermine BLM’s multi-use mandate.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

###

“Nuclear energy is an important part of our clean energy future, and the United States should lead in advancing its safe and responsible deployment around the world. By working with our allies and partners through the FIRST program, we can strengthen energy security, support American innovation, and promote the highest standards for nuclear safety and nonproliferation,” said Heinrich. 

“Nuclear energy is a source of clean and abundant power, and its growth in the U.S. and around the world will lower costs for consumers and combat climate change,” said Coons. “Right now, too many nations that want to embrace nuclear power need to buy Chinese and Russian technology at huge cost, trapping them in debt. The United States should offer an alternative that keeps us on the cutting edge, strengthens our relationships around the world and keeps Americans safe.”

“The responsible development of civil nuclear energy, on an international scale, contributes to U.S. national security and bolsters our economy. The FIRST program has been a productive way for our nation to partner with good-faith actors who are building their nuclear arsenals, and continuing to leverage these public and private partnerships will help us advance our own energy dominance. Since North Carolina is a leader in next-generation nuclear technology, I am proud to partner with Senator Coons to bring this bipartisan solution forward and codify this program that will expand markets for our great innovators into law,” said Budd.

Launched in 2019, the FIRST program has worked to leverage U.S. public-private partnerships and expand our nuclear energy programs to bolster the United States’ position as a nuclear energy industry leader with partner countries. Currently, the State Department’s FIRST program partners with over 50 countries that are working towards exploring civil nuclear energy solutions and looking to achieve energy security through small modular reactors. The program also helps establish sustainable financial partnerships that support reactor financing to avoid debt-trap influence. This bill will solidify the goals of the FIRST program as a priority for the Department of State to build a better, safer, and cleaner infrastructure for nuclear energy.

The FIRST ACT would:

• Promote responsible deployment of civil nuclear energy internationally
• Advocate bilateral and multilateral diplomatic engagements and forums for civil nuclear energy projects
• Engage in diplomacy with partner governments prioritizing the highest safety, security, and nonproliferation standards
• Provide consultation to partner countries regarding best practices of licensing, legal, and regulatory frameworks
• Supply early-stage commercial project development support critical to launching United States commercial civil nuclear projects abroad
• Cooperate with partner countries in the areas of training programs, technical resource sharing, and potential coordination of codes and standards

The legislation is led by U.S. Senators Chris Coons (D-Del.) and Ted Budd (R-N.C.). Alongside Heinrich, the bill is cosponsored by U.S. Senator Pete Ricketts (R-Neb.).

The FIRST Act is endorsed by the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI), ClearPath, Breakthrough Institute (BTI), and Third Way.

The full text of the bill here. 

Additional Background on Heinrich’s Efforts to Develop Nuclear Energy Responsibly:

Heinrich has long championed policies that develop nuclear energy responsibly, modernize and improve facilities that handle nuclear waste, and provide compensation and support for communities and workers harmed by radiation exposure.

In April, Heinrich pressed National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) officials on addressing the housing shortage around Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), accelerating cleanup of the hexavalent chromium plume near the Lab, strengthening public-private partnerships to advance America's fusion capabilities, and modernizing critical nuclear security infrastructure at Sandia National Laboratories.

In April, Heinrich cosponsored legislation to amend the WIPP Land Withdrawal Act to ensure sustained, inflation-adjusted funding for New Mexico communities to maintain vital infrastructure projects, such as road maintenance and repairs, for the duration of WIPP’s operation.

In January, Heinrich secured $10 million in the FY2026 Energy and Water Development Appropriations Bill to improve roads leading to and from WIPP through recommended payments from the DOE to the State of New Mexico. This investment was the first time that funds had been appropriated for this purpose since 2014. 

Last November, Heinrich introduced the No Nuclear Testing Without Approval Act, legislation to ensure that no president can unilaterally resume explosive nuclear testing in response to President Trump announcing that the United States would resume testing nuclear weapons, a practice that the U.S. abandoned in 1992.

Last November, Heinrich and U.S. Senator Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) led Senate Democrats in urging President Trump to reverse course on resuming explosive nuclear weapons testing, warning that restarting tests would endanger public health, undermine global nonproliferation efforts, and needlessly increase national security risks.

After more than a decade of advocacy, Heinrich helped secure the expansion of the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) into law last July, finally providing compensation to New Mexico's Trinity Downwinders, uranium workers, and other communities harmed by radiation exposure. Heinrich reintroduced legislation to extend and expand RECA since his first Senate term, starting in 2013.

###

MEMORANDUM 

To:      Reporters and Editors 

The letter follows reporting that DOI officials have destroyed official documents and used encrypted mobile applications with disappearing message configurations to avoid preserving records. These actions would violate the Federal Records Act, which requires the head of each federal agency to properly preserve all records documenting the organization, policies, and functions of the agency.

“We write to request information regarding the Department of the Interior’s compliance with federal records retention requirements. We are deeply concerned by recent reports that officials at the Department have reportedly engaged in actions in violation of the Federal Records Act,”the Senators began. 

“It is imperative that all employees at the Department – regardless of title or position – understand and comply with federal records retention requirements. Government must be transparent and accountable to the American people,” the Senators continued.

The Senators concluded the letter by demanding Burgum provide clarity on DOI's record retention policies and procedures, how these procedures relate to encrypted mobile devices and mobile applications on government devices, and whether he has ever directed, ordered, or been aware of any DOI official destroying or concealing federal records.

Read the full text of the letter here and below.

Secretary Burgum:

We write to request information regarding the Department of the Interior’s compliance with federal records retention requirements. We are deeply concerned by recent reports that officials at the Department have reportedly engaged in actions in violation of the Federal Records Act.

According to a recent report in Politico, officials at the Department have reportedly destroyed official documents and used encrypted mobile applications equipped with disappearing message configurations to avoid preserving records.  One employee quoted in the article stated, “[t]hey’re [Department officials] terrified of written records.”

Under the Federal Records Act, the head of each federal agency is required to “make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency….” The Federal Records Act broadly defines “record” and includes “all recorded information, regardless of form or characteristics, made or received by a Federal agency under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business and preserved or appropriate for preservation by that agency.” Any employee that conceals or destroys a federal record may be subject to fine or imprisonment. 

It is imperative that all employees at the Department – regardless of title or position – understand and comply with federal records retention requirements. Government must be transparent and accountable to the American people. We therefore request that you clearly communicate to all employees their legal obligation to comply with the Federal Records Act. Additionally, in light of the serious nature of this matter, we request you provide responses to the following questions by September 2, 2026:

1. Please describe the Department’s record retention policies and procedures. Since the start of this Administration, please provide all guidance the Department has shared with employees regarding their obligation to comply with federal records retention requirements.
2. Please describe the Department’s policies and procedures related to encrypted mobile applications, including whether the Department permits the use of such applications on government devices. Since the start of this Administration, please provide all guidance the Department has shared with employees regarding their obligation to comply with federal records retention requirements when using encrypted mobile applications. 
3. Please provide responses to the following questions:
   1. Have you directed or ordered any Department employee to destroy or conceal a federal record?
   2. Are you aware of any Department official destroying or concealing a federal record?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.

###

WASHINGTON — U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, released the following statement reacting to the Trump administration’s announcement that the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) has filed a proposed rule to rescind the Roadless Rule. 

WASHINGTON – This week, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, U.S. Representatives Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), Ranking Member of the House Natural Resources Committee, and Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), Ranking Member of the House Homeland Security Committee, along with Pablo José Hernández (D-P.R.), Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, sent a letter to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a briefing and a full investigation into Puerto Rico’s drinking water shortage, the condition of its water and wastewater systems, and what federal agencies are doing to help.  

After Heinrich successfully defeated Republicans’ attempt to gift President Trump $1 billion in federal funding through their partisan reconciliation bill in June, and although President Trump repeatedly claimed that the ballroom and demolition of the East Wing would be privately funded, reporting shows that the administration has inappropriately and illegally diverted more than $300 million in federal funding for the President’s White House ballroom project.

“Congress has neither authorized nor appropriated funding for the ‘East Wing Modernization Project,’ nor has Congress been provided any planning details or justifications that would allow for informed consideration of the White House’s plans that would be a prerequisite for authorization or appropriation of funds. The lack of congressional authorization has been central to the ongoing litigation challenging the ballroom project, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that President Trump lacks the legal authority to construct a White House ballroom without congressional authorization,” the Senators wrote.

“Simply put, no president has the authority to unilaterally demolish and remodel the country’s White House in such a significant manner without congressional approval,” the Senators continued.

“The Trump administration has not provided transparency into the use of federal funds for the East Wing project, and they have limited congressional oversight, meaningful public input, and adherence to established federal processes,” the Senators wrote.

The ballroom is part of a larger White House construction project that has ballooned to a cost of at least $900 million, the majority of which would be borne by American taxpayers.

The letter was led by U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Budget Committee. In addition to Heinrich, the letter was co-signed by Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and U.S. Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Jack Reed (R-RI.), and Gary Peters (D-Mich.).

As Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Heinrich has led the fight to ensure that taxpayer dollars are not being spent on Trump’s vanity projects, especially as working families are being squeezed by skyrocketing costs on everyday essentials due to the President’s tariffs and reckless, illegal war with Iran.

In June, Heinrich led a letter demanding answers from U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Secretary Doug Burgum regarding the Department's rushed rehabilitation project of the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. In August, he joined a letter with U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Public Works Committee, calling for an investigation from DOI Deputy Inspector General Caryl Brzymialkiewicz into what Department officials knew about engineering failures at the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool and whether DOI employees withheld evidence from federal prosecutors.

In June, Heinrich also joined a letter with U.S. Senator Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), where he pressed DOI Secretary Doug Burgum for answers  on the Trump administration redirecting tens of millions of dollars from fees paid to the National Park Service (NPS) to fund President Trump’s vanity projects in Washington, D.C. – including redirecting funds collected at New Mexico sites such as Carlsbad Caverns National Park and Bandelier National Monument.

In May, Heinrich successfully blocked Senate Republicans from funding Trump’s ballroom project with $1 billion in taxpayer dollars through their partisan reconciliation budget bill, arguing it violated the Byrd Rule — a Senate rule designed to prevent unrelated policy provisions from being jammed into reconciliation bills that can pass with a simple majority instead of the usual 60-vote threshold.

Heinrich has also voted to prohibit the construction of a ‘‘Triumphal Arch,’’ proposed by President Trump in 2025.

Read the full text of the letter here and below:  

Dear Acting Comptroller General Williams Brown:

Many of us in Congress have watched with alarm as the Trump administration unilaterally made the decision to demolish the East Wing of the White House—an historic and symbolic structure—without congressional authorization, meaningful public engagement, or following long-established practice for government facilities modernization and historic preservation. The subsequent construction of a new White House ballroom represents one of the most sweeping alterations to the White House complex in modern history. The scale of this project, the destruction of historic architecture, the opaque and unorthodox combination of public funds with private funding sources, and the absence of standard federal review processes raise serious concerns about transparency, accountability, and stewardship of this national landmark.

Congress has neither authorized nor appropriated funding for the “East Wing Modernization Project,” nor has Congress been provided any planning details or justifications that would allow for informed consideration of the White House’s plans that would be a prerequisite for authorization or appropriation of funds. The lack of congressional authorization has been central to the ongoing litigation challenging the ballroom project, National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. National Park Service. This month, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed that President Trump lacks the legal authority to construct a White House ballroom without congressional authorization. Simply put, no president has the authority to unilaterally demolish and remodel the country’s White House in such a significant manner without congressional approval.

President Trump repeatedly claimed that the demolition of the East Wing and construction of a dramatically expanded gilded ballroom would be carried out solely using private donations, and that no taxpayer funds would be used. Despite those assurances, the administration first tried and failed to secure $1 billion in federal funding for the ballroom through a partisan Republican reconciliation bill, then shifted tact to inappropriately and illegally pay for over half of the $600 million ballroom with previously appropriated funding not intended for this project.  It has also been reported that the Trump Administration is utilizing a $500 million no-bid contract to fund the construction of the ballroom—funding that Congress did not approve.

The Trump administration has not provided transparency into the use of federal funds for the East Wing project, and they have limited congressional oversight, meaningful public input, and adherence to established federal processes.

To support Congress’s oversight responsibilities, we request that GAO conduct an audit and assessment of the White House ballroom project and related documentation, including the following:

Planning, Review and Approval Processes: What design, review, and construction approval processes are being applied to the ballroom project? How do these processes and timelines compare to those used for other similar federal construction efforts involving the White House, other historic properties, executive facilities, or national security sensitive sites? Please assess whether required architectural, preservation, environmental, and interagency reviews were conducted and whether any were bypassed, abbreviated or ignored. What documents, if any, were filed with required approval entities prior to initiation of work?

Funding Sources and Cost Transparency: How is the project being funded, including appropriated funds, reconciliation funds, transfers, reprogramming actions, or donated materials and services? Was an initial cost estimate prepared and if so, by what agency or entity and what were the projections from that estimate? What are the total estimated project costs, how much has been obligated and expended to date, and what is the anticipated timeline for completion? What cost control measures were specified for use under this project? Are the funds that were transferred from U.S. Secret Service account to a “White House Repair and Restoration” account within the Executive Residence at the White House, as reported by the Office of Management and Budget, intended for use in the East Wing Modernization Project? Have any federal agencies involved in the East Wing Modernization Project included funding for this project in spend plans submitted to the Office of Management and Budget?

Security Related Components and Interagency Roles: Which elements of the project have been designated as national security related, what criteria were used to make those determinations, and what funding sources are being used for those components? How have appropriate congressional committees been updated on cost and design planning considerations? What is the role of the U.S. Secret Service, the White House Military Office, the White House Communications Agency and the Department of Defense in planning, approving, and coordinating construction activities (including facility communications upgrades and installation of security equipment and other non-construction features), and how are these agencies collaborating among themselves and with other federal entities?

Public Input and Transparency: What opportunities, if any, were provided for public input, expert consultation, or stakeholder engagement prior to demolition of the East Wing and initiation of the ballroom project? Please assess whether federal agencies followed standard public notice and comment practices for major alterations to historic federal properties, whether relevant preservation and advisory bodies were consulted, and how the level of public transparency compares to similar federal construction projects involving historic or iconic sites.

Contractor Donations, Potential Corruption, and Safeguards: Recent public reporting indicates that several contractors and donors associated with the ballroom project have subsequently received substantial federal contract awards, reportedly totaling more than $50 billion. Please assess what safeguards, if any, federal agencies applied to prevent conflicts of interest, preferential treatment, or corruption related to contractors who donated materials, services, or funds to the project. Specifically, what controls exist to ensure that contributions to the project did not influence contract award decisions, and how do these safeguards compare to standard federal procurement integrity requirements? What evaluation criteria were used in identifying and selecting contractors for this effort? Please evaluate whether agencies documented their rationale for contract awards to donor contractors and whether any deviations from standard competitive procedures occurred.

Given the scale, visibility, and long-term implications of this project, an independent GAO review is essential to ensure accountability, transparency, and responsible management of federal resources and historic assets. We request that you provide an update on your proposed plan for this audit by no later than December 1, 2026, with subsequent updates and a final report to be provided at a mutually agreed upon date.

Sincerely,

###

Since the implementation of Executive Order 14241 and the passage of President Trump’s Big, Bad Bill, the federal government has actively acquired financial stakes in several mining firms. In their letter, Heinrich and Huffman raised concerns about whether the administration is adequately assessing the financial risks of those investments, protecting taxpayer dollars, and preventing conflicts of interest – particularly when these mining operations involve public lands. 

“The government’s expanded use of these new financial tools has raised concerns that we request the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine, including whether and how the federal government is assessing financial risks, protecting taxpayer funds, and managing potential conflicts between its roles as investor and regulator,” Heinrich and Huffman began.

“Citing Executive Order 14241, federal agencies have waived standard disclosure rules, which legally require public mining companies to demonstrate commercial viability. By bypassing these disclosures, agencies may be committing billions in taxpayer funds to speculative mining projects on federal lands without objective, documented verification of their economic viability,” the lawmakers continued.

“These equity acquisitions also create potential conflicts of interest for federal agencies because a significant portion of the planned mining operations are located on federal lands... As billions of public dollars flow into these private ventures, oversight is needed to ensure the transparency of these investments, manage inherent conflicts of interest, and protect taxpayer funds from potential fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption,” the Ranking Members wrote. 

The Ranking Members ended their letter asking GAO to investigate whether the proper safeguards, transparency mechanisms, and internal coordinating processes are in place to ensure taxpayer dollars are protected from potential fraud, waste, and abuse. Heinrich and Huffman have worked to hold the Trump administration accountable for potential conflicts of interest in dealings with mining companies. Last February, Heinrich and Huffman sent a letter to the U.S. Secretaries of Defense, Energy, Commerce, and the Interior demanding documents and a briefing on the Trump administration's unprecedented acquisition of equity stakes in multiple mining and mineral companies using taxpayer dollars.

Read the full letter here and below: 

Dear Ms. Williams Brown:

In response to Executive Order 14241 and authorities provided under Public Law 119-21 (the One Big Beautiful Bill Act), the federal government has actively acquired direct equity stakes, preferred stock, and warrants in several private mining firms. However, the government’s expanded use of these new financial tools has raised concerns that we request the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) examine, including whether and how the federal government is assessing financial risks, protecting taxpayer funds, and managing potential conflicts between its roles as investor and regulator.

Citing Executive Order 14241, federal agencies have waived standard disclosure rules, which legally require public mining companies to demonstrate commercial viability.  By bypassing these disclosures, agencies may be committing billions in taxpayer funds to speculative mining projects on federal lands without objective, documented verification of their economic viability.

These equity acquisitions also create potential conflicts of interest for federal agencies because a significant portion of the planned mining operations are located on federal lands. With the executive branch now holding direct financial equity in these private mining operations, the federal government is required to act simultaneously as a mining investor and land-use regulator, an inherent conflict of interest.

As billions of public dollars flow into these private ventures, oversight is needed to ensure the transparency of these investments, manage inherent conflicts of interest, and protect taxpayer funds from potential fraud, waste, abuse, and corruption.

Accordingly, we request that GAO examine:

1. To what extent did the National Energy Dominance Council, including its member federal agencies, implement transparency measures and assess financial risks to taxpayers—including by evaluating independent economic feasibility studies—prior to executing equity agreements for projects extracting minerals from federal lands? What role does the National Energy Dominance Council play in conducting due diligence on potential investments, and what due diligence is required of member federal agencies? Are those roles and procedures standardized? If so, how?
2. What mechanisms and safeguards, if any, have the Bureau of Land Management, the Forest Service, and other relevant federal agencies established to manage potential regulatory and permitting conflicts of interest arising from the federal government’s dual role as both an equity investor and regulator of mineral mining operations on federal lands? If mechanisms and safeguards exist, how are they being implemented?
3. To what extent has the National Energy Dominance Council, including its member federal agencies, designed and implemented internal controls to prevent, detect, and respond to fraud, waste, abuse, and conflict-of-interest risks associated with the structuring and execution of corporate equity investments involving the extraction of minerals from federal lands?
4. To what extent is the National Energy Dominance Council coordinating additional federal involvement or investment in minerals projects in which the federal government has taken an equity stake? Is the National Energy Dominance Council coordinating with the Export-Import Bank of the United States-funded Project VAULT to assess the impact of import-focused federal stockpiling on federal equity investments in domestic mining? To what extent, if at all, is the National Energy Dominance Council coordinating with the State Department and other relevant federal agencies to understand the impact of their activities upon federal equity investments in domestic mining?  If so, how does this process interact with conflict-of-interest safeguards?

Thank you for your prompt attention to this request.

Sincerely,

###

WASHINGTON — Today, U.S. Senator Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, led nine colleagues in sending a letter to U.S. Department of the Interior Secretary Doug Burgum strongly opposing Interior’s wilderness management policy review, which may threaten the wilderness character of public lands and disqualify them for future designation by Congress — undermining Congress’ role in wilderness management, and placing nearly 200 million acres of public land at risk.

Heinrich was joined by U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jeffrey Merkley (D-Ore.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).

“Lands with wilderness characteristics, wilderness study areas, and designated wilderness areas protect millions of acres of intact habitat, watersheds, ecological and cultural resources, scenic and backcountry values. The undisturbed nature of the entire wilderness system protects whole swaths of habitat and protects migration corridors that aid in the protection of endangered species from the Canada Lynx to the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker,” Heinrich and his colleagues wrote. “These areas are some of the best places to fish, hunt, hike, or backpack. They are unparalleled and protected for the sake of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation and are beloved lands.”

Since the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress has had the authority to designate wilderness areas to protect and conserve some of this country’s wildest places. Congress also has the authority to decide not to designate certain areas as wilderness and release them for general use. The agencies under Burgum’s jurisdiction can identify lands with wilderness characteristics; but each agency is required to manage these lands with the goal of protecting their wilderness characteristics. But regardless of how they are selected, the final decision about designation rests with Congress.

“It is atypical for the Interior Department to conduct land management planning by asking for comment on its agencies’ general operating procedures. And given this Administration’s obsession with development and disposal of public lands, it seems clear that this comment period is really just a ploy to weaken protections for public lands,” the lawmakers continued. “This sweeping review comes in addition to the Administration’s efforts to strip protections from national monuments and cultural resource areas, sell vast amounts of public lands in the West, repeal Roadless Rule protections, and change how travel management is developed on public lands.”

The lawmakers went on, vocalizing concern that the Department’s proposed management changes place nearly 200 million acres of public lands at risk, “The management changes that you are seeking will threaten the wilderness character of these lands and may disqualify them for future designation by Congress. Not only does this undermine Congress’ role in wilderness management, but it places nearly 200 million acres of public land at risk. Further, we respectfully request that your Department consider the 60-year history of wilderness management in this country before taking extreme actions that will jeopardize some of our most valued lands. These lands must be managed at the non-impairment standard so that they can remain untrammeled.”

Read the full text of the letter here and below: 

Dear Secretary Burgum,

We write to express our deep concern about the Interior Department’s review of its wilderness management policies. Lands with wilderness characteristics, wilderness study areas, and designated wilderness areas protect millions of acres of intact habitat, watersheds, ecological and cultural resources, scenic and backcountry values. The undisturbed nature of the entire wilderness system protects whole swaths of habitat and protects migration corridors that aid in the protection of endangered species from the Canada Lynx to the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker. The security from pollution protects millions of acres of headwaters and clean water that benefit communities across the country. Further, wilderness and future wilderness areas contribute to the vastness of the outdoor recreation economy, inviting visitors to enjoy the wildness of the areas. These areas are some of the best places to fish, hunt, hike, or backpack. They are unparalleled and protected for the sake of solitude or primitive and unconfined recreation and are beloved lands.

Since the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964, Congress has had the authority to designate wilderness areas to protect and conserve some of this country’s wildest places. Congress also has the authority to decide not to designate certain areas as wilderness and release them for general use. The agencies under your jurisdiction can identify lands with wilderness characteristics; but each agency is required to manage these lands with the goal of protecting their wilderness characteristics. But regardless of how they are selected, the final decision about designation rests with Congress.

It is atypical for the Interior Department to conduct land management planning by asking for comment on its agencies’ general operating procedures. And given this Administration’s obsession with development and disposal of public lands, it seems clear that this comment period is really just a ploy to weaken protections for public lands. This sweeping review comes in addition to the Administration’s efforts to strip protections from national monuments and cultural resource areas, sell vast amounts of public lands in the West, repeal Roadless Rule protections, and change how travel management is developed on public lands. Opening five different comment periods for three different agencies to solicit changes to a myriad of wilderness policies only creates confusion. Soliciting comments on how designated wilderness is managed by the Bureau of Land Management is not in line with the Wilderness Act or the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. 

The management changes that you are seeking will threaten the wilderness character of these lands and may disqualify them for future designation by Congress. Not only does this undermine Congress’ role in wilderness management, but it places nearly 200 million acres of public land at risk.

Lands with wilderness characteristics and parcels that qualify for future designation need to be properly stewarded until Congress decides their permanent status. Each of these areas have management plan that were developed with public input and comments specific to the landscape. Opening a general comment period does not compare to the qualified review, public engagement, and specificity that each unit of the National Park Service, the Bureau of Land Management, or the Fish and Wildlife Service receives in land management planning.

Therefore, we write in opposition to any policy changes that place congressionally designated wilderness areas, wilderness study areas, lands with wilderness characteristics, or lands that agencies have identified as eligible or suitable for designation, at risk. Further, we respectfully request that your Department consider the 60-year history of wilderness management in this country before taking extreme actions that will jeopardize some of our most valued lands. These lands must be managed at the non-impairment standard so that they can remain untrammeled.

###

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Ranking Member of the U.S. Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) led 34 Senators in a letter to President Trump expressing strong opposition to his executive order reducing the boundaries and stripping protections from the Grand Staircase-Escalante and Bears Ears National Monuments in southern Utah. In the letter, the senators highlight how the executive order places irreplaceable cultural, historic, scientific, ecological, and recreational resources at risk of destruction and loss.   

The Senators raised concerns that USDA’s proposed rule goes far beyond AFIDA’s original purpose of increasing transparency around foreign ownership of agricultural land by dramatically expanding the definition of “agricultural land” to include renewable energy facilities, pipeline corridors, conservation lands, and other infrastructure. They argued the proposal would create unnecessary barriers for energy developers, rural communities, and investors while doing little to improve national security.

“On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a proposed rule (Docket No. USDA-2026-0001) to update the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). If finalized, the proposed rule could have damaging consequences for national and energy security. We urge USDA to make changes to the proposed rule to address these serious impacts,” the Senators began.

In the letter, the Senators acknowledged the importance of ensuring AFIDA provides transparency into foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land and helps protect against potential threats from foreign adversaries. However, they warned that USDA’s proposed changes could impact national security and undermine efforts to address rising energy and food prices.

The Senators wrote, “We are concerned that USDA's proposed rule may exceed what is necessary to address those objectives, have unintended national security consequences, and may create substantial new compliance burdens on agricultural producers, landowners, infrastructure operators, energy developers, and investors that could undermine efforts to address rising energy and food prices without a corresponding national security benefit.”

The Senators also raised concerns that USDA’s proposal is built upon an expansive definition of “agricultural land” that would sweep in projects and facilities that have little connection to traditional agricultural production, including renewable energy projects and other critical infrastructure.

“Current definitions of agricultural production in the Code of Federal Regulations are narrowly focused on the plain understanding of the term, ‘the cultivation, growing, or harvesting of plants and crops (including farming), breeding, raising, feeding, or housing of livestock (including ranching); forestry products, hydroponics, or nursery stock; or aquaculture.’ It stretches credibility to suggest that, in enacting AFIDA in 1978, Congress envisioned something beyond this narrow commonsense definition to something so expansive as to include renewable energy production, pipeline corridors, warehousing, supply-chain facilities, or land that is currently under conservation,” the Senators continued. 

The Senators additionally raised concerns about the potential unintended national security consequences of the proposed rule and its requirement for geospatial mapping information about energy and food processing infrastructure to be made available in an online database accessible to the nation’s adversaries.

“Rather than improving national security, we believe the proposed rule creates new serious vulnerabilities and national security risks by imposing significant new geospatial mapping compliance obligations. Companies would be required to provide detailed boundary mapping, land-use information, and amended filings within 90 days of assignments, transfers, ownership changes, or land-use conversions. The expansion of who must report and the requirement to disclose geospatial mapping information about energy production infrastructure and food processing facilities into a central online database essentially provides our adversaries with targeting information for critical infrastructure and unnecessarily exposes business sensitive information,” the Senators continued.

The Senators continued the letter by emphasizing the importance of both the threats from foreign adversaries and the high energy and food prices crisis that is hurting American workers and families: “The United States should continue to protect its agricultural land, food supply, and critical infrastructure from threats posed by foreign adversaries. At the same time, regulatory policy should be carefully calibrated to ensure that federal resources remain focused on genuine national security risks and that compliance burdens do not unnecessarily discourage lawful investment that supports American farmers, rural communities, and affordable energy and food.”

The Senators concluded the letter by requesting a briefing from USDA on the proposed rule, its impacts on key sectors, the legal basis for expanding the definition of “agricultural land,” and the Department’s plan to protect sensitive information.

Read the full letter here and below: 

Dear Secretary Rollins:

On June 25, 2026, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) published a proposed rule (Docket No. USDA-2026-0001)1 to update the regulations governing the Agricultural Foreign Investment Disclosure Act of 1978 (AFIDA). If finalized, the proposed rule could have damaging consequences for national and energy security. We urge USDA to make changes to the proposed rule to address these serious impacts.

We have a strong interest in ensuring that AFIDA effectively supports transparency about foreign ownership of U.S. agricultural land and provides policymakers with accurate information necessary to protect America's food security and national security interests. We also recognize the legitimate need to ensure that foreign adversaries cannot exploit weaknesses in federal oversight of investments involving agricultural land and critical infrastructure.

However, we are concerned that USDA's proposed rule may exceed what is necessary to address those objectives, have unintended national security consequences, and may create substantial new compliance burdens on agricultural producers, landowners, infrastructure operators, energy developers, and investors that could undermine efforts to address rising energy and food prices without a corresponding national security benefit.

At the foundation of the proposed rule is a dramatic expansion of the definition of “agricultural land” that goes well beyond the scope envisioned statutorily by AFIDA or the plain commonsense understanding of the phrase. The proposed rule would expand “agricultural land” to include renewable energy facilities, pipeline corridors, warehousing activities, conservation lands, agricultural research facilities, easements, leases, and rights-of-way. The underlying statute defines “agricultural land” as land “used for agricultural, forestry or timber production purposes.” Current definitions of agricultural production in the Code of Federal Regulations are narrowly focused on the plain understanding of the term, “the cultivation, growing, or harvesting of plants and crops (including farming) breeding, raising, feeding, or housing of livestock (including ranching); forestry products, hydroponics, or nursery stock; or aquaculture.” It stretches credibility to suggest that, in enacting AFIDA in 1978, Congress envisioned something beyond this narrow commonsense definition to something so expansive as to include renewable energy production, pipeline corridors, warehousing, supply-chain facilities, or land that is currently under conservation.

The proposed rule also reduces the “significant interest or substantial control” threshold regarding what transactions need to be reported from 50% to 10% aggregate non-U.S. equity interests, in any direct or indirect combination. Further, the rule redefines beneficial ownership to include any foreign person with decision-making authority over agricultural land under the expanded categorical definitions. 

The 10% aggregate equity interest threshold is especially unworkable for a publicly traded company, because ordinary institutional trading could trigger AFIDA reporting without the company knowing the threshold has been crossed. Real-time foreign equity ownership is not something a public company can verify with accuracy, let alone within the 90-day window before penalties begin.

Even more troubling is that the aggregate ownership test and the beneficial owner test contain no carve-out for allied capital. A Canadian pension fund or a European infrastructure investor triggers the same 10% threshold and the same no-floor beneficial owner standard as a known adversary-linked entity, despite posing none of the risk the rule is meant to address.

Rather than improving national security, we believe the proposed rule creates new serious vulnerabilities and national security risks by imposing significant new geospatial mapping compliance obligations. Companies would be required to provide detailed boundary mapping, land-use information, and amended filings within 90 days of assignments, transfers, ownership changes, or land-use conversions. The expansion of who must report and the requirement to disclose geospatial mapping information about energy production infrastructure and food processing facilities into a central online database essentially provides our adversaries with targeting information for critical infrastructure and unnecessarily exposes business sensitive information.

The cumulative impact of expanding who must report and what filers must disclose, along with increased penalties for compliance errors and delays will have a chilling effect on investment in both energy production and food processing at a time when families and small businesses are already struggling with high energy and food prices.

The United States should continue to protect its agricultural land, food supply, and critical infrastructure from threats posed by foreign adversaries. At the same time, regulatory policy should be carefully calibrated to ensure that federal resources remain focused on genuine national security risks and that compliance burdens do not unnecessarily discourage lawful investment that supports American farmers, rural communities, and affordable energy and food.

We respectfully request a briefing from USDA on the proposed rule, including its anticipated impacts on the energy, infrastructure, and agricultural sectors, the legal basis for expanding the definition of "agricultural land," and how the Department intends to protect sensitive infrastructure and investor information collected under the rule. We also request a written response addressing the concerns raised in this letter.

We appreciate your attention to this matter and look forward to your response.

###

“I write to demand that you preserve all records and communications related to the administration’s cancellation of more than $7.5 billion of energy project grants,” Heinrich began.

“Following reports that the Trump administration acknowledged in court filings that it terminated more than $7.5 billion of energy grants due to political motivations, I wrote to you along with 38 senators demanding the administration restore funding to those projects that were illegally canceled,” Heinrich continued. “Today, I write to request that you preserve all documents, communications, and records related to the termination of those energy projects. As you know, under the law, you are required to comply with records preservation requirements.”

In his letter, Heinrich demands that the DOE preserve all forms of communications (including, but not limited to, e-mails, electronic documents, and data) since January 20, 2025, related to the termination of the above-mentioned energy projects. The letter also requests that all former DOE employees who may have access to such records are immediately identified and notified.

Heinrich is leading the effort to secure accountability and transparency into DOE’s illegal cancellation of energy project grants. Last week, following the Trump administration's admission that it canceled projects in states that did not vote for President Trump in the 2024 election, Heinrich led 38 Senators in demanding that funding be restored.

In October 2025, following the news that the Trump administration illegally canceled clean energy project grants, Heinrich led 36 of his Senate colleagues in sending a letter to DOE Secretary Chris Wright and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, demanding that they restore the projects’ funding. 

Read the full text of the letter here and below:  

Secretary Wright:

I write to demand that you preserve all records and communications related to the administration’s cancellation of more than $7.5 billion of energy project grants.

Following reports that the Trump administration acknowledged in court filings that it terminated more than $7.5 billion of energy grants due to political motivations, I wrote to you along with 38 senators demanding the administration restore funding to those projects that were illegally canceled.  Today, I write to request that you preserve all documents, communications, and records related to the termination of those energy projects. As you know, under the law, you are required to comply with records preservation requirements. 

To ensure that the records are produced to the Committee in potential future document requests without undue delay, I request that you do the following immediately:

1. Preserve all records and communications, not limited to e-mail, electronic documents, and data, created since January 20, 2025, related to the termination of the above-mentioned energy projects; and
2. Identify and immediately notify any former employees, including contractors, subcontractors, consultants, and any other individuals or entities who may have access to such records. Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation with this request.

###

DOE sets energy conservation standards for roughly 60 household and commercial products under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA). However, Congress has not updated EPCA since 2007, when it expanded many of the efficiency requirements for covered products.

In recent years, manufacturers have raised concerns that DOE’s efficiency requirements have raised appliance costs and yielded minimal savings for consumers.

“Climate alarmism turned ordinary appliances into political targets,” said Chairman Lee. “Under the Biden administration, regulators repeatedly pursued standards that narrowed consumer choice without adequately accounting for performance or cost. The Energy Efficiency Reform Act changes that approach by requiring the government to prove that a new standard is achievable and economically justified before American families are required to live with the consequences.”

“AGA applauds Chairman Lee’s introduction of the Energy Efficiency Reform Act of 2026, critical legislation to return the Energy Policy and Conservation Act back to its original intent of ensuring fuel-neutral energy efficiency standards that improve energy efficiency without placing an undue cost burden on American families and small businesses,” said American Gas Association President and CEO Karen Harbert. “For too long, EPCA has been manipulated to force changes that raise costs and eliminate options for cooking, clothes drying and heating. This bill rolls back harmful standards that would eliminate access to natural gas furnaces and water heaters while ensuring future efficiency standards focus on saving energy and money rather than playing politics and eliminating consumer choice.”

The Energy Efficiency Reform Act of 2026 would:

Codify the Process Rule

The Process Rule governs how DOE conducts its analyses and determines whether new or revised standards are technologically feasible and economically justified.

The 2020 Process Rule made several changes intended to provide greater stability to manufacturers. The Biden administration rolled back many of those provisions in 2021 and 2024.

The bill requires DOE to finalize the proposed Process Rule released on July 7, 2026, within 270 days. If the Secretary fails to finalize the rule, the regulations would revert to the 2020 Process Rule.

Remove the six-year lookback requirement

Current law requires DOE to review product standards every six years to determine whether they should be updated.

In practice, DOE often takes so long to issue new standards that another review is required before manufacturers can implement them. DOE also regularly misses the statutory deadline and is then subjected to litigation.

The bill removes the six-year review requirement, while maintaining the ability of the public and industry to petition DOE for a new or amended standard. However, it raises the evidentiary standard for those petitions to ensure there is sufficient evidence that a standard should be increased or lowered.

Clarify the criteria for creating a product class

DOE regulates covered products through product classes. These classes can affect consumer choice by eliminating features or prioritizing efficiency over performance.

The bill adds requirements and considerations DOE must meet before creating a new product class.

Strengthen federal preemption

EPCA preempts state laws that set standards for covered products that are inconsistent with federal standards. However, some states have passed laws banning covered products based on their fuel source or imposing state standards where federal standards have been repealed.

The bill clarifies that states may not ban covered products based on their fuel source, emissions requirements, or impose their own standards in the absence of a current federal standard. In those cases, the previously issued federal standard would remain in effect.

Bill text

DOE claims that the proposed revision to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program process rule, issued in July 2026, would effectively end the federal program that has helped lower energy bills and improve the efficiency of home appliances for nearly 40 years.

Heinrich was joined by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Catherine Cortez-Masto (D-Nev.), John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawai‘i), Angus King (I-Maine), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Edward Markey (D-Mass.), Peter Welch (D-Vt.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), and Cory Booker (D-N.J.).

“At a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, this administration should be focused on making energy affordable and increasing grid capacity — not hamstringing a program that has consistently reduced bills for American families,” the Senators began.

“Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that existing standards have reduced total U.S. energy consumption by 6.5 percent and saved the average households $576 per year. By eliminating this program going forward, the Trump administration would increase utility bills for households by $150 each year, increase peak electricity demand by 32 gigawatts (GW) in 2040, and increase cumulative CO2 emissions by nearly 1 billion metric tons through 2050,” the Senators continued.

“The law requires DOE to adopt standards ‘designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency..., which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified,’ and that results in ‘significant’ energy savings,” the Senators concluded. “The proposed rule undermines the letter and purpose of the appliance standards statute by the administration’s own admission: the rule is designed to “permanently end” appliance and equipment standards.”

The Senators concluded the letter urging Wright to withdraw the provision and implement the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program as Congress mandated.

Read the full text of the letter here and below: 

Secretary Wright:

We write to express strong opposition to the Department of Energy’s (DOE’s) proposed revision to the process rule for the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program. At a time when energy prices are skyrocketing, this Administration should be focused on making energy affordable and increasing grid capacity — not hamstringing a program that has consistently reduced bills for American families.

In July,  DOE issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to “permanently end home appliance and equipment mandates.” This is concerning as energy efficiency standards save American families and businesses billions of dollars a year, and Congress explicitly directed DOE to carry out the program faithfully. 

The efficiency standards program has been lowering utility bills and cutting emissions since the late 1980s — under Democratic and Republican Administrations alike. Since 1987, Congress has directed DOE to set efficiency standards for upwards of 60 products. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory estimates that existing standards have reduced total U.S. energy consumption by 6.5 percent and saved the average households $576 per year.  By eliminating this program going forward, the Trump Administration would increase utility bills for households by $150 each year, increase peak electricity demand by 32 gigawatts (GW) in 2040, and increase cumulative CO2 emissions by nearly 1 billion metric tons through 2050. 

Under current statute, DOE is required to consider consumer impacts, manufacturer impacts, technological feasibility, and economic justification before finalizing a standard. The proposed rule would layer on needless additional requirements, including undue deference to industry-developed test procedures and an unlawful minimum savings threshold set at 2 quadrillion btus of source energy or 10% of a product’s total consumption. The law requires DOE to adopt standards "designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency..., which the Secretary determines is technologically feasible and economically justified," and that results in "significant" energy savings. The proposed rule undermines the letter and purpose of the appliance standards statute by the administration’s own admission: the rule is designed to “permanently end” appliance and equipment standards. 

We therefore urge you to withdraw the proposed rule and implement the program as Congress originally mandated.

###