Angus King

This morning, @ScarboroughNow and I discussed how deterrence only works if we have the will & capacity to defend our democratic values. Our backpedaling in Ukraine & missteps in Iran are harming our global alliances & security efforts around the world. https://t.co/0jxirMadRe

For 80 years, deterrence has been a vital shield of America's foreign policy: standing firm against aggressors, protecting our allies, and preventing conflict. Weakening our resolve toward Russia undermines that strategy and risks emboldening Putin at Ukraine’s expense. https://t.co/mTr3z9zpIC

This Indigenous People’s Day is a day to honor the history, spirit, and minds of the people who authored the first chapters in Maine and America’s history. Not only did they lay the foundation for our nation, but their contributions should be heard and appreciated every day.

Deterrence has kept the US out of international conflicts for years, relying on the credibility & will of our military & relationship with allies Yet our current posture is undermining this very credibility putting our nation’s safety & security at risk https://t.co/gmVWtwYzf7

WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an opinion piece published in the New York Times today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) joined retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and former Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, Mark Hertling, arguing the White House and Pentagon are putting global stability at risk. In the article, King and Hertling further argue that weakening our military readiness and casting doubt on our commitment to allies raises the risk of a larger war against adversaries like Russia, China, and others. “The problem of escalating instability, unfortunately, is not confined to Europe’s eastern frontier. The danger of war between America’s autocratic adversaries and our democratic allies is rising around the world for one simple, troubling reason: The enemies of liberal democracy increasingly think America is weak and fickle,” wrote King and Hertling. “That perception is based in no small part on the current administration’s inexplicable abandonment of the strategy that kept the peace in much of the world during the Cold War: deterrence. The basic approach to defense that emerged from the cataclysm of World War II was simple: If you strike us, we will respond so overwhelmingly that your country will be decimated, so you’d better not start anything. With the development of nuclear weapons, this concept was neatly captured by the unfortunate phrase “mutually assured destruction.” They continued, “A similar deterrent is buttressed by our worldwide structure of alliances. Forward bases, mutual defense pacts, intelligence sharing and economic cooperation together have provided an enormous asymmetric advantage over China and Russia, neither of which has many friends, let alone allies.” “The grave danger we now face is that the current administration has undermined both prongs of deterrence strategy in different theaters — a lack of will in Ukraine and a lack of capacity in Iran,” King and Hertling concluded. “…Deterrence works only if it’s credible, and the actions of the administration over the past two years — in spite of all the bluster about lethality and testosterone — have severely compromised that credibility, and with it, the safety and security of our country.” As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Senator King is recognized as an authoritative voice on national security and foreign policy issues, including on the importance of the deterrence strategy. In June 2026, he supported provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 that strengthen support for Ukraine and counter Russia and invest in Maine’s shipbuilding to ensure American destroyers are built in American shipyards – all notable improvements to American deterrence. Additionally, in a previous SSCI hearing, King emphasized the importance of establishing and clearly communicating an effective cybersecurity deterrence policy. You can read the full opinion piece here or below. +++ Lethality and Testosterone Will Get Us Only So Far By Angus King and Mark Hertling Mr. King is an independent U.S. senator from Maine. Mr. Hertling was a three-star general in the U.S. Army. Enemy drones over Romania. Wayward missiles in Poland. Sabotage in Germany. Every week brings some new Russian provocation as President Vladimir Putin steps up his efforts to divide Europe and undermine support for Ukraine. As Western militaries scramble to respond, the prospect of the war spilling over into NATO territory rises. The problem of escalating instability, unfortunately, is not confined to Europe’s eastern frontier. The danger of war between America’s autocratic adversaries and our democratic allies is rising around the world for one simple, troubling reason: The enemies of liberal democracy increasingly think America is weak and fickle. That perception is based in no small part on the current administration’s inexplicable abandonment of the strategy that kept the peace in much of the world during the Cold War: deterrence. The basic approach to defense that emerged from the cataclysm of World War II was simple: If you strike us, we will respond so overwhelmingly that your country will be decimated, so you’d better not start anything. With the development of nuclear weapons, this concept was neatly captured by the unfortunate phrase “mutually assured destruction.” Although principally associated with the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, deterrence also underlay our longtime strategy for avoiding a conventional conflict with a near-peer adversary like China or Russia. Rather than mutually assured destruction, this kind of deterrence works by America’s maintaining a sufficiently strong conventional force that any potential adversary will realize the futility of attacking us or our allies. The challenge to this strategy at its inception in the 1950s was that aggressors rarely attack their potential victims all at once, but rather one at a time, usually proclaiming their ambitions are limited. Hitler started with the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia and only then went on to Poland, Belgium and France. Mr. Putin has started with Ukraine. To counter this problem and the very real threat of Soviet expansionism after World War II, NATO’s Article 5 established the principle that an attack on one member state would be considered an attack on all — and such an attack would be met with a combined response from the European countries and the United States. A similar deterrent is buttressed by our worldwide structure of alliances. Forward bases, mutual defense pacts, intelligence sharing and economic cooperation together have provided an enormous asymmetric advantage over China and Russia, neither of which has many friends, let alone allies. Deterrence worked: Although the United States has been involved in regional conflicts over the past decades, there has been no direct military confrontation between the major powers on the scale of the two world wars. But two of this strategy’s essential elements — capacity and will — are now in short supply. The potential adversary has to believe that the United States and its allies have the weapons and forces to hold them at risk, and, just as important, that we have the will to use that force when necessary. The effectiveness of deterrence depends entirely on what the adversary believes; if either our capacity or our will is in doubt, deterrence fails and catastrophe becomes more likely. The grave danger we now face is that the current administration has undermined both prongs of deterrence strategy in different theaters — a lack of will in Ukraine and a lack of capacity in Iran. By essentially abandoning Ukraine, we have gutted the “will” prong. The Europeans have stepped up, but our absence has sent the unmistakable signal to President Xi Jinping of China and to Mr. Putin that we don’t have the stomach for a prolonged conflict. This is the opposite of deterrence; it is closer to an invitation. Moreover, just as Mr. Putin is probing Eastern Europe, the Pentagon is reducing active American troop levels in Germany and pulling back on rotational deployments to Eastern Europe. This sends a clear signal that we are indifferent to Russian aggression beyond Ukraine: again, precisely the wrong message at precisely the wrong time. Iran has offered Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi a tutorial in our tactics and the limitations of our military power. After seven months of on-again, off-again bombing and an economic blockade, virtually none of the strategic goals announced at the beginning of the war have been achieved, while our stock of munitions has been severely degraded and our regional bases have been exposed as vulnerable. Similarly, our 52 days of attacks on the Houthis in Yemen last year seem to have done little to diminish their capacity to put shipping in the Red Sea at risk. Iran and the Houthis are much lesser powers than China or Russia, and Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi will judge accordingly their chances against our air defenses, offensive capability and economic power in any future conflict. It won’t be easy to regain what we have lost, but there are several places to start. One is to re-engage in the defense of Ukraine, including by vigorous enforcement of the just-passed Russia sanctions bill. Another is to reverse the misguided withdrawal of our forces in Eastern Europe, thus sending the message to Mr. Putin that Article 5 is alive and well. And finally, we should quit undermining our allies if we want them there when we need them. Deterrence works only if it’s credible, and the actions of the administration over the past two years — in spite of all the bluster about lethality and testosterone — have severely compromised that credibility, and with it, the safety and security of our country. Angus King is an independent U.S. senator from Maine who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence; Mark Hertling is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. ###

October 12, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. — In an opinion piece published in the New York Times today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) joined retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and former Commander of the U.S. Army in Europe, Mark Hertling, arguing the White House and Pentagon are putting global stability at risk. In the article, King and Hertling further argue that weakening our military readiness and casting doubt on our commitment to allies raises the risk of a larger war against adversaries like Russia, China, and others. “The problem of escalating instability, unfortunately, is not confined to Europe’s eastern frontier. The danger of war between America’s autocratic adversaries and our democratic allies is rising around the world for one simple, troubling reason: The enemies of liberal democracy increasingly think America is weak and fickle,” wrote King and Hertling. “That perception is based in no small part on the current administration’s inexplicable abandonment of the strategy that kept the peace in much of the world during the Cold War: deterrence. The basic approach to defense that emerged from the cataclysm of World War II was simple: If you strike us, we will respond so overwhelmingly that your country will be decimated, so you’d better not start anything. With the development of nuclear weapons, this concept was neatly captured by the unfortunate phrase “mutually assured destruction.” They continued, “A similar deterrent is buttressed by our worldwide structure of alliances. Forward bases, mutual defense pacts, intelligence sharing and economic cooperation together have provided an enormous asymmetric advantage over China and Russia, neither of which has many friends, let alone allies.” “The grave danger we now face is that the current administration has undermined both prongs of deterrence strategy in different theaters — a lack of will in Ukraine and a lack of capacity in Iran,” King and Hertling concluded. “…Deterrence works only if it’s credible, and the actions of the administration over the past two years — in spite of all the bluster about lethality and testosterone — have severely compromised that credibility, and with it, the safety and security of our country.” As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Senator King is recognized as an authoritative voice on national security and foreign policy issues, including on the importance of the deterrence strategy. In June 2026, he supported provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2027 that strengthen support for Ukraine and counter Russia and invest in Maine’s shipbuilding to ensure American destroyers are built in American shipyards – all notable improvements to American deterrence. Additionally, in a previous SSCI hearing, King emphasized the importance of establishing and clearly communicating an effective cybersecurity deterrence policy. You can read the full opinion piece here or below. +++ Lethality and Testosterone Will Get Us Only So Far By Angus King and Mark Hertling Mr. King is an independent U.S. senator from Maine. Mr. Hertling was a three-star general in the U.S. Army. Enemy drones over Romania. Wayward missiles in Poland. Sabotage in Germany. Every week brings some new Russian provocation as President Vladimir Putin steps up his efforts to divide Europe and undermine support for Ukraine. As Western militaries scramble to respond, the prospect of the war spilling over into NATO territory rises. The problem of escalating instability, unfortunately, is not confined to Europe’s eastern frontier. The danger of war between America’s autocratic adversaries and our democratic allies is rising around the world for one simple, troubling reason: The enemies of liberal democracy increasingly think America is weak and fickle. That perception is based in no small part on the current administration’s inexplicable abandonment of the strategy that kept the peace in much of the world during the Cold War: deterrence. The basic approach to defense that emerged from the cataclysm of World War II was simple: If you strike us, we will respond so overwhelmingly that your country will be decimated, so you’d better not start anything. With the development of nuclear weapons, this concept was neatly captured by the unfortunate phrase “mutually assured destruction.” Although principally associated with the nuclear standoff with the Soviet Union, deterrence also underlay our longtime strategy for avoiding a conventional conflict with a near-peer adversary like China or Russia. Rather than mutually assured destruction, this kind of deterrence works by America’s maintaining a sufficiently strong conventional force that any potential adversary will realize the futility of attacking us or our allies. The challenge to this strategy at its inception in the 1950s was that aggressors rarely attack their potential victims all at once, but rather one at a time, usually proclaiming their ambitions are limited. Hitler started with the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia and only then went on to Poland, Belgium and France. Mr. Putin has started with Ukraine. To counter this problem and the very real threat of Soviet expansionism after World War II, NATO’s Article 5 established the principle that an attack on one member state would be considered an attack on all — and such an attack would be met with a combined response from the European countries and the United States. A similar deterrent is buttressed by our worldwide structure of alliances. Forward bases, mutual defense pacts, intelligence sharing and economic cooperation together have provided an enormous asymmetric advantage over China and Russia, neither of which has many friends, let alone allies. Deterrence worked: Although the United States has been involved in regional conflicts over the past decades, there has been no direct military confrontation between the major powers on the scale of the two world wars. But two of this strategy’s essential elements — capacity and will — are now in short supply. The potential adversary has to believe that the United States and its allies have the weapons and forces to hold them at risk, and, just as important, that we have the will to use that force when necessary. The effectiveness of deterrence depends entirely on what the adversary believes; if either our capacity or our will is in doubt, deterrence fails and catastrophe becomes more likely. The grave danger we now face is that the current administration has undermined both prongs of deterrence strategy in different theaters — a lack of will in Ukraine and a lack of capacity in Iran. By essentially abandoning Ukraine, we have gutted the “will” prong. The Europeans have stepped up, but our absence has sent the unmistakable signal to President Xi Jinping of China and to Mr. Putin that we don’t have the stomach for a prolonged conflict. This is the opposite of deterrence; it is closer to an invitation. Moreover, just as Mr. Putin is probing Eastern Europe, the Pentagon is reducing active American troop levels in Germany and pulling back on rotational deployments to Eastern Europe. This sends a clear signal that we are indifferent to Russian aggression beyond Ukraine: again, precisely the wrong message at precisely the wrong time. Iran has offered Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi a tutorial in our tactics and the limitations of our military power. After seven months of on-again, off-again bombing and an economic blockade, virtually none of the strategic goals announced at the beginning of the war have been achieved, while our stock of munitions has been severely degraded and our regional bases have been exposed as vulnerable. Similarly, our 52 days of attacks on the Houthis in Yemen last year seem to have done little to diminish their capacity to put shipping in the Red Sea at risk. Iran and the Houthis are much lesser powers than China or Russia, and Mr. Putin and Mr. Xi will judge accordingly their chances against our air defenses, offensive capability and economic power in any future conflict. It won’t be easy to regain what we have lost, but there are several places to start. One is to re-engage in the defense of Ukraine, including by vigorous enforcement of the just-passed Russia sanctions bill. Another is to reverse the misguided withdrawal of our forces in Eastern Europe, thus sending the message to Mr. Putin that Article 5 is alive and well. And finally, we should quit undermining our allies if we want them there when we need them. Deterrence works only if it’s credible, and the actions of the administration over the past two years — in spite of all the bluster about lethality and testosterone — have severely compromised that credibility, and with it, the safety and security of our country. Angus King is an independent U.S. senator from Maine who serves on the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Select Committee on Intelligence; Mark Hertling is a retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General and a former commander of the U.S. Army in Europe. ###

October 10, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) released the following statement amidst news that the White House has made an agreement to ease sanctions on Russian oil which will inevitably not ease the burden on Americans at the gas pump, yet help fund Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine: “Americans nationwide are struggling with the cost-of-living – from prices at the pump to the cost of essentials at the grocery story – mostly due to Trump’s unconstitutional war in Iran and his devastating tariffs on our long-standing allies. “Instead of pursuing solutions that are consistent with America’s values, President Trump has decided to ease energy sanctions on Russia. In doing so, he chose Putin over the American people, which will ultimately help fuel that autocracy’s bloody, unprovoked war of aggression on Ukraine. “This so-called deal with Russia will do little for America and much for Vladimir Putin as he seeks to sustain his murderous campaign on Ukraine. To put this so-called deal into perspective, it amounts to 300,000 tons of diesel for October and then 500,000 for November – which may sound like a lot, but according to the administration’s own numbers is roughly the amount of diesel the American people use in a single day. This helps Russia far more than it helps the United States. “Adding insult to injury, today’s deal is a slap in the face to every member of Congress who voted for the Lindsay Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act just last month which was designed to honor the memory of a strong defender of democracy and punish the leaders of these rogue nations. Every member of Congress who voted for this bill – 86 in the Senate, 262 in the House – should be demanding an immediate reversal of this decision. “At the end of the day, this deal from the White House is an attempt to boost their short-term political prospects at the true cost of the American people. We are helping one adversary (though it’s questionable if the White House considers Putin that) and showing weakness to another due to Iran’s Strait of Hormuz oil blockade. This deal comforts our enemies and will do little for Americans. It’s a fraud.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) released the following statement amidst news that the White House has made an agreement to ease sanctions on Russian oil which will inevitably not ease the burden on Americans at the gas pump, yet help fund Vladimir Putin’s war of aggression against Ukraine: “Americans nationwide are struggling with the cost-of-living – from prices at the pump to the cost of essentials at the grocery story – mostly due to Trump’s unconstitutional war in Iran and his devastating tariffs on our long-standing allies. “Instead of pursuing solutions that are consistent with America’s values, President Trump has decided to ease energy sanctions on Russia. In doing so, he chose Putin over the American people, which will ultimately help fuel that autocracy’s bloody, unprovoked war of aggression on Ukraine. “This so-called deal with Russia will do little for America and much for Vladimir Putin as he seeks to sustain his murderous campaign on Ukraine. To put this so-called deal into perspective, it amounts to 300,000 tons of diesel for October and then 500,000 for November – which may sound like a lot, but according to the administration’s own numbers is roughly the amount of diesel the American people use in a single day. This helps Russia far more than it helps the United States. “Adding insult to injury, today’s deal is a slap in the face to every member of Congress who voted for the Lindsay Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act just last month which was designed to honor the memory of a strong defender of democracy and punish the leaders of these rogue nations. Every member of Congress who voted for this bill – 86 in the Senate, 262 in the House – should be demanding an immediate reversal of this decision. “At the end of the day, this deal from the White House is an attempt to boost their short-term political prospects at the true cost of the American people. We are helping one adversary (though it’s questionable if the White House considers Putin that) and showing weakness to another due to Iran’s Strait of Hormuz oil blockade. This deal comforts our enemies and will do little for Americans. It’s a fraud.” ###

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) is joining his colleagues in questioning the Trump Administration’s directives to reject established vaccine science, as the United States faces the largest measles outbreak in 35 years. In a letter to Dr. Erica Schwartz, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lawmakers confront her on dangerous efforts to reject established vaccine science, and demand answers about the CDC’s attempts to implement President Trump’s childhood vaccine Executive Order (EO), underreport measles-associated deaths, and stall access to childhood immunizations. The United States is facing a decline in childhood immunization rates. Recently, the CDC reported that 280,000 kindergartners did not complete their measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine series. This comes as the Trump administration has actively worked to lower the number of recommended immunizations, break up safe and effective combination shots, and promote legal action against states unaligned with such efforts. The lawmakers began, “[...] As the United States is experiencing the largest measles outbreak in 35 years, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at dismantling core immunization guidelines, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) to lay the groundwork for fundamentally restructuring the routine childhood immunization schedule.” “At the same time, reports indicate the CDC, under your leadership, excluded verified state-reported measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania from the public mortality count. All of this is happening while the CDC delayed access to fall respiratory virus vaccines through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. We are deeply concerned by this administration’s persistent efforts to reject settled science. As CDC Director, you bear a responsibility to uphold scientific integrity, and we write seeking answers on how the CDC will respond to the EO and the RFI, and how you will honor the pledge you made to ensure that the CDC leads with evidence-based public health,” they continued. “The health of American children and families depends on a CDC Director who is willing to follow the science, even when it may be politically inconvenient,” concluded the lawmakers. In addition to King, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Last year, Senator King spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the removal of Congressionally-approved funding from critical public services including, but not limited to, the World Health Organization (WHO), which leads global efforts to expand universal health coverage and directs and coordinates the world’s response to health emergencies before they can pose a threat to American lives. Calling it an “abdication of Congressional-authority,” he shared how some of the Trump Administration’s decisions have gone from bad policy to downright dangerous. Since then, he has called out multiple Trump Administration officials for their willingness – or lack thereof—to speak the truth, even when it is politically inconvenient. The text of the letter is available HERE and below. +++ Dr. Schwartz: At your confirmation hearing, you said that your “sacred responsibility” as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be to provide “clear, honest, and evidence-based” public health guidance and to “never betray the science.” In the short time since your confirmation as CDC Director, the health and safety of our children have been subjected to further chaos and confusion. As the United States is experiencing the largest measles outbreak in 35 years, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at dismantling core immunization guidelines, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) to lay the groundwork for fundamentally restructuring the routine childhood immunization schedule. At the same time, reports indicate the CDC, under your leadership, excluded verified state-reported measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania from the public mortality count. All of this is happening while the CDC delayed access to fall respiratory virus vaccines through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. We are deeply concerned by this administration’s persistent efforts to reject settled science. As CDC Director, you bear a responsibility to uphold scientific integrity, and we write seeking answers on how the CDC will respond to the EO and the RFI, and how you will honor the pledge you made to ensure that the CDC leads with evidence-based public health. The CDC recently reported that the number of children up-to-date on their immunizations has continued to decline, including 280,000 kindergartners who did not complete the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) series. Instead of spending time and dedicating resources to promote the need for childhood immunizations, President Trump called for breaking up combination shots like the MMR vaccine into single-disease shots that are not available in the United States, cutting the number of diseases every child is recommended to be protected against from 18 to 11, and directing the Attorney General to advance legal challenges to state laws. Following this EO, HHS issued an RFI on the childhood immunization schedule, aimed at bypassing the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which have developed recommendations for over 60 years. These efforts are only a part of the systematic attacks spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. CDC’s scientists, not political appointees, should be at the center of any decision about the childhood immunization schedule. During this same timeframe, CDC’s public actions under your leadership raise serious concerns regarding your willingness to counter these unscientific measures – including reports that four measles-associated deaths verified and reported by the Pennsylvania Department of Health were excluded from the CDC’s public national mortality count for weeks, even as internal CDC systems continue to track these fatalities. This is a clear break from long-standing agency precedent, including last year’s standard reporting of measles deaths in Texas and directly contradicts the commitment to “objective data collection and reporting” that has been CDC’s foundation. If the agency under your leadership is altering verified state data to fit political preferences, the pledge you made at your confirmation hearing has already been broken. We request responses to the following questions in writing by October 16, 2026. CDC Role on the Executive Order on Childhood Vaccines Did anyone from the White House or HHS consult you about the Executive Order either before or after it was issued? a. If so, who reached out, what was discussed, and when did these communication(s) occur? b. If not, have you raised, or do you plan to raise, any concerns with President Trump, Secretary Kennedy, or any other administration official(s)? How is the CDC planning to implement the provisions outlined in the EO? What steps have been taken already and what are planned? Please provide a detailed summary of these plans. What role, if any, did CDC career scientists have in developing the EO’s recommendations? The EO directs the Secretary, acting through the HHS Task Force on Safer Childhood Vaccines, to present plans to the President within 90 days on single-disease vaccine options, the timing and sequencing of childhood vaccines, and safety monitoring. What role does the CDC have in developing those plans, and which CDC officials are participating? The EO recommends reducing the number of routine immunizations from 18 to 11. Do you support that specific recommendation? What scientific evidence supports removing the other diseases from the immunizations recommended for all children, and has the CDC estimated the additional illnesses, hospitalizations, and deaths that could result? Do you agree that spacing out immunizations across additional visits lengthens the window of vulnerability for infants and young children? If not, please provide the evidence on which CDC relies. The EO recommends separating combination shots like MMR into single-disease shots. No single-disease MMR vaccine is currently available in the United States. Other countries that have tried this – like Japan in the 1990s – saw increased outbreaks, ultimately resulting in them reverting to a combination shot. Do you support this specific provision even though it is not currently available in the U.S., would require more shots and doctor visits, and lacks scientific backing? Why is the federal government recommending an option to families that does not exist, causing additional confusion? What scientific evidence supports separating combination vaccines like MMR into single-disease doses? Please provide CDC analyses of peer-reviewed studies, epidemiological analyses, or international precedent that demonstrates this change would actually improve health outcomes. If no such evidence exists, will you decline to implement this provision? The public comment period for the HHS RFI closed on September 20, 2026. Did CDC scientists review or contribute to the RFI before it was published? What role will CDC scientists have in reviewing the comments and in any resulting changes to the categories of federal vaccine recommendations? Data Collection and Reporting Has the CDC instituted a new policy for reviewing, altering, or withholding state-reported health data before public posting? If so, what scientific evidence supports this change and what deliberations occurred? If there is no such policy, on what basis were Pennsylvania’s measles deaths excluded from the public tracker, and who at CDC authorized that exclusion? As of today, the CDC has only included two of the measles-associated deaths reported by the State of Pennsylvania. What specific technical, scientific, or epidemiological basis justified excluding Pennsylvania’s state-reported measles deaths from the CDC's public tracker while still including them on internal trackers? Did any White House or HHS officials contact you or your staff regarding the public reporting of Pennsylvania’s measles deaths? Please provide all communication between CDC leadership and any White House or HHS official regarding the reporting of state-verified measles deaths since your confirmation. Vaccines for Children Program Why did the CDC delay opening orders for COVID vaccines through the Vaccines for Children Program (VFC)? Please provide the timeline of when decisions were made concerning the VFC program. What made the CDC decide to open ordering for COVID vaccines through the VFC program on September 24, 2026 and not earlier? Have you personally been asked by Secretary Kennedy, the White House, or any other HHS or Trump administration official to delay or condition VFC activation for the COVID vaccine? If so, please describe the request and identify who made it. If such a request was made in writing, please provide it. Who at CDC, HHS, or the White House made the decision to delay VFC activation for the COVID vaccine, and on what basis? Please produce all internal communications, memoranda, and legal or scientific analyses supporting that decision. What guidance has CDC provided to state health departments, pediatricians, and VFC providers about the status of COVID vaccines under VFC? How soon can VFC vaccines be expected to be in the possession of clinicians and accessible for children? The health of American children and families depends on a CDC Director who is willing to follow the science, even when it may be politically inconvenient. We look forward to your response and to seeing whether the CDC under your leadership honors the commitments you made at your confirmation hearing. ###

October 08, 2026 WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) is joining his colleagues in questioning the Trump Administration’s directives to reject established vaccine science, as the United States faces the largest measles outbreak in 35 years. In a letter to Dr. Erica Schwartz, the Director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the lawmakers confront her on dangerous efforts to reject established vaccine science, and demand answers about the CDC’s attempts to implement President Trump’s childhood vaccine Executive Order (EO), underreport measles-associated deaths, and stall access to childhood immunizations. The United States is facing a decline in childhood immunization rates. Recently, the CDC reported that 280,000 kindergartners did not complete their measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine series. This comes as the Trump administration has actively worked to lower the number of recommended immunizations, break up safe and effective combination shots, and promote legal action against states unaligned with such efforts. The lawmakers began, “[...] As the United States is experiencing the largest measles outbreak in 35 years, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at dismantling core immunization guidelines, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) to lay the groundwork for fundamentally restructuring the routine childhood immunization schedule.” “At the same time, reports indicate the CDC, under your leadership, excluded verified state-reported measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania from the public mortality count. All of this is happening while the CDC delayed access to fall respiratory virus vaccines through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. We are deeply concerned by this administration’s persistent efforts to reject settled science. As CDC Director, you bear a responsibility to uphold scientific integrity, and we write seeking answers on how the CDC will respond to the EO and the RFI, and how you will honor the pledge you made to ensure that the CDC leads with evidence-based public health,” they continued. “The health of American children and families depends on a CDC Director who is willing to follow the science, even when it may be politically inconvenient,” concluded the lawmakers. In addition to King, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Michael Bennet (D-CO), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD.), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), John Hickenlooper (D-CO), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Jeff Merkley (D-OR). Last year, Senator King spoke on the Senate floor to discuss the removal of Congressionally-approved funding from critical public services including, but not limited to, the World Health Organization (WHO), which leads global efforts to expand universal health coverage and directs and coordinates the world’s response to health emergencies before they can pose a threat to American lives. Calling it an “abdication of Congressional-authority,” he shared how some of the Trump Administration’s decisions have gone from bad policy to downright dangerous. Since then, he has called out multiple Trump Administration officials for their willingness – or lack thereof—to speak the truth, even when it is politically inconvenient. The text of the letter is available HERE and below. +++ Dr. Schwartz: At your confirmation hearing, you said that your “sacred responsibility” as Director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) would be to provide “clear, honest, and evidence-based” public health guidance and to “never betray the science.” In the short time since your confirmation as CDC Director, the health and safety of our children have been subjected to further chaos and confusion. As the United States is experiencing the largest measles outbreak in 35 years, President Trump issued an Executive Order (EO) aimed at dismantling core immunization guidelines, and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Request for Information (RFI) to lay the groundwork for fundamentally restructuring the routine childhood immunization schedule. At the same time, reports indicate the CDC, under your leadership, excluded verified state-reported measles-associated deaths in Pennsylvania from the public mortality count. All of this is happening while the CDC delayed access to fall respiratory virus vaccines through the Vaccines for Children (VFC) program. We are deeply concerned by this administration’s persistent efforts to reject settled science. As CDC Director, you bear a responsibility to uphold scientific integrity, and we write seeking answers on how the CDC will respond to the EO and the RFI, and how you will honor the pledge you made to ensure that the CDC leads with evidence-based public health. The CDC recently reported that the number of children up-to-date on their immunizations has continued to decline, including 280,000 kindergartners who did not complete the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) series. Instead of spending time and dedicating resources to promote the need for childhood immunizations, President Trump called for breaking up combination shots like the MMR vaccine into single-disease shots that are not available in the United States, cutting the number of diseases every child is recommended to be protected against from 18 to 11, and directing the Attorney General to advance legal challenges to state laws. Following this EO, HHS issued an RFI on the childhood immunization schedule, aimed at bypassing the CDC and the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, which have developed recommendations for over 60 years. These efforts are only a part of the systematic attacks spearheaded by HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. CDC’s scientists, not political appointees, should be at the center of any decision about the childhood immunization schedule. During this same timeframe, CDC’s public actions under your leadership raise serious concerns regarding your willingness to counter these unscientific measures – including reports that four measles-associated deaths verified and reported by the Pennsylvania Department of Health were excluded from the CDC’s public national mortality count for weeks, even as internal CDC systems continue to track these fatalities. This is a clear break from long-standing agency precedent, including last year’s standard reporting of measles deaths in Texas and directly contradicts the commitment to “objective data collection and reporting” that has been CDC’s foundation. If the agency under your leadership is altering verified state data to fit political preferences, the pledge you made at your confirmation hearing has already been broken. We request responses to the following questions in writing by October 16, 2026. CDC Role on the Executive Order on Childhood Vaccines a. If so, who reached out, what was discussed, and when did these communication(s) occur? b. If not, have you raised, or do you plan to raise, any concerns with President Trump, Secretary Kennedy, or any other administration official(s)? Data Collection and Reporting Vaccines for Children Program The health of American children and families depends on a CDC Director who is willing to follow the science, even when it may be politically inconvenient. We look forward to your response and to seeing whether the CDC under your leadership honors the commitments you made at your confirmation hearing. ###

For 40 years, the Preventive Services Task Force has protected Americans' health through science-based data. But after @HHSgov abruptly installed a new group with questionable qualifications, Americans are now at risk. My colleagues and I want answers. https://t.co/Ntnn4DaQr9

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), alongside Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is leading a group of his colleagues in criticizing recent actions and calling on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prioritize the 40-year independent track record of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In their letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the senators ask him to explain his abrupt overhaul of the USPSTF, appointing eight new members whose qualifications fall short of the traditional standards. More specifically, the senators explain how a refusal to share information on the decision-making process, and a shift in membership from primary care professionals to specialists, jeopardizes the independence and capabilities of the Task Force. This letter to HHS builds upon Senator King’s defense of USPSTF earlier this year, previously reaching out to Secretary Kennedy to urge the department to prioritize science and data backed preventive medicine, as well as introducing a resolution last year affirming support for the Task Force. The senators begin their letter, “The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF’s process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force’s recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders.” “Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about the Task Force’s ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine,” the senators continued. “As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services. The senators concluded, “We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF.” Long known as the ‘Prevention Senator,’ King has worked on policy solutions that keep Maine people healthy and lower the costs for patients and providers alike. Last year, he introduced the Preventive Health Savings Act which would instruct the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to fully study the costs and benefits that could be seen with proposed preventive health care legislation. He has previously introduced legislation requiring private insurance plans to cover three annual primary care visits and three annual outpatient mental health or outpatient substance use disorder treatment visits, without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible-related fee. In doing so, this legislation also would catch smaller, or early health symptoms before they become larger threats requiring more extensive and expensive treatments. Senator King also introduced the ‘Stand Strong’ legislative package, which included the Stand Strong Falls Prevention Act that would require the development of a National Falls Prevention Plan, the Preventive Home Visits Act, which would provide Medicare coverage for qualified care providers to assess the safety of seniors’ homes, and the Wellness and Education for Longer Lives (WELL) for Seniors Act, which would improve Medicare’s Annual Wellness Visit to encourage seniors and their physicians to work together and confront health issues before they become more serious. In addition to King, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-DE), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM). The full text of the letter is available here and below. +++ Dear Secretary Kennedy, We write today to express our alarm and strong concern regarding the status of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (the Task Force or USPSTF). Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the appointment of eight new Task Force members, including five specialists – a major break from the historic makeup of USPSTF membership that is typically comprised of preventionists and primary care practitioners. The Task Force has also not met for a year-and-a-half – the first time it’s not met consistently in at least a decade – delaying critical decisions that directly impact the health of Americans. We write to seek clarity on recent actions, including how they will inform the future work of USPSTF and how the Task Force will continue to adhere to principles of independence and scientific rigor. The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF’s process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force’s recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders. Going back to at least 2002, HHS under Democrats and Republicans (including under President Trump’s first term) has consistently used either the same format through the Federal Register or the Task Force’s website to announce and solicit requests for nominations. Qualification requirements to be an appointed member of the Task Force was derived from expertise in primary care and prevention medicine. We were particularly alarmed by the April 23, 2026, Federal Register notice, both for the change in nominee parameters as well as the timeline. AHRQ sought nominations of physician specialists in areas well outside of primary care and preventive medicine, including practitioners in anesthesiology/pain management, cardiology, hematology/oncology, radiology, and surgery, among others. Specialists have always played a role in Task Force operations as consultants, though in part to preclude any conflict of interest that they may have through prescribing an intervention. The extremely truncated nominations timeline was also incredibly concerning. The process for reviewing nominees historically took a year, with three months to collect nominees. The April 2026 Federal Register Notice gave one month’s notice, for appointments to potentially begin in June 2026. This rushed process not only calls into question the seriousness of this nominations process, but also whether the Members ultimately selected were pre-determined. In addition to seriously problematic changes to the solicitation notice, the transparency of the selection process was marred from the start. The Chair and leadership of the Task Force historically review and make recommendations to the Secretary for new appointments to USPSTF. On May 19, 2026, the Task Force Chair and Vice Chair were fired because they were supposedly unlawfully appointed per the Braidwood decision. If Braidwood had made such a declaration, the Chair and Vice Chair would have been fired immediately or shortly thereafter the June 2025 decision. By removing the leadership of the Task Force, this recent appointment process lacked political independence and transparency, expert and historic perspective of Task Force qualifications, and ultimately diminished the integrity of USPSTF. Incredibly, it is unclear how these new members currently adhere (if at all) to the historic rigorous conflict of interest standards of Task Force membership. As of writing today, the Conflict of Interest disclosures page – where individual Members’ disclosures were historically published – is barren and inactive, which gives us serious concern regarding the independence of these new members. Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about of the Task Force’s ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine. As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services. Finally, in addition to the new direction of the Task Force, we have serious concerns about the capability of USPSTF to conduct its incredibly important work given the major cuts that have occurred at its supporting organization, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The Task Force’s evidence reviews are conducted by career staff at AHRQ. Approximately 80 percent of AHRQ staff have been fired or left the Agency without being replaced and there are reportedly less than 2 experts directly working at AHRQ to support the Task Force’s work. We have strong concerns that the Task Force will be able to develop evidence-based and credible recommendations without an adequate support staff. As you’ll recall, we were joined by a number of our colleagues in writing to you earlier this year, for which we have still not received a response from you. Therefore, given these seriously concerning actions, we request a response to our previous letter and to the following questions by October 15, 2026: What is the scientific and evidence-based justification for changes to the makeup of Task Force membership to move away from primary care and preventive medical experts to specialists? Transitioning from a three-month public solicitation plus months-long review process to a two-month-long whole review and selection process is incredibly concerning. What was the justification for shortening the Task Force member selection review timeline? Did HHS or AHRQ review candidates prior to the April 2026 Federal Register notice? What is the legal justification for having removed the Chair and Vice Chair of the Task Force in May 2026? Where specifically in the Braidwood decision does it discuss that the then-Chair and -Vice Chair were unlawfully appointed? What is the justification for not publicizing the conflict of interest disclosures of the newly appointed Task Force members? How is Congress, the medical community, and the public expected to have faith in the independence of the Task Force going forward? The staff support for the Task Force at AHRQ has been diminished. How does HHS expect the Task Force to develop credible recommendations without adequate support? We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF. Sincerely, ###

October 05, 2026 WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), alongside Senators Patty Murray (D-WA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), is leading a group of his colleagues in criticizing recent actions and calling on the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to prioritize the 40-year independent track record of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). In their letter to HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the senators ask him to explain his abrupt overhaul of the USPSTF, appointing eight new members whose qualifications fall short of the traditional standards. More specifically, the senators explain how a refusal to share information on the decision-making process, and a shift in membership from primary care professionals to specialists, jeopardizes the independence and capabilities of the Task Force. This letter to HHS builds upon Senator King’s defense of USPSTF earlier this year, previously reaching out to Secretary Kennedy to urge the department to prioritize science and data backed preventive medicine, as well as introducing a resolution last year affirming support for the Task Force. The senators begin their letter, “The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF’s process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force’s recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders.” “Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about the Task Force’s ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine,” the senators continued. “As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services. The senators concluded, “We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF.” Long known as the ‘Prevention Senator,’ King has worked on policy solutions that keep Maine people healthy and lower the costs for patients and providers alike. Last year, he introduced the Preventive Health Savings Act which would instruct the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) to fully study the costs and benefits that could be seen with proposed preventive health care legislation. He has previously introduced legislation requiring private insurance plans to cover three annual primary care visits and three annual outpatient mental health or outpatient substance use disorder treatment visits, without charging a copayment, coinsurance, or deductible-related fee. In doing so, this legislation also would catch smaller, or early health symptoms before they become larger threats requiring more extensive and expensive treatments. Senator King also introduced the ‘Stand Strong’ legislative package, which included the Stand Strong Falls Prevention Act that would require the development of a National Falls Prevention Plan, the Preventive Home Visits Act, which would provide Medicare coverage for qualified care providers to assess the safety of seniors’ homes, and the Wellness and Education for Longer Lives (WELL) for Seniors Act, which would improve Medicare’s Annual Wellness Visit to encourage seniors and their physicians to work together and confront health issues before they become more serious. In addition to King, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Jack Reed (D-RI), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Lisa Blunt-Rochester (D-DE), Ed Markey (D-MA), Alex Padilla (D-CA), and Ben Ray Lujan (D-NM).The full text of the letter is available here and below. +++ Dear Secretary Kennedy, We write today to express our alarm and strong concern regarding the status of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (the Task Force or USPSTF). Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the appointment of eight new Task Force members, including five specialists – a major break from the historic makeup of USPSTF membership that is typically comprised of preventionists and primary care practitioners. The Task Force has also not met for a year-and-a-half – the first time it’s not met consistently in at least a decade – delaying critical decisions that directly impact the health of Americans. We write to seek clarity on recent actions, including how they will inform the future work of USPSTF and how the Task Force will continue to adhere to principles of independence and scientific rigor. The Task Force membership historically has been comprised of experts in clinical medicine, scientific research, and public health, who are extensively vetted for conflicts of interest. USPSTF’s process for developing recommendations and its agenda is transparent to the public and based on high-quality and unbiased scientific evidence. Thus, the Task Force’s recommendations can be considered neutral, unbiased, and evidence-based by all stakeholders. Going back to at least 2002, HHS under Democrats and Republicans (including under President Trump’s first term) has consistently used either the same format through the Federal Register or the Task Force’s website to announce and solicit requests for nominations. Qualification requirements to be an appointed member of the Task Force was derived from expertise in primary care and prevention medicine. We were particularly alarmed by the April 23, 2026, Federal Register notice, both for the change in nominee parameters as well as the timeline. AHRQ sought nominations of physician specialists in areas well outside of primary care and preventive medicine, including practitioners in anesthesiology/pain management, cardiology, hematology/oncology, radiology, and surgery, among others. Specialists have always played a role in Task Force operations as consultants, though in part to preclude any conflict of interest that they may have through prescribing an intervention. The extremely truncated nominations timeline was also incredibly concerning. The process for reviewing nominees historically took a year, with three months to collect nominees. The April 2026 Federal Register Notice gave one month’s notice, for appointments to potentially begin in June 2026. This rushed process not only calls into question the seriousness of this nominations process, but also whether the Members ultimately selected were pre-determined. In addition to seriously problematic changes to the solicitation notice, the transparency of the selection process was marred from the start. The Chair and leadership of the Task Force historically review and make recommendations to the Secretary for new appointments to USPSTF. On May 19, 2026, the Task Force Chair and Vice Chair were fired because they were supposedly unlawfully appointed per the Braidwood decision. If Braidwood had made such a declaration, the Chair and Vice Chair would have been fired immediately or shortly thereafter the June 2025 decision. By removing the leadership of the Task Force, this recent appointment process lacked political independence and transparency, expert and historic perspective of Task Force qualifications, and ultimately diminished the integrity of USPSTF. Incredibly, it is unclear how these new members currently adhere (if at all) to the historic rigorous conflict of interest standards of Task Force membership. As of writing today, the Conflict of Interest disclosures page – where individual Members’ disclosures were historically published – is barren and inactive, which gives us serious concern regarding the independence of these new members. Given the background of many of the new members, we have strong concerns about of the Task Force’s ability to make independent, evidence-based recommendations. Specialists have always contributed to the Task Force's evidence reviews, and they should. But the Task Force's work is broad and spans the full range of clinical preventive services, for every age group, and it has historically drawn on people trained in primary care, prevention, and evidence-based medicine. As five of the eight new members are specialists, we are concerned about the types of recommendations and direction of the Task Force in focusing on patient care and clinical preventive services. Finally, in addition to the new direction of the Task Force, we have serious concerns about the capability of USPSTF to conduct its incredibly important work given the major cuts that have occurred at its supporting organization, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The Task Force’s evidence reviews are conducted by career staff at AHRQ. Approximately 80 percent of AHRQ staff have been fired or left the Agency without being replaced and there are reportedly less than 2 experts directly working at AHRQ to support the Task Force’s work. We have strong concerns that the Task Force will be able to develop evidence-based and credible recommendations without an adequate support staff. As you’ll recall, we were joined by a number of our colleagues in writing to you earlier this year, for which we have still not received a response from you. Therefore, given these seriously concerning actions, we request a response to our previous letter and to the following questions by October 15, 2026: We look forward to hearing from you in response to these questions, and urge that the administration prioritize resuming the cost- and life-saving work of the Task Force while adhering to the evidence-based and scientifically informed processes that have ensured the historic credibility of USPSTF. Sincerely, ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) today welcomed news that their bipartisan resolution designating September 30th as “National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day” passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. The resolution recognizes the lasting physical injuries and emotional trauma that can result from military service. The resolution also supports the families and loved ones who bear the loss when a veteran dies by suicide, learning from their experiences, and strengthening early intervention efforts to help with future prevention. “National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day is a solemn reminder of our responsibility to the veterans we have lost, and to the families who carry their memory forward,” said Senator King. “Their experiences demonstrate the critical importance of early support and reliable access to care. We remain committed to strengthening the systems that provide veterans and their loved ones with effective and compassionate services.” Senator King had previously led bipartisan legislation to reduce the risk of veteran suicide. The Saving Our Veterans’ Lives Act would authorize a program through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide free firearm lockboxes to veterans to put time and space between at-risk individuals and lethal means, such as firearms. In 2025, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that each day, there was an average of 17.5 veteran suicides, making it the 12th leading cause of death among veterans, and the 2nd leading cause among veterans under the age of 45. This accounts for a disproportionate percentage of adult suicides in the United States. Additionally, 75% of veteran suicide deaths involve a firearm, which reaffirms safe firearm storage as an essential part of suicide prevention measures. The National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day resolution is endorsed by Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), The American Legion, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS). Representing one of the states with the highest rates of military families and veterans per capita, Senator King is a staunch advocate for America’s servicemembers and veterans. In March, Senator King was honored by The American Legion with its 2026 Distinguished Public Service Award. Last year, Senator King was honored by the Disabled American Veterans as its 2025 Legislator of the Year. He was also recognized by the Wounded Warrior Project as the 2024 Legislator of the Year for his “outstanding legislative effort and achievement to improve the lives of the wounded, ill, and injured veterans.” ###

We must make affordable housing easier to build, and support our American workers and manufacturers. My bill would have @HUDgov recognize and share a vetted list of American-made products, streamlining the process for developers to follow federal rules. https://t.co/2YsSR5moTc

October 02, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. — U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) today welcomed news that their bipartisan resolution designating September 30th as “National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day” passed the U.S. Senate unanimously. The resolution recognizes the lasting physical injuries and emotional trauma that can result from military service. The resolution also supports the families and loved ones who bear the loss when a veteran dies by suicide, learning from their experiences, and strengthening early intervention efforts to help with future prevention. “National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day is a solemn reminder of our responsibility to the veterans we have lost, and to the families who carry their memory forward,” said Senator King. “Their experiences demonstrate the critical importance of early support and reliable access to care. We remain committed to strengthening the systems that provide veterans and their loved ones with effective and compassionate services.” Senator King had previously led bipartisan legislation to reduce the risk of veteran suicide. The Saving Our Veterans’ Lives Act would authorize a program through the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide free firearm lockboxes to veterans to put time and space between at-risk individuals and lethal means, such as firearms. In 2025, the Department of Veterans Affairs reported that each day, there was an average of 17.5 veteran suicides, making it the 12th leading cause of death among veterans, and the 2nd leading cause among veterans under the age of 45. This accounts for a disproportionate percentage of adult suicides in the United States. Additionally, 75% of veteran suicide deaths involve a firearm, which reaffirms safe firearm storage as an essential part of suicide prevention measures. The National Veterans Suicide Prevention Day resolution is endorsed by Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), The American Legion, National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI), Disabled American Veterans (DAV), and the Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS). Representing one of the states with the highest rates of military families and veterans per capita, Senator King is a staunch advocate for America’s servicemembers and veterans. In March, Senator King was honored by The American Legion with its 2026 Distinguished Public Service Award. Last year, Senator King was honored by the Disabled American Veterans as its 2025 Legislator of the Year. He was also recognized by the Wounded Warrior Project as the 2024 Legislator of the Year for his “outstanding legislative effort and achievement to improve the lives of the wounded, ill, and injured veterans.” ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and John Curtis (R-UT) are introducing bipartisan legislation to increase affordable housing across the United States. The Build American Efficiency Act would streamline the process for home builders to determine and locate domestically sourced materials that comply with the Build America, Buy American Act (BABA). This small legislative step would help homebuilders cut costs and avoid bureaucracy as they work to address the national housing shortage. To accomplish its goals, the Build American Efficiency Act would encourage the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to share industry-led initiatives to certify products and facilities that comply with BABA requirements. The BABA standards were passed in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to King and Curtis, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Peter Welch (D-VT). “Despite our country’s desperate need for additional affordable housing options, American homebuilders face steep costs and bureaucratic red tape,” said Senator King. “The Build American Efficiency Act would empower the Department of Housing and Urban Development to share information to help builders, manufacturers, and housing providers navigate complicated compliance requirements and identify verified American-made products. Eliminating this time-consuming and costly additional step for homebuilders will allow them to build more homes faster. It’s a three-page bill that amounts to a common-sense helping hand.” “Utah’s impressive growth has unfortunately brought with it the strain of rising housing costs—which has already been made worse by unnecessary federal red tape,” said Senator Curtis. “This bipartisan bill is a commonsense fix that makes it easier for builders to identify American-made materials, cut through bureaucracy, and get more affordable homes built faster.” More specifically, the Build American Efficiency Act would: Clarify that the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development has the authority to recognize auditable and verifiable systems that document products that comply with Build America, Buy America domestic content requirements Allow HUD to treat documentation generated under the Make It American Process Standard, or similar standards that provide an auditable and verifiable certification process, as sufficient evidence for domestic content certification Help manufacturers, builders, and funding recipients more easily determine which products comply with BABA requirements Reduce time spent navigating waiver requests, duplicative paperwork, and uncertainty over which products have or have not been approved Preserve flexibility by ensuring the bill does not mandate the use of any one database or prohibit recipients from using other lawful methods to certify compliance. In Maine, the Build American Efficiency Act is supported by Avesta Housing and Evernorth. "The Build American Efficiency Act is an important step forward that will help Avesta, and creators of affordable housing everywhere, move ahead with creating desperately needed new homes for individuals and families. By streamlining and simplifying domestic purchasing provisions through clear, verifiable lists of compliant components, this bill removes a significant challenge to building housing that is now causing serious delays, increasing costs of construction, and putting the viability of needed developments at risk," said Jennifer Hawkins, President and CEO of Avesta Housing. "We deeply appreciate the leadership of Sen. King to bring this bipartisan bill forward to address this critical issue and for his unwavering support of housing for Maine people." “Evernorth is proud to endorse the Build American Efficiency Act. This commonsense legislation is an important first step toward reducing the compliance burden and delays that are making it harder and more expensive to build the affordable homes our communities need,” said Nancy Owens, President of Evernorth. Nationwide, the bill is supported by ABB, Alliance for American Manufacturing, Associated General Contractors, Eaton, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Inclusive Abundance Action, Maine Affordable Housing Coalition, National Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Realtors, National Association of State Housing Agencies, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Prysmian, Schneider, Siemens, and Southwire. Senator King has long been committed to ensuring Maine people across the state can access safe and affordable housing and has worked with his colleagues on creative solutions to combat the housing shortage. He introduced the Farmhouse-to-Workforce Housing Act, which would expand the existing Housing Preservation Grants program so rural homeowners can create more housing on their property — such as an attached apartment unit or a small home nearby — to be available for rent. Additionally, King has sponsored the bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to create nearly two million new affordable homes across the country — including thousands in Maine. He also worked with his Republican colleagues to improve affordability of rural homes and farms through the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy (ACRE) Act of 2023. # # #

October 01, 2026 WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Angus King (I-ME) and John Curtis (R-UT) are introducing bipartisan legislation to increase affordable housing across the United States. The Build American Efficiency Act would streamline the process for home builders to determine and locate domestically sourced materials that comply with the Build America, Buy American Act (BABA). This small legislative step would help homebuilders cut costs and avoid bureaucracy as they work to address the national housing shortage. To accomplish its goals, the Build American Efficiency Act would encourage the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to share industry-led initiatives to certify products and facilities that comply with BABA requirements. The BABA standards were passed in the bipartisan Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. In addition to King and Curtis, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Peter Welch (D-VT). “Despite our country’s desperate need for additional affordable housing options, American homebuilders face steep costs and bureaucratic red tape,” said Senator King. “The Build American Efficiency Act would empower the Department of Housing and Urban Development to share information to help builders, manufacturers, and housing providers navigate complicated compliance requirements and identify verified American-made products. Eliminating this time-consuming and costly additional step for homebuilders will allow them to build more homes faster. It’s a three-page bill that amounts to a common-sense helping hand.” “Utah’s impressive growth has unfortunately brought with it the strain of rising housing costs—which has already been made worse by unnecessary federal red tape,” said Senator Curtis. “This bipartisan bill is a commonsense fix that makes it easier for builders to identify American-made materials, cut through bureaucracy, and get more affordable homes built faster.” More specifically, the Build American Efficiency Act would: In Maine, the Build American Efficiency Act is supported by Avesta Housing and Evernorth. "The Build American Efficiency Act is an important step forward that will help Avesta, and creators of affordable housing everywhere, move ahead with creating desperately needed new homes for individuals and families. By streamlining and simplifying domestic purchasing provisions through clear, verifiable lists of compliant components, this bill removes a significant challenge to building housing that is now causing serious delays, increasing costs of construction, and putting the viability of needed developments at risk," said Jennifer Hawkins, President and CEO of Avesta Housing. "We deeply appreciate the leadership of Sen. King to bring this bipartisan bill forward to address this critical issue and for his unwavering support of housing for Maine people." “Evernorth is proud to endorse the Build American Efficiency Act. This commonsense legislation is an important first step toward reducing the compliance burden and delays that are making it harder and more expensive to build the affordable homes our communities need,” said Nancy Owens, President of Evernorth. Nationwide, the bill is supported by ABB, Alliance for American Manufacturing, Associated General Contractors, Eaton, Bipartisan Policy Center Action, Inclusive Abundance Action, Maine Affordable Housing Coalition, National Association of Electrical Distributors, National Association of Manufacturers, National Association of Realtors, National Association of State Housing Agencies, National Electrical Contractors Association, National Electrical Manufacturers Association, Prysmian, Schneider, Siemens, and Southwire. Senator King has long been committed to ensuring Maine people across the state can access safe and affordable housing and has worked with his colleagues on creative solutions to combat the housing shortage. He introduced the Farmhouse-to-Workforce Housing Act, which would expand the existing Housing Preservation Grants program so rural homeowners can create more housing on their property — such as an attached apartment unit or a small home nearby — to be available for rent. Additionally, King has sponsored the bipartisan Affordable Housing Credit Improvement Act to create nearly two million new affordable homes across the country — including thousands in Maine. He also worked with his Republican colleagues to improve affordability of rural homes and farms through the Access to Credit for our Rural Economy (ACRE) Act of 2023. # # #

The VA should provide the same coverage for veterans’ prescription drugs whether living on their own, in a nursing home or at a State Veterans Home. My bipartisan bill will allow veterans to receive the care they deserve, regardless of where they live https://t.co/s0uHa4hdWE

September 29, 2026 To watch or download the exchange, click here WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, questioned leading authorities on the costs and impacts of the President’s proposed Golden Dome missile defense project on the American taxpayer. As details surrounding the ambitious military program remain vague, Senator King took the advantage of the open hearing to gain more concrete information from the assembled experts. In his exchange with the Honorable David Trachtenberg, a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, the Senator asked how much the Golden Dome would cost the American taxpayer and who and what American territory would be protected by the defense program. Senator King began his remarks, “First I have an issue with how this program is being funded. That is not really your problem, but it’s being funded principally through reconciliation, which is a totally partisan process with very little input from the appropriations committee or the members of this committee. It has very little restrictions in the way of how it can be spent. So I want it on the record, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this is one of the most expensive and important initiatives of this government and it should be one that has broad popular support, indicated by broad support here in the congress. The fact that the vast bulk of it was funded first in the reconciliation last year and is proposed for this year, I think is very bothersome from the point of view of process. “…The other piece of this that bothers me, I was looking at the president's executive order, which says it will deter and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure, provide for the common defense of its citizens,” Senator King continued. “The implication of the term golden dome is a national coverage. I think all of you will agree that that is just not in the cards. So, one of the questions that has to be discussed is, who is being protected? And what is the golden dome actually going to do? The nomenclature implies an arch over the entire country that is protected from any kind of missile attack. Would you agree that is not what we are talking about here?” Trachtenberg replied, “Senator, I would suggest that the nature of golden dome is to try to produce a system capable of a much broader level of defense for the American people and for the country.”“So, this means every American citizen can sleep better tonight because they are protected from a missile attack?” Senator King asked. “With all due respect, Senator, I don't think that is the appropriate metric to use,” Trachtenberg answered. “I believe the appropriate metric is, as I stated is can we build a system that provides a level of protection that dissuades and discourages.” Senator King followed up, “To whom? To whom? Who is being protected and who makes that decision? Are you telling me that every citizen in America can be protected by this system? Trachtenberg concluded, “No, I'm not saying every citizen can be protected.” “So if that is the case, who decides who is protected and who isn’t?” Senator King asked again. Trachtenberg replied, “I think that the actual architecture would be, again, I don't have insight into the current architectural plans, but I think it would be deployed probably in phases or in stages, at certain times when the architecture is ready. But I think it should be expansive. I'm a firm believer, Senator, in the old air force recruiting motto, aim high. I think we should aim high on this. We may not get there, I agree. But I would rather aim high than aim low, in terms of what we are attempting to do.” King focused his concerns on the actual scope of the program, which portions of the country would be protected, and on obtaining realistic cost estimates. As Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces – which oversees the United States’ nuclear arsenal and posture – Senator King has been an outspoken voice on the need to address the growing nuclear capacity of our adversaries and to protect the threats by our adversaries to the mainland United States. ###

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senators Susan Collins, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and Angus King, a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today welcomed the Air Force’s decision to advance the Bangor Air National Guard Base as a potential location for a new KC-46A air refueling squadron. The two Senators received news moments ago that Bangor is one of four finalists from an initial field of 14 Air National Guard bases. Senators Collins and King were briefed on the decision by Mr. Michael Saunders, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force for Energy, Installations, and Environment and Major General Bryony Terrell, Deputy Director of the Air National Guard. “This announcement from the Air Force is an important step toward equipping the MAINEiacs with the advanced aircraft they need to carry out their critical mission,” said Senators Collins and King. “Bangor’s strategic location and the proven excellence of the 101st Air Refueling Wing make a compelling case for bringing the KC-46 to Maine. We will continue to press for Bangor’s selection as the selection process continues.” If selected, Bangor would gain significantly more advanced refueling capabilities as the KC-46A would replace, over time, the aging KC-135 Stratotankers assigned to the 101st Air Refueling Wing. The first aircraft would be expected to arrive in 2030. The remaining finalists will undergo further site analysis and evaluation. A decision for a preferred location on KC-46A Main Operating Base 9 is expected in the second quarter of Fiscal Year 2027. Senator Collins secured $50 million in the Fiscal Year 2025 full-year continuing resolution for a universal fuel cell hangar in Bangor capable of accommodating the KC-46A, strengthening the base’s readiness for future aircraft. She also secured nearly $9.6 million in Fiscal Year 2024 military construction funding for Maine National Guard projects in Bangor and Saco. Additionally, of the more than $428.6 million in Congressionally Directed Spending Senator Collins secured for Maine in Fiscal Year 2026 funding bills, $2.5 million will support a new aircraft maintenance and ground equipment facility at Bangor Air National Guard Base. As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), and Chairman of the Strategic Forces Subcommittee, Senator King has been a steadfast supporter of the armed forces, including Bangor’s 101st Air Refueling Wing. In a SASC hearing, he touted the “MAINEiacs” and reminded then-Chief of Staff of the Air Force of the strategic importance of Bangor Air National Guard. He secured key provisions in the FY 2025 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) to help protect the Maine Air National Guard — guaranteeing that as the Air Force modernizes the tanker fleet, it replaces older aircraft on a one-for-one basis — and ensure support for all branches of the military to make sure that servicemembers can continue providing best in class services to protect the ‘territory of the brave.’ ###

WASHINGTON D.C. — U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), a senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC), and several of his Senate colleagues on both sides of the aisle are requesting that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and State Department extend humanitarian protections for Ukrainian citizens temporarily staying in the United States due to the unprovoked Russian invasion of their home country. In a letter to Secretary of State Marco Rubio and DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, the senators urge the administration to extend Temporary Protected Status (TPS) designation an additional 18 months beyond the current October 19, 2026, termination date, ensuring current TPS beneficiaries are not forced to return to an active combat zone. The senators wrote, “The war in Ukraine—the largest conventional military action in Europe since World War II—is ongoing, as are the same extraordinary and temporary conditions that warrant the continued protection of Ukrainian nationals currently residing in the United States. International observers report a trend of steadily increasing civilian casualties from year to year, with approximately 17,000 civilian deaths and more than 50,000 civilian injuries since the outbreak of the war in 2022. These casualties, coupled with significant damage to civilian infrastructure, constrained access to health care and substantial population displacement have created a profound crisis, with approximately 10.8 million Ukrainians in need of humanitarian assistance. The facts on the ground paint a clear picture: sending Ukrainians back now would risk returning them to life threatening conditions.” “Protecting the approximately 101,000 Ukrainian TPS holders currently living in the United States is a humanitarian imperative, but also a sound economic decision,” the Senators continued. “Ukrainian TPS holders have contributed approximately $2.6 billion to our economy each year and have provided approximately $716 million in taxes annually. In States like Illinois, thousands of Ukrainian TPS holders make our communities stronger not only through their rich cultural contributions, but also through their participation in critical sectors, including transportation, health care and construction. Terminating TPS for this population risks disrupting these industries, increasing costs for American consumers by forcing thousands of experienced workers out of their jobs.” The senators concluded, “To ensure that eligible Ukrainian nationals currently in the United States can continue living and working safely while conditions in their home country remain perilous, we urge you issue an extension and redesignation of TPS for Ukraine.” In addition to Senator King, the letter is signed by Senators Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Lisa Murkowski (R-AK), Democratic Leader Charles Schumer (D-NY), Susan Collins (R-ME), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Christopher Coons (D-DE), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Ron Wyden (D-OR), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Jeffery Merkley (D-OR), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Gary Peters (D-MI), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Raphael Warnock (D-GA), Edward Markey (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-NV), Peter Welch (D-VT), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Andy Kim (D-NJ), and Tina Smith (D-MN). As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence (SSCI), Senator King is recognized as an authoritative voice on national security and foreign policy issues. He has consistently championed legal protections for individuals fleeing global conflict. Immediately following Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February of 2022, he released a statement condemning Vladimir Putin and advocated for the initial designation of TPS ensuring arriving individuals from Ukraine had immediate legal authorization to remain and work in the U.S. Over the last 4 years, Senator King has been a vocal lawmaker supporting Ukraine’s defense, including unwavering support for bipartisan aid legislation and loyalty to the democratic values of Ukraine. The full text of the letter is available here and below. +++ Dear Secretary Mullin and Secretary Rubio: We strongly urge you to issue an 18-month extension and redesignation of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Ukraine prior to the impending October 19, 2026, termination date. Ukraine is currently in the fifth year of a large-scale war with Russia, which has led to ongoing civilian casualties, significant damage to critical infrastructure and the displacement of broad swaths of the population. An extension of TPS for Ukraine would protect current TPS beneficiaries from being forced to return to an active war zone, while a redesignation would expand those protections to the population of Ukrainian nationals who arrived after October 20, 2023. Ukraine was initially designated for TPS on April 19, 2022, on the basis of ongoing armed conflict and extraordinary and temporary conditions caused by Russia’s military actions within the country. In its designation, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), in consultation with the U.S. Department of State, cited regular artillery attacks and airstrikes by Russia’s military forces, serious human rights abuses and the widespread destruction of critical infrastructure. Subsequent reviews of in-country conditions found that the situation in the country had not sufficiently improved; accordingly, TPS for Ukraine was extended and redesignated through April 19, 2025, and extended once more beginning on April 20, 2025. The war in Ukraine—the largest conventional military action in Europe since World War II—is ongoing, as are the same extraordinary and temporary conditions that warrant the continued protection of Ukrainian nationals currently residing in the United States. International observers report a trend of steadily increasing civilian casualties from year to year, with approximately 17,000 civilian deaths and more than 50,000 civilian injuries since the outbreak of the war in 2022. These casualties, coupled with significant damage to civilian infrastructure, constrained access to health care and substantial population displacement have created a profound crisis, with approximately 10.8 million Ukrainians in need of humanitarian assistance. The facts on the ground paint a clear picture: sending Ukrainians back now would risk returning them to life threatening conditions. Protecting the approximately 101,000 Ukrainian TPS holders currently living in the United States is a humanitarian imperative, but also a sound economic decision. Thanks to the work authorization granted by their TPS status, Ukrainian TPS holders have contributed approximately $2.6 billion to our economy each year and have provided approximately $716 million in taxes annually. In States like Illinois, thousands of Ukrainian TPS holders make our communities stronger not only through their rich cultural contributions, but also through their participation in critical sectors, including transportation, health care and construction. Terminating TPS for this population risks disrupting these industries, increasing costs for American consumers by forcing thousands of experienced workers out of their jobs. Current conditions in Ukraine clearly merit the continuation of TPS status. The ongoing war has caused a humanitarian crisis and damage to critical civilian infrastructure has left many with limited or no access to heat, electricity or medical services. Ukrainian nationals cannot safely return at this time, and allowing TPS to terminate on October 19, 2026, would risk sending more than one hundred thousand individuals back to an active war zone. Ukrainian TPS holders contribute greatly to our communities, both culturally and economically. To ensure that eligible Ukrainian nationals currently in the United States can continue living and working safely while conditions in their home country remain perilous, we urge you issue an extension and redesignation of TPS for Ukraine. Sincerely,

To watch or download the exchange, click here WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME), Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services (SASC) Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, questioned leading authorities on the costs and impacts of the President’s proposed Golden Dome missile defense project on the American taxpayer. As details surrounding the ambitious military program remain vague, Senator King took the advantage of the open hearing to gain more concrete information from the assembled experts. In his exchange with the Honorable David Trachtenberg, a senior scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, the Senator asked how much the Golden Dome would cost the American taxpayer and who and what American territory would be protected by the defense program. Senator King began his remarks, “First I have an issue with how this program is being funded. That is not really your problem, but it’s being funded principally through reconciliation, which is a totally partisan process with very little input from the appropriations committee or the members of this committee. It has very little restrictions in the way of how it can be spent. So I want it on the record, as I mentioned at the beginning, that this is one of the most expensive and important initiatives of this government and it should be one that has broad popular support, indicated by broad support here in the congress. The fact that the vast bulk of it was funded first in the reconciliation last year and is proposed for this year, I think is very bothersome from the point of view of process. “…The other piece of this that bothers me, I was looking at the president's executive order, which says it will deter and defend its citizens and critical infrastructure, provide for the common defense of its citizens,” Senator King continued. “The implication of the term golden dome is a national coverage. I think all of you will agree that that is just not in the cards. So, one of the questions that has to be discussed is, who is being protected? And what is the golden dome actually going to do? The nomenclature implies an arch over the entire country that is protected from any kind of missile attack. Would you agree that is not what we are talking about here?” Trachtenberg replied, “Senator, I would suggest that the nature of golden dome is to try to produce a system capable of a much broader level of defense for the American people and for the country.” “So, this means every American citizen can sleep better tonight because they are protected from a missile attack?” Senator King asked. “With all due respect, Senator, I don't think that is the appropriate metric to use,” Trachtenberg answered. “I believe the appropriate metric is, as I stated is can we build a system that provides a level of protection that dissuades and discourages.” Senator King followed up, “To whom? To whom? Who is being protected and who makes that decision? Are you telling me that every citizen in America can be protected by this system? Trachtenberg concluded, “No, I'm not saying every citizen can be protected.” “So if that is the case, who decides who is protected and who isn’t?” Senator King asked again. Trachtenberg replied, “I think that the actual architecture would be, again, I don't have insight into the current architectural plans, but I think it would be deployed probably in phases or in stages, at certain times when the architecture is ready. But I think it should be expansive. I'm a firm believer, Senator, in the old air force recruiting motto, aim high. I think we should aim high on this. We may not get there, I agree. But I would rather aim high than aim low, in terms of what we are attempting to do.” King focused his concerns on the actual scope of the program, which portions of the country would be protected, and on obtaining realistic cost estimates. As Ranking Member of the Senate Armed Services Committee Subcommittee on Strategic Forces – which oversees the United States’ nuclear arsenal and posture – Senator King has been an outspoken voice on the need to address the growing nuclear capacity of our adversaries and to protect the threats by our adversaries to the mainland United States. ###

The threat posed by AI isn't science fiction; it's fact -- and damn serious. As these systems grow more powerful - and less predictable - I believe we have a responsibility to promote guardrails that ensure this technology strengthens our future. https://t.co/H9ba6NrY5F

WASHINGTON, D.C. – U.S. Senator Angus King (I-ME) is introducing bipartisan legislation to improve access to high-cost prescription drugs for veterans living in state veterans’ homes. The Providing Veterans Essential Medications Act would require the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA) to reimburse State Veterans Homes (SVH) for high-cost medications that exceed 8.5% of their per diem rate, like the arrangement many private contract nursing homes currently have with the VA. Alternatively, it could require the VA to provide these medications directly to the SVHs. Maine has six SVH’s in locations across the state. Currently, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) does not pay State Veterans Homes for high-cost medications for severely disabled veterans, which are covered for veterans who reside outside the facilities. Senator Jim Banks (R-IN) joins Senator King as a lead co-sponsor of the bill. “Our men and women in uniform didn’t hesitate when it came time to answer the call and serve the nation – we shouldn’t hesitate to make their retirement from service as comfortable as possible,” said Senator King. “If the VA covers veterans’ medications when they are living at a private nursing home, those cost reimbursements should be the same when veterans choose to enter a facility that specializes in taking care of veterans. This bipartisan Providing Veterans Essential Medications Act is a crucial piece of legislation that will ensure our veterans continue to receive the care they have earned, regardless of where they chose to live.” “State veterans’ homes should never have to turn away elderly and disabled veterans because lifesaving medications are too expensive,” said Senator Banks. “This bipartisan bill will help states cover those costs and expedite care for our nation’s heroes.” Since the successful passage of the PACT Act in 2022, there has been a significant increase in the number of veterans adjudicated as being severely disabled. For these veterans, the VA currently pays a per diem but doesn’t pay the State Veterans Homes for the cost of extremely high-cost medications which often cost the homes more than VA is paying (sometimes more than $1000 a day). The result has been a rise in veterans being refused SVH admissions, SVHs having to foot the costs of certain lifesaving medications – or the SVHs discharging them due to expense. “This legislation addresses a clear and consequential gap in federal policy. Private facilities that contract with the VA receive direct reimbursement for high-cost medications, while State Veterans Homes like Maine Veterans’ Homes do not. That inequity can force Veterans Homes to weigh the extraordinary cost of a Veteran’s medications during the admissions process—something no Veteran or Veterans Home should face,” said Brad Klawitter, Maine Veterans’ Homes CEO. “Maine Veterans’ Homes provides high-quality care in a setting specifically designed to honor the service and sacrifice of our Veterans. Reimbursement for high-cost medications is essential to our ability to continue serving Veterans in our communities, including those with complex medical needs. These Veterans served our state and country, and they deserve access to a Veterans Home where their service is understood, respected and honored. Closing this gap must be a priority.” “The National Association of State Veterans Homes (NASVH) strongly supports the bipartisan Providing Veterans Essential Medications Act which would ensure exorbitantly high-cost medications don’t limit long-term care options for aging and disabled veterans,” said Ryan Engle, NASVH President. ““NASVH is grateful for the leadership of Senators Angus King and Jim Banks in introducing legislation to improve the lives of highly service-connected disabled veterans and strengthen the State Veterans Homes system.” Representing one of the states with the highest rates of military families and veterans per capita, Senator King is a staunch advocate for America’s servicemembers and veterans. In March, Senator King was honored by The American Legion with its 2026 Distinguished Public Service Award. Last year, Senator King was honored by the Disabled American Veterans as its 2025 Legislator of the Year. He was also recognized by the Wounded Warrior Project as the 2024 Legislator of the Year for his “outstanding legislative effort and achievement to improve the lives of the wounded, ill, and injured veterans.”