Congressman Jamie Raskin

Raskin, Beyer, DeGette Led 68 Colleagues Demanding AHRQ Reverse Cancellation of More Than $200 Million in Health Care Research Grants

Wed, 224 Aug 2026 12:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Representatives Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Don Beyer (D-VA) and Diana DeGette (D-CO) led 68 House Democrats in demanding that the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) immediately reverse the cancellation of more than 150 grants supporting over $200 million in critical health care research. Among the research projects affected by the cancellations are efforts to integrate behavioral health services into routine pediatric care; use telehealth to expand access to care and reduce costs, including in rural communities; improve postpartum care for patients with chronic medical conditions; and reduce the overuse of antibiotics following hospital discharge to combat antimicrobial resistance.

In a letter to AHRQ Director Roger Klein, the lawmakers noted that Congress provided AHRQ with $345.38 million in funding as part of the Fiscal Year 2026 Consolidated Appropriations Act, reflecting bipartisan support for the agency’s work to improve health care access, affordability, and quality. The lawmakers warned that the mass cancellation of grants may constitute an illegal impoundment of Congressionally authorized and appropriated funding and raised concerns that the agency failed to follow federal regulations governing the termination of awards.

“Given the disastrous impact of these notices, the potential procedural defects in issuing them, and our concerns surrounding AHRQ’s use of Congressionally-appropriated funds, we ask that you immediately withdraw these notices and fully fund the grantees that have waited for committed funds for over a year,” the lawmakers wrote. “Additionally, we ask that you provide Congress with a comprehensive list of all awards for which notices referenced above have been issued and, for each of the canceled grants, list grant-specific information regarding the grantee’s progress, management practices, and other factors considered before issuing the notice.”

The letter is also signed by Representatives Jake Auchincloss (MA-4), Nanette Barragán (CA-44), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Wesley Bell (MO-01), Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Julia Brownley (CA-26), Troy Carter (LA-02), Kathy Castor (FL-14), Yvette Clarke (NY-09), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Herb Conaway (NJ-03), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Jacon Crow (CO-06), Danny Davis (IL-07), Madeleine Dean (PA-04), Suzan DelBene (WA-01), Chris Deluzio (PA-17), Mark DeSaulnier (CA-10), Maxine Dexter (OR-03), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Maxwell Frost (FL-10), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús "Chuy" García (IL-04), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Maggie Goodlander (NH-02), Josh Gottheimer (NJ-05), Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07), Van Hoyle (OR-04), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Robin Kelly (IL-02), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Summer Lee (PA-12), Ted Lieu (CA-36), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), John Mannion (NY-22), Doris Matsui (CA-07), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Grace Meng (NY-06), Gwen Moore (WI-04), Kelly Morrison (MN-03), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Jerry Nadler (NJ-12), Richard Neal (MA-01), Brittany Pettersen (CO-07), Mike Quigley (IL-05), Delia Ramirez (IL-03), Andrea Salinas (OR-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Kim Schrier (WA-08), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Lateefah Simon (CA-12), Haley Stevens (MI-11), Tom Suozzi (NY-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), Bennie Thompson (MS-02), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), James Walkinshaw (VA-11), Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12), Frederica Wilson (FL-24) and Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL).

Full text of the letter follows below, and a signed copy is available here.

Dear Director Klein:

We write to request the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Grants Management Office immediately reverse the mass cancellation of grants issued July 15, 2026. AHRQ has a statutory responsibility to support research to improve the quality and effectiveness of health services for the American people. The cancellation of more than 150 meritorious grants violates this duty and is likely an illegal impoundment of Congressionally-authorized and appropriated funds. The Grants Management Office also failed to follow federal regulations governing the termination of awards. We urge you to realign your Agency with federal law and the best interests of the American people and reverse these grant cancellations.

On July 15, 2026, AHRQ reportedly sent an estimated 150 cancellation notices to grant recipients. This action is expected to eliminate more than $200 million in lifesaving healthcare research that AHRQ funds as the lead federal agency directing studies into delivering care efficiently, effectively, and safely. At a time when the United States spends $5.3 trillion on healthcare annually, accounting for 18% of national gross domestic product, it is shocking that AHRQ would choose to end its support of that critical research.

Congress consistently authorizes and appropriates federal dollars to AHRQ, and most recently received $345.38 million in the FY26 Consolidated Appropriations Act, demonstrating bipartisan support for improving healthcare access, affordability, and quality, including in areas of priority for AHRQ like rural healthcare, artificial intelligence, and the prevention of healthcare associated infections. Examples of canceled research grants include programs to:

Integrate behavioral health services into routine pediatric care offerings.
Use telehealth to improve access and reduce costs of unscheduled care, making healthcare more affordable and accessible for the communities who rely most on telemedicine, including in rural areas.
Improve postpartum care in primary care settings for patients with chronic medical conditions.
Reduce overuse of antibiotics upon hospital discharge, reducing the well-recognized, long-term risks of antimicrobial resistance.

The above list is a small sample of the myriad topics addressed through canceled AHRQ grants that would improve healthcare quality, safety, and cost for the American people.

Withholding federal dollars from grant recipients across nearly 30 states without seeking Congressional approval under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is likely illegal and continues what is now a multi-year violation of federal law. The cancellation notices issued on July 15 fail to meet basic standards for grant cancellation notices. The notices cite 42 C.F.R. § 67.17(d) and 42 C.F.R. § 67.17(e), styling the notices as “non-awards” of future funding, rather than cancellations of ongoing research. However, the notices then assign recipients specific obligations under 2 C.F.R. § 200.344, which only applies when grants are canceled. The authorities to cancel ongoing grants provided under 42 C.F.R. § 67.17 require that specific factors are taken into account to cancel individual awards, including “the grantee's progress and management practices and the availability of funds.” Applying blanket language across up to 150 grants covering more than $200 million in awards is not consistent with careful consideration of individual grantees’ progress or performance.

Given the disastrous impact of these notices, the potential procedural defects in issuing them, and our concerns surrounding AHRQ’s use of Congressionally-appropriated funds, we ask that you immediately withdraw these notices and fully fund the grantees that have waited for committed funds for over a year. Additionally, we ask that you provide Congress with a comprehensive list of all awards for which notices referenced above have been issued and, for each of the canceled grants, list grant-specific information regarding the grantee’s progress, management practices, and other factors considered before issuing the notice. We request an update on AHRQ’s plans to withdraw these notices, as well as the full list of requested grantee information, no later than August 21, 2026.

###

Raskin, DeLauro, Casten, Jacobs and 111 Colleagues Demand Netanyahu Remove Barbed-Wire Fence Blocking Students’ Path from West Bank Village Umm Al-Kheir to School

Fri, 212 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

Majority of House Democratic Caucus calls for end to settler obstruction, violence and intimidation...

Raskin, Beyer, Norton, Ivey Oppose Trump Administration’s Rushed “Redevelopment” of Historic East Potomac Park

Thu, 211 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, Representatives Jamie Raskin (MD-08), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-AL), Don Beyer (VA-08) and Glenn Ivey (MD-04), along with 43 of their colleagues, demanded transparency about the Trump Administration’s new vanity project, the proposed redevelopment of East Potomac Park designed by President Trump’s handpicked architect, Tom Fazio. The letter, written to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum and Acting Director of the National Park Service Jessica Bowron, called on the Administration to preserve the park’s historical features and affordability.

In this latest letter, the lawmakers are demanding the administration disclose the cost of the golf course’s redevelopment and how any changes would affect bike and walking paths. They also demanded the administration comply with historic preservation laws and disclose how the golf course’s pricing may change.

“We write with strong objections to your rushed ‘redevelopment’ of East Potomac Park, as well as the lack of clear public communication as to the changes planned for a beloved historic and recreation site,” the lawmakers wrote. “Any significant construction… requires compliance with bedrock environmental and historic preservation laws, robust public consultation and review, and protection of the existing uses of the site.”

East Potomac Park, which includes East Potomac Golf Links, lies on federal land in Washington, D.C. The existing golf courses are well-used and popular, and hosted 130,000 rounds of golf in 2025. The courses are known for both their affordability—a tee time costs as little as $17—and their rich history and accessibility for players of all skill levels. In addition to the golf courses, East Potomac Park is also a beloved recreation site for thousands of residents in D.C., Maryland and Virginia who use the park’s biking and walking paths and picnic on scenic Hains Point. In the spring, the park hosts visitors who travel to see D.C.’s oldest stand of cherry blossoms.

The courses became a core part of the nation’s civil rights history in 1941 when three Black golf players insisted on playing a round of golf, making East Potomac Golf Links one of the first desegregated public golf courses in the country.

In addition to public access considerations, the lawmakers raised transparency concerns surrounding the redevelopment project’s financing.

“A private entity called the National Garden of American Heroes Foundation has sent brochures of the redesign to prospective donors and advertised the option for these donors to remain anonymous,” the lawmakers wrote. “The only information available about this shadowy foundation is that interested donors can contact President Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign finance director if they have any questions."

The lawmakers first sounded the alarm on threats to East Potomac Park in response to the 35,000 cubic yards of toxic debris that the Trump Administration dumped on the golf courses following the illegal demolition of the White House’s East Wing. The proposed East Potomac Park redevelopment follows the Trump Administration’s pattern of unauthorized demolition and construction projects. Following the personal involvement of President Trump, the Administration has defaced other cultural and recreational spaces in the Nation's Capital, including the East Wing of the White House, the Kennedy Center and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool.

The letter is also signed by Reps. Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), André Carson (IN-07), Sean Casten (IL-06), Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05), Steve Cohen (TN-09), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Danny Davis (IL-07), Lloyd Doggett (TX-37), Sarah Elfreth (MD-03), Veronica Escobar (TX-16), Dwight Evans (PA-03), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Robert Garcia (CA-42), Sylvia Garcia (TX-29), Adelita Grijalva (AZ-07), Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Jared Huffman (CA-02), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Pramila Jayapal (WA-07), Henry “Hank” Johnson (GA-04), Raja Krishnamoorthi (IL-08), Zoe Lofgren (CA-18), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), Betty McCollum (MN-04), James McGovern (MA-02), Kweisi Mfume (MD-07), Dave Min (CA-04), Jerry Nadler (NY-17), Johnny Olszewski (MD-02), Chellie Pingree (ME-01), Emily Randall (WA-06), Mary Gay Scanlon (PA-05), Robert “Bobby” Scott (VA-03), Mark Takano (CA-39), Shri Thanedar (MI-13), Bennie Thompson (MI-02), Paul Tonko (NY-20), Nydia Velázquez (NY-07), James Walkinshaw (VA-11) and Bonnie Watson Coleman (NJ-12).

Read the full text of the letter here and below:

Dear Secretary Burgum and Acting Director Bowron:

We write with strong objections to your rushed “redevelopment” of East Potomac Park, as well as the lack of clear public communication as to the changes planned for a beloved historic and recreation site. Any significant construction at East Potomac Park, which was expressly created by Congress in 1897 to be “forever held and used as a park for the recreation and pleasure of the people,” requires compliance with bedrock environmental and historic preservation laws, robust public consultation and review, and protection of the existing uses of the site. Removing or diminishing any of those uses, including the existing affordable public golf course, the biking and running trails around the course, and the historic grove of cherry trees along Hains Point, is unacceptable and potentially illegal. We urge you to immediately abandon those efforts and protect this essential site for generations present and future.

East Potomac Golf Links has been an indispensable public asset since 1921. The National Park Service (NPS) responded to popular demand that year to create one of the country’s first public golf courses. The three courses—Red, White and Blue—were designed or inspired by the designs of Walter Travis, who rejected Victorian-style designs favored by the rich and powerful to create links-style courses that all players could enjoy. The courses opened with rounds of golf priced at just 25 cents. This legacy of inclusive pricing continues to this day. Visitors can book a child’s tee time for just $9 and enjoy a hamburger at the Potomac Grille for under $10—an enjoyable afternoon that won’t break the bank. The courses became a core part of our national civil rights history in 1941 when three Black golf players insisted on playing a round of golf, making East Potomac Golf Links one of the first desegregated golf courses in the country. For 85 years, residents of all backgrounds in the District of Columbia and the surrounding area have enjoyed the golf course and the biking and running trails that surround it.

This all changed on August 1, 2025, when you met with President Trump to discuss destroying the Red, White, and Blue courses and replacing them with a single “championship- style” layout designed to host professional tournaments. This recently released “Washington National Plan,” credited to Tom Fazio—who has previously designed golf courses for President Trump—would be a wholesale redevelopment of a property that has been on the National Register of Historic Places since 1973. To make this design a reality, the existing 36 holes, split across the Red, White and Blue courses, would need to be destroyed, trees would be cut down, and an entirely new clubhouse would likely be constructed. All of this would yield just one large course, an 18-hole course designed for professionals, and one 9-hole pitch and putt course, leaving little room for the cycling, running and picnicking activities that are equally important to the park’s character.

On June 28, this already expansive redesign became catastrophic when President Trump toured East Potomac Golf Links and examined new renderings of a far more expansive redesign proposal than what you disclosed on social media. If the high-resolution photos of the plan clutched by the President during the tour reflect the Administration’s real intentions, the redesign would create just one 18-hole course for professionals, provide no 9-hole pitch and putt course, and completely eliminate Hains Point and the walking and biking trails surrounding the park. The Administration has not publicly released cost projections for this massive undertaking. The limited information shared about public access after the redesign includes estimates that the weekend price for local golfers could nearly double as a result of this complete transformation, even as the number of available courses to play on is cut by a third. This undermines the longstanding principles of affordability and public access which have driven East Potomac Golf Links since its founding.

While the courses are certainly in need of significant maintenance and repair following decades of underinvestment, this work must be accomplished in compliance with the law and with respect for the historic nature of this beloved public resource. NPS itself has performed a Cultural Landscape Report on East Potomac Golf Links, determining in 2019 that the Red, White and Blue courses are “essential” to the “design integrity at East Potomac” and that the historic design reflects “an egalitarian institution within the city of Washington, D.C., as originally intended.” Furthermore, the biking and running trails circumnavigating East Potomac Park—in addition to providing crucial public access to the waterfront—are core components of the park. Hains Point is a beloved and scenic picnic area that is also critical to residents and visitors alike, who come each spring to enjoy Washington, D.C.’s cherry blossom season.

To raise funds for the Washington National Plan, a private entity called the National Garden of American Heroes Foundation has sent brochures of the redesign to prospective donors and advertised the option for these donors to remain anonymous. The only information available about this shadowy foundation is that interested donors can contact President Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign finance director if they have any questions. We have seen this hollow promise before. Previous construction efforts that President Trump has touted as privately funded have both ballooned in cost and in fact been paid for by taxpayers.

Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to assess the effects of any proposed project on “historic federal properties.” It also requires federal agencies to publicly release development plans of this level of significance and incorporate sufficient time for public comment. Instead of engaging with the public about this design as required by law, the Administration began setting plans in motion to close the existing golf courses and clear stands of trees within them in May 2026. The trees have only been spared and the course only remains open due to pending litigation.

To learn more about your plans to redevelop the park, and how you will address our concerns about the redevelopment and its negative impact on multi-purpose recreation access, we request written answers to the following questions by no later than August 14, 2026:

What is the cost of redeveloping East Potomac Golf Links?
Will the beloved and heavily-used walking and biking paths and lanes through the Park be preserved? If so, will any changes be made to those paths and lanes?
Will the similarly beloved and heavily-visited cherry trees within the Park be preserved? If so, are there anticipated impacts on health or access to those trees?
How much more will it cost for the public to play golf at East Potomac Golf Links under the “Washington National Plan”? The similar courses that you have cited as cost models in your redesign proposal feature prices that are as much as double the current East Potomac Golf Links prices. What justifies this increase?
What is the relationship between the National Garden of American Heroes Foundation and members of the Trump Administration and specifically President Trump?
What are the Department’s plans to assess project compliance under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act for the wholesale redevelopment of East Potomac Golf Links?

If these plans move forward, what is the Department’s anticipated public comment schedule?

We appreciate your consideration and look forward to your prompt response.

###

Raskin, Bacon, Dexter Celebrate House Passage of Bipartisan Legislation Protecting Pension Payments for NOAA Corps, U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps

Thu, 204 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

This legislation will ensure on time pension payments for more than 1,150 Maryland residents and more than 7,500 people across the country ...

Raskin, Whitehouse Introduce Legislation to Safeguard Elections, Close Major Campaign Finance Loophole as Foreign Ownership of American Corporations Skyrockets

Wed, 203 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

Bicameral legislation would restore the votes and the voices of the American people against the reign of foreign oligarchs...

Raskin Statement on Massie Amendment #8 to the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act

Wed, 196 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C.— Today, Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) released the following statement on Massie Amendment #8 to the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act:

“The Republican Majority is advancing a foreign assistance budget bill that slashes humanitarian assistance, undercuts American diplomacy and dramatically reduces our soft power.

“Meantime, the Majority advanced a classic ‘Gotcha’ Amendment to this bill, introduced by Representative Massie, which was designed not to promote peace or save civilian lives in the Middle East but simply to try and split Democrats.

“All the voting options here were, of course, designedly bad and therefore each one was minimally defensible in its own way. This Amendment, even though it was clearly going to fail, was still a bad way to make complicated foreign policy judgments and to organize a reset of American policy toward the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

“The problem for me is that a ‘No’ vote will be characterized as a vote for the status quo and for supporting Netanyahu and his war of mass destruction and displacement in Gaza, which has killed more than 70,000 Palestinians and brought mass disease, hunger and suffering to the Palestinian people. This war was brought in response to the appalling terrorist attack in southern Israel on October 7, 2023, which involved the murder of more than 1,200 Israelis and the brutal capture of more than 250 hostages, including family members and loved ones of my constituents. But voting ‘No’ was indigestible for reasons I have been repeatedly spelling out ever since it became clear that Netanyahu’s prosecution of the war in Gaza—which was properly justified at inception as an operation to disarm and disable Hamas—was becoming a cauldron of civilian atrocities and human rights violations, some of them involving the families of my own constituents. A constituent from the Gaithersburg area lost dozens of members of her family to a bombing attack on their family compound in Gaza City, and my constituent Chef José Andrés lost ten of his colleagues with World Central Kitchen to armed attacks. I have done everything in my power to move Prime Minister Netanyahu and his government away from policies that implicate them—and us—in mass human rights violations and shameful actions, but they have not engaged in serious dialogue with me or other Members of Congress.

“A ‘Present’ Vote would also be justifiable under these circumstances because this whole amendment is plainly a political trick designed to divide the Democrats with full knowledge it will not pass. But voting ‘Present’ in this context could be seen by millions of people as a refusal to take a position on furnishing more weapons for Netanyahu’s war in Gaza and the violent chaos being perpetrated by settlers on the West Bank. It could also be read as indifference to the catastrophic folly of the Iran War that was the joint project of President Trump, Prime Minister Netanyahu and Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman. I am not neutral on the violence engulfing the Middle East. We must advance the cause of peace.

“So I came to a ‘Yes’ vote to register my profound objection to providing billions of dollars of more weaponry and support to the Netanyahu government which has been shockingly reckless and deliberately indifferent towards human life and international human rights and humanitarian law governing the proper treatment of civilians in a military conflict.

“This, to be sure, is also not an ideal solution. Although the Massie Amendment does not affect defensive weapons systems like Iron Dome and David’s Sling (which would be disqualifying in my mind), its blunt-instrument language potentially cuts some funding for valuable non-military diplomatic programs. I support these programs and believe we need to dramatically expand them and revitalize them as many of them have, in large part, been defunded by the Trump Administration. I reject Congressman Massie’s nativist, categorical opposition to foreign aid and extremist rhetoric.

“But our funds and our weapons have been used in shameful violence and human rights violations against Palestinians by the government of Prime Minister Netanyahu, who has brought terrible isolation to Israel in the process. I am a passionate champion of democracy, national security and peace for all the people of Israel, as I am a passionate champion of democracy, security and peace for all the Palestinians. For the sake of everyone involved, I believe that we cannot blithely allow these dynamics of war and violence to continue. We need a reset in this relationship. There is a titanic struggle taking place on earth today between democracy and authoritarianism. As we fight to defend democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law in America, we must work to defend democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law all over the world, including amongst our closest allies.”

###

Raskin Statement on “Trumped-up Charges” Facing Constituent, Three-time Olympian Canoeist Davey Hearn in Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool Case

Thu, 190 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

Raskin: “I hope—and will do everything I can to guarantee—that Davey gets true due process and a fair trial on these absurdly trumped-up charges.”...

Raskin, Spartz Introduce Legislation Directing Interior Secretary Doug Burgum to Advance Plans for “Dazzling National Memorial” Honoring American Patriot Thomas Paine

Wed, 189 Jul 2026 12:00:00 EST

Raskin: “On the 250th anniversary of the publication of Common Sense, our legislation finally brings the great Tom Paine from the attics and libraries of history to a place of shining prominence on our National Mall, establishing the dazzling national memorial he deserves.” ...

Raskin, Beyer, Norton, Ivey Demand Trump Administration Remove Demolished East Wing’s Toxic Debris from East Potomac National Park

Fri, 177 Jun 2026 12:00:00 EST

Lawmakers: “The White House... knew there would be a high likelihood of toxins in the East Wing debris and still chose to dump them in a public place, creating massive exposure for both adults and children.” ...

Raskin, Schiff, Chu, Cohen, Gottheimer, Schrier, Suozzi Introduce Legislation to Honor Americans Who Rescued Holocaust Refugees

Thu, 176 Jun 2026 12:00:00 EST

Raskin: “With antisemitism and authoritarianism on the rise globally, we must remember undaunted American activists who fought for safety and human rights for persecuted and scapegoated people.” ...

Raskin, DelBene and Trahan Call on Trump Administration to Reverse Harmful Rule Changes Injecting MAGA Agenda into Government Grantmaking Process, Health Research

Thu, 176 Jun 2026 12:00:00 EST

Lawmakers: “We write in opposition to the Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB’s) disastrous and likely unlawful proposed rule that would devastate American health care innovation for generations.” ...

Raskin Statement on MAGA’s Latest Billion-Dollar ICE Handout

Tue, 160 Jun 2026 12:00:00 EST

Raskin: “We need affordable health care, not an open money spigot for ICE corruption and masked federal agents killing American citizens and disappearing our neighbors from the streets.” ...

Raskin, National Capital Region Members Sound Alarm on Trump Administration’s Plans to Shutter USDA Childcare Centers in Maryland, D.C.

Wed, 147 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

Lawmakers: “We view USDA’s childcare center closures as an escalation of the Trump Administration’s attack on the National Capital Region workforce.”...

Raskin Road Safety Legislation Clears Committee Vote

Fri, 142 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

Washington, D.C.— Today, the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure voted to advance key provisions of Representative Jamie Raskin’s (MD-08) bicameral, bipartisan Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Transportation Safety Act. These provisions will expand access to federal funding opportunities for local governments to make roadways safer for all, including bicyclists, pedestrians and roadside workers.

Now that the legislation has advanced out of committee, the next step is a vote on the House floor.

“Sarah Langenkamp—a loving mother, dedicated wife and patriotic diplomat—had just relocated to Maryland with her family from foreign service in Ukraine when she was struck by a truck while biking and killed,” said Rep. Raskin. “Sarah’s husband Dan, her father Dirk, and her entire family awe and inspire me and our entire community with their commitment to honor her memory by improving roadway safety. Together, we will keep pushing forward this legislation to save lives in Montgomery County and across the country.”

“Too many Americans, like the Langenkamp family, know the pain of losing a loved one tragically in a cycling or pedestrian road accident,” said Senator Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), who leads companion legislation in the U.S. Senate. “That’s why it’s critical that we take action to improve biker and pedestrian safety. Today’s Committee passage of key provisions from our bipartisan Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Safety Transportation Act is an important step forward in making our roads safer and more accessible for everyone. I will continue working to pass this legislation in the Senate and honor Sarah’s legacy as a committed public servant and beloved member of our community.”

Specifically, this legislation will:

Expand the types of projects eligible under the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP), including projects that eliminate gaps in cycling and pedestrian infrastructure for vulnerable road users.
Enable communities to use HSIP funds as the statutorily required matching funds for Transportation Alternatives Projects (TAP) in certain cases and allow for a 100% federal cost share in these projects.

“Our family has been working for three years to pass this legislation, and we are grateful that members of Congress—on both sides of the aisle—agree that we don’t have to sit back and accept that people like Sarah have to die on our roads,” said Dan Langenkamp and Dirk Debbink, Sarah’s husband and father, respectively. “We are glad they agree that we have the power as a nation to do something about this problem.”

After Sarah’s tragic passing, Rep. Raskin met with her family to learn more about her inspiring life and their road safety advocacy. In 2023, Rep. Raskin introduced the Sarah Debbink Langenkamp Active Safety Transportation Act. In 2025, Rep. Raskin reintroduced the legislation making the fight for its passage bipartisan and bicameral. Now that key sections of the bill have advanced out of committee, they are one step closer to becoming law.

The House bill is co-sponsored by Representatives Mike Thompson (D-CA-04), Bryan Steil (R-WI-01), Derrick Van Orden (R-WI-03), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC-At Large), Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-01), Andre Carson (D-IN-07), Jack Bergman (R-MI-01), Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Mike Lawler (R-NY-17), Laura Gillen (D-NY-04), Vern Buchanan (R-FL-16), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-05), Tony Weid (R-WI-08), Nick LaLota (R-NY-01), Jerry Nadler (D-NY-12), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI-05), and Tom Suozzi (D-NY-03). The Senate bill is cosponsored by Senators Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Bill Hagerty (R-TN), Ron Johnson (R-WI), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ).

This legislation is endorsed by the Safe Routes Partnership and the League of American Bicyclists.

###

Raskin Statement on H.R. 1329

Thu, 141 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) released the following statement on H.R. 1329, a formerly bipartisan and noncontroversial bill which House Republicans loaded up with culture-war poison pills:

“After the Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum Act was introduced last year as a bipartisan bill to finally establish a museum to honor the remarkable achievements and contributions of women throughout our history, I joined 126 of my Democratic colleagues in cosponsoring it. Unfortunately, the legislation we are voting on today is a dramatic rewrite of the bill I supported.

“Because of the comic shamelessness of House Republicans, we are now voting on a bill to give adjudicated sexual abuser Donald Trump control over the portrayal of women’s history in America. Yes, the same Donald Trump who has been credibly accused of sexual assault by dozens of women, who was found liable for sexually abusing E. Jean Carroll and who has led a systematic coverup of the Epstein Files, which feature his name thousands of times. The amended legislation would also take site selection out of the Smithsonian’s hands and give it to the same board of Trump pawns overseeing construction of his Marie Antoinette ballroom.

“MAGA Republicans further torpedoed this once-bipartisan effort by turning the bill into their second legislative attack on transgender Americans this week. The bill prohibits transgender women from appearing in the museum and even empowers the aforementioned Trump cronies to object to including women they deem insufficiently feminine.

“Legions of women across the political spectrum fought for years to bring their history to the National Mall. Today’s vote should establish the arrival of a long-overdue museum. Instead, it has become one more dismal MAGA culture-war battleground. But, of course, the culture wars are all my Republican colleagues have to work with. As their poll numbers sink and gas prices soar, they’ve resorted to firing up their base and mollifying their dear leader. I’m voting against this legislative desecration.”

###

Raskin Honors 19 High School Students Appointed to U.S. Service Academies

Tue, 139 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

Washington, D.C.— Today, Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) announced the names of 19 high school students who received his nomination and appointment offers to U.S. Service Academies. Rep. Raskin recognized the students during a reception on Capitol Hill on Friday.

“It’s deeply inspiring to nominate dynamic, patriotic and talented young people to attend our U.S. Service Academies,” said Rep. Raskin. “By stepping forward to serve their country, they participate in protecting our basic freedoms and institutions once they graduate to become members of our military.”

Members of Congress are empowered to nominate exceptional young people for appointments to U.S. Service Academies. These prestigious institutions—including the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Naval Academy, the U.S. Military Academy and the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy—prepare graduates for careers as military officers.

Please find a complete list of Rep. Raskin’s 2026 MD-08 U.S. Service Academy nominees, who have received appointment offers, below. Students can receive appointment offers to multiple academies.

U.S. Naval Academy (9 Students):

Hannah Sophie O’Neill

Paige Mary Henry (USNA and ASAFA)

Dylan Pearl Weiss

Jack William Kreindler

Pavan Sudhin Bengeri

Daryn Kelly Maloni

Judah Wood Goodall

Haden Cole Wade

Dylan Imirowicz

U.S. Military Academy (5 Students):

Will Benjamin Fermaglich

Niccolo Hugh Petrilli

Cole James Reposa

Ojas Ashar Bailey

Kathryn Grace O’Boyle

U.S. Air Force Academy (4 Students):

Kira Rose Bardin

Paige Mary Henry (ASAFA and USNA)

Solomon Filipina Randall

Lindsay Jingling Shen

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy (2 Students)

Colten Luke Krause

Madison Louise LaMotteo

###

Raskin Delivers Commencement Address at Goucher College

Sun, 137 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

On May 17, 2026, Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) delivered the commencement address at Goucher College. These are his remarks as delivered:

Goucher College

Commencement Address

May 17, 2026

Happy birthday, Mr. President. He gave me a surprise party for his birthday. I didn’t know I was going to get this honorary doctorate. My cup runneth over. I don’t know if I deserve it but I will work every day to deserve it. Thank you, Mr. President.

Good morning, everybody. Good morning. President Devereaux, Board Chair Cindy Plavier-Truitt, distinguished Members of the Board of Trustees, Distinguished faculty members, retiring faculty—Professor Florence Martin and Dr. Amanda Woodson. Nalani Brown, Lisa Van Riper—beautiful speeches. Moms, Dads, uncles and aunts—I don’t think they have been recognized yet—brothers and sisters, best friends and cousins who might be here today. Residents of Maryland’s beautiful Eighth Congressional District who might be here today.

Hello Goucher Class of 2026. Hello. Thank you for honoring me by inviting me to address you for this modest two hours and 45 minutes today. Just kidding guys, don’t worry.

Congratulations on your success, which is the concept I want to explore today, perhaps in a kind of counter-cultural and provocative way. I have come to praise the success embodied in your studies and in your hard work. Your summer jobs and part-time jobs, your late night bull sessions, your arduous endeavors—victories and losses both—on the playing fields, your essays, your senior papers, your wonderful relationships, your first loves, your beautiful and wrenching relationships, your service on clubs and choirs and a cappella groups, your identification of lifelong mentors and scholars to emulate, your decision to take your place in the Modern Enlightenment, which continues to this day. I have come to praise you and your professors and all your supporters at this remarkable college on the spectacular, hard-won success surrounding and infusing this moment in our time. And I have come to tell you why I insist on using that word “success” to describe what you have done.

First, I want to start with a question. If you have a friend or roommate who told you that somebody has got the Midas Touch, would you understand them to be saying a positive thing in general? Raise your hand if you think that would be a positive thing that someone has got the Midas Touch.

I’m seeing most of the hands up there.

It’s usually intended indeed as a compliment, a positive statement. Does anybody take it to be a criticism? I have not heard that. Oh—well you’re getting ahead of me in my speech, then, Sir. The Goucher students are too smart.

In our culture, in our time, if you look it up online, the Midas Touch is a positive thing. What is fascinating is the Midas Touch has a meaning quite opposite to its original meaning, derived from the myth of King Midas. It all started when King Midas judged a music competition between Pan and Apollo and Midas chose Pan as the winner simply because he was his friend. And Apollo got mad and punished him for using personal favoritism by giving him donkey’s ears to dramatize that he’d acted like an ass in choosing a winner by favoritism instead of merit. Midas was forced to wear that hat in public to hide his ears and keep people from laughing at him all day. But after King Midas treated a drunken satyr with kindness, the god Dionysus was very moved and treated Midas to the granting of one wish. We all assume that King Midas would have wished for removal of his drooping donkey ears, but that was not his wish.

Despite being repeatedly warned away from it, King Midas insisted upon this seductively simple wish: he wished that everything that he touched would turn to gold.

When that wish came true immediately, he was ecstatic. That was, until he touched his roast beef, his potatoes, his wine and his wife and his daughter—and all of them turned into gold.

He could not eat or drink, he could not play with his children or kiss his wife because they had all turned into golden statues of themselves, and he couldn’t fall asleep on a hard golden bed with a hard golden pillow. Now desperate to get rid of the wish that turned his life into a golden curse, Midas begged Dionysus to reverse it. He agreed. He told Midas to wash his hands in the river, which he did, and the terrible magical curse was washed away. Midas asked if he could get his original wish back so he could get rid of the donkey’s ears, but at least in the original version, Dionysus made Midas keep the donkey’s ears as a reminder of his folly, first judging a competition in a biased way, and then placing gold above all other dreams, all other relationships and values, converting everything into an extension of his gilded obsessions and fantasies of unlimited wealth somehow conferring unlimited happiness.

Now, why am I telling you—or retelling you, presumably—the myth of King Midas? It’s been on my mind a lot lately since we debated in Congress a tax break for the wealthiest corporations and people in America.

And I got up to argue that the people who have benefitted the most from our prosperity should pay more in taxes or at least the same as everyone else, but certainly not less than everyone else. And they should be proud and honored to contribute more. But some of my colleagues thought that sentiment was irrational and outdated. “Socialist,” they said. They said it would kill all the proper incentives. In their world, I could see that for those to whom much is given, very little is expected back.

That debate lasted until the wee hours of the morning, on the record and off the record. As we tried in vain to talk them down from the tax break that would add trillions of dollars in debt to the country and dramatically increase wealth inequality, one of my colleagues looked at me and directed these words right at me and he said: “You just want to punish Americans who are successful.”

And what struck me first was the implication that taxation is a kind of punishment instead of a form of contribution to our common life.

But then I focused on the value proposition underlying the accusation, which was the equation of “success” with great financial wealth. This was the King Midas Fallacy. When he said that I just wanted to punish Americans who are successful, he meant millionaires and billionaires and trillionaires. In this value hierarchy, the richest Americans are, by definition, the most successful Americans. And the most successful Americans are, by definition, the richest ones.

This struck a nerve with me. Here is how I replied, somewhat irritably, I can see now. I said: “What about successful, underpaid middle school math teachers like my daughter, whose students’ parents stop me in the street to thank me for her amazing teaching? What about successful plumbers like my grandfather, who built his own small business and worked six days a week and could carry a bathtub up three floors on his back? What about successful starving poets and street musicians who bring beauty and melody to people every day? What about successful sanitation workers and school bus drivers who keep our neighborhoods clean and get our kids to school safely? What about successful union organizers and family farmers, bricklayers and flight attendants, successful small-town Mayors, doctors and nurses, successful Moms and Dads taking care of their kids while struggling to afford groceries? Why are you trying to use your tax policies to punish all these people for their success?”

Well, after that day, or after that night when that bill passed, I started noticing everywhere this identification of success with wealth. Under this theory I realize many people will become fabulously successful, just by being born into the right family. They will inherit their success. Other people will be declared failures by so-called “successful” people because they were born into a family without financial wealth. Or because they don’t make a lot of money as paramedics or early childhood educators or social workers or firefighters, even if they are rendering indispensable social value with their work.

Now, I’m not saying that a fabulously wealthy person can’t be successful, according to an ethical value system. A lot of them are. Take, for example, Bruce Springsteen, whose life-affirming music rocks the world every day and whose commitment to freedom and democracy is crucial today to our country. Take the great and much-maligned and vilified George Soros, a refugee from Nazism, a champion of a free and open society, a wealthy trader who is an extraordinary philanthropist and change agent. Like him, a lot of the successful people who are wealthy have shared their money with other people and other causes.

Conversely, we would not say that every destitute person is, by definition, noble and successful just because they’re poor. That is silly. Rudy Guiliani is impoverished today, having been ordered by a jury to pay Ruby Freeman and Shaye Moss $146 million for defaming them by falsely accusing them of committing election fraud. But his poverty hardly makes Rudy Giuliani a role model to anybody for his character, his values or his commitment to the rule of law.

But according to this deeply ingrained cultural ideology, many people will automatically be treated as a success after achieving great wealth, even if it’s done by completely illegal criminal and antisocial means. As Balzac put it: “Behind every great fortune lies a crime.”

Take Juan Orlando Hernandez who was the President of Honduras. He became one of the richest men in his country, acting as a very successful narcotrafficker. He shipped more than 800,000 pounds of cocaine into America and he made hundreds of millions of dollars until he got caught, prosecuted, convicted and sent off to prison for 45 years.

Now, this would seem to prove that crime doesn’t pay and doesn’t make you a success, except for one thing: the President of the United States, a billionaire himself with 34 felony criminal convictions to his name, stepped forward to grant a full and complete pardon to former president Hernandez for all offenses he committed against the United States, saying without explanation that Hernandez had been treated very unfairly by the Department of Justice and he set him free by commuting his sentence and cancelling all of his fines, totaling more than $8 million.

There are a lot of success stories like that in a world saturated today with authoritarianism and corruption. The richest man in the world, and therefore obviously the most successful, might be Vladimir Putin, a plunderer of the people, an embezzler, a poisoner, an assassin, a mass war criminal, an imperialist aggressor against the people of Ukraine, a kidnapper of children, a liar, a thief, and a destroyer of democracy, the free press and free speech. All of them.

Maybe it’s Mohammed bin Salman. Well, you can pick them yourself. Maybe it’s Elon Musk, whose first and most indelible act of public service as the head of DOGE was to destroy the U.S. Agency for International Development by gutting its anti-hunger, anti-malaria, anti-HIV/AIDS health projects across the world, causing unnecessary deaths of hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in the world. The richest man in the world was instrumental in promoting policies that killed hundreds of thousands of the poorest people in the world. And yet, he just bounces from success to success.

The false cultural equation of great wealth and great success is essential to the persistence of corruption and extreme inequality in our society and every society on Earth.

The conflation of gilded wealth with success partakes of the Midas myth, that the greatest wish we could ever be granted would be turning everything we touch into gold. That myth shows the dangers of elevating money above solidarity, community, morality, justice, friendship, fairness, companionship, love, family, children, art, nature, food, music, drink, experience, touch, sensual pleasure, even sleep and rest. All of the pleasures that make up a good life and that you have learned about here at Goucher College.

If you followed the great philosophers and now scientists of happiness, money is only valuable to the extent that it helps you achieve these human goods and, more importantly, to the extent that it helps you help other people to achieve these human goods. But if the love of money overwhelms, supplants and replaces all the human comforts, pleasures and joys of life, then money becomes a destructive and corrosive force. Like all addictions like alcohol, drugs, or gambling, money can trick you into thinking that it is the key to happiness but, like all obsessions and addictions, it can end up destroying your happiness.

Money is essential for all of us, which is why vast inequality is a dangerous thing, but the love of money is literally demoralizing. It strips life of its moral promise. As tens of millions of people have been telling us in the streets, we have no kings here. But our President tells us we live in a new Golden Age, and he’s got a point. If you look around, there is a lot that’s been covered in gold these days. Gilded Oval Office, gilded White House, gilded signage, gilded hotels, golden ballroom, golden statues on gilded golf courses, gilded limo, golden cellphones, gold bathrooms and a golden toilet.

Our values are off. “The times are out of joint,” as Hamlet said. Our leaders seem to know the price of everything, but the value of nothing.

So where are we going, my friends? How do we find our way home? I want to propose, dear Goucher Grads of 2026, that the way to start is for each one of you to take the word "success" back from the autocrats and kleptocrats and plutocrats who have usurped it and twisted it beyond recognition for your own purposes. You must define success for yourself. What are you going to do with your one beautiful, free life? How will you make it succeed? That is what you should be talking about at your graduation parties before you have a sip to drink.

The beautiful thing about this final homework assignment that I give you is that it's an essay question. It is not an objective multiple-choice question. And you’ve actually got the rest of your life to answer it. Each of you armed with the amazing education you got here will have the chance—indeed the responsibility—to define what success means and fashion your own sense of integrity and achievement.

So I want to close with a different story. An old, somewhat musty American story which offers a radically different and extremely compelling vision of success. You all know it, or at least I hope you do. It is The Wizard of Oz. Perhaps the greatest American myth, greater certainly than the individualist myth of Horatio Alger and the racist polemic of Gone with the Wind. Frank Baum’s riveting fantasy was written in 1900 as an economic and political parable about the 1896 presidential election. On one side was William Mckinley, the champion of Wall Street and the gold standard, who appears in the book and then the movie as the Wizard of Oz. Oz being “O Z,” an ounce of gold, and living in mystery behind all kinds of doors and traps in the Land of Oz, which is at the end of the Yellow Brick Road, the Golden Road, the Yellow Brick Road.

On the other side is William Jennings Bryan, the populist hero of the common man and woman, every man and every woman, who appeared as the Lion, afraid of the massive forces of wealth, arrayed against him with the great and mysterious wizard and the Wicked Witch of the West, who represented wild Nature, cyclones and hurricanes, tornados, that tormented the farmers. And the Wicked Witch of the East, the distant and oppressive banks and corporations who oppressed the people.

And Dorothy gathered up her friends, the people of the country. She needed to offer them the things they felt they were missing. Political courage to the Lion who represented William Jennings Bryan and the populists. To the Tin Man, she offered a heart. He represented the industrial working class, hardened by harsh circumstances. And she found a brain for the Scarecrow, who represented the virtuous, but uneducated farmers. That was the populist coalition that would follow the Yellow Brick Road of the gold standard to find only that it was a fraud and a put-up job by the tricky man behind the curtain pulling all the levers of power.

In this story, success is not falling for the myth of the great and mysterious powers of money and gold and wealth, but rather, working together collectively, to pursue happiness as a community and for each individual. And in the process of this collective odyssey, the participants experience the personal growth they were seeking. The Lion finds courage. The Tin Man, a heart. The Scarecrow, a brain. But in truth, they all had the power to pursue happiness within them the whole time, when they gave up the illusions of the Yellow Brick Road, the illusionary standard of gold.

Dorothy, of course, found what she was looking for, too: a way home. A way back to Auntie Em, and a life not controlled by these large, impersonal outside forces. All she had to do was click together three times, her silver slippers, representing the silver standard, changed for the movie into ruby red slippers, to get back home. In this story, success is collective and personal together. It is not based on radical individualism, but friendship. It is not based on freezing everything into place with a magic wish, but rather, traveling together on a spiritual journey and rather than success being defined by a king, it is defined by debunking and exposing the king's dogma and propaganda, which are based on all the fantasies of gold.

Hang on to your friends as you graduate. “The friends thou hast, and their adoption tried / Fasten them to thy soul with hoops of steel,” is what Polonius tells his son in Hamlet. Everything we need we have within ourselves and community to draw upon. T. S. Elliot spoke in a voice Dorothy could understand when she ended her journey in The Wizard of Oz. He wrote, “We shall not cease from exploration. In the end of all our exploring shall be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time.”

You have it within yourselves to redefine success, not just for you and your friends, but for a country which has lost its way by falling for the oldest trick in the book: confusing wealth with success, money with merit, vaults with values.

My son, Tommy, had a favorite passage from Wittgensteinin which the philosopher said: “The truth of an empirical proposition is whether it corresponds to reality, the truth of an analytical proposition is whether it obeys the rules of logic, but the truth of a moral and ethical proposition is the courage with which you act to make it real in the world.”

So go out and find your success, make it real in the world with your courage. It will be personal, it will be idiosyncratic. Only you can do it. Antonio Mercado, the great Spanish poet, wrote: “Walker, there is no path. You must create the path by walking.” Jackson Brown said: “Into a dancer you have grown from a seed someone else has thrown / Now go on ahead and throw some seeds of your own.”

And someday, not long from now, people will try to walk in your footsteps and the seeds you have sewn will be growing all over the world. May Fortune love you all in your ventures. May you work together to create a land of hope and dreams for everyone. May you not be afraid to fall and to rebound and get up again. May you lead a life of true success. No kings, no queens, no gilded corruption, no falls for the Midas Touch, no golden ballrooms, and no golden statues of the kings. Just you and your friends under the beautiful blue sky in the Free State.

I send you hopes for boundless joy and flourishing in the days ahead. Godspeed to the Goucher Class of 2026.

******************

Raskin Delivers Commencement Address at American University's Washington College of Law

Sat, 136 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

On May 16, 2026, Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) delivered the commencement address at American University's Washington College of Law. These are his remarks as delivered:

Washington College of Law

Commencement Address

May 16, 2026

Good morning, Class of 2026! I’m very honored to be invited to spend the next hour and 45 minutes with you providing my analysis of the rise and fall of substantive due process jurisprudence between Griswold v. Connecticut and the Dobbs decision. Take out your notepads.

Graduates, Moms and Dads, brothers and sisters, uncles and aunts, husbands and wives, friends and cousins. Nico Menacho-Foronda, that was quite a speech man, that was really quite a speech. President Jonathan Alger, Provost Vicky Wilkins, Dean Heather Hughes, your very cool Board President Charlie Lydecker Members of the Board of Trustees, Trustee Mehdi Heravi, Members of the President’s Council, faculty, staff, graduates, and families, and above all, residents of Maryland’s beautiful 8^th Congressional District. Professor Stephen Wermiel, Professor Brenda Smith, Adeen Postar. And fellow Emeritus professors, “emeritus” being Latin for “you no longer have an office, but you can keep your email address.”

I know a great story about Oliver Wendell Holmes, the famously absent-minded professor and Supreme Court Justice who was taking the train north from Union Station. When the Conductor came down the aisle collecting tickets, Justice Holmes could not find his ticket anywhere—he’s checking his pockets, his suit coat, his overcoat. But the conductor recognized him and said: “No problem, Justice Holmes. You ride all the time, and we know you have a ticket.” He walked on but Holmes kept searching, under the seat, overhead, on the floor. The Conductor returned and said: “Justice Holmes, honestly, we know you have a ticket and you need not worry another minute about finding it.”

And Holmes said to him: “Good Sir, you seem to think the problem is where is my ticket? The problem is where am I going?”

So where are you going today? It’s the question of the hour. But before we get there, permit me to say something personal about WCL because I was a ConLaw professor here for 25 years when our kids were small and my career was just starting out. With the sainted Tom Sargentich, I co-founded the Program on Law and Government. With Steve Wermiel, a luminous teacher, constitutional patriot, and WCL graduate himself, I co-founded the Marshall-Brennan Constitutional Literacy Project. I was adviser to the American Constitution Society and to the Federalist Society. I had remarkable students, not to mention great Dean’s Fellows, moot court advisees, and, most importantly, very reliable babysitters. All of these fine WCL grads today are judges, public defenders, prosecutors, managing partners of law firms, lawyers who make me proud, business people, and an impressive array of elected officials including a Boston City Councilwoman, a Nebraska State Senator, a Member of Congress I serve with from the Virgin Islands, the Majority Leader of the Maryland State House, a D.C. City Councilman and the Shadow Senator from the disenfranchised Capital City. I served with extraordinary Colleagues under remarkable Deans. I wrote books and law review articles. In fact, I was even the Academic Dean myself for awhile, although I confess I never figured out what I was supposed to do be doing in that job.

But I left the safety of our dazzling new campus in January 2017 to go to Congress, the same day Donald Trump was elected President. And since leaving the warm, supportive, and intellectually vibrant environment of WCL, I have lived through the following public events:

- A mass violent insurrection and attempted political coup at the Capitol;

- three total government shutdowns and two partial ones;

- a global pandemic;

- an unconstitutional war and several failed War Powers Act Resolutions;

- a Judiciary Committee hearing with the Attorney General of the United States who called me “a washed-up loser lawyer” and “not even a lawyer;”

- and a presidential assassination attempt several weeks ago just down the road a bit in April, during which I got thrown to the ground by a Secret Service Agent;

So my main message is, hell no, do not graduate. Stay right here at beautiful and safe WCL. Get an LLM or an SJD. Stay as long as you can! In fact, do you guys know whether they’ve found someone to take Steve Wermiel’s classes in the Fall yet? because I’ve brought my resume with me today.

But, alas, for both you and me, and fortunately for your parents, time rolls on, it stops for no one. You can’t stay on campus in the glory of youth forever. Academia has its place in our lives, and it dwells close in many hearts, especially the further away you get from it. But I assure you that there are other ways to keep learning and perhaps even better ways to contribute, to make your life count.

Now, distinguished graduates of 2026, maybe some of you believe we inhabit a Golden Age of peace, prosperity and fairness for all. And if you do, well, all I can say is more power to you.

But for the rest of you, I don’t need to tell you that we’re in the fight of our lives today to save constitutional democracy and the rule of law and freedom, which are in danger not just in America but all over the world. The dangers of authoritarianism, antisemitism, racism and fascism loom large, but other perils are on the near horizon too, including climate change—which is the overhanging crisis of civilization, and Artificial Intelligence, which can be part of our salvation and progress or an instrument of our disempowerment, dehumanization and even extinction, depending on how we manage it.

So I want to tell you—in the few minutes left before you graduate—that the most important thing you need to know to be prepared to join this fight is something you have not yet been taught in law school.

You’ve learned the body and content of essential legal subject matters. You know criminal law and civil procedure. You have had the chance to become expert in the Socratic Method and the Platonic Relationship.

But here’s the thing—nobody can ever really teach you or impress upon you: Nothing in the profession you are about to embark upon is self-executing. That is, the law of war is not like the law of gravity. It doesn’t work on its own. If someone commits war crimes, they just commit war crimes. If someone commits human rights violations, they just commit human rights violations. God does not strike them down. An indictment does not appear suddenly under their pillow like a dollar from the tooth fairy.

Every part of the Constitution just sits there on paper waiting for a citizen, a lawyer, to come along and make it real. The Freedom of Speech, the Establishment Clauses, Due Process, Equal Protection, the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses, the 15^th Amendment, the 25^th Amendment. The laws of the country—anti-trust, civil rights, voting rights, the laws against rape and sexual harassment—they all mean nothing unless and until citizens and lawyers decide to use them to fight for justice—in court, in the legislatures, in the streets. As my friend Dar Williams sings, “it’s a long road from law to justice.”

And that is where you come in—your values, your dreams, your convictions. The law in 2026 will only be as strong as your understanding of it, your physical and mental energy to engage with it and, above all, your moral and existential courage to fight for it.

Jean-Paul Sartre and the existentialists were right about this: the choice is yours.

I know a funny story about this that I learned from my Dad. The young Bobby Kennedy—a different Bobby Kennedy than the 21^st Century version—was an attorney with the Senate Committee on Racketeering and he was questioning the mobbed-up union boss Jimmy Hoffa. He said, “Mr. Hoffa, as President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters Mid-Atlantic Pension Fund, a man of your great power and resources is capable of doing both very great good and very great evil.” And Hoffa leaned into his microphone and said: “I intend to live up to both of my responsibilities.”

Now, I know Professor Wermiel has taught a seminar on what has happened to constitutional law in the Trump era. Someone else should teach a professional responsibility seminar on how lawyers have responded to the ethical dilemmas and political traps of practicing law in these mad times.

Some attorneys in Trump’s employ have acted like in-house mob lawyers who work not to stop their client from committing crimes and transgressions against the Constitution, but to facilitate and encourage them.

There was a coterie of lawyers who helped Trump try to steal the 2020 election, which Joe Biden one by more than 7 million votes, 306-232 in the Electoral College. Sidney Powell pled guilty in 2023 to six misdemeanor counts of conspiracy to interfere with elections.

A law school classmate of mine, whom I served on the Law Review with and who was a research assistant to Professor Laurence Tribe, pled guilty to a felony count of conspiracy to commit the filing of false documents in the fraudulent elector scheme. Jenna Ellis pled guilty in 2023 to a felony charge of aiding and abetting false statements and perjury. Stewart Rhodes, Yale Law School graduate and founder of the Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy and sentenced to 18 years in prison before Trump commuted his sentence. And he now wants a piece of the $1.7 billion pie at the new slush fund at the Department of Justice.

Rudy Guiliani was disbarred in New York and Washington in 2024 because he made knowingly false statements in multiple frivolous court challenges to the 2020 election. As he admitted outside of court, “we have a lot of theories, we just don’t have the evidence.” Law Professor and former Law Dean John Eastman was permanently disbarred in California for his role in the scheme to nullify and overturn the election. Numerous other lawyers have been sanctioned across the country for participating in the counterfeit electors’ scheme and making false statements in court alleging electoral fraud, claims that were rejected in 60 federal and state court decisions.

Look, politicians can, alas, lie freely in politics, but the Supreme Court has found that lawyers are officers of the Court and cannot knowingly lie to the bench. Indeed, nobody can perjure himself or herself in court. The law is not agnostic about the existence of the truth, which is why witnesses swear to tell “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” And this is why we have evidentiary standards in court that revolve around proof beyond a reasonable doubt or clear and convincing evidence: we assume that the truth is actually true, as Daniel Berrigan once said of Dorothy Day and her approach to life. Our entire system of law and justice depends on the actual existence of that most beleaguered and endangered species, which we call facts.

In the current presidential term, the lawyers thrust most dangerously into the maelstrom have not been the couple dozen who chose to go to work for the President but the thousands he has targeted for their politics, their clients or their workplace.

Right after taking office, Trump unleashed unprecedented financial shakedowns of law firms he felt had wronged him, either because one of their lawyers had investigated him, like former Special Counsel Robert Mueller or Jack Smith, or because they simply represented people that he didn’t like. Or because they did their jobs and helped prosecute 1,600 rioters and insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol. Trump issued unheard-of Executive Orders targeting thousands of lawyers who had done nothing wrong for government sanctions. He ordered them to be barred from federal contracts, federal employment, federal security clearances and federal buildings, including courthouses, which makes it difficult to practice law. It was like a really absurd constitutional law issue-spotter.

Now, here’s the remarkable thing. When I heard about these Executive Orders and shakedowns, I said to myself, “The firms are going to fight back and win. The Executive Orders were imposed on innocent lawyers without any Due Process. They impose mass collective guilt and guilt by association, and blatantly violate both the client’s right to counsel and the lawyers’ own rights to freedom of speech and association. They’ll fight and win. They’ll become heroes.”

Well, here’s the thing. That’s not what happened. A lot of the most prestigious law firms in the country, like Paul Weiss in New York, didn’t fight back at all. They said they could not afford to alienate the President. Their clients might suffer the consequences or they might leave the firm, and the partners could lose a lot of money. Some partners earning tens of millions of dollars per year reportedly complained they might have to take a pay cut of a few million dollars if they fought back. So they caved in and they signed themselves and their Associates up for the staggering assignment of doing free legal work for the President of the United States and his ever-expanding legal docket. So many targeted law firms worked to appease the President’s wrath that he pocketed nearly a million hours of promised pro bono hours, worth nearly a billion dollars, to be used for whatever purpose Trump chose, for his policies like unilaterally imposed tariffs, undeclared wars, illegal deportations, lawless political slush funds, and unauthorized demolitions of federal buildings belonging to the people.

But not all of the law firms buckled under. They followed the inspiring actions of Danielle Sassoon, a conservative Federalist Society Lawyer who had clerked for Justice Scalia and was the Acting U.S. Attorney in New York. She refused to participate in a corrupt order to terminate a criminal indictment handed down unanimously by a Grand Jury for purely political reasons. She and her entire staff decided to fight back, choosing to resign instead of to participate in that illegality from the White House.

A number of the law firms affected by these retaliatory Executive Orders like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, Susman Godfrey, and Wilmer Hale caucused, rallied their lawyers, did real legal analysis and they chose to do what lawyers are trained to do when necessary—they sued. Hundreds of other law firms not directly targeted—thousands of solo practitioners—signed statements in support of the firms who stood up against the threats.

And the law firms that sued won sweeping victories in every case, in every federal district court. Right here in D.C., four different federal judges—John Bates, Richard Leon, Beryl Howell and Loren Alikahn—issued orders blocking the President’s blanket retaliatory punishment of these firms, with Judge Alikahn calling the Executive Order against Susman Godfrey “unconstitutional from beginning to end.”

What can we draw from this remarkable episode?

Well, first of all, it’s hard to predict how any lawyer or any person will react in a moment of moral, political, legal and existential crisis, and the powers of self-rationalization are formidable, especially in lawyers, mind you. One lawyer whose firm complied justified it by saying that it really wasn’t unfair because the Administration was cracking down on all law firms that had defied his will, firms with both Democrats and Republicans working there.

That reminded me of a story about a friend of my Dad’s, named Sidney Morgenbesser, who was a philosopher at Columbia University. And he was subpoenaed for jury duty and in the voir dire process, the judge said, “Professor Morgenbesser, this is a case about police brutality and before we put you on the jury, we want to make sure you haven’t had any experience with the police that was unpleasant or unfair.” And Morgenbesser said: “Well, I did have one experience with the police and it was unpleasant, but it wasn’t unfair.” And the judge said, “Well, what happened?” And he said, “Well, I went to this civil rights rally in Central Park and these two police officers started beating me over the head with billy clubs.” And the judge said, “Well, that’s awful, but why do you say it was unpleasant, but it wasn’t unfair?” And he said: “Well, when they were hitting me over the head, it hurt a lot, so it was unpleasant, but they were doing it to everybody, so it wasn’t unfair.” I guess that you could say, in that sense, that these Executive Orders weren’t unfair.

I have tried to talk both to lawyers who fought back and to the lawyers who succumbed. Many knew each other from practice or law school, and they all wrestled with the same issues when they were trying to deal with this onslaught. And they were all torn about what to do because decision-making under authoritarian circumstances is agonizing and confusing.

But the ones who fought back clearly saw our profession as a calling to improve our common social and political life. They believed that the rule of law must be an instrument of justice for society and not just a form of private business activity, much less a tool of official repression. They saw the choice facing them as a moral and existential crossroads, and not just as a financial and business crisis. They saw the Constitution as foundational to their work.

It seems to me and this is not rooted in any kind of formal study—but hey it’s a Commencement Address—it seems to me that the lawyers who hung tough for their rights were the ones who had not lost touch with the values that drove them to become lawyers in the first place. They remembered the promises they had made to their friends, their families, their classmates, their professors, themselves. They considered themselves part of a profession, yes, but also part of a community. They did not place newly acquired status, money and power above the dream of professional excellence and effective community service. They kept their personalities and their consciences intact. And, in fact, amazingly, at least so far, they have been rewarded with more clients, more job applicants, more public acclaim and more pride in our profession even as some of the fanciest law firms in America have suffered a public disgrace and the dramatic loss of clients and moral standing within the Bar. Sometimes—just sometimes—the brave thing to do is not only the right thing to do but the popular thing to do as well.

I’m not saying that this was an easy decision for anyone or that people’s careers and livelihoods have not been affected by this lawlessness from the top, and I am definitely not judging anyone in this situation. One thing we have learned is that ethical and personal decision-making in a time of authoritarian stress is extremely difficult. I clearly have my sympathies, but in the situations of legal, moral and personal exigency that multiply furiously under tyranny, we are all torn between our longing for personal integrity and the struggle for personal survival and the survival of those we love.

But in that see-saw battle between integrity and survival, just remember when you are out on the battlefield my friends, that we swear an Oath. An Oath to support and defend the Constitution, an Oath that can sometimes tip the balance when we are in a moral and civic emergency and a professional quandary. That’s what the law is for. As lawyers we are not just making decisions for ourselves but, in a very deep sense, we are deciding for everybody else too. So choose wisely.

My son Tommy loved a passage from Wittgenstein, in which the philosopher said that “the truth of an empirical proposition is whether it corresponds to empirical reality, the truth of an analytical proposition is whether it corresponds to the rules of logic, but the truth of a moral or ethical proposition is the courage with which we act to make it real in the world.”

I want to express my hope that you will act with courage in your career to make democratic truths real, to stand on the side of justice rather than on the side of power if they come into conflict when the times have found you. My father used to say: when everything looks hopeless, you are the hope. I see a lot of hope out there today, tremendous talent, boundless promise. I pray you all become instruments of justice in your careers and shower happiness and love on your families and friends every day.

I got a late-night call one night from your Dean of Students and my former student, David Jaffe, last year. Because a WCL alum, Diane Seltzer, was running for President of the D.C. Bar and he asked whether I would meet with her and consider endorsing her. Well, of course, I said, I had heard of her already as a renowned employment lawyer with a law firm in downtown Bethesda in the heart of the Eighth District, and I always lean to the WCL candidates anyway. After I met her, I was incredibly impressed by her commitment to public service and equal rights of everybody. No surprise, I suppose, given her alma mater, which is one of the Top Five law schools in America for students going into public service and to government.

But of course, I had to do my due diligence. Who was she running against? I feared it might be another WCL grad, since WCL has dominated the D.C. Bar since the days of Emma Gillette and Ellen Spencer Mussey. But it turned out that her opponent was one Bradley Bondi, a University of Florida grad and brother of none other than the then-Attorney General Pam Bondi, the one covering up the Epstein files, the one who had called me a “washed-up loser lawyer” and “not even a real lawyer.” Brad Bondi was the subject, I learned, of news reports that, since his sister had become the AG in 2025, he had suddenly and miraculously settled several high-profile cases worth tens of millions of dollars on extremely favorable and unusually rapid terms with the Department of Justice.

Say no more. For the very first time, I publicly and enthusiastically endorsed a candidate for Bar President, not that she needed my support anyway. President-elect Seltzer won more than 90% of the vote in an election that had a record-breaking turnout of the Members of the Bar. She will be the President of the D.C. Bar who swears you in when you all pass the Bar in D.C. if that’s the one you’re taking. The moral of that story: Don’t mess with WCL. Don’t mess with David Jaffe.

I hope you all go out in your glorious careers and follow the path of Diane Seltzer and Steve Wermiel, Judge Reggie Walton, Brenda Smith, Adeen Postar, Emma Gillette and Ellen Spencer Mussey, and not Rudy Guiliani and Pam Bondi. But that’s just my personal preference. The choice is yours.

* * * * * * *

Raskin, Garcia and Morelle Unveil Landmark Legislation to Curb Trump Administration’s Historic Abuses of Power, Profiteering from Public Office

Thu, 134 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

Legislation would target unprecedented government corruption, protect American elections from foreign interference...

Raskin Statement on H.R. 1346

Wed, 133 May 2026 12:00:00 EST

WASHINGTON, D.C.–Representative Jamie Raskin (MD-08) released the following statement after the House passed H.R. 1346, legislation that allows for the year-round sale of gasoline mixed with up to 15 percent ethanol (E15):

"In a desperate attempt to put a Band-Aid on the Trump Administration’s ongoing public relations debacles, the Republican-led House passed a bill they claim will lower the astronomically high gas prices caused by the President’s illegal war of choice on Iran. What this bill will actually do is further degrade our environment and exacerbate the climate crisis. E15 will make our air and water quality dramatically worse: scientists warn that it will increase smog, particularly during the summer months, and threaten water supplies through the runoff from millions of acres of new corn fields. It will sharply increase carbon emissions and reduce biodiversity while destroying the forests and grasslands we need to absorb carbon dioxide. As for the reputed financial benefit to consumers E15 yields lower gas mileage than the gasoline most widely available now, meaning that Americans will need to fill their tanks more often.”

“The average gas price in Maryland has surpassed $4.40 per gallon and the national average is even higher. This bill is a farce, not a solution, and the American people won’t be fooled. When my Republican colleagues are ready to bring down these exorbitant, Trump-induced fuel costs for our people, I’d welcome them into our bipartisan coalition working to pass a War Powers Resolution to end this lawless and extraordinarily costly conflict in Iran. They have another chance to vote with us this week.”

###