Pingree, Chellie RSS Articles

Why a progressive and a MAHA activist are joining forces against Big Chemical

Wed, 08 Apr 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Op-Ed published in The Hill

You would not expect the two of us to be writing an op-ed together.

One of us is a progressive U.S. congresswoman and longtime organic farmer from Maine — someone who has spent decades fighting for organic and regenerative agriculture, access to healthy food, and accountability for corporate polluters.

The other is a leader in the “Make America Healthy Again” or “MAHA” movement, a grassroots movement advocating for access to nutritious food and reducing reliance on synthetic inputs in agriculture. Moms who care about the safety of the food their kids are eating.

MAHA advocates — everyday Americans who are concerned by the health effects of ultra-processed foods — are often associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and voters who backed President Trump.

And yet here we are, united by three simple beliefs: that everyone should be able to eat food that is free of toxic chemicals; that people should have proper warning about possible health-risks associated with chemical use; and that giant corporations should not get special immunity when their products pose real health risks.

Behind the headlines about glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, are real human beings: a school groundskeeper who developed non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after years of spraying Roundup; a homeowner diagnosed with the same cancer after using it around his property for decades; a California couple, both diagnosed after years of exposure; a child in France born with a severe congenital disorder; a mother who lost her infant daughter soon after birth.

These are not statistics. They are people whose lives were upended while one of the most powerful chemical companies in the world insisted everything was fine.

Bayer has now paid roughly $10 billion to settle lawsuits related to Roundup. The company recently announced a proposed additional settlement of up to $7.25 billion to address current and future cases. You do not set aside that kind of money because there is nothing to worry about. You do it because the scientific, legal, and moral pressure has become impossible to ignore.

Yet powerful interests are working overtime to make sure those families never get their day in court.

Our fight is about to reach two major flashpoints.

First, the House is moving toward a floor vote on a farm bill that includes pesticide language with sweeping consequences. Rep. Pingree offered an amendment in committee to strip that language from the bill during the recent House Agriculture Committee markup. Nearly every Democrat voted yes. Not a single Republican joined them. But the fight is far from over.

The provisions in question would strengthen federal pesticide preemption by removing states’ ability to regulate pesticide usage, strip states and communities of their ability to warn consumers of health risks and establish a liability shield to protect chemical manufacturers from being held accountable when their products make people sick.

Maine is one of seven states with local pesticide ordinances and warning requirements designed to protect people and water. This industry-written language — rubber stamped by Republicans on the House Agriculture Committee — would gut those protections.

Second, on April 27, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear Monsanto v. Durnell, a case that could determine whether people harmed by pesticide exposure can continue to bring state-law failure-to-warn claims against chemical manufacturers. We will be outside the court that morning, alongside advocates and MAHA supporters from across the political spectrum, for the “People vs. Poison” rally.

This is not an abstract legal dispute. It is about whether ordinary people get their day in court when corporations fail to warn them about risks.

The chemical industry wants Americans to believe this is all overblown. But EPA safety reviews for pesticides take place every 15 years. The last risk assessment for glyphosate was decades ago, in 1993. That is not a serious approach to protecting public health in 2026, when the science on toxic exposures keeps evolving and the toll on families keeps growing.

There is a deeper political lesson here too. For years, both parties have underestimated how much Americans care about toxins in their food, water and environment. The MAHA movement did not invent those concerns, but it has amplified them.

That is why the White House’s full-throated support of Bayer and its move to back glyphosate production through an executive order caused such fury among the movement’s own base. Kennedy’s supporters saw it as a betrayal. The backlash proved that this is not a fringe concern — it is a live fault line in American politics, and voters across the spectrum are paying attention.

The MAHA movement and Democrats do not agree on everything. But what we share is a refusal to let corporate interests write the rules and then hide behind agencies that move too slowly or rely too heavily on industry-submitted data.

Farmers and families are the ones paying the price for that broken system. Not Big Chemical.

Congress should reject any farm bill language that strips away state and local protections or hands chemical companies a liability shield. The Supreme Court should not close the courthouse doors to people seeking justice. And the public should join us on April 27 at the People vs. Poison rally to show that this fight is bigger than any one bill or any one case.

You do not have to agree on everything to agree on this: Our families deserve honest warnings, our communities deserve the right to protect themselves, and Big Chemical should not be above the law.

Chellie Pingree represents Maine’s 1st District in the House of Representatives and serves on the House Agriculture Committee. Kelly Ryerson, known online as “Glyphosate Girl,” is an advocate for nontoxic food systems and a leader in the Make America Healthy Again movement.

Pingree Statement on Firing of Pam Bondi

Thu, 02 Apr 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement on President Trump firing Attorney General Pam Bondi:

Pam Bondi will go down as the worst, most incompetent, and most corrupt Attorney General in American history. Her firing was long overdue—and richly deserved.

From the day she arrived at the Department of Justice, Bondi’s primary objectives were painfully clear: to go after the President’s enemies and to protect Donald Trump at all costs. From directing prosecutors to bring baseless charges against Democratic politicians and refusing to release the full Epstein files in accordance with the law, to her embarrassing, unprofessional behavior during high-profile public hearings (including lying under oath), Bondi demonstrated time and again that she lacked the judgment, temperament, and decision-making required of the nation’s top law enforcement official.

And these are just the top-line failures. That so many of these pursuits required redirecting critical resources from far more pressing matters—combatting organized crime, prosecuting corruption, protecting the American people from all manner of threats—has objectively made our country less safe, and done incredible damage to the DOJ's reputation.

For Donald Trump, loyalty has always been a one-way street. Bondi’s firing only reaffirms what we've known for years: that no amount of blind fealty or blatant corruption on his behalf will spare you from his erratic impulses. I have little doubt that many others will learn that same lesson before his time in office is up.

Whoever is chosen as the next AG, they have a serious and solemn responsibility to ensure the DOJ returns to its core mission of serving the American people—and not capitulating to the paranoia and petty grievances of a man whose sole aim is to protect and enrich himself.

It should be noted that the House Oversight Committee was set to depose Bondi on April 14 over the DOJ's investigation into Jeffrey Epstein and her shambolic handling of the Epstein files. Getting fired doesn’t get her off the hook. Bondi is still legally obligated to appear before the Committee and testify under oath. I, for one, am very much looking forward to that testimony.

###

Pingree, Murphy, King Introduce Bipartisan, Bicameral Legislation to Protect Small Farmers from Financial Risk

Thu, 12 Mar 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) introduced the Agricultural Management Assistance Act to reauthorize and improve the Partnership for Risk Management Education and the Agricultural Management Assistance (AMA) programs, which help farmers manage financial risk through diversification, marketing, or conservation practices. The AMA program is only available to 16 states that have historically low rates of participation in the Federal Crop Insurance Program, including Maine. U.S. Senators Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), and Angus King (I-Maine) introduced companion legislation in the Senate.

The Agriculture Management Assistance Act would boost funding for the AMA to $30 million, increase funding limits for farmers to $200,000 over five years, and expand the eligible uses for these funds to include: soil health improvements, composting, supporting perennial crop production, and food safety certification in addition to existing authorized uses such as water management structure and soil erosion control.

“Farmers in Maine and across the country are facing unprecedented uncertainty—from extreme weather and rising costs to volatile markets. Programs like Agricultural Management Assistance give farms the tools they need to manage risk, invest in soil health and conservation, and keep their operations viable for the long term,” said Pingree. "I’m proud to partner with Senators Murphy and King to strengthen this program and ensure farmers in states like Maine have the support they need to adapt and thrive.”

“Connecticut’s small farmers are really important to the diversity of our state’s food supply, but they face unique challenges, especially as climate change worsens,” said Murphy. “Our bill provides small farmers with the support they need to navigate financial risks and invests in making their farms more resilient and efficient in the long term.”

“Maine’s farmers are the backbone of our rural communities, and they deserve the same safeguards and assistance that we provide other industries across the country,” said King. “The Agricultural Management Assistance Act will help ensure that Maine farms have the tools they need to manage financial risks, handle nature’s evolving challenges, and continue to produce the food that supports our local economies and families.”

Full text of the bill is available HERE.

###

The 19th: This Democrat built a farm-to-politics career. Now she’s working with MAHA moms.

Mon, 09 Mar 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Published in The 19th

Long before entering politics, Rep. Chellie Pingree was a self-described hippie, a back-to-the-lander and an organic farmer.

In the 1970s, after attending college in Maine, she saw an opportunity to live a more sustainable life there. She decided to stay, and moved to an island off the coast where she and her husband started a small farm and sold their produce at a local market.

Pingree’s passion for farming influenced her legislative work at the state and federal level. Representing Maine’s 1st District in Congress since 2009, the 70-year-old Democrat has focused on bolstering organic food production, creating better access to healthy foods for kids and fighting pesticides.

If her priorities sound familiar, it may be because much of her life’s work on these issues aligns neatly with certain facets of the Make America Healthy Again (MAHA) movement, which is led by current Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. but gained momentum through the support of moms on social media.

But while the Democratic lawmaker is far from a supporter of Kennedy, she saw early into the second Trump administration the potential of working with MAHA activists. “It’s kind of a no-brainer in many ways,” she said. “We have a lot in common.” And as MAHA moms, in particular, are conflicted about some of Kennedy and President Donald’s Trump’s recent decisions, it’s an even better opportunity to find common ground.

Most sustainable agriculture-related issues are populist and bipartisan at their core, she said, adding: “I really don’t think that these are necessarily left or right. I think the questions around toxins in our food and food is medicine, and the opposition to Big Ag and big chemical companies is very universal. This just really broadens the coalition of people.”

Pingree had also seen how Kennedy’s message resonated with farmers in her district. When he visited her state as a presidential hopeful, “A lot of people went to hear him, and it was partly because of his interest in alternative medicine and healthy food,” she said.

So, after Trump’s return to office, she started reaching out to members of the movement: people like Kelly Ryerson, better known by her social media handle, The Glyphosate Girl, and Zen Honeycutt, founder of Moms Across America, a grassroots group focused on healthy foods. Both are big supporters of Kennedy’s role at HHS and the MAHA agenda he’s pushed there.

But over the past few months, they’ve also expressed disappointment about Kennedy’s shifting stance on pesticide use. While he has championed some of the issues that animate MAHA, including his decisions around vaccine recommendations and his fight against food dyes and ultra-processed foods, Kennedy has distanced himself from his position on glyphosate — the same herbicide he fought against as an environmental lawyer.

In late February, when Trump issued an executive order to expand domestic production of glyphosate, which is found in the week killer Roundup, and that potentially shield pesticides companies from lawsuits, Kennedy announced his support, stating the “order puts America first where it matters most — our defense readiness and our food supply.”

Though most MAHA activists still view Kennedy favorably, the executive order has exposed a widening rift for some in the movement. “Unfortunately, Trump’s action to issue this executive order on glyphosate broke a lot of that trust,” Honeycutt said. “It may be permanently broken.”

But where MAHA and the current administration don’t see eye to eye they’ve found an ally in Pingree. In late December, she worked with MAHA to strip a pesticides rider in a spending bill that would have shielded companies like Bayer, which produces Roundup, from health-related lawsuits and stopped states and localities from being able to regulate pesticides.

Ryerson said Pingree has been a key partner over the past few months and applauds the work she did to remove the language from the spending bill.

“We’re finding our friends, and it’s like, can we get even more? I don’t care even which side they’re from,” she said. “Can we get even more on board to just prioritizing this issue?”

And Honeycutt said that on one of her recent visits to Capitol Hill, she was impressed that Pingree met with them in person. Every other lawmaker sent a staff member to hear her concerns.

“We loved learning that she is an organic farmer in Maine, and has been for quite some time, and is a huge supporter of organic farming,” she said. “So we had a lot of things in common to talk about.”

For Pingree the alliance has been mutually beneficial.

“Frequently, I would be kind of a lone voice in fighting to take that out, but we were able to remove that language from the bill just before it passed at the end of the year,” she said. “And a lot of that was due to the help of the MAHA moms.”

Recently, the Democratic lawmaker introduced an amendment to strip similar language from this year’s farm bill, which the House Agriculture Committee advanced out of committee last week. While her efforts ultimately failed, she plans to take up other opportunities to continue the fight when it goes to a floor vote in the House. And a few weeks ago, she and Republican Rep. Thomas Massie introduced the bipartisan No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which aims to undo Trump’s executive order.

All of this work has been bolstered by MAHA advocates who have a powerful platform to keep pressure on GOP leaders. She says they’ve helped raise the profile of wonky issues like pesticide regulations and the dangers of PFAS chemicals, better known as forever chemicals. They are able to reach everyday moms who might not know much about environmental policy but care about the foods their kids are eating.

The veteran lawmaker has watched the movement amplify the reach of its message on TikTok and Instagram. “They are reaching many more people than maybe your average organic farming blog or environmental group.”

As a result, Pingree said she’s also started to post on social media more, sharing reels on Instagram, for example, to gain visibility among potential supporters.

For environmental groups, the MAHA movement has also helped make some of these issues relevant to Republicans who need to keep their constituents happy ahead of midterms, said J.W. Glass, an Environmental Protection Agency policy analyst at the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity.

“Now that the dialogue is wider and bipartisan there is lots of pressure on the Republicans,” he said. “There is more of a world where Republicans are sweating across the aisle. There is a lot more attention on them.”

For environmental organizations, it’s also a welcome change to see bipartisan support for some of these issues. “It’s safe to say that MAHA shares a lot of the same views as the mainstream environmental movement,” he said.

Moving forward, Pingree hopes to raise the profile of the work she said Democrats have been doing all along and sees the potential of forming a bipartisan MAHA caucus.

“I think my feeling has always been, if you could win on some of these important issues, then you build a coalition to win. You don’t make everything a litmus test on whether or not you’ll have a conversation.”

Pingree Statement on Firing of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement on the firing of Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem:

Kristi Noem’s firing was long overdue. Her tenure as Secretary of Homeland Security will be remembered as one of the most corrupt, reckless, and disgraceful chapters in the department’s history.

Under Noem’s leadership, DHS abandoned its core mission of protecting the American people and instead became a political weapon. Families were torn apart. Communities—including in Maine—were terrorized by violent enforcement tactics. Lawful residents and American citizens were swept up in operations that too often operated outside the bounds of accountability and basic decency. At the same time, Noem treated the department as a vehicle for her own self-promotion and political ambitions, relying on cynical PR stunts and constant misinformation to obscure the damage being done.

The consequences of that leadership have been devastating. Americans were killed in the streets while DHS leadership deflected responsibility and doubled down on cruelty. Entire communities were traumatized by policies designed to intimidate rather than protect. The bloodshed and chaos that occurred under her watch demands far more than a quiet exit from office.

Whoever is in charge of DHS next—whether it’s Senator Markwayne Mullin or someone else—will inherit an agency in urgent need of reform. Nowhere is that clearer than at ICE, which has been empowered and emboldened by the staggering $170 billion it received through the Big Ugly Bill. That funding is already being used to expand mass surveillance, ramp up aggressive enforcement operations, and deploy poorly trained, unaccountable agents into communities across the country.

Kristi Noem needed to go. But let’s not forget the real architect behind the Administration’s cruel and dangerous immigration policy: Stephen Miller. He needs to be fired next.

This action does not move the needle, for me, on funding DHS. We must confront the abuses that occurred under Noem, demand transparency from this administration, and pursue reforms that ensure our immigration system respects the law, protects civil liberties, and treats people with basic humanity. No department entrusted with this much power can be allowed to operate without meaningful accountability ever again.

###

Pingree Statement on the Bipartisan Iran War Powers Resolution

Thu, 05 Mar 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement on her vote for the bipartisan War Powers Resolution, which would have restricted the Trump Administration from taking further military action in Iran without Congressional approval:

Let me be clear: I am against any war launched without the approval of Congress. That the president chose to attack Iran—a country four times the size of Iraq, with 90 million people, a massive standing army, and formidable weaponry—without so much as an Oval Office address, is beyond dangerous.

Only Congress has the authority to declare war. The bipartisan War Powers Resolution would have enforced that Constitutional power and required the president to seek our approval for any further action in Iran. Instead, Congress has basically given him a free pass and set a terrible precedent for future war powers disputes.

The Administration has not provided Congress or the American people with a coherent rationale for their strikes, let alone a detailed strategy or timeline. In the days since the initial, unsanctioned strikes, the president and his entirely unqualified Cabinet have only presented bumbling arguments, contradictory messages, and ever-shifting narratives. Their incompetence is dangerous, incredibly costly, and will yield catastrophic consequences for our country, for our troops, for the people of Iran, and for the world. Given the incalculable stakes and immense cost—an estimated $1 billion a day—of such an endeavor, I cannot and will not support this war.

Some are suggesting that, while the President should have consulted Congress before launching these attacks, now that the war has begun, there’s no way to pull back. I firmly reject this sentiment. Not only is it categorically false; it sets a dangerous precedent—allowing future presidents to start any war they wish, with the understanding that they can simply seek approval after the fact.

We’re already seeing the human toll of this disastrous and unjustified rush to war. Six U.S. servicemembers have lost their lives. More than 900 people, including civilians and school children, have been killed. Violence has erupted across the Middle East. I fear things will only get worse in the days and weeks ahead, especially if this Administration is allowed to continue conducting this operation without a cogent strategy or proper oversight.

Make no mistake: The people of Iran deserve better leadership than the brutal, oppressive regime currently in power. But history has shown us, repeatedly, that regime change without a concrete plan or broad international support almost always backfires—emboldening extremists and hardliners, sowing chaos and violence, and creating far more suffering than it ever prevents. Asking our troops to fight and die for a cause this ill-conceived, this poorly planned, and this unpopular is a betrayal of their service, and could potentially put thousands of them in harm’s way.

My Democratic colleagues and I will continue to oppose this war and do everything in our power to demand transparency and accountability from this Administration; to ensure that Congress, the American public, and our troops have a clear understanding of the objectives, risks, and strategies involved; and to bring this unjust and immoral war to an end as soon as possible.

###

Pingree Statement on Trump’s War in Iran

Sat, 28 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement on President Trump’s unauthorized war in Iran:

“Early this morning, President Trump launched a major attack on Iran and openly called for regime change—without consulting Congress and without seeking authorization from the American people’s elected representatives. That is a flagrant violation of the Constitution and a dangerous escalation that puts American service members, civilians in the region, and global stability at grave risk.

Republicans will inevitably try to downplay this action as something short of war. The President himself makes clear that is false. In his own words: 'The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost, and we may have casualties. That often happens in war.' When a president acknowledges casualties and calls it war, Congress cannot pretend otherwise.

The consequences are already unfolding. Iran has launched retaliatory strikes across the region. A U.S. Navy base in Bahrain has been hit. Airspace over the UAE and Qatar has been shut down. Iran-allied militias in Iraq have announced they will begin attacking American bases. Israelis are racing to bomb shelters. Civilians in Tehran are fleeing their homes. This is not a limited operation—this is a war, and it is spreading by the hour.

The President took this country into that war based on claims his own intelligence community has not confirmed. The New York Times reports this morning that Trump's central assertions about Iran's nuclear program—that it had restarted, that Iran had enough material for a bomb within days, that it had missiles capable of reaching the United States—are either false or unproven. We were told similar things before Iraq. We know how that ended. The American people are still living with the consequences of wars launched without accountability or an endgame. We cannot repeat those mistakes.

My colleagues have introduced a bipartisan War Powers Resolution, and Democrats were already planning to force a vote the moment Congress reconvenes next week. Speaker Johnson should call the House back to Washington immediately to take up that vote. Congress must reassert its constitutional authority, halt unauthorized military action, and make clear that no president—of either party—has the power to drag this nation into war alone."

###

Pingree Tees Up Farm Bill Fight Over Pesticides, Big Chemical Immunity

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine), a longtime organic farmer and senior member of the House Agriculture Committee, announced today that she will be introducing an amendment to the Republican Farm Bill that fights back against chemical companies and protects the health of Americans. Republicans’ Farm Bill includes provisions that would shield chemical manufacturers like Bayer from lawsuits and would preempt state and local warning label laws or usage regulations. The Pingree Protect Our Health Amendment would remove this harmful language from the Farm Bill. In January, Pingree successfully got a similar provision taken out of the FY2026 Interior and Environment Appropriations bill.

“Once again, the Trump Administration and Republicans in Congress are siding with chemical companies and choosing corporate profits over Americans’ health—while paying lip service to the ‘Make America Healthy Again’ movement. This Farm Bill is a gift to Big Chemical, plain and simple. It delivers exactly what giants like Bayer have spent years lobbying for: blanket immunity from lawsuits and the power to gut the state warning label laws that protect families, farmers, and children,” Pingree said. “This provision would handcuff states and local communities when federal regulators drag their feet or bow to industry pressure, and it would slam the courthouse doors on people who’ve been poisoned and harmed. I have fought this industry-written language before, and I won. I am ready to fight it again. Public health, local control, and accountability are not bargaining chips, and they should never be sacrificed to shield polluters from responsibility.”

On Wednesday, President Trump signed an Executive Order to increase domestic production of glyphosate—a widely used weedkiller that has been linked to multiple health issues, including non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma. Outside of the upcoming Farm Bill fight, Pingree and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) have joined forces to introduce the No Immunity for Glyphosate Act, which would undo Trump’s recent Executive Order.

The U.S. Supreme Court also recently agreed to take up an appeal by the manufacturer of Roundup, supported by the Trump Administration, over lawsuits that allege it failed to warn consumers about the product’s dangers.

Pesticides in the United States are regulated under a combination of federal, state, and local laws. Debates over state and local authority to regulate pesticide use have been litigated for decades, particularly in cases involving widely used chemicals such as Roundup and paraquat, which have been linked to serious health harms. Many states, cities, and counties have adopted measures to restrict pesticide spraying near schools, homes, and public spaces, citing the heightened vulnerability of children to toxic exposure and risks to brain development, reproduction, and long-term health.

Seven states—Maine, Alaska, Hawaii, Maryland, Utah, Nevada, and Vermont—do not preempt local governments from regulating pesticide use within their jurisdictions. In Maine alone, there are more than 30 state and local regulations related to pesticide use and warning requirements that would be undermined or preempted under this Republican pesticide provision in the Farm Bill.

###

Pingree Statement on Supreme Court Decision to Strike Down Trump’s Illegal Sweeping Tariffs

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

Today, Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) released the following statement on the Supreme Court's decision rejecting President Trump's illegal tariffs:

I’m relieved that the Supreme Court has finally acknowledged Trump’s chaotic tariff policy as a clear case of executive overreach. This is a win for businesses and industries that have struggled to navigate the uncertainty surrounding trade policy that was based on nothing more than the President’s egotistical impulse to impose tariffs on an immediate, boundless basis under the guise of an emergency measure. But while this ruling may provide momentary relief, we must acknowledge that Trump is insistent on reinstating these tariffs through other methods and means.

Trump’s tariffs have done incredible damage to our economy, to our relationships with key allies, and to the pocketbooks of millions of Americans. Maine’s core industries have suffered greatly: falling lobster exports, family dairy farms being pushed to the brink, our lumber and paper companies hit by retaliatory tariffs and rising input costs—the list goes on. Meanwhile, the increased prices caused by Trump’s reckless tariffs are taking a serious toll on Maine households, at a time when many are already struggling with rising inflation, skyrocketing health care costs, and an economy that’s been increasingly rigged to benefit billionaires and big corporations.

When used in the right way, tariffs can protect domestic industries. But the president’s chaotic and outright unconstitutional approach—the on-again-off-again threats, the ever-changing numbers, the blatant lies about who actually shoulders the economic burden—has instead destabilized an already fragile economy and isolated us from the rest of the world.

I strongly oppose any efforts by the Trump Administration to reinstate these tariffs by other means, and will fight alongside my colleagues in the House to reassert Congressional authority on trade—even if Republican leadership fails to do so.

###

‘This is about one thing: making our country whiter’: Pingree Condemns DHS Proposal that Would Pause Work Permits for All Asylum Seekers

Fri, 20 Feb 2026 05:00:00 GMT

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) today announced a new proposed rule that would pause work permit issuance for people with pending asylum applications. This change represents a sweeping erosion to employment authorization for asylum seekers. Congresswoman Chellie Pingree (D-Maine) condemned the proposal, releasing the following statement:

The new rule announced by DHS is one of the cruelest changes to our immigration policies that I’ve seen during my time in Congress. It will have devastating consequences for thousands of Mainers and millions of people across the country. This isn’t about ‘restoring integrity’ to our asylum system. It’s about punishing asylum seekers, making it impossible to build lives and families here, and creating the conditions to detain and deport as many people as possible.

The overwhelming majority of asylum seekers living in the U.S. have fled truly horrific conditions in their home countries, including targeted violence, persecution, and political oppression. To suggest that they are frauds, or somehow gaming the system, is both grossly inaccurate and deeply insulting. These are human beings. They’re our neighbors and coworkers. They show up to work, send their kids to school, volunteer in their communities, and contribute to our economy every single day. Treating people as disposable political targets denies their humanity—and diminishes us all.

If DHS was serious about reducing backlogs, it would use a fraction of the hundreds of billions of dollars currently at its disposal to invest in more asylum officers. Instead, they’re using a bureaucratic logjam as an excuse to target millions of people for eventual deportation—all to meet some made-up quota from Stephen Miller.

This rule change will make our immigration system less humane, more dysfunctional, and further undermine America’s longstanding commitment to humanitarian protection. It won’t make us safer, it won’t make us stronger, and it sure as hell won’t do anything to reverse the profound economic damage that this Administration is doing to our economy. This is about one thing: making our country whiter. Because people like Donald Trump and Stephen Miller believe that’s what will ‘Make America Great Again.’ Nothing could be further from the truth.

Pingree is the author of the Asylum Seeker Work Authorization Act, a bipartisan bill backed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and dozens of national and state immigration groups that would reduce the current 180-day waiting period for work authorization eligibility to 30 days, allowing an asylum seeker to apply for authorization as soon as the asylum claim is filed.

###