Nadler, Jerrold RSS Articles

Amid NYFW, Nadler & Gillibrand Reintroduce FABRIC Act To Support Garment Workers And Revitalize The US Fashion Industry

Mon, 14 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerry Nadler (NY-12) and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) announced the reintroduction of their Fashioning Accountability and Building Real Institutional Change (FABRIC) Act.

In New York State, there are approximately 130,000 people employed by the fashion industry, including thousands working in apparel manufacturing. Garment workers are a cornerstone of the American economy, and for far too long, they have faced unsafe working conditions, wage theft, and piecework pay, which often prioritizes fast fashion over the safety of workers. Nadler and Gillibrand's FABRIC Act would protect over 75,000 American garment workers and help revitalize the garment manufacturing industry in the United States by improving working conditions and reforming the piece-rate pay scale.

“America's garment workers have been undervalued and subjected to unfair labor practices for far too long, due to weak regulations across the fashion industry and the rise of fast fashion. With more than 100,000 New Yorkers contributing their labor to a billion-dollar garment industry, it is time to protect these workers and others across our nation and make historic investments in domestic manufacturing by passing the FABRIC Act,” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler. “I’m proud to work with Senator Gillibrand to protect workers’ rights, bring jobs back from overseas, and revitalize the American fashion industry.”

“Garment workers are the backbone of a multibillion-dollar industry, yet for far too long, their labor has been undervalued and exploited,” said Senator Gillibrand. “We cannot champion American innovation while turning a blind eye to abusive labor practices in our own backyard. It’s time to take bold action at the federal level to change the fabric of the American garment industry. The United States was once home to a booming apparel manufacturing industry, and it’s time to reexamine how this industry has evolved over the past 50 years and change how we treat our workers. With the FABRIC Act, we can curb wage theft, protect our workers, and revitalize domestic manufacturing so that 'Made in America' also means ethically made.”

The FABRIC Act proposes to address these issues by:

Restructuring pay rates for garment workers and providing minimum wage as a floor with productivity incentives on top.
Establishing new liability measures that compel major retailers to become allies in combating workplace violations.
Introducing recordkeeping and transparency measures, including requiring garment manufacturers and contractors operating in the U.S. to register with the Department of Labor.
Incentivizing reshoring by creating a domestic garment manufacturing grant program aimed at revitalizing the industry.

In addition to Nadler and Gillibrand, the bill is cosponsored by Reps. Deborah Ross (D-NC), Don Beyer (D-VA), Maxwell Frost (D-FL), Robert Garcia (D-CA), Dan Goldman (D-NY), Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC), Stephen Lynch (D-MA), and Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), as well as Senators Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Tammy Duckworth (D-IL). The bill is also endorsed by AFL-CIO, UNITE HERE, Workers United, and RWDSU.

The full text of the FABRIC Act can be found here.

###

Nadler Leads More Than 200 Members Marking The 25th Anniversary Of September 11th Terrorist Attacks

Wed, 09 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Andrew R. Garbarino (NY-02), and Mike Lawler (NY-17) introduced a bipartisan resolution recognizing the 25th anniversary of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, honoring the 2,977 innocent lives lost, and reaffirming the nation’s commitment to never forget. The resolution is cosponsored by more than 200 Members of the House of Representatives.

“25 years ago, New Yorkers and Americans across our nation experienced the deepest tragedy. 2,977 lives were lost, thousands were injured, and many more were sickened. We will never forget the lives we lost, and we must continue to serve those who have been afflicted by the toxic air at Ground Zero and in their homes, schools, and offices. We thank the first responders and everyday citizens who committed incredible acts of heroism, and we promise to honor their legacy by never forgetting their sacrifice,” said Congressman Nadler.

“Twenty-five years later, the impact of September 11th is still deeply personal for New Yorkers and for families across our country,” said Congressman Garbarino. “We remember the 2,977 innocent lives taken from us, the first responders who ran toward danger, and the thousands we have lost in the years since to 9/11-related illnesses, as well as those who continue to suffer today. I am proud that more than 200 of my colleagues have joined together to honor their sacrifice and reaffirm a promise that must endure for generations: we will never forget.”

“As we approach the 25th anniversary of the September 11th attacks, our commitment to honoring the courage and sacrifice demonstrated by so many brave Americans endures. I am honored to co-lead this resolution, which not only commemorates the sacrifice of the 2,977 lives lost that tragic day, but reaffirms our obligation to those who continue to suffer from illnesses caused by the attacks. May we never forget it,” said Congressman Goldman.

“On a clear September morning with an unusually blue sky, our nation was attacked. And our community was forever changed. In Congress, I have worked to make sure the Hudson Valley, and our nation, never forgets. Twenty-five years later, we remember the lives we lost, the heroes we honor, and the duty that remains: care for the living, teach the next generation, and never forget,” said Congressman Lawler.

The resolution honors the victims killed at the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and in Shanksville, Pennsylvania, as well as the extraordinary courage of the first responders, members of the Armed Forces, passengers and crew of United Airlines Flight 93, medical professionals, rescue and recovery workers, volunteers, and countless others who responded to the attacks and their aftermath.

It also recognizes the lasting consequences of September 11th for responders and survivors who continue to suffer from 9/11-related illnesses and acknowledges the organizations that have spent the past 25 years supporting survivors and victims’ families.

The resolution further recognizes the service and sacrifice of the members of the Armed Forces who defended the United States in the years following the attacks and emphasizes the importance of teaching future generations the history and lessons of September 11th.

###

Nadler: Government Officials Betrayed The Public In The Aftermath Of 9/11

Tue, 08 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Nadler led the fight to fund medical treatment and financial compensation for the thousands of responders, survivors, and community members who are sick from exposure to toxins related to the 9/11 attacks across the nation. His bill, the Zagroga Act, was passed in 2010.

For years, Congressman Nadler has demanded the release of the files published today.

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) joined Mayor Mamdani to announce the release of more than 170,000 pages of City records documenting the government’s response to the attacks on September 11, 2001 and the aftermath related to the environmental hazards at and around Ground Zero. His remarks can be viewed HERE and read below:

"Thank you for having me here today.

"We are here today to remember the innocent lives that were devastated in the days,

weeks, and months following the deadly terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

"We are here to honor the heroes who ran toward the towers as the planes struck,

who combed through the rubble to save survivors, and who worked tirelessly to

clean up the wreckage.

"We are here to honor the men, women, and children who did not know the danger

they were facing as they slept in their homes, went to school, and returned to work.

"When our communities were at their most vulnerable, people turned to trusted

sources—including their government—to guide them through this crisis.

"Government officials betrayed that trust by suspecting, and later knowing, the

environmental hazards from the catastrophe and failing to tell the public.

"The air was unsafe. It was filled with toxic substances that sickened the people

who breathed it in. And 25 years later, our neighbors and heroes are still falling

seriously ill because of these toxins.

"My colleagues and I who represented Ground Zero and the surrounding

communities immediately warned local and federal officials about the health risks

posed by the toxins in the air.

"I was screaming at the top of my lungs to protect our communities, my constituents. But officials like EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman and Mayor Guiliani, denied claims like mine, saying the air was “perfectly safe." Blasphemous.

"The failure of government officials to share this information with the public and

adequately respond to the danger has had devastating—and, in too many cases,

fatal—consequences.

"Now, we and the public know that City Hall, led by former Mayor Giuliani,

predicted that thousands of responders and community members would face

devastating long-term health consequences from these toxins. Despite this, he

stayed silent on the hazards.

"Eventually, the air became safe to breathe again. But officials continued to

withhold the truth about the environmental hazards from the people who had been

exposed.

"Their decision to deny the toxicity of the air that people had breathed in was a slap

in the face of the heroes and community members who were exposed at Ground

Zero and in schools, offices, and homes throughout the surrounding area.

"By hiding the truth, our fight in Congress to secure funding to address the health

needs of 9/11 victims was an uphill battle. As a result, too many people faced

unnecessary delays in accessing the healthcare they needed—sometimes with fatal

consequences.

"For years and across multiple City Hall administrations, I have led leaders in

Congress to demand the release of these files. I am glad that this is finally

happening.

"The damage to the health of 9/11 victims, and the suffering they have endured and

will continue to endure, cannot be erased. But I am grateful to the Mamdani administration, specifically to Steve Banks, and to Speaker Menin, Councilmember Brewer, Ben Chevat of 9/11 Health Watch, and Kimberly Flynn of 9/11 Environmental Action, for making today possible. Thank you for your commitment to release these files so that victims and their loved ones can finally have the transparency they deserve.

"Officials in the future will know that actions have consequences—the truth will always come to light.

"I am proud to be here today as we take this monumental step towards justice.

"My heart is with those who are sick today. My heart is with those who have lost

loved ones. My heart is with our community who still reels from the pain."

###

Congressman Nadler represented Ground Zero and the surrounding communities until 2022, when the district boundaries were redrawn and Lower Manhattan was placed outside of his district.

Nadler Statement Ahead Of Vote On H.R. 4795, The “Protect Economic And Academic Freedom Act Of 2026”

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) released the following statement ahead of House consideration of H.R. 4795:

“When the House votes on H.R. 4795, I will vote no.

“H.R. 4795, the so-called Protect Economic and Academic Freedom Act, prohibits universities from engaging in “non-expressive commercial boycotts,” and requires institutions of higher education to certify they are not boycotting Israel in order to access certain federal funds.

“I strongly oppose the global Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement and I ardently oppose BDS as a strategy to secure change in the Middle East. I also recognize that those who advocate for BDS can veer into antisemitism if they should use antisemitic tropes or stereotypes, hold Jews collectively responsible for Israel’s actions, target or exclude Jews because they are Jewish, use opposition to Israel or Zionism as a proxy for hostility toward Jews, or advance an eliminationist vision that denies Jews in Israel equal rights, physical safety, or the ability to remain in the country as equals.

“But no matter how strongly I oppose the BDS movement, I also believe that those who engage in BDS have a First Amendment right to do so. The First Amendment right to free speech does not apply only to agreeable speech. No matter how much I may disagree with BDS, and find it strategically stupid and morally repugnant, I will always fight to protect Americans’ right to speech with which I disagree. It is the only way to ensure speech I do agree with is equally protected.

“In my view, H.R. 4795 is a direct and gross violation of the First Amendment. The proponents of this bill hide behind an inadequately defined term of “non-expressive commercial boycotts,” but, as the ACLU wrote in a letter to Congress, “Many of those engaged in boycotts of Israel do so not for commercial reasons, but because they wish to express their political opposition to the policies of the Israeli government – matters of overwhelming public concern and debate in the present moment. HR 4795’s labeling such boycotts as “non-expressive” does nothing to change this reality.” Moreover, as the Supreme Court has noted in Chiles v. Salazar, “the First Amendment is no word game. And the rights it protects cannot be renamed away or their protections nullified by ‘mere labels.’”

“Additionally, the language in H.R. 4795 treats the entire West Bank as part of Israel, erasing the Green Line and undermining efforts to promote a two-state solution. The United States and Congress must recognize the difference between the State of Israel and the territory it occupies beyond the Green Line. Imposing penalties on institutions of higher education for opposing activities that advance annexation, blur that crucially important distinction, and undermine prospects for a two-state solution would establish a deeply troubling precedent.

“H.R. 4795 is the latest assault by the Trump Administration and Congressional Republicans on American colleges and universities. Supporting this bill does nothing to support students on campus, prevent hate, or improve the reality in the Middle East. Instead, it feeds the political arson being committed by the Trump Administration against institutions of higher education and endeavors to limit Americans’ First Amendment freedoms in service of Republicans’ partisan political agenda.

“I urge my colleagues not to take the bait and to join me in voting no on H.R. 4795.”

###

Nadler, Frost Demand Antitrust Investigation Into Sysco’s $29.1 Billion Acquisition of Restaurant Depot Over Threats of Higher Costs for Restaurants

Thu, 27 Aug 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) and Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (FL-10) are calling on the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to closely scrutinize Sysco's proposed $29.1 billion acquisition of Restaurant Depot and investigate its potential anticompetitive effects. In the letter sent to the DOJ and FTC, the Congressmen warn that the deal could reduce competition, drive up costs for independent restaurants, and ultimately make dining out more expensive for consumers:

Restaurant Depot currently operates 166 locations across 35 states and serves more than 700,000 restaurants and food service operators. As a direct competitor to Sysco, Restaurant Depot provides independent restaurants with an important alternative when purchasing food and negotiating prices.

“Soaring food prices are forcing Americans to struggle to put food on the table for their families. The last thing our districts need is another bloated corporation using their unfair market power to raise food prices further. The Department of Justice must take its job seriously by fairly and carefully examining this proposed transaction to ensure that American consumers are protected,” said Congressman Jerry Nadler (NY-12), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Administrative State, Regulatory Reform, and Antitrust Committee on the Judiciary.

“Restaurants are already struggling with rising costs, and eliminating competition in food distribution could make the problem worse. If this merger drives up the cost of food for small restaurants, those costs will ultimately be passed on to consumers. Families can’t afford another hit to their wallets, and that’s why the DOJ and FTC need to closely scrutinize this deal,” said Congressman Maxwell Frost (FL-10).

"Independent restaurants operate on razor-thin margins, and Restaurant Depot gives them an essential alternative to large distributors like Sysco and a critical price benchmark when negotiating with suppliers. If Sysco is allowed to acquire a major competitor, independent restaurants will lose that leverage, face higher food costs, and ultimately have little choice but to pass those costs on to diners. We thank Representatives Frost and Nadler for urging federal regulators to thoroughly investigate this deal before it does lasting harm to independent restaurants and the communities they serve,” said Erika Polmar, Executive Director Independent Restaurant Coalition.

The proposed acquisition would eliminate a major competitor to Sysco, the nation’s largest food distributor, and could give the company greater leverage over the prices restaurants pay for ingredients and supplies. For independent restaurants operating on already-thin margins, even modest increases in food costs can have significant consequences, including higher prices for customers.

Nadler and Frost warned that the impact of the merger could extend beyond restaurant owners to consumers and workers. If restaurants face higher costs, they may have little choice but to pass those costs on to customers at a time when families are already cutting back on dining out because of rising prices.

The proposed acquisition could also have implications for independent farmers and growers. Sysco has touted the increased purchasing power that would result from the acquisition, raising concerns about how greater market concentration could affect the prices paid to producers.

Nadler and Frost are calling on the Department of Justice and Federal Trade Commission to closely examine the proposed acquisition and launch an antitrust investigation into its potential effects on competition, independent restaurants, farmers, workers, and consumers.

Read the full letter here.

###

Nadler Statement On "Murder Against Civilians" In The Eastern Pacific Ocean

Mon, 24 Aug 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) released the following statement on the latest U.S. military strikes against a boat in the eastern Pacific:

“With Pete Hegseth at the helm, the U.S. military has conducted at least 67 unauthorized, lethal boat strikes, killing at least 223 people without any due process for perceived criminal wrongdoing or a declaration of war. This conduct amounts to nothing short of the U.S. military committing murder against civilians.

"I am appalled by this level of abject wrongdoing and demand an immediate halt to these extrajudicial strikes.”

###

Representatives Nadler and Hinson Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Support New Parents

Thu, 30 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, DC – Today, Representatives Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) and Ashley Hinson (IA-02) reintroduced No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act, bipartisan legislation that would ensure parents do not receive unexpected medical bills for their newborns. This bill is co-led by Nanette Barrágan (CA-44) and Brian Fitzpatrick (PA-01).

No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act would require health insurers to automatically provide coverage to newborns for 30 days after birth, establish a uniform 60-day enrollment period for newborns after those first 30 days, and notify parents if they receive a bill for an uncovered newborn.

“When a child is born, parents should only have to worry about them being happy and healthy,” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler. “Families deserve the peace of mind that their newborns will automatically have health insurance for the first month of their life and that they will know when the next medical bill is. I urge my colleagues to support the No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act to help prevent new parents from being hit with potentially devastating bills.”

“Parents shouldn’t be hit with surprise medical bills for their newborn because big health insurance companies prioritize their bottom line over working families,” said Congresswoman Ashley Hinson. "This bipartisan bill holds insurance companies accountable, ensures newborns have seamless coverage, and gives new parents one less thing to worry about so they can focus on keeping their babies healthy and happy.”

“Coverage for a newborn should not depend on the fine print of an insurance policy or the speed of an enrollment form,” said Congressman Brian Fitzpatrick. “The first weeks of life are medically consequential, and our laws should reflect that reality. Our initiative establishes a clear national standard: automatic coverage from birth, sufficient time for parents to enroll their child, and timely notice before a family is exposed to an unexpected bill. It is a practical, bipartisan reform that replaces needless uncertainty with clarity and common sense.”

“Welcoming a baby should be a time of joy, not a time for families to worry about unexpected medical bills or complicated insurance requirements,” said Congresswoman Nanette Barragán. “That is why I joined Representatives Nadler, Hinson, and Fitzpatrick to reintroduce the bipartisan No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act, which would ensure parents have a clear and simple enrollment period for their newborn’s health insurance, and that they are notified if their insurer is billed for a newborn who isn’t covered. No family should face high out-of-pocket costs because paperwork stood between their child and health coverage.”

The No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act is endorsed by the Society for Maternal Fetal Medicine, the American Hospital Association, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and America’s Essential Hospitals. The No Surprise Bills for New Moms Act was endorsed by the Association of Maternal and Child Health Programs, Families USA, March of Dimes, 1,000 Days, and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine when introduced during the 118th Congress.

###

Representatives Nadler, Scott, and Senator Murray Introduce Legislation to Protect Workers’ Rights by Ending Forced Arbitration in the Workplace

Thu, 30 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representatives Jerrold Nadler (D-NY-12), Member of the House Judiciary Committee, Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (D-VA-03), Ranking Member of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, and U.S. Senator Patty Murray (D-WA), a senior member and former Chair of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, reintroduced their bicameral Restoring Justice for Workers Act, legislation to end forced arbitration clauses, protect workers’ ability to pursue work-related claims in court, and allow workers to band together to vindicate their rights. Nadler, Scott, and Murray first introduced the bill in 2018.

The bill would override the 2018 Supreme Court decision, Epic Systems v. Lewis, which allowed employers to continue to enforce forced arbitration clauses against workers. These arbitration clauses prevent workers from banding together to enforce their legal rights and are often buried in the fine print of employment contracts, meaning many workers are not aware they’ve waived their rights. The use of forced arbitration clauses that block workers’ access to the courts has led to widespread non-enforcement of workers’ rights, including their right to minimum wage, overtime, and to a workplace free of discrimination.

“Mandatory arbitration clauses hurt workers by blocking them from pursuing justice for wage theft, discrimination, harassment, and other forms of corporate abuse and misconduct. These clauses are often hidden in the fine-print of employment contracts for the purpose of protecting corporations from facing consequences of violating their workers' rights” said Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12). "Every worker deserves a workplace that honors their contributions with fair treatment, respect, and dignity. This bill protects employees' fundamental rights to access justice and empowers them to do so without unnecessary barriers. I urge my colleagues to support the Restoring Justice for Workers Act to protect and support American workers.”

“Workers should not be coerced into signing away their rights as a condition of their employment. Unfortunately, that is the reality for millions of workers across the country,” said Congressman Robert C. “Bobby” Scott (VA-03). “Employers are increasingly using mandatory arbitration agreements to deny employees a fair venue to seek recourse for wage theft, discrimination, or harassment. The Supreme Court’s decision in Epic Systems v. Lewis went further by undermining workers’ rights to file joint, class, or collective legal actions. The Restoring Justice for Workers Act would help restore employees’ fundamental rights to have their day in court and join with their co-workers to hold employers accountable for unlawful conduct.”

“If an employer does something illegal, workers should be able to hold them accountable in a court of law. But far too often, big corporations will cynically leverage long and complicated employment contracts to stack the deck against their workers. It’s manipulative and wrong. This means that—for instance—if workers are victims of wage theft, they can’t join together and go to court because they signed those rights away when they started the job. Workers shouldn’t have to choose between waiving the ability to enforce their rights and earning a living,” said Senator Murray. “That’s why it’s far past time we put an end to the practice of forced arbitration—and this bill can do just that. I’ll keep fighting until the rights of every worker are protected.”

“Binding arbitration clauses are one of the worst forms of control employers have over workers. While forced arbitration in cases of sexual harassment was thankfully finally banned a few years ago, it's long past time we did away with this practice for all other types of violations of rights on the job as well,” said Samantha Sanders, Director of Government Affairs and Advocacy at the Economic Policy Institute. “Workers can still be forced to sign away their right to a day in court over wage theft, unsafe working conditions, racial discrimination, and more in a secretive, biased process that is tilted towards bosses. This bill would go a long way towards empowering workers – even those who don’t have the protection of a union – to have full access to the courts and the opportunity to hold their employers accountable for breaking the law."

The Restoring Justice for Workers Act would:

Open the courthouse doors for workers by prohibiting the use of forced arbitration clauses in employment contracts and prohibiting employers from requiring employees to waive their right to engage in joint, class, or collective legal action;
Reverse the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision in Epic Systems, which dismantled workers’ right to band together to hold unscrupulous employers accountable;
Uphold the rule of law, a cornerstone of our democracy, by ensuring that workers’ rights are enforceable through our justice system;
Ensure that post dispute arbitration agreements are not obtained by threat or coercion, that the agreement is understandable, and that the employee affirmatively consents to the agreement in writing and is fully aware of their rights in the workplace.

This bill is cosponsored by Representatives Suzanne Bonamici (OR-01), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-At large), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Julia Brownley (CA-26), and Jan Schakowsky (IL-09).

In the Senate, the bill is also cosponsored by Senators Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Dick Durbin (D-IL), Angus King (I-ME), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Chris Murphy (D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA).

This bill is also endorsed by the American Association for Justice, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations, and the Economic Policy Institute.

A one pager on the Restoring Justice for Workers Act can be found HERE

Full text of the legislation is available HERE.

###

Nadler, Schumer, Gillibrand Call on USPS to Immediately Cancel Planned Closure of the Bryant Park Post Office, One of Midtown Manhattan's Busiest Retail Postal Facilities

Wed, 29 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

New York, N.Y. – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, and Senator Kirsten Gillibrand today sent a letter to Postmaster General David Steiner calling for the immediate cancellation of the planned closure of the Bryant Park Post Office, located at 23 West 43rd Street in Midtown Manhattan, and demanded a full accounting of how and when the U.S. Postal Service made that decision. The Postal Service is planning to close the facility on August 8th. Nadler, Schumer, and Gillibrand wrote that the Postal Service has not made a serious effort to properly inform and engage the public with full transparency or to adequately solicit public input.

“USPS’s unilateral decision to shutter the Bryant Park USPS Station will hurt thousands of New Yorkers, workers, visitors, and small businesses. Every day, the Bryant Park station provides necessary postal services in one of the most prominent economic, cultural, and financial hubs in America, and ripping these services away without any participation from the Bryant Park community is a clear violation of federal regulations,” said Congressman Nadler. “I am glad to be working with Leader Schumer and Senator Gillibrand to hold USPS accountable and protect NY-12’s access to public services.”

"The Bryant Park Post Office is staffed by dedicated postal workers and is a lifeline for Midtown businesses, non-profits and residents, and the Postal Service wants to slam the doors shut without regard for how the closure will impact New Yorkers and without having made a serious attempt to inform and engage the community," said Senator Schumer. "Federal rules require the Postal Service to fully satisfy a public review process, which I don’t feel they executed adequately. I am telling Postmaster General Steiner to cancel this closure now, come clean about how this decision was made, and let New Yorkers be heard."

“USPS must immediately reverse its decision to close the Bryant Park Post Office, which will harm the families, workers, and small businesses who rely on the branch’s critical services every day,” said Senator Gillibrand. “By failing to provide the Bryant Park community with public notice or adequate opportunity to give feedback on the closure, the Postal Service violated federal standards and stifled the voices of New Yorkers who deserve a say in their community. I will work with my colleagues to cancel this closure and restore New Yorkers’ access to the public services they need to thrive.”

The representatives said: “The Bryant Park Post Office is a pillar of USPS's postal services in Midtown Manhattan and beyond, and is one of Midtown Manhattan's busiest retail post offices, serving millions of New Yorkers, workers, visitors, and small businesses every day.”

Nadler, Schumer, and Gillibrand wrote that closing the facility would mean millions of New Yorkers and visitors see reduced access to retail postal services and increased wait times at nearby post offices, and that small businesses that rely on daily postal services will see services disrupted, leaving lasting harm to the community and the local economy.

Under federal regulations, the Postal Service is required to provide public notice, solicit community input, evaluate local impacts, and consider alternatives before permanently discontinuing a retail facility. Schumer, Gillibrand and Nadler raised concerns that their constituents were not properly informed by the Postal Service of the planned closure and the opportunity for public comment, and that the Postal Service cannot proceed until the mandatory public review process has been fully satisfied and has seriously engaged the community on its plans.

Nadler, Schumer, and Gillibrand demanded answers to a series of questions, including the Postal Service's full justification for the closure, for how long has USPS known about the potential expiration of the current lease, whether an extension or renewal of the current lease was pursued, what alternatives to closing the Bryant Park Post Office were considered, when the decision was made, when the public was notified and whether the opportunity for public comment was provided, what analysis USPS has conducted regarding impacts the closure may have on the community and employees at the facility, what plans are in place to ensure that the quality and availability of postal services will not be impacted should the closure proceed, and whether and when the Bryant Park Post Office will be relocated.

The letter to Postmaster General Steiner can be found below:

We write with serious concern regarding the planned closure of the Bryant Park Post Office, located at 23 West 43rd Street, New York, NY 10036. It has come to our attention that the Postal Service is planning to close the Bryant Park Post Office on August 8^th and that in making this determination, the Postal Service has not made a serious effort to properly inform and engage the public with full transparency or to adequately solicit public input. Therefore, we urge you to immediately cancel the planned closure of the Bryant Park Post Office.

The Bryant Park Post Office is a pillar of USPS’s postal services in Midtown Manhattan and beyond. As one of Midtown Manhattan’s busiest retail post offices, the Bryant Park Post Office serves many thousands of New Yorkers, workers, visitors, and small businesses every day. Located in the center of the world’s greatest business, cultural, and financial hub, the Bryant Park Post Office serves to keep the essential public infrastructure of postal services running for Midtown Manhattan. Closing this postal facility would mean that the millions of New Yorkers and visitors will see reduced access to retail postal services and see increased wait times at nearby post offices. Small businesses which rely on daily postal services will see their services disrupted and without reliable postal access. The harm to the community and local economy is clear and negative.

Under federal regulations, the Postal Service is required to provide public notice, solicit community input, evaluate local impacts, and consider alternatives before permanently discontinuing a retail facility. Specifically, pursuant to 39 C.F.R. § 241.3, the public must be given a 60 days’ notice of a proposed closure of a postal facility and be provided an opportunity for public comments.^[1] Regrettably, we are hearing from our constituents that the Postal Service did not properly inform the residents of its plans to close the Bryant Park Post Office and furthermore, failed to seriously engage the community regarding its decision to close this postal facility. This is unacceptable. The Postal Service cannot proceed with its plans to close the Bryant Park Post Office until the public review process under 39 C.F.R. § 241.3 has been fully satisfied.

We request that you provide written responses to the following questions no later than July 31, 2026:

Please provide, in detail, justification for the Postal Service’s decision to close the Bryant Park Post Office.
1. When does the current lease of the Bryant Park Post Office expire?
2. For how long (in months, years) has the Postal Service known about the expiration date of the current lease?
3. For what reason will the current lease of the Bryant Park Post Office expire?

i. Is it due to the landlord’s decision to not provide an option to the Postal Service with a lease renewal, or is the Postal Service choosing not to renew the existing lease?

ii. Was an extension of the current lease pursued by the Postal Service?

If the Postal Service is choosing not to renew the current lease despite the landlord providing an option for a lease renewal, what are the Postal Service’s justifications for doing so?

In deciding to close the Bryant Park Post Office, did the Postal Service consider any other alternatives? If so, please list each consideration in detail and the reasons for not pursuing such alternatives.
When did the Postal Service make the decision to close the Bryant Park Post Office? Please provide a specific date.
1. When was the public notified of the Postal Service’s decision to close the Bryant Park Post Office? Please provide a specific date.
2. Did the Postal Service provide an opportunity for public comment?

i. If yes, please provide a specific date of this notice to the public and include documentation of this invitation for public comment.

ii. If yes, did the Postal Service provide clear, transparent instructions to the public on how the public can submit input on the proposed closure?

iii. If yes, was this notice to the public list a clear deadline for the public to submit input?

Has the Postal Service made any other effort to engage the public and solicit public input?

Has the Postal Service conducted an analysis of the expected impacts on the community, employees, and quality of mail delivery services as a result of the proposed closure of the Bryant Park Post Office?
1. If yes, what will be the impact on the community served? Please provide a detailed description.
2. If yes, what will be the impact on the employees at the Bryant Park Post Office? Please provide a detailed description.
Should the Postal Service proceed with closing the Bryant Park Post Office on August 8, 2026, what are the plans in place to ensure that the postal services are not impacted by the closure of the Bryant Park Post Office? How will the Postal Service ensure that residents, workers, businesses, and visitors will continue to have the same quality and availability of postal services?
Should the Postal Service proceed with closing the Bryant Park Post Office, will the Bryant Park Post Office be relocated to another building? If so, what will be the exact timeline?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter. We look forward to hearing your response.

Sincerely,

###

Nadler Statement On The Latest Developments In The Trump Takeover Of Penn Station

Thu, 23 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) released the following statement regarding Secretary of Transportation Sean Duffy's letter to the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works regarding an extension of the Surface Transportation Reauthorization Act:

"Since the Trump administration began its hostile takeover of the Penn Station renovation project in April 2025, I and other New York elected officials, community advocates, and local residents have called on the Trump administration to provide transparency about the process and funding. The administration has dodged oversight at every turn–refusing to issue a single public correspondence or congressional briefing on the issue. As the Congressman representing Penn Station, I have repeatedly warned that the Trump administration is weaponizing the Surface Transportation Reauthorization to strip local authorities of control over Penn Station at New Yorkers’ expense. Now, after months of misleading the public, Sean Duffy is laying out the Trump administration’s priorities.

"Sean Duffy requested $1 billion in Federal-State Partnership funding for the Intercity Passenger Rail (FSP) Grant Program. This is a woefully insufficient answer to the question the Trump administration has been dodging for months–how will the $8 billion Penn Station renovation be funded and who will pay the bill?

"During the Surface Transportation Reauthorization markup in May, U.S. Representatives Addison McDowell (SC-06) and Seth Moulton (MA-06), neither of whom represent Penn Station or New York City, introduced an amendment as a tool for the Trump administration to steal control and tax revenue of Penn Station from local New York authorities via the McDowell-Moulton Amendment. The amendment that Duffy is championing would hand Amtrak sweeping authority over development around intercity rail stations–allowing Amtrak, a federally controlled entity, to own, lease, and enter into private development agreements, and avoid state and local taxes, building codes, and zoning requirements around Penn Station. This would empower Trump to permanently reshape land use around Penn Station and allow multi-billion-dollar companies to avoid paying full taxes–taxes which would fund local schools, public safety, housing, and basic services. The Trump administration cannot be trusted with this unprecedented level of control over Penn Station, and corporations should not be allowed to skirt public obligations that local communities rely upon.

"After Steven Roth, CEO of Vornado, and James Dolan, billionaire owner of Madison Square Garden, met with Donald Trump at the White House and Roth was announced as a member of Penn Transformation Partners, I raised concerns that there was improper coordination of this project’s bid. Beyond that, it appears the corporations that received the bid, the Trump administration, and members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee colluded to use the Surface Transportation Reauthorization process to enrich Donald Trump’s billionaire allies at the expense of everyday New Yorkers. Secretary Duffy’s letter confirms that all of these individuals were working towards the same goal: to block local input and ensure that New Yorkers are stuck with the bill for this project.

"This will be one of the most expensive projects in the country, yet the administration has nodded to their intention to rename Penn Station after Donald Trump and has not disclosed how it will be funded or who will pay the bill. New York taxpayers and transit riders must not be forced to pay for a Trump vanity project."

###