Nadler, Jerrold RSS Articles

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."

###

Nadler Statement On H.R. 8595 Votes

Wed, 15 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) released the following statement regarding House consideration of H.R. 8595:

“Today the House voted on H.R. 8595, the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2027. This legislation will weaken diplomatic and development capacities critical to national security and further isolate America on the global stage. Among other devastating cuts, it slashes $1.1 billion from international organizations—a blatant attempt to undermine American diplomacy around the world, as well as efforts to bolster global health and combat the climate crisis. The bill also includes specific and heinous attacks on women and LGBTQ+ individuals globally. Republicans also cruelly attached unrelated legislation to this bill that would undermine Americans’ democratic rights, including the fundamental right to vote, in service of a cynical partisan political agenda.

“In addition to the underlying bill, the House also considered several dangerous amendments, including amendments that would undermine efforts to build a lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

“Most significantly, the overly broad Massie amendment, which imposes a blanket prohibition on any funds in the bill being used for Israel, including embassy operations, critical peacebuilding programs like the Nita M. Lowey Middle East Partnership for Peace Program (MEPPA), and more. MEPPA is the legacy of my dear late friend and colleague Nita Lowey and plays a critical role in peacebuilding and people-to-people relations between Israelis and Palestinians. Such efforts are absolutely necessary for real progress ever to be made in the region towards a viable, lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians.

“I have made no secret my opinion of Prime Minister Netanyahu. I have often called him the worst leader in Jewish history since the Maccabean king who invited the Romans into Jerusalem over 2100 years ago. Netanyahu is responsible for Israel’s war crimes in Gaza, growing isolation in the region and around the world, and partisan politicization within American politics. He is responsible for the attempts to undermine Israel’s democratic character in service of keeping himself from facing justice, and for using the lives of innocent Israeli and Palestinian civilians as political pawns in his monomaniacal quest to cling to power. Under his leadership, Hamas grew a stronghold in Gaza with tragically disastrous results, and the Palestinian Authority has been shortsightedly weakened, undermining any viable alternative. Settler violence has surged in the West Bank, and new Palestinian terrorist entities have arisen. In short, Netanyahu has been a disaster for Israel and for all those around the world concerned with the future of the region.

“I do not question the many well-intentioned supporters of the amendment who voted for it as a means of sending a message of disapproval of Israel’s actions. I share their disapproval of these actions, and I will never shy away from expressing my critiques of Israel’s behavior loudly and publicly without fear. However, I refuse to support prohibiting funding for the very peace-building programs and activities that are perhaps our best hope at present of improving the reality on the ground and building towards long-term peace. These programs, funded in memory of Chairwoman Lowey, are persistently under attack, with their funding under constant risk. I simply will not join those undermining the heroic efforts of these peace-seekers.

“I also want to strongly oppose the Tenney amendment, which called on the House to support upending the precarious status quo on the Temple Mount in Jerusalem. As a progressive, I believe that religious freedom and equal access for all are important principles governing international relations. This amendment, however, fundamentally misapplied these principles to a tenuous and potentially dangerous situation on the Temple Mount. The status quo on the Temple Mount exists in a delicate arrangement, which is best explained by Prime Minister Netanyahu’s own words: “Muslims pray on the Temple Mount; non-Muslims visit the Temple Mount.” This policy was established in 1967 after Israel conquered the territory on which the Temple Mount stands, and it has been regularly reaffirmed by every Israeli Prime Minister and Government since.

“It is only now, when there are extremists and previously convicted terrorists serving as members of the Israeli cabinet, that this extremely delicate agreement has begun to erode. Over the past years, instigated by Israel’s so-called “Minister of National Security,” radical Israeli extremists have been methodically testing the limits and attempting to move the goal posts of the fragile status quo agreement. These provocateurs understand the implications of their actions. In fact, many of the most important Ultra-Orthodox and Orthodox Rabbis in Israel forbid visiting the top of the Temple Mount on religious grounds. But these agitators and instigators selectively seek out particular Rabbinic advice that place kosher certifications on their inciting actions.

“It was former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s visit to the Temple Mount that many believe triggered the outbreak of the Second Intifada. And in recent years, social media clips exposing Israeli police beating Muslim worshipers in and around al-Aqsa Mosque with clubs and rifle butts have provoked violent responses and provided the pretext for rockets from Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and more. Any attempts to change the letter, or even the spirit, of the status quo agreement on the Temple Mount has the potential to beget untold levels of violence and further dramatically destabilize the region.

“In addition to these amendments, I oppose the amendment aimed at defunding assistance to our vital ally Jordan, the United Nations and its important diplomacy around the world, the Global Environment Facility aiding in climate resilience in light of climate change around the world, and the Fulbright Program, which is the gold-standard of education and cultural exchange programs.

“I am also deeply disappointed that the Republican majority refused to allow consideration of my bipartisan amendment to prohibit the Special Envoy for Holocaust Issues (SEHI) from being eliminated or merged into another office. SEHI is the only office in the U.S. Government solely dedicated to advocating for Holocaust survivors. As I have said before, if this Administration truly cared about Holocaust survivors, they would strengthen the SEHI office—not eliminate it.

“Today’s legislation will make the world less safe and less secure for generations to come. Unfortunately, I was unable to vote due to a family medical emergency in New York. Had I been present, I would have voted against this deeply shameful bill and the dangerous amendments considered by the House. When this bill is sent to the Senate, I urge them to take a more responsible course.”

###

Jerrold Nadler: Penn Station Won’t Fund Itself

Tue, 14 Jul 2026 04:00:00 GMT

New York, N.Y. – Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) wrote about the glaring lack of answers on the funding on the massive Penn Station Renovation. Read his essay, published in The New York Times, below:

As the congressman who has for decades represented the district that is home to Penn Station, I have always been a staunch supporter of renovating the transit hub. For nearly 34 years, as I’ve commuted to Washington, I’ve experienced the decay and neglect that have befallen this station. It’s clear that Penn Station fails to meet New York City’s needs, and I welcome the chance to renovate and renew this vital piece of American infrastructure.

Penn Station is the busiest transit hub in the Western Hemisphere, and it needs to be modernized. As ridership increases, Penn Station’s infrastructure must be updated to meet the needs of riders — making the station easier to navigate, more accessible for all and safer. But with President Trump at the helm, this project has so far been mismanaged as a backroom deal between billionaires and the politicians who serve them.

For years, New York state and local officials have tried to renovate Penn Station. Every effort has run aground on the same problem: cost. Past estimates have been as high as $22 billion. New York residents and commuters should not be held singularly responsible for a project that benefits residents and travelers alike. Past attempts often prioritized appearances over functionality and never fully resolved how the project would be paid for.

Now, with the Gateway Tunnel under construction — which will modernize train tracks under the Hudson River and double the capacity for passenger transit between New Jersey and New York — our city, state and federal governments have a once-in-a-generation opportunity to finally deliver a Penn Station renovation. Mr. Trump’s administration has made that far harder.

The New York public deserves immediate answers about who will pay for the Penn Station renovation. The cost estimate for the project is $8 billion, but the process has been shrouded in secrecy from the beginning, and that figure cannot be corroborated. One glaring omission from the vague plans is the cost of purchasing and demolishing the Madison Square Garden theater to build the new entrance to Penn Station. How much will the facility’s owner, the billionaire James Dolan, charge?

The likely truth: The Trump administration plans to stick New York residents and public transit riders with the massive cost of this development. We must have transparency on where every taxpayer dollar is being spent.

When the Trump administration wrested control of the Penn Station renovation project from the Metropolitan Transportation Authority last year, the president made it clear that crucial state and local partners would not be needed and that necessary public oversight would not be considered. Behind closed doors, Mr. Trump has already attempted a quid pro quo, offering federal funding for New York’s transit needs only if Penn Station and Dulles Airport are renamed for him. Mr. Trump reportedly held a nonpublic meeting with Mr. Dolan and the real estate investor Steven Roth at the White House. Key decisions — like whether to move the events venue — were seemingly on the table, but without essential public disclosure.

Later, Mr. Trump shared his dreams for the Penn Station renovation. Madison Square Garden would no longer change location, and Mr. Trump focused on aesthetics rather than practical necessities. How those decisions were made and what promises may have been offered were not shared with the public. Without further disclosure, the series of events stinks of possible self-dealing, even corruption.

Like the planning process, the developer selection process is happening behind closed doors. This will be one of the most important and most expensive projects in the country, yet there was no public oversight. The public does not know what was discussed, what deals and incentives were offered or whether anyone in the room ever raised the question of who would pay. And in Congress, some are trying to seize New York’s tax dollars outright — handing Amtrak unprecedented power over local zoning and stripping away our tax revenue, with no negotiation and no input. We cannot let that stand.

Last month, the Office of Management and Budget requested supplemental funding for the Department of Defense to cover the money that has been spent illegally on Mr. Trump’s war in Iran. That request also included $1 billion for Penn Station, the first time the Trump administration acknowledged that federal funding may be used for the project. It’s still $7 billion short, and with top appropriators already opposing the supplemental funding request, it’s unlikely to be approved anyway.

Andy Byford, a former transit executive in London, Toronto and New York, was appointed by the Trump administration to lead the Penn Station project. While Mr. Byford is rightly credited for his prior work, in his new role he is only adding to the project’s opacity. He claimed that transit riders wouldn’t feel the pain of this project, then cautioned that his word could not be taken as a promise.

No other administration official has delivered any kind of commitment to protect riders from bearing the brunt of this massive cost. In 2020, Mr. Byford resigned as New York City’s subway chief after Andrew Cuomo, then the governor, pressured him to work against the best interests of the city’s public transit. It is time for him to show the same courage and not sell out the integrity of Penn Station to Mr. Trump’s vanity and corporate greed. Mr. Byford must address the source of funding and compel the administration to prove that this project won’t be completed at the expense of New Yorkers.

Mr. Trump’s record here is clear. He has repeatedly attacked New York City transportation and infrastructure, attempting to roll back congestion pricing, withhold the Gateway tunnel funding and block transit security funding that would help prevent terrorist attacks. We cannot let him do so again by using the renovation of Penn Station as just another one of his vanity projects.

New Yorkers are accustomed to bright lights and beautiful architecture. Indeed, the new facility that has been planned looks magnificent in carefully made artistic renderings. But we will not be duped by the gimmick being sold to us. We cannot allow necessary accountability, transparency and reliability to be compromised by pleasing drawings. Had a less self-dealing president decided to give the federal government a greater role in the Penn Station redevelopment, I would enthusiastically partner with officials and stakeholders on the project. Federal financial help and planning acumen are undoubtedly necessary to rebuild the station. I am not opposed to a beautiful, renewed and reliable Penn Station. I am opposed to a process that keeps New Yorkers outside the room while the country’s wealthiest and most powerful decide the fate of millions of New Yorkers — and everyone who passes through Penn Station.

###

Nadler Statement On Trump's Newly Announced "Deal" With Iran

Mon, 15 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) released the following statement following Donald Trump's announcement of a deal with Iran to end the war he started:

Donald Trump is attempting to claim credit as a peacemaker after creating the very crisis he claims he has ended. The American people are left to bear the costs: 13 American servicemembers killed, countless Iranian civilians dead, and more than $50 billion of taxpayer dollars spent on an illegal and unauthorized war. Announcing a half-baked agreement and declaring victory on his birthday is straight out of the authoritarian playbook. It does nothing to erase the consequences of the reckless decision to start a war.

And the substance of this agreement raises serious questions of its own.

For years, Donald Trump and Congressional Republicans attacked President Obama's Iran agreement, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), for its focus only on Iran’s nuclear program and not its missiles, proxies, or regional aggression.

Now, Trump has reportedly reached an agreement with Iran that addresses none of those issues—and is even silent on the nuclear program itself!

Will Congressional Republicans oppose this agreement with the same ferocity they directed at the JCPOA, or were those objections never really about the substance?

I am strongly in favor of reaching a diplomatic solution with Iran to cease hostilities, curb their nuclear ambition, and prevent the destabilization of the region—but let’s be clear: this agreement is not that.

The agreement lacks transparency, so we cannot accurately comment on its scope or effectiveness. But from what we do know about it, it appears to fall far short of the JCPOA, which Trump famously scrapped. Under the JCPOA, there were international inspectors at every uranium enrichment plant in Iran, and the Iranians were required to sell all their enriched uranium to the Russians, which they did under international supervision. It sounds like Trump's deal costs more and does less. Thousands of people have died, billions of dollars have been wasted, and the cost of oil has skyrocketed, causing huge inflation for no benefit at all.

And all because Trump couldn't stand to admit that President Obama accomplished something worthwhile.

###

Nadler And Holyman-Sigal: "Penn Station Belongs to New Yorkers"

Mon, 08 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

New York, N.Y. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) and Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal sounded the alarm on the Trump administration's attempt to override the local authority of Penn Station by running a corrupt redevelopment process and pushing malicious legislation through Congress. Read their op-ed, published in Streetsblog, below:

We represent Penn Station.

We represent the riders who pass through it every day, the workers who keep it running, the businesses that depend on it, and the communities in Chelsea, Hell’s Kitchen, Midtown, and the surrounding Manhattan neighborhoods that live with the consequences of every decision made about its future.

Penn Station is not an abstract national asset, a line item in a federal transportation plan, or a real estate opportunity for billionaires. It is essential local infrastructure at the center of New York City’s daily life.

Every day, more than 600,000 New Yorkers and regional commuters depend on Penn Station. Amtrak — the agency that owns this station and is now driving its redevelopment — serves just 7 percent of these riders; the MTA and NJ Transit serve 93 percent. And yet Amtrak, under the direction of the Trump White House, is making all the decisions. Without asking any of us.

Penn Station was built to accommodate 200,000 passengers a day. It now handles more than three times that number. It is not just overcrowded — it is operating in a state of permanent crisis. New Yorkers deserve better. But the answer to that crisis cannot be a secret deal that hands the station’s future to politically connected developers while locking out the public.

No one disputes that Penn Station needs to be renovated — this is a once-in-a-generation opportunity, and we want to see it done.

But not like this.

This is also the same president who froze $16 billion in Gateway Tunnel funding and demanded Penn Station be renamed after him in exchange for releasing it. His own White House confirmed it. New Yorkers haven’t forgotten.

The appointment of Penn Transformation Partners as the “master developer” for Penn Station was made behind closed doors. No full public request for proposals was released. No complete cost estimate was disclosed. No public hearings were held. New York City, New York State, local elected officials, and the communities most affected were sidelined. And all three shortlisted developer teams have direct ties to Trump donors — and all three lobbied the White House directly for this contract.

This was not a competitive process. It was a political favor dressed up as one.

The MTA — whose riders make up the overwhelming majority of Penn Station’s daily users — was given no meaningful seat at the table. The MTA holds legally binding leasehold rights at Penn Station, rights it has relied on to invest in the 33rd Street corridor and protect the rider experience it is responsible for. Those rights must not be quietly bargained away in a process the MTA was deliberately excluded from.

And let us be direct about the money. Estimates put the total cost of this project up to $7 billion. The potential public shortfall is nearly $6 billion. Washington has committed just $43 million so far. Someone is going to be stuck with that bill. It will not be Donald Trump. It will not be the developers. It will be New York’s commuters — hit with surcharges on their MTA and NJ Transit tickets — and New York’s taxpayers, left absorbing costs they never agreed to fund.

There is also a dangerous piece of legislation moving through Congress that would make all of this worse. The McDowell and Moulton Amendment — adopted as part of the BUILD America 250 Act — would hand Amtrak sweeping new authority over development around intercity rail stations. It would allow Amtrak to own, lease, and enter into private development agreements around stations like Penn. It would let Amtrak-linked projects avoid state and local taxes, building codes, and zoning requirements.

In plain English: a federally controlled entity operating under Trump’s direction could gain the power to reshape land use around Penn Station while exempting itself from New York’s laws, weakening our tax base, and bypassing our communities. Not temporarily. Permanently.

Property taxes fund our schools, our public safety, our housing, and our basic services. Granting private developers exemption from those obligations — in one of the most valuable real estate markets in the world — is not transit-oriented development. It is a public giveaway on a breathtaking scale.

We are not against transit-oriented development. Done right — transparently, locally, in service of riders and communities — it can be a genuine public good. A real 24/7 neighborhood around Penn Station, with affordable housing, retail, and public spaces, would be transformative for this city. That is exactly the kind of vision New York deserves.

But that vision cannot be decided in a backroom deal between a president and his donors. It must be decided with the community, for the community.

New Yorkers deserve straight answers to basic questions. Who picked this developer and why? What will this project actually cost? Who will pay when the bill comes due? What happens to funding for subway repairs, accessibility upgrades, and state-of-good-repair work across the region? Will our tax base be protected? Will our zoning laws be respected?

###

Nadler, New York City Local Elected Officials, Community Members Rally Against The Trump Takeover Of Penn Station

Sun, 07 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

In new letter to DOT Secretary Duffy, leaders demand answers for the secret, politically driven process that resulted in the appointment of Penn Transformation Partners as the “master developer” for the Penn Station renovation

NEW YORK, N.Y. – Today, Congressman Jerrold Nadler (NY-12), Manhattan Borough President Brad Hoylman-Sigal, NYC Comptroller Mark Levine, Assemblymembers Tony Simone (District 75) and Micah Lasher (District 69), State Senators Liz Krueger (District 28) and Erik Bottcher (District 47), and New York City Councilmember Carl Wilson (District 3) railed against Donald Trump’s attempt to make New Yorkers pay for his takeover of Penn Station.

“The Trump administration has weaponized the Department of Transportation against New Yorkers in a blatant attempt to steal money, land, and power," said the lawmakers. "The Penn Station redevelopment process has broken every precedent and trampled on the rights of New York City residents and the hundreds of thousands of riders who use Penn Station every day. There has been no transparency on the overall cost, who will pay this unknown price, no input from the MTA or key stakeholders, and no public proposal over which land will be used and for what purposes now or later. New Yorkers’ voices have been muted from the discussion happening between billionaires behind closed doors.

The lawmakers continued, “Additionally, the legislation moving through Congress right now—the McDowell and Moulton Amendment—is a blatant attempt to advance the Trump agenda, hurting New Yorkers in the process. The amendment strips away local control and hands broad authority to a Trump-controlled Amtrak and his real estate developer friends. These entities, all of whom have a significant financial stake in this project, would have the ability to permanently reshape land use around Penn Station while exempting themselves from New York’s laws, weakening our tax base, and bypassing our communities. Without any discussion or negotiation, Amtrak and big real estate would now be exempt from local zoning laws and New York City real estate taxes. The current process has already shown a disregard for New Yorkers. If the McDowell-Moulton Amendment is adopted, New Yorkers’ homes and hard-earned dollars will be up for grabs by Donald Trump and the billionaires and multinational corporations he handed this project to. This is an infringement on local authority and New Yorkers' pocketbooks."

"We represent Penn Station, the riders who rely on the transportation it facilitates, and the community members who live here. We will never stop fighting to make sure their voices are heard, and their hard-earned dollars are protected from corrupt efforts to fulfill Donald Trump’s fantasies for Penn Station and New York City,” said the lawmakers.

"Before anything else, Penn Station's rebuild should save commuters time and money," said Riders Alliance Policy & Communications Director Danny Pearlstein. "A secret selection process and legislative land grab are the opposite of the transparency and accountability riders deserve. We must have reassurance that riders' needs aren't taking a back seat to private ambition. With so much at stake for millions of people far beyond the West Side of Manhattan, it's essential that New York leaders have a seat at the table to protect what belongs to riders and advance our needs throughout the renovation.”

"My New York City neighborhood, including all of Block 780, should never have been under the threat of destruction by former governor Cuomo or the Amtrak, MTA and NJ Transit Railroads and their allies including the RPA for an unneeded, horrendously expensive, outdated and inefficient terminal track southern expansion of Penn Station. The case for this destruction of a vibrant New York City neighborhood was never made as industry standard Rail Traffic Controller dynamic modeling simulations were never performed. These simulations should have been used to determine if through running plans could meet future capacity needs within the existing footprint of Penn Station before an expansion was even considered by the Railroads and their allies. Such simulations have or are being performed for every other capacity expansion proposed for Penn Station including Penn Access and the Empire Corridor. No government agency — federal, state or local — should ever be able to demolish an entire neighborhood and waste so much taxpayer money to build an expansion train station when these simulations haven't been performed. We have and continue to ask the DOT and others for transparency on this issue. If the Railroads have performed such simulations, it is time for them to stop wordsmithing objections to their production and share the results with the public. If Andy Byford and the Penn Transformation Partners are sincere in their promises to see our neighborhood spared we hope they will see to it that RTC simulations are performed and the matter of the need for a southern expansion of Penn Station is finally put to rest," said Eugene Sinigalliano, 251 West 30th Street Residential Tenants Association.

###

Nadler, Goldman Statement on H.Con.Res.84 Vote

Fri, 05 Jun 2026 04:00:00 GMT

Washington, D.C. – Today, Congressmen Jerrold Nadler (NY-12) Dan Goldman (NY-10) released the following statement following their vote against H.Con.Res.84:

Today we voted no on H.Con.Res.84, a war powers resolution dealing with the current conflict in Lebanon. We opposed this resolution because it would establish a dangerous precedent in the interpretation of the War Powers Resolution, but let us be clear: Our vote today should not be taken as an approval of Prime Minister Netanyahu’s prosecution of Israel’s military action in Lebanon.

Regardless of the intentions of this resolution, it is predicated upon a premise that is both flawed in its theory and dangerous in its application. The key legal trigger for war powers resolutions is demonstrating that the United States is engaging in “hostilities” in the context of a particular conflict. However, this resolution failed to include even that most basic standard in its drafting. To the extent that American armed forces are present in Lebanon, it is to support the current Lebanese government, which deserves our assistance.

The assertion that general intelligence sharing alone constitutes engaging in “hostilities” is without merit. Critically, implementing such a standard would create a dangerous precedent around the world — implicating the United States in every conflict that includes any party with whom the United States shares intelligence. Such a proposition is as naïve as it is dangerous to American national security and global stability.

Our vote today was not to absolve Netanyahu of responsibility, nor was it to approve of the prosecution of the war in Lebanon. Indeed, when H.Con.Res. 108 – a war powers resolution that targets substantiated “hostilities” that may arise in Lebanon – comes to the floor, we intend to vote in favor.

###