theiowastandard.com

Local NewsProvenance not yet reviewed

Compare

11 stories credited to theiowastandard.com

Latest story Apr 22, 2026 · on ChamberLight since Apr 2026

A story can appear as several articles (copies of the same piece), so counts of stories and of articles differ.

Compare with another source

Credibility

Not enough stories yet: 8 of 10.

How this is measured

Political lean

Not enough stories yet: 8 of 10.

How this is measured

Originality

100%of 11 hosted stories are not confirmed copies of another outlet’s article

6 of those 11 carry an unconfirmed copying flag, which is not evidence either way.

11 stories · updated Sep 24, 2026

How this is measured

Writing quality not enough rated stories yet: 7 of 10. How it is measured

Scores last checked Sep 25, 2026.

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Stories credited to theiowastandard.com, by publication date. ChamberLight collects articles that mention the officials it tracks, so this shows its own coverage of this source, not how much the source publishes.

Stories from theiowastandard.com
Shaded: ChamberLight collected no stories, or almost none, from any outlet (a gap in its collection, not in the outlet’s publishing)

Show as a table

Month	Stories	All outlets
March 2026	1	365
April 2026	10	4,538
May 2026	0	none collected
June 2026	0	none collected
July 2026	0	none collected
August 2026	0	1 (collection gap)
September 2026	0	1,320

Who they cover

Party of the officials these stories are mainly about, across all 16 officials named. A story counts once for each official it is mainly about, so the split is over 19 story–official pairs, from 11 stories.

Republican84% · 16 pairs
Democrat11% · 2 pairs
Party not recorded5% · 1 pair

Most covered

Stories mainly about each official, and their share of the source’s 11 stories.

+ 6 other officials (6 story–official pairs)

Article tone

ChamberLight’s article analysis assigns each story a tone toward the official it covers. It describes the coverage of that official, not theiowastandard.com’s stance, and reader votes do not change it. 11 stories.

Good Look: 3 (27%)
Mixed: 7 (64%)
Informational: 0 (0%)
Bad Look: 1 (9%)

Challenges to these scores

No one has challenged a score on this page yet. Anyone can; editors publish every outcome here.

Articles served from theiowastandard.com

Pass The No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act to Protect American Citizens

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) last week spoke about his bill, the No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act. The No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act will require states to verify that every person who applies for a driver’s license, including a commercial driver’s license or for government ID, is in our country legally. States that refuse must forfeit 10 percent of their federal transportation funding. The funds that are withheld will go to states that follow the law. Click HERE to watch Senator Barrasso’s remarks. Sen. Barrasso’s remarks: “I come to the floor to express the beliefs of so many Americans, and that is that illegal immigrants should never be given a driver’s license in the United States of America. It’s just common sense. These are people who are here illegally. “So today, I am introducing legislation to stop states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. And that includes regular licenses as well as commercial driver’s licenses. Every United States Senator needs to say where they stand on this critical issue. It is time to make it clear that giving state-issued licenses to illegal immigrants is not in the best interest of our nation’s safety or our nation’s security. “In February, President Trump called on Congress to ban states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. My legislation does just that. And then it goes further. The bill I’m introducing today – the No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act – it requires states to verify that every person who applies for a driver’s license – every single one – including certainly a commercial driver’s license – they need to prove that they are in this country legally. That’s not just for driver’s licenses. It also should be for government IDs. States that refuse are going to be forced to forfeit 10 percent of the federal transportation funding that they receive from the federal government. And that’s a lot of money for many states, especially some of these big blue states. The funds that we withhold will go to the states that actually follow the law. “So, let’s put it in plain terms, what this means. California. If in California, Governor Gavin Newsom continues to issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants – and they’re doing it right now – California would surrender ten percent of the money that they get from the federal government for highways. They’re getting $5.8 billion. So, they would surrender $580 million, which would go to the states like mine and yours, Mr. President, that comply with the law. “Look, this is a serious and a significant amount of money. It’s a significant penalty. And I believe it’s worth it in order to keep the American people safe. “Astonishingly, there are nineteen states in this nation and the District of Columbia, who currently provide driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. No proof of citizenship is needed. In some of those states, such as Oregon, it’s even worse than that. Because they have laws in place called ‘motor-voter’ laws. So, what’s a ‘motor-voter’ law? Well, it means that when an illegal immigrant is given a driver’s license, the state then automatically registers them to vote. I mean think about that. You go as an illegal immigrant – you get a driver’s license – and then they register you to vote. And the Democrats say they don’t try to get illegal immigrants to vote. They make it automatic in the state of Oregon. “We know that in Oregon, hundreds of illegal immigrants have been registered to vote because of this policy which is irresponsible. And they know it. They don’t seem to care. This, to me, raises serious questions about election integrity. Allowing illegal immigrants to obtain driver’s licenses make our roads less safe and it also makes our elections less secure. “The No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act is part of the larger Republican drive to keep our nation safe. The last administration threw open our borders to illegal immigrants. More than 10 million illegal immigrants flooded into our nation. Under President Trump and Republicans, the border is now secure, and law enforcement has been restored. In the last 11 months, absolutely zero, zero illegal immigrants have been released into this country. President Trump and Republicans stopped this dangerous policy of catch and release. Catch illegal immigrants and release them into the country. Never again. Republicans are building on this success. And we are going to fully fund and fully support the men and women of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Border Patrol. “Now, some Democrats wrongly believe that giving official government IDs to illegal immigrants makes America safer. They’re wrong. And they know they’re wrong. They ignore every lesson that we have learned from previous deadly crashes. Remember Delilah Coleman. She was a five-year-old girl who nearly died in a car accident caused by an illegal immigrant truck driver. President Trump told her story right here in Congress during his State of the Union. “Delilah’s story is sadly becoming all too common. Just days after President Trump celebrated her remarkable, miraculous recovery during the State of the Union Address, there was another deadly crash in Indiana this time. An illegal immigrant truck driver caused it. Four American citizens were killed. Well, what about the driver? The driver entered this country because of the policies of Joe Biden and the Democrats. He received a commercial driver’s license because of the radical policies of the Democrat Governor of Pennsylvania, Josh Shapiro. This should never have happened. And my bill is written to make sure tragedies like this one will never happen again. “My bill gives states a simple choice: protect American citizens or lose federal funding. We know that there are illegal immigrants holding commercial driver’s licenses all across the United States. And there is no guarantee that all of them – or any of them – meet the same training and safety standards that are required of American truck drivers. This should concern all of us. “Many states run by Democrats would rather protect illegal immigrant criminals than protect law-abiding citizens. In my home state of Wyoming, we do things differently than what comes out of Washington and so many of these Democrat-run states. We do not issue driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. Furthermore, if an illegal immigrant is arrested driving in Wyoming with a license from another state, it’s a crime, punishable by up to six months in jail. “So, let me tell you about Wyoming. Since last October, officers in Laramie County have arrested 40, 40 illegal immigrants driving commercial vehicles. Officers in Sweetwater County have arrested 14 more. Officers in Crook County arrested more still. None of these were issued in Wyoming, but these are truck drivers going across the country, carrying cargo. They’ve been stopped because they provide danger. All these illegal immigrants were turned over to ICE and removed. That’s how the system ought to work. Every state in America should follow Wyoming’s lead. “The Senate has a duty to protect American citizens. I have a responsibility to protect the people of Wyoming. I believe the Senate should pass the No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act. I’d like to thank my colleagues Senator Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming and Senator John Cornyn of Texas for joining me and cosponsoring the legislation. We need to stop states from issuing driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. We need to keep America safe. It is time for this Senate to stand up for law-abiding American citizens, not illegal immigrants.”

Apr 22, 202616 votes

Grassley Outlines Risks of Voter Fraud, Highlights Need for SAVE America Act

The SAVE America Act has been a discussion for quite a few days on the floor of the United States Senate, and I would like to give my update on that. I’ve already spoken once on the subject…As I said, I’m a cosponsor of the SAVE America Act. This SAVE America Act ensures only U.S. citizens are registered to vote in federal elections, and it also requires photo ID when voting. Now, that’s pretty simple. It’s so simple that 85% of Americans generally support those principles of voter ID and only citizens voting. And even 71% of the Democrats in polls also support that. Now, what I’ve inserted in the record is what I’ve heard from some Iowa constituents who would say that while election integrity is important, noncitizen voting is not an issue. Now, some of my constituents even accept that noncitizen voting happens, but at the same time, they say it’s not that often. So, we should just ignore it. That’s not how the rule of law works, and we all take an oath to uphold the rule of law. And I’ll bet every one of our constituents says the rule of law is a principle [applied] in America, and it should be fully supported. It’s a fact that nobody’s vote should be diluted by people voting who are not eligible to vote. And voter fraud should not be ignored, no matter the scale. I want to share some recent examples of noncitizens registering to vote and voting in elections. The first one is the state of Montana, a state where elections have been decided by only a handful of votes. Twenty-three potential noncitizens cast nearly 150 ballots in various elections. Then, let’s go to the state of Ohio. In 2024, Ohio found 597 noncitizens registered to vote, 138 of whom voted in recent elections that lacked citizenship status. And then in Texas. Texas removed over 6,500 noncitizens from their voter rolls between the years 2020 and 2024. That’s a larger population than some small Iowa towns have. Then let’s go to New Jersey. In January, two people in New Jersey were charged with illegally voting in 2020 elections. This is in addition to other foreign nationals charged last year for registering to vote and voting in Florida and Massachusetts. My home state of Iowa takes pride in civic participation and election integrity. Even so, in my state, our Secretary of State found 277 noncitizens registered to vote and 35 who actually cast ballots in 2024. Now, maybe you’d say, “This doesn’t really matter, because most people win by thousands, or at least hundreds, of votes.” But I want to give you an example in Iowa where we had a very close election… [W]e know elections can be decided by just a handful of votes. Iowa experienced that first-hand in 2020 when one of our congressional seats was decided by six votes. That’s [Rep. Mariannette] Miller-Meeks, presently a congresswoman from Southeast Iowa. So, we have that election demonstrating how every single vote matters and why only legally-cast ballots ought to be counted. Voting [and] citizen participation [are] the sacred cornerstone of representative government.

Apr 16, 202613 votes

National Intelligence Director sued for records on Covid-19 origins and coronavirus research

Judicial Watch announced on Thursday that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) for records and communications of its employees with other government officials regarding coronaviruses, the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), and related Covid-19 research (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Office of the Director of National Intelligence (1:26-cv-01234)). Judicial Watch sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Office of the Director of National Intelligence failed to respond to a November 20, 2025, FOIA request for: Records and communications of any ODNI employees, contractors, or individuals detailed to ODNI and any of the following individuals that contain these keywords: coronavirus, COVID 19 (in any form). Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome, SARS, Wuhan, bats. The individuals are: • Ralph Baric – @unc.edu • Toni Baric – @unc.edu • Anthony Fauci – @niaid.nih.gov • Francis Collins – @nih.gov • Cliff Lane – @niaid.nih.gov • David Morens – @nih.gov • Gray Handley – @cdc.gov • Ping Chen – @cdc.gov • Dennis Carroll – @usaid.gov • Peter Daszak – @ecohealthalliance.org • Aleksei Chmura – @ecohealthalliance.org • Bob Garry – @tulane.edu • Linfa Wang – @duke-nus.edu.sg • Jeremy Farrar – @who.int (current) / @wellcome.org (former) • Vincent Munster – @nih.gov • Ian Lipkin – @columbia.edu The date range for the request is January 1, 2012, to December 31, 2024. The initial Covid-19 outbreak began in Wuhan, China, in late 2019. Covid-19 entered the conversation in the U.S. in January 2020. On October 30, 2025, as Chairman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) sent a letter to Tulsi Gabbard, director of National Intelligence, requesting records related to the Committee’s investigation into the origins of Covid-19 and risky life sciences research. Paul’s letter pointed out that members of the U.S. Intelligence Community (IC) were in contact with Dr. Ralph Baric, a coronavirus expert and collaborator with Dr. Zhengli Shi of the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), well before the outbreak of the global pandemic. Paul stated that Baric’s relationship with the Intelligence Community dated back to at least 2015: [I]n a September 2015 email, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) contacted Dr. Ralph Baric, a scientist who collaborated with the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV), to discuss a “possible project” relating to “[c]oronavirus evolution and possible natural human adaptation.” “Covid-19 affected the lives of every American and lives around the world,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “To prevent a recurrence, we need the facts.” Judicial Watch has actively sought answers to key questions about Covid-19. In March 2026, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Defense for records on funding proposals submitted to the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) Biological Technologies Office prior to the Covid-19 outbreak. The Biological Technologies Office was launched in 2014. In June 2025, Judicial Watch sued the War Department for all records regarding U.S. military personnel possibly contracting Covid-19 in October 2019 during the World Military Games in Wuhan, China. The lawsuit cited a December 2022 report issued by the Pentagon titled “Report to the Committees on Armed Services of the Senate and House of Representatives: 2019 World Military Games” which states that seven “service members who attended the games exhibited Covid-19-like signs and/or symptoms” during the time surrounding their attendance at the games. In May 2025, Judicial Watch received records from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services that revealed its plans to mandate Covid-19 vaccinations for 17 million health care employees and that only one of 4,682 claims for injuries and deaths due to Covid-19 “countermeasures” at the time was compensated. Records uncovered in 2024 from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) through a FOIA request showed an April 2020 email exchange with several officials in the bureau’s Newark Field Office referring to Dr. Anthony Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) grant to the Wuhan Institute of Virology (WIV) in China as including “gain-of-function research” which “would leave no signature of purposeful human manipulation.” Records from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) showed that a Pfizer study surveyed 23 people in 2021 to gauge reactions to its Covid vaccine booster before asking the FDA to approve it. Records from the Health and Human Services included the initial grant application and annual reports to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) fromEcoHealth Alliance, describing the aim of its work with the Wuhan Institute of Virology to create mutant viruses “to better predict the capacity of our CoVs [coronaviruses] to infect people.” Health and Human Services records included emails of then-Director of the National Institutes of Health Francis Collins showing a British physicians’ group recommended the use of Ivermectin to prevent and treat Covid-19. Records from Health and Human Services regarding data Moderna submitted to the Food and Drug Administration on its mRNA Covid-19 vaccine indicated a “statistically significant” number of rats were born with skeletal deformations after their mothers were injected with the vaccine. The documents also revealed Moderna elected not to conduct a number of standard pharmacological studies on the laboratory test animals. Food and Drug Administration records detailed pressure for Covid-19 vaccine booster approval and use. NIH records revealed an FBI “inquiry” into the NIH’s controversial bat coronavirus grant tied to the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The records also show National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) officials were concerned about “gain-of-function” research in China’s Wuhan Institute of Virology in 2016. The Fauci agency was also concerned about EcoHealth Alliance’s lack of compliance with reporting rules and use of gain-of-function research in the NIH-funded research involving bat coronaviruses in Wuhan, China. HHS records revealed that from 2014 to 2019, $826,277 was given to the Wuhan Institute of Virology for bat coronavirus research by the NIAID. NIAID records showed that it gave nine China-related grants to EcoHealth Alliance to research coronavirus emergence in bats and was the NIH’s top issuer of grants to the Wuhan lab itself. The records also included an email from the vice director of the Wuhan Lab asking an NIH official for help finding disinfectants for decontamination of airtight suits and indoor surfaces. HHS records included an “urgent for Dr. Fauci ” email chain, citing ties between the Wuhan lab and the taxpayer-funded EcoHealth Alliance. The government emails also reported that the foundation of U.S. billionaire Bill Gates worked closely with the Chinese government to pave the way for Chinese-produced medications to be sold outside China and help “raise China’s voice of governance by placing representatives from China on important international councils as high level commitment from China.” HHS records included a grant application for research involving the coronavirus that appeared to describe “gain-of-function” research involving RNA extractions from bats, experiments on viruses, attempts to develop a chimeric virus and efforts to genetically manipulate the full-length bat SARSr-CoV WIV1 strain molecular clone. HHS records showed the State Department and NIAID knew immediately in January 2020 that China was withholding Covid-19 data, which was hindering risk assessment and response by public health officials. University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB) records showed the former director of the Galveston National Laboratory at the University of Texas Medical Branch (UTMB), Dr. James W. Le Duc warned Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Institute of Virology of potential investigations into the Covid issue by Congress. HHS records regarding biodistribution studies and related data for the Covid-19 vaccines showed a key component of the vaccines developed by Pfizer/BioNTech, lipid nanoparticles (LNPs), were found outside the injection site, mainly the liver, adrenal glands, spleen and ovaries of test animals, eight to 48 hours after injection. Records from the Federal Select Agent Program (FSAP) revealed safety lapses and violations at U.S. biosafety laboratories that conduct research on dangerous agents and toxins. HHS records included emails between National Institutes of Health (NIH) then-Director Francis Collins and Fauci, the director of National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), about hydroxychloroquine and Covid-19. HHS records showed that NIH officials tailored confidentiality forms to China’s terms and that the World Health Organization (WHO) conducted an unreleased, “strictly confidential” Covid-19 epidemiological analysis in January 2020. Fauci emails included his approval of a press release supportive of China’s response to the 2019 novel coronavirus. Judicial Watch’s four-part documentary regarding the coordinated effort by the government and Big Tech to censor and suppress information on topics such as Hunter Biden’s laptop, Covid-19, and election debates is available here.

Apr 16, 202612 votes

National Intelligence Director sued for records on Covid-19 origins and coronavirus research

Apr 16, 202614 votes

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

Originally published by the Daily Wire Mass amnesty would be a slap in the face to the American people — and a betrayal of the mandate voters delivered in 2024. The American people sent Republicans to Washington to secure the border, enforce our laws, and put American workers and families first. Yet some in our own party are attempting to resurrect the deeply flawed DIGNIDAD (Dignity) Act. This bill must die in the cradle. It is not “commonsense reform.” It is mass amnesty dressed up in deceptive language, and it undermines the agenda Americans demanded. Sponsors of the legislation, led by Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar, insist the bill is not amnesty. They claim it merely brings people “out of the shadows” with earned legal status while securing the border and protecting American workers. Rep. Mike Lawler, a vocal co-sponsor, has even touted it as a bipartisan fix that codifies tough immigration policies. Salazar has pushed back against critics of the bill, suggesting opponents simply haven’t read the text. So let’s examine the legislation’s own provisions. The bill’s Sections 2102-2104 establish a version of the Dream Act that grants conditional lawful permanent resident status to illegal aliens who entered the United States before age 18, have been continuously present since January 1, 2021, meet education, employment, or military service requirements, and pass background checks. DACA recipients receive an accelerated track to conditional green cards. This is a direct path to citizenship for an estimated 2.5 million “Dreamers” who entered unlawfully as minors, eventually making them eligible for U.S. citizenship and sponsor their lawbreaking parents. The bottom line is the Dignity Act rewards breaking our laws with a clear pathway deeper into the American system. The bill goes much further, though, in Sections 2301-2305 by creating the Dignity Program, a separate track for the estimated 10.5 million illegal aliens here prior to 2021 who do not qualify for the “Dreamer” provisions. If they pay a simple $1,000 “restitution” fee, submit biometrics, pass a background check, and have no felony convictions, they receive a 7-year renewable “Dignity status” with work and travel authorizations, which they can use existing pathways to adjust to a green card (and therefore a pathway to citizenship). Sponsors emphasize that there is no path to citizenship and no access to most federal benefits. This is false, and the critical detail they downplay is this: qualifying for the program suspends deportation for anyone who applies and meets the basic criteria, including certain criminals. In practice, this effectively halts mass deportations for the overwhelming majority of the illegal alien population already here. In fact, Section 2204 of the bill explicitly allows illegal aliens deported on or after January 20, 2017 – the day President Trump was first inaugurated – to apply for the bill’s permanent resident status (the “dignity status” outlined above) directly from their home country and, if approved, to return to the United States as lawful permanent residents. This bill seeks to unwind the tremendous successes of President Trump in enforcing our nation’s immigration laws. Estimates of the unauthorized population have ranged between 12 million and 20 million. The bill’s cutoffs capture nearly all long-term illegal residents, effectively legalizing their presence and shielding them from removal. Proponents call this “earned” status. Conservatives recognize it for what it is: a de facto amnesty that signals to the world that entering illegally carries little permanent consequence once you settle in. This is unacceptable. American voters did not elect us to rubber-stamp the Biden-era border crisis or to create new legal protections that make large-scale enforcement impossible. Granting work authorization and deferred removal to millions rewards lawbreakers, undercuts wages for American blue-collar workers, and shifts enormous costs onto taxpayers for education, emergency healthcare, housing, and law enforcement. Even if the bill claims “no federal benefits,” indirect costs remain substantial, and local governments bear much of the burden. Republicans should be expanding detention capacity and streamlining deportations — not creating new protected classes of illegal aliens. The solution is not to legalize the problem; it is to enforce the law consistently and deter future illegal immigration. The American people understand this. Polling consistently shows strong support for enforcement first, not amnesty-first “compromises.” As members of the House Freedom Caucus, we stand with the voters who rejected open borders and demanded accountability. We will oppose any legislation that grants mass legal status to illegal aliens, suspends deportations on this scale, or weakens our resolve to restore the rule of law. The DIGNIDAD Act is not a solution — it is a surrender. It must be rejected outright. No amnesty. No amnesty-lite. No DIGNIDAD Act. That’s our red line. Keith Self represents Texas’s 3rd Congressional District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Andrew Clyde represents Georgia’s Ninth Congressional District and serves on the House Appropriations and Budget Committees. Sheri Biggs represents South Carolina’s Third District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. Randy Fine represents Florida’s Sixth District and serves on the House Committee on Foreign Affairs.

Apr 15, 20266 votes

Grassley Calls for Clean FISA Extension after Securing Key Transparency Reforms to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Proceedings

Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) is backing a clean, 18-month extension of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) following the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) commitment to revise its congressional attendance procedures for Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC) and Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review (FISCR) proceedings. In Grassley’s view, DOJ’s move to amend its procedures fully resolves the concerns Grassley and Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) raised in November. “I applaud DOJ for lifting its restrictions on congressional oversight of FISC and FISCR proceedings. With Congress’s access fully restored, the Trump administration has faithfully implemented the reforms Congress called for in its last FISA reauthorization and proven its commitment to transparency and the protection of civil liberties,” Grassley said. “Section 702 is one of our nation’s most valuable national security tools. Especially given the current threat environment, it’s imperative Congress doesn’t allow this critical authority to lapse. We must ensure American lives aren’t put at risk by a potential Section 702 expiration on April 20. The best path forward is for the House to pass a clean, 18-month FISA extension.” The Reforming Intelligence and Securing America Act (RISAA), signed into law in April 2024, required DOJ to allow select members of Congress and designated staff to attend and conduct oversight of the FISC or any FISCR proceeding. However, in November 2024, the Biden DOJ implemented a policy that directly conflicted with RISAA, requiring members of Congress and their staff to agree to a series of arbitrary procedures limiting congressional attendance, documentation and oversight of FISC and FISCR proceedings. The Trump DOJ has agreed to undo this Biden-era policy and implement the following reforms: Eliminate provisions that purported to allow DOJ to exclude members or staff from certain proceedings. Remove the language purporting to bar members of Congress from requesting information or documentation from participants of FISC proceedings. Remove the language purporting to bar members or staff from sharing information with other appropriately cleared individuals with a need to know. Add language requiring DOJ to “make every effort” to support the development of overflow space if the physical courtroom is full. Remove language barring staff from attending when their member attends. Remove language prohibiting note taking. Add language ensuring that the procedures do not diminish any right of Congress to receive protected whistleblower disclosures.

Apr 15, 202619 votes

Hinson Supports Bipartisan Bill Banning Federal Officials from Insider Political Gambling

Congresswoman Ashley Hinson (IA-02) joined a bipartisan group of colleagues in cosponsoring the Preventing Real-time Exploitation and Deceptive Insider Congressional Trading (PREDICT) Act, an effort aimed at banning senior federal government officials, including Members of Congress, from engaging in insider prediction market trading. “I can’t think of anything swampier than Members of Congress or other federal officials using insider knowledge to gamble on prediction markets — Americans should be able to trust that their representatives aren’t making money on current events. That’s why I’m working across the aisle to ensure Members of Congress and other senior federal officials cannot gamble on prediction markets. I will continue my fight to root out corruption in Washington.” — Congresswoman Ashley Hinson

Apr 15, 20267 votes

Democrats Propose Woke Foreign Policy

By Stefano Gennarini, J.D. C-Fam A bill on international disability rights introduced by Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA) would make diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) a permanent priority of U.S. foreign policy. It would also include programming to promote gender ideology and abortion. The “State Department Disability Policy and Accommodations Act” was referred to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations in March. It builds and funds a global network of bureaucrats at the State Department and the United Nations that would work through US-backed non-governmental organizations to push woke disability policies internationally. The bill was proposed ahead of the possible Democrat take over Congress in the mid-term elections this November. If passed into law, it would give Democrats control of key U.S. Foreign Policy programs and defend them from future reforms by a Republican president. It would force the Trump administration and future Republican administrations to promote the same woke policies and programs that President Trump ended by executive order and that Marco Rubio has been undoing at the U.S. State Department. The Kaine bill states that disability rights are “foundational to achieving global peace, stability, and prosperity.” It requires the creation of a State Department office for disabilities to “coordinate all international disability policy and international assistance provided by the United States Government.” It also establishes a U.S. ambassador-at-large for international disability rights and a U.S. International Disability Strategy. It is unlikely that Democrats believe the Bill can advance disability rights internationally in any meaningful way. Aside from urgent assistance like food and medicines, foreign aid for social programs has a poor record of success. The bill is an effort to fund Democrat-allied bureaucratic institutions at home and abroad, and to place a straitjacket on the executive branch’s ability to develop and reform U.S. foreign policy. It creates several layers of bureaucratic red tape for all U.S. missions and programs abroad, even those that aren’t directly related to disability rights. It requires the woke disability agenda to be integrated into other sources of U.S. foreign assistance, other than those specifically designated for international disability policy, including humanitarian and development assistance. All U.S. diplomats and State Department personnel will be required to receive training to promote woke disability policies in their day to day work. This expressly includes supporting non-governmental organizations abroad to build compliant woke constituencies for political organizing and lobbying in foreign countries. It also includes requirements to consult and work through the United Nations and other international organizations, foreign governments, powerful foundations, and non-governmental organizations in developing U.S. disability policy and delivering U.S. assistance. The bill specifically refers to international documents as required guidance, the “Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) guidelines and the Charter on Inclusion of Persons with Disabilities in Humanitarian Action.” These international documents were entirely created by UN bureaucrats without democratic input. They include gender ideology, DEI, and abortion programming in line with the recommendations of UN agencies and UN human rights bodies. As previously reported in the Friday Fax, abortion groups and progressive governments have targeted disability policy as a way to promote their agenda for some time.

Apr 11, 202612 votes

SEN. GRASSLEY: Q&A – Government Shutdowns Fail the American People

Q: How do government shutdowns fail the American people? A: The insufferable pattern of government shutdowns stemming from a lapse in approved funding needs to stop once and for all. Since 1981, failure to enact the 12 annual appropriation bills by the end of the fiscal year has resulted in a handful of major government shutdowns. After a 21-day shutdown during the Clinton administration, I learned shutdowns are a zero-sum game. Nobody wins. It costs money to shut down the government and it costs money to open back up. Government serves the people; it can’t serve the people when it doesn’t have spending approved to operate. That’s why I’m opposed to using shutdowns as “leverage” in an attempt to score political points or policy wins. Here’s what happens: government services are delayed; federal workers are furloughed with eventual backpay; and the economy shrinks by tens of billions of dollars. Just last fall, flawed partisan grandstanding earned the ridiculous distinction of producing the longest full federal government shutdown in history: 42 days, from Oct. 1 to Nov. 12, 2025. Most recently, reckless partisanship has led to the longest partial government shutdown – starting Feb. 14, 2026, and counting. Refusing to fund the Department of Homeland Security puts our national security at grave risk. The American people are less safe while tens of thousands of frontline federal employees worked without pay for weeks on end. It’s inconceivable the Democrat Minority Leaders in Congress are putting partisan grandstanding before homeland security, particularly when the U.S. military is engaged in conflict with Iran. Congress created the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) after 9/11 to integrate our national security apparatus to prevent another attack on U.S. soil. The American people need all of the agencies under the umbrella of DHS to be firing on all cylinders at all times, from border security and cybersecurity, to preventing agroterrorism and protecting the nation’s transportation systems and energy grid. Q: What are you doing to end government shutdowns once and for all? A: I’ve teamed up with Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma to reintroduce the Prevent Government Shutdowns Act. Our legislation would take government shutdowns off the table as a negotiating tool. If appropriation bills aren’t completed on time, funding continues at previous year levels and Congress is required to stay in Washington, D.C. until the job’s done. Our bill puts the pressure on lawmakers – where it ought to be – and removes the burden on the American people who suffer when they miss a paycheck; National Parks close; airport security screening is backed up for hours; and frontline workers at the IRS, Social Security, Veterans Affairs and Farm Service Agency aren’t at their desks to assist people. We can’t allow government shutdowns to become “business-as-usual.” I often tell my colleagues in Congress that Washington is an island surrounded by reality. During my annual 99 county meetings, I’m reminded by Iowans just how out-of-touch Washington is from the real world. In the real world, businesses, farms and households can’t operate with a blank check from the federal treasury. Washington has dug a $39 trillion hole by its borrow-and-spend mindset. The pathway to fiscal sanity must begin with a return to regular order. For two decades, I’ve pushed to convert Congress’ annual appropriations process to a two-year budget cycle. The rinse-and-repeat way of doing business is fueling deficit spending and leading to government shutdowns. In the event of a lapse in government funding, our bill would implement an automatic continuing resolution (CR) on a rolling 14-day window, based on most current spending levels enacted in the previous fiscal year to ensure continuous government services. It also would implement the following restrictions: No taxpayer-funded travel allowances for official business, except one return flight to return to Washington, D.C.; No official funds may be used for member or staff delegation travel; No other votes would be in order unless they pertain to passage of the appropriation bills or mandatory quorum calls in the Senate.

Apr 11, 202616 votes

SEN. GRASSLEY: Q&A – Making Insulin Affordable

Q: Does the INSULIN Act reduce drug prices for people with diabetes? A: As a co-sponsor of this bipartisan legislation, I’m continuing my efforts in Congress to help lower the cost of insulin for the tens of millions of Americans who rely on this lifesaving medication to thrive and enjoy a high-quality of life. According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, nearly 12% of the U.S. population lives with diabetes. The Improving Safeguards for Users of Lifesaving Insulin Now (INSULIN) Act would cap the cost of insulin at $35 per month nationwide, applying this out-of-pocket threshold for Americans on private and employer insurance. It also would create a five-year pilot program in 10 states to help make insulin available at the same cost to Americans without insurance. When enacted, patients starting in 2028 would pay the lesser of $35 for a 30-day supply, or 25% of the negotiated net price. This legislation builds on momentum I led during my chairmanship of the Senate Finance Committee to drive down prescription drug costs. My two-year bipartisan investigation with Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon examined the surging list price of insulin – a drug that’s been available for more than a century. Our investigation identified anticompetitive business practices between manufacturers and middlemen known as Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) that’s created an unsustainable cycle of price increases for patients and taxpayers. This investigation continues to be cited as evidence for PBM reform at the state and federal levels, including by the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Department of Labor and the Iowa Attorney General. I continue pushing to fix the broken system. In the past few years, legislation I’ve secured into law has saved taxpayers over $11 billion. The INSULIN Act would build on these legislative efforts to rein in and reform the business practices that enable PBMs to profiteer from rebate arrangements with drug companies. The pricing scheme encourages drug makers to spike the list price of a drug to offer a greater rebate. In so doing, they secure a priority placement on a health plan’s list of covered medications. This arrangement translates into sticker shock at the pharmacy counter for patients and leads to a bigger tab for taxpayers to foot. That’s why I’ve worked to bring accountability and transparency to the U.S. drug supply chain. So far, a handful of bills I’ve supported have become law, including the CREATES Act, the Right Rebate Act, Patient Right to Know Drug Prices Act, provisionsfrom the Prescription Drug Pricing Reduction Act, and recent PBM reform included in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2026 funding package. The INSULIN Act is part of a dozen additional bills I’m supporting at the policymaking table to help drive up innovation and drive down the cost of prescription medicine for families stretching every dollar to afford lifesaving medication. Q: How does the INSULIN Act promote savings and innovation? A: In addition to the payment cap, the comprehensive legislation would ensure patients benefit from the insulin rebates and discounts that are collected by PBMs. It would require PBMs to pass these on to insurance plan sponsors so that patients share in these savings. It also seeks to boost competition for biosimilar insulins. Although insulin was discovered a century ago, the pathway to bring more affordable versions to market is more complicated than other types of pharmaceuticals. That’s one reason branded versions of insulin have had a lock on the market for decades. Insulin is in a category of medicines known as biologics, comprised of complex molecules made from living organisms. So, unlike generic versions of pharmaceutical drugs comprised of chemicals that may use the same active ingredients as a brand-name drug, biologic drugs have a more difficult path to replicate. A copy of a biologic drug is typically called a biosimilar. I’ve pushed for reforms to provide a faster pathway to get biosimilars to market that uphold the safety, purity and potency of the original drug. For example, my bipartisan Preserve Access to Affordable Generics and Biosimilars Actwould limit anticompetitive pay-for-delay deals that prevent or delay the introduction of affordable generic drugs that are 80% cheaper than their branded counterparts. My Stop STALLING Act would deter branded pharmaceutical companies from filing sham “citizen petitions” with the FDA to interfere with the approval of generic and biosimilar medicines that compete with their own brand products. It would give the Federal Trade Commission enhanced authority to act against those who file sham petitions. Throughout our nation’s 250-year history, our free marketplace and intellectual property framework have enabled the ingenuity and innovation of Americans to pioneer lifesaving cures and treatments. We need to continue this legacy. That’s why I’m working to strengthen competition and a pathway to affordable access to pioneering medicines for generations to come.

Apr 3, 202614 votes

Lee Sounds Alarm on Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee

U.S. Senator Mike Lee (R-UT) today urged that the United States veto the nomination of pro-abortion radical Dr. Michelle Bachelet to the position of United Nations Secretary General (UNSG). In a bicameral letter with support from a large congressional coalition, Lee and his colleagues outline Bachelet’s extreme promotion for abortion as a “human right” and history of overriding state sovereignty with intimidation and coercion to push this radical agenda. The letter reads as follows: Secretary Rubio, With deep concern, we note the nomination of Dr. Michelle Bachelet to be the next United Nations Secretary General (UNSG). In her previous roles with the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), as Executive Director of UN Women, and as President of Chile, Dr. Bachelet has repeatedly prioritized an extreme abortion agenda at the expense of state sovereignty. She is an unsuitable candidate, and the United States, as a permanent member of the Security Council, should veto Dr. Bachelet’s selection. Dr. Bachelet’s past performance does not match the qualifications that President Trump’s Administration has laid out for the next UNSG. In October 2025, during remarks at a United Nations Security Council Briefing on the United Nations Organization, Ambassador Dorothy Shea said that “the United States looks forward to a Secretary-General who shares this vision of returning the UN to its founding purpose of maintaining international peace and security. The next Secretary-General should reject initiatives that fall outside the Charter’s founding purpose, prioritize accountability and transparency, and respect state sovereignty.” However, Dr. Bachelet’s previous promotion of an extreme abortion agenda suggests that, if selected as the next UNSG, she would continue the UN practice of engaging in “the propagation of divisive ideologies that undermine national sovereignty and stir controversy rather than bring member states together to address issues of common concern.” Her demonstrated ambitions and priorities, outlined below, conflict with the United States determination to bring the UN “back to the basics.” United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (2018-2022) Statement Opposing the Supreme Court Dobbs Decision Dr. Bachelet used her tenure at the Office for the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) to aggressively oppose the advancement of pro-life policy in the United States. In June 2022, the United States Supreme Court ruled in the case of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization that the United States Constitution “does not confer a right to abortion” and returned the authority to regulate abortion “to the people and their elected representatives.” Dr. Bachelet chose to respond with an official OHCHR statement calling the decision “a major setback,” a “huge blow to women’s human rights,” and a decision that “strips autonomy” from women. She expressed her view that “abortion is firmly rooted in international human rights law and is at the core of women and girls’ autonomy.” Having already set this precedent of using her office to attack United States pro-life law, as UNSG she clearly could not be trusted to respect the United States’ right to enforce pro-life laws and policies, include the Protecting Life in Foreign Assistance policy and the executive order Enforcing the Hyde Amendment (January 24, 2025). Abortion Advocacy at OHCHR Under Dr. Bachelet’s leadership, OHCHR pushed a radical abortion agenda in other ways. For example, in a 2022 speech, Dr. Bachelet asserted, “[r]estrictive abortion laws and practical barriers pose a threat to human rights…” She praised the weakening of pro-life laws in Colombia, Argentina, and Mexico. The truth is that killing an unborn child by abortion can never be construed to be a human right. Every person—born and unborn—deserves to have his or her human rights secured and protected. A 2020 OHCHR “factsheet” on abortion claims, “[t]reaty body jurisprudence has indicated that denying women access to abortion can amount to violations of the rights to health, privacy and, in certain cases, the right to be free from cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment.” The “factsheet” claims that failure to provide abortion is “a form of gender based violence against women, which can amount to torture and/or cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.” These assertions are contrary to the Geneva Consensus Declaration, signed by the United States and more than 30 other nations, which affirms that there is no international right to abortion. Failure to Oppose Coerced Abortion in China In May 2022, Dr. Bachelet traveled to China at the invitation of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) to investigate years of reports of severe human rights abuses in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. She should have honestly identified the atrocities committed by the CCP against the Uyghurs as a genocide. Instead, she released a watered-down report literally minutes before her term expired. She allowed the CCP to blatantly shield itself from an honest assessment and to sidestep responsibility for its horrific human rights abuses. In an appalling failure of leadership, Dr. Bachelet crumbled under pressure and enabled the CCP to manipulate the visit for its own advantage. Executive Director of UN Women (2010-2013) When UN Women was first established in 2010, Dr. Bachelet was appointed to be the first Executive Director. Planned Parenthood Federation of America celebrated that Dr. Bachelet’s appointment to lead UN Women “sends a clear message to the global community.” Dr. Bachelet used the UN Women platform to promote abortion. UN Women was defined as “dedicated to gender equality and the empowerment of women.” During her tenure, Dr. Bachelet declared that “reproductive rights,” a euphemistic term that encompasses elective abortion, was “absolutely fundamental” to that mission. The first major UN Women Report gives a glimpse of UN Women’s abortion advocacy. It pushes for countries to weaken pro-life laws and highlights court decisions that have undermined pro-life protections. Given this history of UN Women, we welcomed President Donald Trump’s January 7, 2026 announcement of the United States’ withdrawal from UN Women, among other international organizations, on the basis that “it is contrary to the interests of the United States to remain a member of, participate in, or otherwise provide support to [these] organizations.” It is a matter of clear concern that Dr. Bachelet would bring her approach to the leadership of UN Women to the role of UNSG in a way that is likewise contrary to the interest of the United States. President of Chile (2006-2010; 2014-2018) During her bid for a second term as President of Chile, Dr. Bachelet campaigned on weakening Chile’s pro-life law protecting unborn life in all circumstances. After her reelection, Dr. Bachelet authored and sent to Chile’s Congress a bill to legalize abortion in certain situations. It was approved by lawmakers and overcame a court challenge in August 2017. BBC Mundo described the bill as one of Dr. Bachelet’s “flagship initiatives” and called the bill’s enactment “an important political victory” for her. Conclusion Dr. Bachelet’s resume reveals a pro-abortion zealot intent on using political authority to override state sovereignty in favor of extreme agendas. She has both overtly attacked pro-life laws—including those of the United States—and sought to weaken them through intimidation and coercion. She has incorrectly claimed that abortion is a human right while failing to provide an honest assessment of the true human rights abuses committed by the CCP. She has demonstrated that she is not a candidate who will respect state sovereignty, refrain from divisive ideologies, or focus on issues of common concern to UN member states. The United States should use its veto power to prevent Dr. Bachelet from being selected as UNSG to preserve the role for a more qualified candidate. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Joining Senator Lee on the letter are United States Senators James Lankford (R-OK), Jim Banks (R-IN), Pete Ricketts (R-NE), and Todd Young (R-IN), as well as Representatives Christopher Smith (R-NJ-04), Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05), Sheri Biggs (R-SC-03), Warren Davidson (R-OH-08), Chuck Edwards (R-NC-11), Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI-05), Russ Fulcher (R-ID-01), Harriet Hageman (R-WY), Mike Haridopolos (R-FL-08), Andy Harris (R-MD-01), Diana Harshbarger (R-TN-01), Clay Higgins (R-LA-03), Brian Mast (R-FL-21), Mary Miller (R-IL-15), Andy Ogles (R-TN-05), Chip Roy (R-TX-21), John Rutherford (R-FL-05), Pete Sessions (R-TX-17), Keith Self (R-TX-03), Marlin Stutzman (R-IN-03), Glenn Thompson (R-PA-15), Daniel Webster (R-FL-11), and Joe Wilson (R-SC-02). Access the full text of the letter here. Read exclusive coverage by the Daily Wire here.

Apr 1, 202613 votes

Lee Sounds Alarm on Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee

Apr 1, 202615 votes

Cotton Introduces Bill to Ban Illegal Migrants from American Banking System

Senator Tom Cotton (R-Arkansas) introduced legislation to ban illegal migrants from the American banking system. The Know Your American Customer Act requires U.S. financial institutions to verify the legal status of new customers to ensure American banks are not helping illegal migrants break our nation’s laws. In 2025, Senator Cotton wrote a letter to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent asking that he review current rules for illegal immigrant access to the U.S. banking system. “Access to the American banking system is a privilege that should only be reserved for those who respect our laws and sovereignty. My bill will prevent illegal aliens from using our financial institutions to help them stay in our country,” said Senator Cotton. Text of the bill can be found here. The Know Your American Customer Act would: Require FDIC or NCUA-insured banks and credit unions to verify that anyone opening a new account is a U.S. citizen, a permanent resident, or is here legally on a valid visa. Customers show a driver’s license, passport, or other approved ID at account opening, the same way they already do today, with one added check for legal status. Grandfather all existing clients into the system and allow them to maintain their existing accounts or create new accounts at banks or credit unions, provided they already have a relationship with the institution in question. Make it a federal crime for anyone in the country illegally to open or maintain an account at a covered institution. That legal liability falls entirely on the individual, provided that covered institutions make a good faith effort to verify documentation and comply with the new requirements.

Mar 26, 202620 votes

Search

Scores for theiowastandard.com

Credibility

Political lean

Originality

Stories ChamberLight collected, by month

Top topics

Who they cover

Most covered

Article tone

Challenges to these scores

Articles served from theiowastandard.com

Pass The No Licenses for Illegal Drivers or Truckers Act to Protect American Citizens

Grassley Outlines Risks of Voter Fraud, Highlights Need for SAVE America Act

National Intelligence Director sued for records on Covid-19 origins and coronavirus research

National Intelligence Director sued for records on Covid-19 origins and coronavirus research

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

No Amnesty, No Surrender: Why The DIGNIDAD Act Must Die

Grassley Calls for Clean FISA Extension after Securing Key Transparency Reforms to Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Proceedings

Hinson Supports Bipartisan Bill Banning Federal Officials from Insider Political Gambling

Democrats Propose Woke Foreign Policy

SEN. GRASSLEY: Q&A – Government Shutdowns Fail the American People

SEN. GRASSLEY: Q&A – Making Insulin Affordable

Lee Sounds Alarm on Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee

Lee Sounds Alarm on Pro-Abortion United Nations Nominee

Cotton Introduces Bill to Ban Illegal Migrants from American Banking System