Elizabeth Warren

Senator from Massachusetts
Jump to  stances on the issues
Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race on March 5, 2020. This page is no longer being updated.
Warren is campaigning on the promise she will push sweeping changes that address economic inequality and root out corruption. The former Harvard law professor was a prominent voice for stricter oversight following the 2008 financial crisis before being elected to the US Senate in 2012.
University of Houston B.S., 1970; Rutgers University, J.D., 1976
June 22, 1949
Bruce Mann; divorced from Jim Warren
Amelia, Alexander (with Jim Warren)
Professor, Harvard Law School, 1995-2012;
Visiting professor, Harvard Law School, 1992-1993;
Law professor, University of Pennsylvania Law School, 1987-1995;
Professor of law, University of Texas Law School in Austin, 1983-1987;
Assistant and later associate professor at the University of Houston Law Center, 1978-1983;
Law lecturer at Rutgers School of Law, 1977-1978;
Speech pathologist at a New Jersey elementary school, early 1970s


Warren calls for larger child care investment in Biden's infrastructure plan: 'This one is personal for so many of us'
Updated 5:58 PM ET, Mon May 10, 2021
Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday called for universal government-subsidized child care as part of President Joe Biden's infrastructure proposal, describing it as a "big ticket item" that demands more resources. "The way I see it, it's got two parts. One is, this is how you boost productivity in our economy. But the other is, this is how we live our values," the Massachusetts Democrat told CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead," referring to Biden's proposed spending package. "We want to have an America that truly is about opportunity for everyone. And that includes, regardless of gender, regardless of race, regardless of the kind of family you were born into," she added. "This one is personal for so many of us." Warren, who has discussed her struggles as a working mother early in her career, didn't indicate that she would oppose an infrastructure bill that doesn't include more for child care, but she maintained that Biden's proposal "quite frankly doesn't go quite far enough." The President's American Families Plan calls for having low- and middle-income families pay no more than 7% of their income on child care for kids younger than age 5. Parents earning up to 1.5 times the median income in their state would qualify. Biden has also called for a minimum wage of $15 an hour for people in the child care workforce from the typical $12.24 hourly rate they earned in 2020. But Warren said Monday "we've got to make it universal" and "available to all of our parents." She assessed that the "full ticket" for child care and early childhood education would cost around $700 billion. "That gives us universal coverage," Warren said. "It also means we can raise the wages of every child care worker and preschool teacher in America. Those are predominantly women. Predominantly women of color." Still, even as she called on Biden to expand his child care budget proposal, Warren credited the President with mentioning the issue during his joint address to Congress last month. "The President of the United States, two weeks ago, addressed the entire nation, and he said, 'there are some things we just absolutely need.' One of the words that came out of his mouth following that sentence was child care. Child care across this nation. Early childhood education. And that is groundbreaking," she said. "We've got to make sure we've made a commitment so we don't just say, 'Oh yeah, we're glad to help if you can find child care.'"


climate crisis
Close Accordion Pane
A backer of the Green New Deal, the broad plan to address renewable-energy infrastructure and climate change proposed by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Warren has set out one of the most detailed proposals for making it happen. In June 2019, she introduced a suite of industrial proposals with names like the “Green Apollo Program” and “Green Marshall Plan.” Her Green Industrial Mobilization is the most ambitious – and expensive, with a $1.5 trillion price tag over 10 years – for spending on “American-made clean, renewable, and emission-free energy products for federal, state, and local use, and for export.” The “Green Apollo” plan would invest in scientific innovation and the “Green Marshall Plan” would facilitate the sales of new green technologies to foreign markets. In September 2019, Warren announced she would adopt the climate change proposals championed by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee, who bowed out of his climate change-focused candidacy in August 2019. That includes a 10-year plan for moving to 100% clean energy and emissions-free vehicles, as well as zero-carbon pollution from all new commercial and residential buildings by 2028. Warren says achieving those goals would take another $1 trillion in investment on top of her existing proposals, which she says would be covered by reversing the 2017 Republican tax cuts. Warren said in October 2019 that, if elected president, she would mandate all federal agencies to consider climate impacts in their permitting and rulemaking processes. When tribal nations are involved, Warren wrote in a Medium post, projects would not proceed unless “developers have obtained the free, prior and informed consent of the tribal governments concerned.” She said a Warren administration would aggressively pursue cases of environmental discrimination, and would fully fund the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s environmental health programs. Warren told The Washington Post she would recommit the US to the Paris climate accord, a landmark 2015 deal on global warming targets that Trump has pledged to abandon. More on Warren’s climate crisis policy
Open Accordion Pane
Warren says she’s a capitalist but wants regulation. “I believe in markets,” she said in a March 2019 CNN town hall, following up with a focus on rules and regulation. “Market without rules is theft.” The senator has released a tax plan that would impose a 2% tax on households with net worths of more than $50 million and an additional 1% levy on wealth above $1 billion. This tax would cover, according to Warren, a universal child care program she announced in February 2019. Warren has staked out her claim as an opposition leader against what she sees as big business overreach. Also in February 2019, she criticized Amazon for “walk[ing] away from billions in taxpayer bribes, all because some elected officials in New York aren’t sucking up to them enough. How long will we allow giant corporations to hold our democracy hostage?” She was opposed to the recent deregulation efforts around banks. Warren is calling for the breakup of companies like Google, Facebook and Amazon and advocated legislation that would make Amazon Marketplace and Google search into utilities. In July 2019, Warren released a plan aimed at Wall Street and private equity that would reinstate a modern Glass-Steagall Act, which would wall off commercial banks from investment banks, place new restrictions on the private equity industry and propose legislative action to more closely tie bank executives’ pay to their companies’ performance. She also released a set of trade policy changes that would seek to defend American jobs by negotiating to raise global labor and environmental standards. The senator wrote that she would not strike any trade deals unless partner countries meet a series of ambitious preconditions regarding human rights, religious freedom, and labor and environmental practices, among other issues. She said she would renegotiate existing trade agreements to ensure other countries meet the higher standards, and she pledged to push for a new “non-sustainable economy” designation to give her the ability to penalize countries with poor labor and environmental practices. Warren said in October 2019 that she would extend labor rights to all workers, protect pensions and strengthen workers’ rights to organize, bargain collectively and strike. More on Warren’s economic policy
Open Accordion Pane
Warren has released a plan to forgive up to $50,000 in student debt for tens of millions of Americans. The amount of relief would be tied to income, with those households making $250,000 or more shut out of the program. Households earning less than $250,000 would be eligible for relief on a sliding scale, with those reporting less than $100,000 a year eligible for the maximum. Warren unveiled the proposal as part of a larger program that would supercharge federal spending on higher education, including eliminating tuition and fees for college students at two- and four-year public institutions. It would also ask states to pay a share of the costs. Warren would expand grants for low-income and minority students to help with costs like housing, food, books and child care. Her campaign has priced the plan at $1.25 trillion over 10 years and says it would be paid for by her wealth tax. The plan would also establish a $50 billion fund for historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions. More on Warren’s education policy
gun violence
Open Accordion Pane
During the first Democratic debate, Warren called gun violence “a national health emergency” that should be treated like a “virus that’s killing our children” – and called for robust new restrictions and new investment in research. “We can do the universal background checks, we can ban the weapons of war,” Warren added, “but we can also double down on the research and find out what really works.” Though her campaign has not yet released a gun control plan, Warren has been active on the issue as a senator. In February 2018, less than two weeks after the Parkland, Florida, mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, she sent letters to nine major gun company shareholders, asking that they use their influence to pressure the industry to take steps to reduce gun violence. She supports bans on so-called assault weapons and legislation prohibiting high-capacity magazines, and has voted to expand background checks for gun buyers.
Open Accordion Pane
Warren has endorsed Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders’ “Medicare for All” bill, which would create a national government-run health care program and essentially eliminate the private insurance industry. In a plan released in November 2019, Warren said she would implement Medicare for All in two phases that would be complete by the end of her first term. Warren proposed a plan in April 2019 to drive down the maternal mortality rate among African American women. Warren has also co-sponsored legislation in the Senate aimed at lowering the price of prescription drugs that includes allowing the federal government to manufacture generic medications if their prices spike. More on Warren’s health care policy
Open Accordion Pane
Warren unveiled a plan in July 2019 to overhaul the nation’s immigration system, pledging to reverse a series of Trump administration policies and authorize her Justice Department to review allegations of abuse against detained migrants. The proposal would decriminalize crossing the border into the United States without authorization, a step first championed by former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Julián Castro, and separate law enforcement from immigration enforcement. If elected, Warren said, she would first seek to pursue her agenda through legislation, but “move forward with executive action if Congress refuses to act.” Warren also said she supports legislation that would provide a path to legal status and citizenship for undocumented immigrants. Her plan would end privately contracted detention facilities and she promises that she would “issue guidance ensuring that detention is only used where it is actually necessary because an individual poses a flight or safety risk.” Warren backs expanding legal immigration, raising the refugee cap and making “it easier for those eligible for citizenship to naturalize.” She would reduce “the family reunification backlog” and provide “a fair and achievable pathway to citizenship.” More on Warren’s immigration policy


No 'civil war' here: Republicans are at peace in their embrace of Trump
Updated 12:14 AM ET, Sat May 15, 2021
It was the bureaucratic shuffle "heard round the world." House Republicans booted Rep. Liz Cheney from their leadership trio this week, replacing the Wyoming conservative with Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York, the shape-shifting former Paul Ryan acolyte-turned-Trump-booster who, as recently as five years ago, could barely bring herself to speak the 2016 GOP nominee's name. Cheney's defenestration and Stefanik's subsequent ascent were an anticlimax, and not just because the switch-a-roo had been choreographed for weeks. Unlike Cheney, Stefanik is a reliable messenger on the one issue, above all else, that unites Republican lawmakers in Congress and many powerful positions around the country: that former President Donald Trump's lies about the 2020 election are gospel. After the dust settled on Friday, House Republicans sounded eager to move on from this particular headline-grabbing melodrama. With Cheney sidelined, they argued, the party would be free to focus on opposing the Democratic agenda and winning congressional majorities in next year's midterm elections. Those imperatives, as Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy views it, were being frustrated by Cheney's refusal to parrot the party line. If the Cheney episode is instructive in any meaningful, lasting way, it should be to make clear that the so-called "GOP civil war" is anything but. Rather, to the extent there is conflict within the party, it's a painfully one-sided rout. The Trumpist forces are on the march, in Congress and state capitols where voting rights are being rolled back as part of a growing suppression regime. Cheney's resistance, for all its sound and fury, attracted no new public support from Republican ranks. Instead, it provided yet another platform for Trump loyalists to assert their dominance over the party -- and its future. For her part, Stefanik marched out to put a bow on the episode, declaring that House Republicans "are unified in working with President Trump." The remark, in the context of what had unfolded over the previous few days, prompted some understandable eye-rolling. But beneath its apparent absurdity, a bright, glowing truth was revealed. Republicans are not only in near-perfect lockstep with Trump -- who celebrated Stefanik's promotion -- but also with the politics of Trumpism, a more potent threat to the basic functions of American democracy than the former President himself. Trumpism without Trump In a Friday evening interview with Jake Tapper on CNN's "The Lead," Cheney side-stepped the question of Republican unity and criticized the Biden administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, before explaining her concerns over the party's credibility with voters. "We've got to be able to tell people you can trust us," she said, "and trust us to be based around conservative principles and reject the lie and to protect the Constitution." That her replacement, Stefanik, is by any measure a less conservative legislator than Cheney -- a point of contention among some Republican lawmakers, but not enough to halt her rise -- underscored the GOP's clear shift from a more traditional right-wing ideological bearing to a full embrace of Trumpism's particular demands. Those willing to stand by Cheney mostly shared at least one thing -- the "former" in their titles. With the exception of Rep. Adam Kinzinger of Illinois, the leaders of the anti-Trump chorus can be divided roughly into two camps: those long-retired from politics and others, like former Sen. Jeff Flake of Arizona, who said their piece before standing down to avoid serious tests of their political mettle. A third bucket exists mostly in the states, where GOP officials -- including those, like Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who blocked Trump's effort to overturn the 2020 election result -- are using ginned-up concerns over "election integrity," sowed last November, as a basis to back restrictive new voting laws. Asked in March why he supported the legislation, given his own insistence that the last election had been fairly decided, Raffensperger drew a false equivalence between 2018 Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams' protests over the administration of that election and Trump's actions last year. After conflating the two, Raffensperger claimed that the sum effect was a "shot to the confidence of voters" that needed a remedy. In her interview with Tapper on Friday, Cheney described Raffensperger as a "really good example of the tremendous strength of local Republican officials around the country refusing to give in when President Trump was trying to pressure them." "Our system held," Cheney continued, "the institutions held and there's an ongoing danger and we need to stand up against it." That Raffensperger didn't bend to Trump's will is to his credit. That he is now parlaying that credibility to give cover to a new, more subtle form of illiberalism in his home state underscores how deep the rot goes -- and that whether Trump runs again in 2024 or not, the Republican Party is more than happy to walk through the door he busted open. Rep. Claudia Tenney offered up a similar kind of misdirection this week as she tried to squirm out of a question about Trump's post-campaign disinformation offensive. "No one knows about what happened in the election," the New York Republican told CNN on Wednesday. "We don't know if it was stolen or not, (Cheney) doesn't know, I don't know, the President doesn't know. But what I know is we need to fix it." As anti-democratic dissembling goes, Tenney's existential journey might seem mild. But it is, in many ways, the most dangerous kind. The loudest voices might get the most attention, but it is the measured ones, when peddling an outright lie about a free and fair election, that do the most to internalize the deception. Marjorie Taylor Greene and the new GOP normal Some of Tenney's colleagues have been more aggressive -- and less shameless, as they attempt to write the January 6 Capitol insurrection out of the history books. And they are not, as some apologists are quick to suggest, simply acting out of a fear of backlash from Trump's supporters. That would be impossible, in a way, because they are, in the most literal sense, representative of them. None more, of course, than Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, a freshman Republican from Georgia. Earlier on Friday, two days after Greene personally confronted Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York outside the House chamber, CNN's KFile reported on deleted video of Greene, originally streamed on Facebook Live, that showed the future congresswoman and associates stalking Ocasio-Cortez's office in 2019. The New Yorker's door was locked, but the group camped out, rattling the letter slots, scribbling nasty messages in a reception book and spewing hateful gibberish to their viewers. "We're going to go see, we're going to visit, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. Crazy eyes. Crazy eyes. Nutty. Cortez," Greene says at one point, mispronouncing "Ocasio," before continuing to taunt and yell at staffers inside the office. By McCarthy's logic -- the one that guided his support for Cheney's ouster -- either of the two episodes involving Greene and her dangerous fixation on Ocasio-Cortez might be cause for concern or even the meting out of some intra-conference discipline. "Each day spent re-litigating the past is one less day we have to seize the future," the minority leader had written in a letter to his members before they voted on Cheney's fate. "If we are to succeed in stopping the radical Democrat agenda from destroying our country, these internal conflicts need to be resolved so as not to detract from the efforts of our collective team." But for those waiting on a statement of similar concern over Greene's latest transgressions, better to not waste much time standing by. Trolling and harassment -- remember, this is not the first time Ocasio-Cortez has been verbally attacked by a Republican House member -- are not, apparently, the kinds of behaviors that earn one a substantial reprimand from GOP congressional leaders. Tempting though it might be to dismiss Greene as a back-bencher with little influence on much of anything that takes place at her day job, she is, for all the mess, a rather neat encapsulation of both Trump's power and its limits. Though she is a political disciple of the former President, she is hardly taking orders from him. Greene is the unfettered id of the Republican Party in 2021, a sideshow character who feeds on confrontation and a scorn for Democrats and the basic function of government. That kind of political nihilism, and the popular support that delivered it to Congress, cannot be reasoned away. And it is there that Cheney's high-minded rhetoric, ultimately, falls short, along with Democrats' appeals to decency. Greene is not susceptible to it and Republicans -- even the more performatively mainstream among them -- have no interest in rooting out the Trumpists now filling their ranks.