We asked Senate candidates where they stand on America’s humanitarian role in the world.
SENATE HUMANITARIAN WATCH 2026.
20 candidates. 10 Senate races. 7 questions.
We asked candidates where they stand on PEPFAR and the fight against HIV/AIDS, global health, hunger and malnutrition, and America’s humanitarian responsibilities to vulnerable people beyond our borders.
Every candidate was asked the same seven questions and given the same September 30 deadline.
Two candidates responded directly: Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine and Democratic Representative Chris Pappas of New Hampshire.
Most did not.
A failure to respond does not tell us what a candidate believes. Campaign emails can go unanswered for many reasons, and The Caring World will not interpret silence as a policy position.
So we looked further.
For candidates with public records, we examined congressional votes, legislation, official statements, campaign positions and substantive interviews. Where the evidence establishes a position, we report it. Where the evidence is mixed or incomplete, we say so.
And where we could not establish a position, we say that too.
WHAT WE ARE — AND ARE NOT — DOING
The Caring World is an advocacy effort. We believe America’s humanitarian leadership has saved millions of lives and that preserving effective humanitarian and global-health programs deserves serious public debate.
But Humanitarian Senate Watch does not endorse candidates.
We are not grading them, ranking them or telling voters what conclusions to draw.
Our purpose is simpler:
Ask the questions. Find the record. Put the information in one place. Let voters decide what importance to give it.
MAINE
Susan Collins — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: RESPONDED
Senator Collins provided the most extensive response received by Humanitarian Senate Watch.
She explicitly answered yes to our questions about restoring HIV/AIDS programs, sustaining PEPFAR, addressing hunger and malnutrition, and supporting U.S. global-health programs.
Asked about America’s humanitarian responsibility, Collins wrote that the United States has an obligation to help people in need when it has the ability to do so.
Asked whether she would support lifesaving humanitarian assistance if her party leadership opposed it, Collins did not give a simple yes or no. Instead, she pointed to her record, including opposing the Trump administration’s 2025 rescissions package and fighting a proposed $400 million rescission from PEPFAR.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Collins has a substantial current record supporting global health and humanitarian programs.
In September 2026, she urged the administration to spend approximately $1.3 billion in remaining FY2025 Global Health Programs funding on maternal and child health and combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis before the funding expired. She has also pressed the State Department to restore funding for Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, and has defended congressional appropriations against subsequent administration attempts to withhold or rescind them.
WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWN
Collins’s response establishes her stated position and identifies examples of past conduct. It cannot establish how she would vote in every future situation in which humanitarian assistance conflicts with Republican leadership or the administration.
READ SUSAN COLLINS’S COMPLETE HUMANITARIAN SENATE WATCH RESPONSE [PDF]
Troy Jackson — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Jackson spent most of his political career in Maine state government and therefore has no federal voting record on PEPFAR, USAID or congressional foreign-assistance appropriations.
During the 2026 campaign, he has taken positions on foreign policy, including calling for an end to U.S. military assistance supporting Israel’s war in Gaza and supporting full humanitarian access there. His campaign website similarly calls for ending U.S. military funding to Israel.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Jackson has articulated positions on military assistance and humanitarian access in Gaza.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient public evidence to determine Jackson’s positions on PEPFAR, global-health assistance, international hunger programs or restoration of humanitarian programs affected by recent reductions.
That is why we asked him.
ALASKA
Dan Sullivan — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Sullivan has a documented history of supporting the fight against HIV/AIDS and PEPFAR.
He has worked across party lines with Senator Cory Booker on HIV/AIDS issues and has described PEPFAR as an important American global-health achievement. In a bipartisan World AIDS Day resolution, Sullivan called for continued American leadership toward ending HIV infections and AIDS-related deaths.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Sullivan has repeatedly supported PEPFAR and continued U.S. engagement in combating HIV/AIDS internationally.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Without his questionnaire response, we could not determine how Sullivan would answer all seven questions, particularly those concerning broader humanitarian assistance and acting against party leadership.
Mary Peltola — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Peltola has a documented PEPFAR record from her previous service in the House.
In 2023, she joined other members of the Blue Dog Coalition supporting bipartisan reauthorization of PEPFAR. The coalition described the program as lifesaving and argued that humanitarian engagement also advances American interests abroad.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Peltola supported bipartisan reauthorization of PEPFAR while serving in Congress.
Her current campaign also emphasizes her willingness to challenge her own party, although the examples it cites concern Alaska issues rather than international humanitarian assistance.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient current evidence to determine how Peltola would answer the broader Humanitarian Senate Watch questions concerning global hunger, restoration of foreign assistance and America’s humanitarian responsibilities.
IOWA
Ashley Hinson — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Hinson was serving in the House when Congress considered the 2025 Rescissions Act, which included substantial reductions in previously appropriated foreign-assistance spending.
Hinson voted for passage of the legislation.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Hinson supported the 2025 rescissions legislation that reduced previously approved foreign-assistance spending.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
That vote does not by itself establish Hinson’s position on every humanitarian program covered by our questionnaire, including the future of PEPFAR and other specific global-health initiatives.
Josh Turek — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Turek serves in the Iowa legislature and therefore has no congressional voting record on PEPFAR, USAID or federal foreign-assistance appropriations.
His campaign platform concentrates its foreign-policy discussion on war, military involvement, trade and American farmers.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient evidence to determine Turek’s positions on PEPFAR, international hunger programs, global-health assistance or restoration of recently reduced humanitarian programs.
MICHIGAN
Mike Rogers — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Rogers previously served seven terms in the U.S. House and chaired the House Intelligence Committee. His public foreign-policy identity has been shaped principally by national security and intelligence.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Our review found insufficient recent evidence to characterize Rogers’s current positions on PEPFAR, international hunger assistance, global-health programs or restoration of humanitarian assistance affected by recent reductions.
Abdul El-Sayed — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
El-Sayed is a physician and epidemiologist and previously served as Detroit’s health director.
His campaign’s foreign-policy message emphasizes reducing American military spending overseas and investing more resources at home. His campaign states that he opposes direct foreign military funding while also saying the United States should lead internationally in protecting democracy, prosperity and peace.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
El-Sayed brings substantial public-health experience and has articulated a position opposing direct foreign military funding.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Military assistance and humanitarian assistance are different. We found insufficient evidence to determine how El-Sayed would approach PEPFAR, international hunger relief or the other humanitarian programs covered by our questionnaire.
GEORGIA
Jon Ossoff — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Ossoff nevertheless has a directly relevant current Senate record.
In July 2026, he led a group of senators urging Secretary of State Marco Rubio to approve the transfer of $2 billion in PEPFAR funding to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
Ossoff and the other senators warned that ending the transfer could force the closure of CDC global-health outposts and weaken America’s ability to respond to disease outbreaks.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Ossoff has taken a recent and specific action defending PEPFAR and U.S. global-health infrastructure.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Because Ossoff did not complete the questionnaire, we cannot say how he would answer all seven questions, particularly those concerning broader humanitarian responsibility and acting against party leadership.
Mike Collins — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Collins served in the House during the 2025 debate over rescinding previously approved federal spending.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Collins supported the 2025 Rescissions Act, which included reductions in previously appropriated foreign-assistance funding.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient evidence to determine his current positions on the future of PEPFAR, international hunger assistance and several of the other specific programs covered by our questionnaire.
OHIO
Jon Husted — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Husted’s Senate voting record provides some of the most direct evidence in Humanitarian Senate Watch.
During consideration of the 2025 Rescissions Act, Husted voted against amendments that would have:
protected funding for Feed the Future;
struck rescissions from Global Health Programs;
preserved funding for programs addressing disease; and
ensured that UNICEF received previously appropriated funding.
Those amendments were rejected.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
On several specific votes in July 2025, Husted supported allowing proposed foreign-assistance and global-health rescissions to proceed rather than supporting amendments protecting those funds.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Those votes do not necessarily establish what Husted would support in future appropriations legislation or how he would answer the broader humanitarian-responsibility and political-leadership questions in our questionnaire.
Sherrod Brown — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Brown has a long record on global health extending back to his service in the House.
In 2003, Brown testified before a House appropriations subcommittee in support of increased American investment in fighting tuberculosis and the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. He specifically discussed the devastating relationship between tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS in Africa.
As a senator in 2023, Brown also introduced a resolution addressing global health inequities that cited PEPFAR and the Global Fund as examples of American leadership against HIV/AIDS and other preventable diseases.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Brown has historically supported substantial American engagement in global health, including efforts against HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Without a questionnaire response, Brown’s historical record cannot automatically be treated as his answer to every question concerning the significantly changed foreign-assistance environment of 2026.
TEXAS
Ken Paxton — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Paxton has served as Texas attorney general rather than as a member of Congress and therefore has no federal voting record on PEPFAR or congressional humanitarian appropriations.
His current campaign describes its foreign policy as “America First” and criticizes Washington for sending billions of dollars to foreign countries. It says Paxton would prioritize American interests and oppose what it describes as blank checks and wasteful spending.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Paxton’s campaign expresses broad skepticism toward overseas spending and emphasizes prioritizing domestic American interests.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
That general position does not tell us whether Paxton would support or oppose specific programs such as PEPFAR, malaria and tuberculosis programs, famine relief or childhood-nutrition assistance.
James Talarico — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Although Talarico did not answer our questionnaire, his campaign website provides one of the clearest humanitarian-assistance positions among candidates who did not respond.
His foreign-policy platform calls for restoring investment in diplomacy and international development, fully funding and staffing the State Department, reversing the dismantling of USAID and restoring programs combating violence, famine, disease and human suffering.
The platform argues that those investments are both humanitarian and strategically important to the United States.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Talarico has publicly committed to restoring international-development programs addressing famine, disease and human suffering.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
His platform does not specifically answer every Humanitarian Senate Watch question, including our questions about PEPFAR and whether he would take these positions if opposed by his party leadership.
NORTH CAROLINA
Roy Cooper — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Cooper’s public career has primarily been in North Carolina government, including two terms as governor. He therefore has no congressional voting record on PEPFAR or federal foreign-assistance appropriations.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Our review found insufficient evidence to determine Cooper’s positions on PEPFAR, global-health funding, international hunger programs or restoration of humanitarian assistance affected by recent reductions.
Michael Whatley — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Whatley has not served in Congress and therefore has no federal voting record on the programs covered by Humanitarian Senate Watch.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient evidence to determine Whatley’s positions on PEPFAR, global health, international hunger programs or restoration of recently reduced foreign assistance.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Chris Pappas — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: RESPONDED
Pappas answered YES to all seven questions submitted by Humanitarian Senate Watch.
That means he stated support for restoring HIV/AIDS programs, sustaining PEPFAR, combating hunger and malnutrition, supporting global-health programs and maintaining an American humanitarian role abroad.
He also answered yes when asked whether he would vote for lifesaving humanitarian assistance if his party leadership opposed it, and whether he would publicly advocate for that position.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Pappas’s questionnaire provides a direct statement of his current positions on all seven Humanitarian Senate Watch questions.
WHAT REMAINS UNKNOWN
As with every candidate, stated campaign positions cannot establish how a future senator would act in every circumstance.
READ CHRIS PAPPAS’S COMPLETE HUMANITARIAN SENATE WATCH RESPONSE [PDF]
John E. Sununu — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Sununu previously served in both the House and Senate, giving him a historical federal record.
His current campaign emphasizes his previous congressional service, fiscal restraint, independence and willingness to challenge Washington, but its principal campaign materials do not prominently address PEPFAR or international humanitarian assistance.
WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS
Sununu has substantial previous federal experience and a historical record on international affairs.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
Without a current questionnaire response or comparably recent statement, we could not establish his 2026 positions on PEPFAR, international hunger assistance, global health or restoration of humanitarian programs.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Darline Graham — Republican
QUESTIONNAIRE: DELIVERY NOT CONFIRMED
Our attempted email contact was rejected by the recipient’s email system. Because we cannot establish that our questionnaire successfully reached Graham’s campaign, we do not classify her as a candidate who received the questionnaire and failed to respond.
Graham was appointed to the Senate on July 13, 2026, to fill the vacancy created by the death of her brother, Senator Lindsey Graham. Her short tenure means she has had far less opportunity than longer-serving senators to establish a record on the programs examined by Humanitarian Senate Watch.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient evidence to determine Graham’s positions on PEPFAR, global health, international hunger programs or the broader humanitarian questions in our questionnaire.
Annie Andrews — Democrat
QUESTIONNAIRE: NO RESPONSE
Andrews is a pediatrician rather than a current member of Congress and therefore has no federal voting record on PEPFAR or humanitarian appropriations.
Her campaign platform includes health care, immigration and opposition to what it calls endless wars, but its principal published priorities do not establish positions on the specific international humanitarian programs covered by Senate Watch.
WHAT WE COULD NOT ESTABLISH
We found insufficient evidence to determine Andrews’s positions on PEPFAR, global-health assistance, international hunger programs or restoration of recently reduced humanitarian assistance.
WHAT WE FOUND
Humanitarian Senate Watch began with a simple idea:
Ask candidates for the United States Senate what they believe America should do for some of the world’s most vulnerable people.
The results were revealing—but not always because of what candidates said.
Of the 20 candidates included in Senate Watch, two responded directly to our seven questions: Republican Susan Collins of Maine and Democrat Chris Pappas of New Hampshire.
For many of the remaining candidates, we were able to find at least some relevant evidence in congressional votes, legislation, campaign platforms or public statements.
For others, we found remarkably little.
That does not mean those candidates oppose humanitarian assistance.
It means we cannot tell voters where they stand.
And that may be one of the more important findings of this project.
Candidates for the United States Senate routinely publish detailed positions on taxes, immigration, energy, abortion, guns, health care, national security and other major issues.
It is considerably harder in many campaigns to determine what a candidate believes America should do about HIV/AIDS, malaria, tuberculosis, famine, severe childhood malnutrition and other preventable causes of suffering and death beyond our borders.
Yet senators make those decisions.
They vote on foreign-assistance appropriations. They determine funding for global health. They decide the future of programs such as PEPFAR. They vote on presidential attempts to rescind money Congress has already appropriated.
And sometimes a single senator’s vote can matter.
Humanitarian assistance will not be the deciding issue for most voters in 2026. We never expected it to be.
But the people whose lives can depend upon these programs do not vote in American elections. They don't have campaign consultants, political action committees or television advertising.
Their interests enter American politics only when someone chooses to raise them.
That is why The Caring World created Humanitarian Senate Watch.
We asked.
We documented what candidates told us.
We examined what the public record could tell us when they did not.
Now voters can decide what importance to give the answers.
THE SEVEN QUESTIONS
Every candidate was asked the same seven questions:
1. RESTORING THE FIGHT AGAINST AIDS
Will you support restoring U.S. funding and programs that have been cut, withheld or disrupted for HIV/AIDS prevention, testing and treatment, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa?
2. PROTECTING PEPFAR
Will you support full and sustained funding for PEPFAR and oppose efforts to weaken its ability to deliver HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment?
3. HUNGER AND MALNUTRITION
Will you support U.S. humanitarian programs addressing famine, severe hunger and childhood malnutrition in Africa and elsewhere?
4. GLOBAL HEALTH
Will you support U.S. programs fighting malaria, tuberculosis and other preventable infectious diseases affecting vulnerable populations?
5. AMERICA’S HUMANITARIAN RESPONSIBILITY
Do you believe the United States, as one of the world’s wealthiest nations, has a responsibility to help protect vulnerable people beyond our borders when American assistance can save lives?
6. POLITICAL COURAGE
If legislation restoring lifesaving humanitarian assistance came before the Senate, and your vote could determine the outcome, would you vote to restore that assistance even if your party’s leadership opposed it?
7. LEADERSHIP
Would you publicly advocate for that position and encourage members of your own party to join you?
ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS
Susan Collins — Complete Response [PDF]
Chris Pappas — Complete Response [PDF]
Humanitarian Senate Watch 2026 is a project of The Caring World. The Caring World does not endorse candidates. Information reflects responses and publicly available records reviewed for this project. Readers are encouraged to review the candidates’ original responses and cited source material.