New Mexico

Economically crippling anti-ICE bill heads to governor’s desk

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In a move critics are calling reckless, ideologically driven, and economically devastating, New Mexico Democrats have fast-tracked House Bill 9 (HB 9)—the so-called “Immigrant Safety Act”—through the Legislature and toward the governor’s desk, setting the stage for what opponents warn could be mass job losses, municipal insolvency, and a collapse of rural economies in Otero County, Torrance County, and Cibola County.

The bill cleared the Senate late Tuesday night on a 24–15, near party-line vote after hours of heated debate. The House had already passed the measure earlier in the session after a lengthy debate led by Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo), who offered an amendment to make counties whole that was narrowly defeated. Rural communities are now having to brace for impact.

HB 9 bans local governments from contracting with the federal government to operate Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention facilities, prohibits renewals of existing agreements, and bars the use of public property for federal civil immigration detention. Supporters framed the bill as a moral stand against what they described as a “cruel” federal immigration system. But even lawmakers who oppose ICE policies acknowledged the bill’s severe economic consequences.

“This is going to devastate my community,” warned Sen. Ant Thornton, R-Sandia Park, whose district includes the Torrance County Detention Facility. Thornton unsuccessfully offered an amendment that would have reimbursed counties for lost taxes, jobs, and economic activity. “Estancia is going to turn into a ghost town,” he said.

Sen. George Muñoz, D-Gallup, whose district includes Cibola County, voted against the bill and issued an even starker warning. “You want to see a town dry up like a tumbleweed and blow away—get ready,” Muñoz said, calling Grants a town “built on prisons.” He added, “We have to figure out how we’re going to help these people… and now it’s going to disappear.”

Those pleas fell on deaf ears. An amendment in the Senate that would have made affected counties whole was narrowly defeated by a single vote, in part because two senators—Jay Block and Craig Brandt of Rio Rancho—were absent for the vote, a procedural twist that sealed the economic fate of the three counties.

The stakes are enormous. In Cibola County alone, local officials estimate 180 direct job losses, with total economic impacts exceeding $20 million annually when payroll, secondary spending, and multiplier effects are considered. Village of Milan Manager Candi Williams warned lawmakers that her community of roughly 2,300 residents could lose population eligibility thresholds tied to federal grants. “I struggle when people ask me why it feels like the Legislature hates our little community,” Williams told senators.

Even lawmakers who supported the bill conceded the harm. Rep. Patricia Lundstrom, D-Gallup, said her region would lose jobs and tax revenue. “We need help. We need help,” she pleaded. House Speaker Javier Martínez responded by offering capital outlay funds—an ad-hoc gesture critics say does not replace permanent jobs or stabilize county budgets.

Opponents also argue HB 9 will not end detention, but merely export it to other states, stripping New Mexico of any oversight while separating detainees from families and attorneys. Sen. Jim Townsend, R-Artesia, put it bluntly: “We have no idea where they’re going… and we’ll have absolutely no way to ensure their lives.”

New Mexico House Republicans issued a forceful call for a veto, warning HB 9 undermines public safety, threatens jobs, and invites constitutional challenges. In a statement, Republicans said the bill “represents a dangerous step away from the rule of law” and emphasized that ending cooperation with federal authorities “makes it harder to remove individuals convicted of serious crimes.”

Calls to the governor’s office should be made to (505) 476-2200. 

Despite those warnings, Democratic leaders pushed HB 9 through at breakneck speed. With the governor poised to sign it, rural New Mexico now faces what critics describe as an economically dooming, morally performative, and profoundly destructive law—one that sacrifices working families and entire counties to make a political statement that won’t stop federal immigration enforcement, but will shatter local economies.

Economically crippling anti-ICE bill heads to governor’s desk Read More »

Power grab: McQueen pushes plan to silence the public and fast-track bad bills

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico lawmakers are poised to consider two sweeping and dangerous constitutional amendments that would permanently upend how the state Legislature operates — and critics warn the proposals would crush transparency, overwhelm citizen legislators, and ram through controversial policies with little public input.

House Joint Resolutions 6 and 7, sponsored by far-left Rep. Matthew McQueen of Santa Fe, would fundamentally rewrite Article IV, Section 5 of the New Mexico Constitution. Together, the measures would abolish the state’s long-standing 60-day and 30-day legislative session structure and replace it with two 45-day sessions every year, while simultaneously removing all subject-matter limits on what bills can be introduced in short sessions.

Under current law, New Mexico holds a 60-day session in odd-numbered years to address major policy issues, while even-numbered years are limited to a focused 30-day budget session. That balance exists for a reason: New Mexico’s Legislature is made up of unpaid, part-time citizen lawmakers with limited staff and resources.

HJR 6 would blow that structure apart.

Instead of focused sessions with clear guardrails, lawmakers would face nonstop 45-day sessions, beginning earlier in January and colliding with federal holidays like Martin Luther King Jr. Day — all while attempting to process hundreds, if not thousands, of bills.

Even worse, HJR 7 removes all restrictions on bills in even-numbered years, meaning lawmakers could introduce legislation on any subject — from tax hikes to gun control to sweeping regulatory mandates — during what was once a limited budget session.

Legislative analysts themselves warn this would dramatically increase workload pressures. Historically, sessions without subject-matter limits see nearly double the number of bills introduced, overwhelming committees, staff, and the public alike.

The resolutions would also make it easier for lawmakers to revive failed or vetoed legislation from prior sessions and push override votes long after the original debate has ended, further eroding accountability.

Despite claims that the changes would “balance out” costs, fiscal reports show taxpayers would still be on the hook for tens of thousands of dollars per constitutional amendment for ballot printing, newspaper publication, voter guides, and expanded ballots statewide.

Perhaps most troubling, these amendments would permanently lock these changes into the state constitution, making them extremely difficult to undo — even if the experiment fails.

The House Government, Elections, and Indian Affairs Committee will hear HJR 6 and HJR 7 on:

Monday, February 2, 2026
8:30 a.m.
Room 305 (Roundhouse)

New Mexicans can also join remotely via Zoom:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/87880458384

Citizens concerned about transparency, legislative overload, and radical constitutional changes are urged to call and email committee members immediately and strongly oppose HJR 6 and HJR 7.

Once these amendments are in the constitution, there is no easy way back. It’s also worth noting that McQueen will be leaving the Legislature after this current session, so he would be crippling the current process for future lawmakers — fleeing a sinking ship of his own creation.

Power grab: McQueen pushes plan to silence the public and fast-track bad bills Read More »

Anti-ICE bill heads to House floor today, threatening rural economic collapse

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A sweeping and highly controversial piece of legislation that critics warn could devastate rural New Mexico communities is now headed to the New Mexico House floor, where it will be debated today beginning at noon, with a live webcast available on the Legislature’s website under the “Webcast” tab.

House Bill 9 (HB 9), misleadingly titled the “Immigrant Safety Act,” has already cleared the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee and the New Mexico House Judiciary Committee, despite mounting concerns from counties, bond experts, law enforcement, and constitutional scholars.

At stake is nothing less than the economic survival of entire rural counties, particularly Otero County, Torrance County, and Cibola County—communities that rely heavily on intergovernmental service agreements (IGSAs) with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to operate detention facilities that process individuals already in the federal immigration system.

A Bill With Massive Consequences

HB 9 would force counties to terminate existing ICE agreements, prohibit any future cooperation, and even bar the use or lease of public property for immigration detention purposes. While supporters frame the bill as a moral stand, critics argue it is an ideological weapon with catastrophic real-world consequences.

County-level analyses warn the bill could wipe out hundreds of jobs per facility, eliminate tens of millions of dollars in annual local revenue, and trigger defaults on outstanding revenue bonds tied directly to detention center operations. In Otero County alone, officials estimate the loss of approximately 284 jobs and the potential default on more than $16 million in outstanding bonds—a scenario that could plunge the county into fiscal crisis or bankruptcy.

“These aren’t abstract numbers,” one county official warned. “These are real families, real paychecks, and real public services that will disappear if this bill becomes law.”

No Backfill, No Plan, No Accountability

Notably, HB 9 contains no appropriation to offset lost revenue, no transition assistance for affected counties, and no economic development plan to replace the jobs it would destroy. Rural communities are simply expected to absorb the shock—despite already facing higher unemployment, limited tax bases, and fewer economic alternatives.

Even more troubling, analysts warn the bill could violate both federal constitutional principles and state law protections for bondholders, exposing New Mexico to costly litigation while further destabilizing local governments.

Public Safety and Due Process at Risk

HB 9 also raises serious public safety and due process concerns. By eliminating in-state detention capacity, individuals currently processed in New Mexico would likely be shipped out of state—farther from courts, attorneys, and families. District attorneys have warned this could undermine pending criminal prosecutions, delay justice for victims, and complicate coordination between state and federal authorities.

The bill would deport illegal aliens out-of-state to places like Texas, Florida, and others, where the detainees will be even farther away from family and legal connections, not to mention, the places they will be sent like Camp East Montana on Fort Bliss in El Paso are ad-hoc tent cities where modern conveniences are inaccessible to those being held. 

Rather than ending detention, critics argue the bill would simply export the problem, sending detainees to facilities in other states with less oversight while stripping New Mexico of any practical role or visibility.

A Defining Vote

With HB 9 now on the House floor, lawmakers face a defining decision: stand with rural New Mexico communities and working families—or sacrifice them on the altar of political ideology.

The debate is expected to be contentious, with far-reaching implications not just for immigration policy, but for jobs, public safety, constitutional governance, and the economic future of entire regions of the state.

New Mexicans can watch the proceedings live today beginning at noon via the NMLegis.gov webcast, as the Legislature considers a bill that critics say New Mexico simply cannot afford.

Anti-ICE bill heads to House floor today, threatening rural economic collapse Read More »

Gabe Vasquez goes full anti-ICE, smears federal agents in op-ed

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Far-left Democrat Gabe Vasquez is once again drawing sharp criticism after publishing an incendiary op-ed that demonizes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), echoes open-borders talking points, and casts federal law enforcement as rogue actors—while downplaying the real consequences of lax border policy on New Mexico communities.

In the Albuquerque Journal op-ed, Vasquez launches an extraordinary attack on ICE officers and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), accusing agents of operating “with little to no regard for the law,” alleging they are “detaining American citizens and legal residents with impunity,” and claiming the agency has “violently” ended lives. He writes, “We would not tolerate this behavior from any other law enforcement agency,” a sweeping indictment that critics say smears thousands of federal officers who risk their lives daily to stop drug trafficking, human smuggling, and cartel activity.

Vasquez’s rhetoric relies heavily on emotionally charged anecdotes while offering no substantiated evidence of the systemic abuses he alleges. He describes DHS as a “rogue agency” propped up by what he calls a “$150 billion slush fund,” and he derides enforcement tools such as border barriers, sneering that “billion-dollar walls…can be beaten with $4 work gloves.” The language mirrors long-standing progressive hostility toward border enforcement, framing any meaningful increase in ICE resources as inherently suspect.

Despite representing a district that spans roughly 180 miles of the U.S.–Mexico border—an area ravaged by fentanyl trafficking, cartel smuggling routes, and repeat border crossers—Vasquez voted against additional ICE funding and used his op-ed to justify that vote. He admits Congress considered a spending bill that would have provided ICE with $10 billion, but complains it lacked “substantive reform,” including mandates on agent attire and expanded oversight provisions. In other words, rather than prioritize enforcement capacity, Vasquez demanded ideological conditions that critics say would further hobble an already overstretched agency.

This posture is consistent with Vasquez’s broader record. As previously reported, he has repeatedly sided with the progressive wing of his party in opposing border enforcement measures while supporting policies that expand legal pathways and reduce detention—policies critics argue functionally reward illegal entry and encourage further migration surges. While Vasquez insists he opposes “open borders,” his proposals align closely with national Democratic plans that emphasize legalization, reduced enforcement, and bureaucratic oversight over deterrence.

In the op-ed, Vasquez attempts to inoculate himself from criticism by listing border-related experiences—claiming he has “walked the border,” “ridden horseback” in the Bootheel, and convened stakeholder meetings. Yet he simultaneously dismisses the very agents tasked with enforcing the law in those areas, accusing them of “lawlessness and disregard for American rights.” That contradiction has not gone unnoticed by ranchers, law enforcement, and border residents who say the congressman’s words undermine morale and embolden criminal networks.

Vasquez also uses the piece to attack Trump administration officials, calling for the removal of DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and blaming her for “chaos” in American neighborhoods. He even drags unrelated issues into the argument, alleging failures in disaster response in Texas and Ruidoso—claims critics say are designed to inflame rather than inform.

Ultimately, the op-ed underscores a familiar pattern: when given a choice between backing law enforcement or appeasing the activist left, Vasquez chooses the latter. While he claims Americans shouldn’t have to choose “between open borders or the horrific violence from ICE,” his policy prescriptions—expanded legal pathways, reduced detention, and increased oversight—amount to the same failed approach that has produced record crossings, overwhelmed border communities, and historic drug flows.

For many New Mexicans, the question is no longer whether the system is broken—it is whether their congressman is willing to enforce the law. Vasquez’s op-ed suggests he is not.

Gabe Vasquez goes full anti-ICE, smears federal agents in op-ed Read More »

Call to action: Oppose job-killing anti-ICE bill today in NM House committee

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

On Thursday, January 22, at 1:30 p.m. (or 15 minutes after the House floor session, whichever is later), the New Mexico House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee will meet in Room 317 to hear House Bill 9 (HB 9)—a sweeping, far-left proposal that would effectively shut down Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention operations across New Mexico.

Branded by its sponsors as the “Immigrant Safety Act,” HB 9 goes far beyond symbolic politics. If enacted, it would prohibit counties and other public bodies from cooperating with federal authorities on civil immigration detention, force the termination of existing agreements, and invite litigation by empowering the attorney general or district attorneys to sue local governments for non-compliance. In practice, that means closing or dismantling ICE processing facilities where criminal aliens are lawfully detained and processed before removal—regardless of the devastating economic and public-safety consequences for local communities.

Jobs, Revenues, and Entire Communities at Risk

HB 9 would directly threaten thousands of jobs and tens of millions of dollars in local economic activity in rural New Mexico—particularly in Otero County, Cibola County, and Torrance County. These counties—represented by both Democrats and Republicans—host detention facilities that serve as economic anchors in regions with few comparable employers.

According to county-level analysis, Otero County alone stands to lose approximately 284 direct jobs, along with $3.9 million annually in economic contributions and state tax revenue. Across all three counties, losses could reach into the tens of millions of dollars per year, triggering layoffs, reduced public services, and even defaults on outstanding revenue bonds tied to detention facility operations. State law explicitly prohibits legislation that impairs existing bond obligations, raising serious legal and fiscal red flags.

There is no appropriation in HB 9 to offset these losses. Counties are offered no replacement funding, no transition assistance, and no economic development plan—only the hollow promise that rural New Mexico should somehow “figure it out” after the state pulls the rug out from under them.

Public Safety and Constitutional Concerns

HB 9 would also put New Mexico on a collision course with federal law. Immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility, and Supreme Court precedent makes clear that states may not obstruct or undermine federal immigration operations. Legal analyses warn HB 9 could spark costly litigation under the Supremacy Clause and intergovernmental immunity, draining taxpayer dollars while creating chaos in federal-state relations.

Even more troubling, shutting down in-state facilities does not end detention. It simply forces detainees—many with criminal histories—to be transferred out of state, farther from courts, attorneys, and families. That outcome undercuts due process, increases federal costs, and removes New Mexico’s ability to oversee conditions—while doing nothing to improve public safety or humanitarian outcomes.

Take Action Now

This bill is not about safety. It is about ideology—and rural New Mexico will pay the price.

The House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee needs to hear from you. Respectfully urge members to vote NO on HB 9 and stand with working families, local governments, and the rule of law.

Committee Hearing Details

Email Committee Members

  • Rep. Joanne J. Ferrary (Chair): joanne.ferrary@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Angelica Rubio (Vice Chair): angelica.rubio@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. John Block: John.Block@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Stefani Lord: stefani.lord@nmlegis.gov
  • Rep. Andrea Romero: andrea@andrearomero.com
  • Rep. Liz Thomson: liz.thomson@nmlegis.gov

Tell them: HB 9 will kill jobs, crush rural counties, invite lawsuits, and make New Mexico less safe—without solving a single real problem. Oppose HB 9.

Call to action: Oppose job-killing anti-ICE bill today in NM House committee Read More »

Juvenile crime crackdown gains steam, but MLG’s gun agenda ignites division

12 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

In her final State of the State address Tuesday, Michelle Lujan Grisham laid out an expansive agenda for the 30-day legislative session, pitching it as a call for bipartisanship while reviving some of the most divisive proposals of her two terms — including a renewed push to restrict firearms in a state already grappling with violent crime.

Lujan Grisham, serving the final year of her second term, urged lawmakers to “go big” during what she said is not a “victory lap,” but a final opportunity to cement her legacy. “We’re not slowing down — we’re pushing forward,” she told a packed House chamber.

While the governor’s speech drew applause across party lines on certain issues, her call for an assault weapons ban and expanded “gun dealer accountability” legislation once again exposed deep divisions at the Roundhouse.

Republicans argued the proposal targets law-abiding New Mexicans while doing little to stop violent offenders. “In the middle of a crime crisis, taking away families’ right to defend themselves is dangerous and wrong,” said Rep. John Block, adding that House Republicans will not support policies that “punish responsible gun owners instead of holding violent criminals accountable.”

Even as Democrats applauded the gun control portion of the speech, GOP lawmakers emphasized that the governor’s own remarks underscored a central contradiction: New Mexico’s public safety crisis is driven by repeat violent offenders, not lawful firearm ownership.

Where consensus did emerge was on crime — particularly violent crime and serious juvenile offenses. Lujan Grisham called for tougher penalties for felons in possession of firearms, stricter pre-trial detention for violent suspects, and reforms aimed at severe juvenile crime.

“Dangerous, violent crimes and the persons who commit them must be held accountable without hesitation and without exception,” the governor said. “Until everyone is safe… we’re just not done.”

That emphasis was welcomed by Republicans, who have long pushed for stronger enforcement and detention tools. Senate Minority Leader William Sharer said Republicans are “on the same page” with the governor when it comes to keeping violent offenders off the streets and fixing a juvenile justice system many say has failed both victims and offenders.

Health care policy also emerged as an area of genuine overlap. Lujan Grisham called for “real, meaningful medical malpractice reform,” a line that drew loud applause from Republican lawmakers who argue New Mexico’s liability environment is driving doctors out of the state.

“We want to collaborate on real solutions,” Sharer said following the address. “Bring doctors to New Mexico, and keep the bad guys off the street.”

The governor also pushed for interstate medical licensing compacts, expansion of the University of New Mexico’s medical school, and eliminating the gross receipts tax on medical services — proposals broadly supported across party lines.

Still, Republicans cautioned that cooperation will falter if the session becomes dominated by ideological fights over firearms, climate mandates, and universal taxpayer-funded child care, which carries a projected $160 million annual price tag.

Despite repeated appeals to bipartisanship, applause patterns during the speech suggested unity will be selective. When Lujan Grisham called for an assault weapons ban, only Democrats stood. When she called for malpractice reform and tougher crime penalties, Republicans were among the first to rise.

As the 30-day session begins, lawmakers appear poised to work together where policy meets reality — particularly on violent crime and health care — while preparing for familiar battles over gun rights that could again overshadow areas of real agreement.

Juvenile crime crackdown gains steam, but MLG’s gun agenda ignites division Read More »

‘So corrupt it’s incredible’: SOS triggered after Trump exposes NM election fails

25 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

President Donald Trump sharply criticized New Mexico’s election system on Friday, calling the state’s elections “so corrupt it’s incredible” during a White House roundtable focused on rural health care.

Trump made the remarks in response to a question from a woman who identified herself as a nurse practitioner and a county commissioner from northwest New Mexico. She raised concerns about medical compacts and noted that state lawmakers are expected to take up the issue during the upcoming 30-day legislative session.

Rather than addressing the policy question directly, Trump pivoted to election integrity, asserting that New Mexico’s election practices prevent Republicans from winning statewide races.

“They’ve got to clean up their elections in New Mexico because those elections are so corrupt it’s incredible,” Trump said. “If they clean it up, we win by a lot. But they are really corrupt elections,” the Albuquerque Journal reported.

Trump went further, describing New Mexico as “one of the more corrupt states” when it comes to elections. “We have great love in New Mexico, but the elections are so corrupt there’s not much you can do about it,” he said, adding that similar issues exist in “numerous states,” according to the report.

The roundtable was broadcast Friday morning on C-SPAN from the East Room of the White House and followed an administration announcement last month that $10 billion would be invested nationwide through the Rural Health Care Transformation Program. Under the initiative, New Mexico is slated to receive $211 million to support rural hospitals.

Trump’s comments drew swift pushback from the far-left Democrat-run New Mexico Secretary of State’s Office, which characterized the remarks as inaccurate and offensive. Alex Curtas, a spokesman for the office, said the president’s comments were “both insulting and uninformed,” according to the Journal.

“If the President was paying attention, he would know New Mexico runs the nation’s top-ranked elections and that we are well-known for our security, access, and accuracy,” Curtas said in a statement.

Curtas pointed to the Elections Performance Index, a national report that has ranked New Mexico at the top among states based on voter turnout, election infrastructure, wait times at polling places, and administration of voting by mail. He also highlighted specific security measures used in the state, including 100% paper ballots, mandatory post-election audits, air-gapped vote-counting systems, and ongoing voter roll maintenance.

“New Mexicans of all political stripes are proud of our state’s strong election security measures,” Curtas added.

Republicans, however, defended Trump’s remarks. Amy Barela, chairwoman of the Republican Party of New Mexico, said Trump’s comments were “totally valid,” according to the Journal. She accused far-left Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver (who is running for lieutenant governor) of failing to comply with federal election integrity laws and prioritizing politics over public confidence in elections, of which her office is refusing to release information — casting even more doubt on the credibility of the state’s electoral system, as we previously reported.

“At a time when confidence in our electoral process is at an all-time low, Toulouse Oliver, like each one of her Democratic peers, is putting politics over the people of New Mexico — and people are tired of it,” Barela said in an email response.

The event also underscored broader health care funding debates. While the new rural health care program directs billions to states, including New Mexico, H.R. 1 — the large tax package passed in July — made significant cuts to Medicare, Medicaid, and food assistance programs. In New Mexico, changes to Medicaid could result in the loss of an estimated $8.5 billion in federal funding between 2028 and 2037, according to a New Mexico Health Care Authority guide cited by the Albuquerque Journal.

Toulouse Oliver keeps freaking out after Trump’s DOJ sues her for ‘open defiance’

‘So corrupt it’s incredible’: SOS triggered after Trump exposes NM election fails Read More »

New ad torches Gabe Vasquez for voting against NM funds, then taking credit

17 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

EXCLUSIVE — The National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) is launching a new paid digital advertising campaign targeting far-left Democrat Gabe Vasquez, accusing him of voting against millions of dollars in federal funding for southern New Mexico communities—then attempting to take credit for the very projects he opposed.

According to the NRCC, the new ads focus on Vasquez’s vote against nearly $2 million in targeted community funding, including $1 million for improvements to the Town of Mesilla Town Hall and $850,000 for workforce training in Bayard. Despite voting “no,” Vasquez later publicly touted the funding as a win for his district.

“Gabe Vasquez voted against critical federal funds for New Mexico and then tried to take credit for wins he had nothing to do with,” said NRCC spokesman Reilly Richardson in a statement. “New Mexicans deserve honest representation who will fight for them, not a shameless political opportunist who will say and do anything to get elected.”

The digital ad campaign uses blunt language, accusing Vasquez of “gambling with New Mexicans’ lives” and highlighting his vote to block funding intended for job training and local infrastructure—priorities that are particularly critical in rural and border-region communities across New Mexico’s Second Congressional District.

The NRCC’s latest attack builds on a growing record of votes that Republicans say show Vasquez is out of step with his constituents. As previously reported by the Piñon Post in November during the prolonged Democrat federal government shutdown, Vasquez voted against legislation that ultimately delivered more than $32 million in funding to communities and military installations tied to NM-02.

That earlier vote came after a 42-day government shutdown that disrupted federal operations nationwide and left thousands of New Mexicans—including TSA agents, border personnel, and military families—working without pay. While a bipartisan agreement eventually ended the shutdown, Vasquez voted against the final package.

According to information shared exclusively with the Piñon Post, the legislation Vasquez opposed included funding for several major installations and projects, such as Cannon Air Force Base, Holloman Air Force Base, and Kirtland Air Force Base, as well as the Mesilla and Bayard projects now featured in the NRCC ad. In total, the bill included more than $32 million in investments benefiting southern New Mexico.

Political operatives note that Vasquez’s vote is especially vulnerable to attack because it included funding he had personally requested or discussed with local leaders. Delanie Bomar, a former New Mexico GOP staffer now working at the Republican National Committee, previously told the Piñon Post that Vasquez opposed $1.85 million for his own communities—including funds tied to meetings he held with Mesilla officials and the National Center for Frontier Communities.

National strategists say the message that Vasquez “went to Washington and forgot about New Mexicans” resonates strongly in NM-02, a district known for tight elections and limited patience for lawmakers perceived as prioritizing party ideology over local needs.

With the new digital ads, Republicans are signaling they intend to make Vasquez’s voting record a central issue heading into the next election cycle. In a district where military installations, workforce development, and small-town infrastructure are economic lifelines, opponents argue that voting against those investments—and then claiming credit afterward—could prove politically costly.

As the NRCC’s campaign rolls out online, Vasquez’s record during the shutdown and his opposition to local funding are likely to remain front and center in one of New Mexico’s most competitive congressional races.

New ad torches Gabe Vasquez for voting against NM funds, then taking credit Read More »

Sue-happy leftist group hides behind Rio Grande cooter turtle to hit oil and gas

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A radical environmental advocacy group with a long track record of using the Endangered Species Act (ESA) as a litigation weapon is once again targeting New Mexico’s water, energy, and agricultural sectors—this time over a freshwater turtle.

According to Source New Mexico, the Center for Biological Diversity filed a federal lawsuit on Jan. 8 against the Trump administration, arguing that federal officials failed to list the Rio Grande cooter as an endangered or threatened species. The lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges a 2022 determination by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service that the turtle did not warrant ESA protection.

The Rio Grande cooter is a freshwater turtle found in portions of the Pecos and Rio Grande river basins in New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico. In its complaint, the Center alleges that federal officials ignored “mounting evidence” and acted unlawfully by declining to list the species under the ESA, a decision that—if reversed—could unlock sweeping federal authority over water use, land management, and energy development across large swaths of the Southwest. 

In a statement provided to Source New Mexico, Center attorney Camila Cossío accused federal officials of failing to protect what she described as an “irreplaceable” species. She claimed the turtle is threatened by “climate change,” oil and gas activity, and water usage, arguing that ESA protections could “save them” through federal conservation and breeding programs.

But critics argue that the Center’s lawsuit follows a familiar and controversial playbook: identify a species with a limited range, demand ESA protections, and then leverage federal law to restrict farming, ranching, water rights, and energy production—often regardless of local economic consequences.

The Center itself openly acknowledges that its strategy relies on aggressive litigation. Its complaint alleges that oil and gas development in the Permian Basin, dam construction, irrigation, and groundwater use are key threats to the turtle. If the group succeeds, ESA protections could be used to challenge water deliveries to farmers, impose new permitting hurdles on energy producers, and further constrain already scarce water resources in southeastern New Mexico.

According to Source New Mexico, Cossío also claimed in a phone interview that the turtle’s slow maturation rate makes population declines harder to detect, while pointing to pollution and climate impacts as justification for federal intervention. She further cited federal data showing an increase in the international export of the turtles—from roughly 20 in 2016 to more than 350 by 2020—arguing that even limited collection has ripple effects across generations.

The lawsuit goes well beyond export concerns. The Center argues that federal regulators underestimated climate change impacts, failed to account for potential feminization of turtle eggs due to temperature changes, and improperly downplayed habitat fragmentation and salinity increases in the Pecos River—many of which the group links directly to energy development and water use.

For New Mexicans, the implications are familiar and troubling. Past ESA-driven lawsuits have resulted in reduced grazing access, curtailed water deliveries, delayed infrastructure projects, and increased regulatory uncertainty—often hitting rural communities the hardest. Farmers, ranchers, and small energy operators have repeatedly warned that such lawsuits prioritize ideological environmental goals over human livelihoods and local economic stability.

As the case moves forward, it is likely to reignite a broader debate over whether the ESA is being used as Congress intended—or as a blunt instrument by well-funded activist groups seeking to impose sweeping environmental controls through the courts rather than the legislative process.

Sue-happy leftist group hides behind Rio Grande cooter turtle to hit oil and gas Read More »

See what’s inside Democrats’ most radical anti-gun omnibus bill yet

20 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Even before the 2026 New Mexico Legislative Session officially begins, far-left lawmakers have moved to prefile what gun-rights advocates are calling the most sweeping anti-firearms proposal in state history.

According to a press release issued this week by the New Mexico Shooting Sports Association, an omnibus gun control measure has been prefiled in the Senate, sponsored by Democrat Sen. Bill O’Malley, Sen. Peter Wirth, Sen. Heather Berghmans, and Rep. Andrea Romero. While the legislation has not yet been assigned a bill number, its contents are already drawing sharp backlash from Second Amendment supporters across the state.

Zac Fort, legislative director for NMSSA, warned that the proposal represents a dramatic escalation in gun control efforts by Democrats who already hold commanding majorities in both chambers of the Legislature.

“This bill isn’t about public safety,” Fort said in the organization’s statement. “It’s about control — and about restricting lawful gun ownership for everyday New Mexicans.”

The prefiled legislation would enact a broad slate of new prohibitions and mandates, many of which gun-rights advocates say mirror policies pushed by national gun-control organizations rather than reflecting New Mexico’s rural, hunting-oriented culture.

Among the most controversial provisions, the bill would ban the sale of semi-automatic rifles — a category that includes many of the most commonly owned firearms in the country. It would also prohibit the sale of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, further restricting equipment that is currently legal under both state and federal law.

The bill goes even further by banning the sale of .50 caliber ammunition, a move critics argue is symbolic rather than practical, given how rarely such ammunition is used in crimes. Gun-rights advocates say the provision underscores the ideological nature of the legislation rather than any data-driven approach to crime reduction.

In addition to outright bans, the proposal would create a state-level database of firearm transactions conducted through federally licensed firearms dealers (FFLs), raising significant privacy and constitutional concerns. The bill would also impose extensive new state regulations on FFLs, layering additional requirements on businesses that already operate under strict federal oversight.

One particularly contentious provision would require FFLs to immediately report to the state whenever an individual purchases more than one firearm within a five-day period — effectively expanding gun-owner monitoring and creating what critics describe as a backdoor registry.

Fort cautioned that the legislation appears designed to overwhelm opposition by bundling numerous restrictions into a single omnibus bill, making it more difficult for lawmakers or the public to debate individual provisions on their merits.

“This is the most aggressive approach we’ve seen yet,” Fort said. “It’s designed to move as much gun control as possible, as fast as possible.”

NMSSA is urging New Mexicans to engage directly with legislators once the bill is formally introduced. Rather than relying on pre-written form emails, the organization recommends that constituents write personalized messages, noting that mass emails are increasingly filtered out or ignored.

As Democrats continue to advance gun control proposals year after year, critics argue the question facing the 2026 session is no longer whether lawmakers will pursue new firearm restrictions — but how far they are willing to go, and how much of New Mexicans’ constitutional rights they are prepared to sacrifice in the process.

See what’s inside Democrats’ most radical anti-gun omnibus bill yet Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 249
Scroll to Top