Piñon Post publisher and state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) joins the Rio Grande Foundation’s Paul Gessing for an episode of “Tipping Point New Mexico” to discuss what to expect during this upcoming 2025 Legislative Session and what is expected to come up the pipeline.
Block has overseen the Piñon Post since its inception as “John For New Mexico” in 2016 and its official launch as the Post in 2020 — marking five years of constant reporting in the state.
New Mexico state Rep. Jared Hembree (R-Chaves) has officially announced his resignation from the New Mexico House of Representatives, citing unforeseen health-related issues that require his immediate attention. The announcement marks the end of his tenure as a representative, a role he described as an honor and privilege.
“It is with a heavy heart that I step down from the State Legislature,” said Representative Hembree in his resignation statement. “Serving the people of my district has been a profound honor. My family and I believe in Chaves County, and we must prioritize my health to ensure we can serve in good faith in the future.”
Rep. Hembree official portrait.
This statement underscores the weight of his decision, as Hembree emphasized his commitment to his constituents and his deep-rooted belief in the Chaves County community. He and his family extended their gratitude to the residents of his district and people across the state for their steadfast support.
In his departure, Hembree has pledged to ensure a smooth transition for his successor, working closely with House Republican leadership to maintain uninterrupted representation for the district. This effort highlights his dedication to his role and the well-being of the community he has served.
House Republican Leader Gail Armstrong released a statement following Hembree’s announcement, expressing the caucus’s collective sorrow and support during this challenging time.
“The thoughts and prayers of the House Republican Caucus are with Representative Hembree and his family during this difficult time,” said Armstrong. “We will forever be grateful for his heart for service and tireless dedication to improving the lives of New Mexicans. Representative Hembree has been a mentor, friend, and inspiration to many of us, and he will be greatly missed in the Roundhouse.”
Hembree’s resignation creates a vacancy in the state legislature, which will necessitate the appointment of a replacement to represent the district. Local officials and the House Republican leadership are expected to work collaboratively to ensure the district continues to receive effective representation.
While Hembree’s departure is a loss for the New Mexico State House, his focus on health and family resonates as a reminder of the personal sacrifices that public service often entails.
Actor Alec Baldwin has filed a lawsuit against New Mexico prosecutors and the Santa Fe Sheriff’s Office, alleging “malicious” prosecution in the wake of the tragic 2021 shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film Rust. This comes after Baldwin’s manslaughter case was dismissed during his July trial, with the actor’s legal team accusing officials of withholding critical evidence and pursuing the case for “political” and “personal” reasons.
The shooting shocked Hollywood and reignited debates over firearm safety on movie sets. Baldwin, who was both the actor holding the weapon and a producer on the film, faced intense scrutiny for his role in the incident. Despite this, he managed to evade criminal charges, sparking criticism that justice has not been served for Hutchins and her family.
In the lawsuit filed in Santa Fe, Baldwin’s attorneys claim that the special prosecutor and sheriff’s office conspired to bring him to trial for “political” gain. They point to a comment made by former special prosecutor Andrea Reeb, who allegedly suggested the case could bolster her political career. The complaint further alleges that prosecutor Kari Morrissey presented “false and incomplete” testimony to secure Baldwin’s grand jury indictment.
While Baldwin’s legal team seeks financial damages, they also call for accountability from those who pursued his case. “Defendants must now be held accountable for their malicious and unlawful pursuit of Baldwin,” the lawsuit states. But this aggressive counteraction has drawn criticism, especially given Baldwin’s role as a producer and central figure in the Rust tragedy.
Halyna Hutchins lost her life when Baldwin pointed a reproduction 1873 single-action revolver at her during a rehearsal. Baldwin has claimed he did not pull the trigger, but forensic evidence has suggested otherwise. The gun discharged a live round, allegedly loaded inadvertently by weapons handler Hannah Gutierrez Reed, who was later convicted of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced to 18 months in jail.
Baldwin’s defense has consistently emphasized that live rounds should never have been on set and that he bears no responsibility for the weapon’s safety. However, as a producer, Baldwin had a duty to ensure that safety protocols were followed, raising questions about his accountability beyond the moment of the shooting.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed Baldwin’s case, citing the “willful withholding” of evidence by the prosecution. She described the actions of the special prosecutor and sheriff’s office as showing “scorching prejudice.” Morrissey and the sheriff’s office filed evidence regarding the source of live rounds under a different case number, further complicating the investigation. Morrissey denies any wrongdoing, maintaining that the evidence handling was proper.
While Baldwin has filed his lawsuit, he must now prove that the defendants—public officials—are not protected by state laws granting immunity for actions taken within their official duties. This legal battle adds yet another layer of complexity to a case already fraught with controversy.
Critics argue that Baldwin’s lawsuit is an attempt to shift focus from his own responsibilities as both an actor and producer. While the prosecution’s errors are undeniable, Baldwin’s refusal to acknowledge any personal accountability has left many feeling that justice remains elusive for Hutchins’ family. The actor’s dismissal of any role in ensuring on-set safety—despite being one of the film’s key decision-makers—has fueled accusations of deflection.
This lawsuit may provide Baldwin with a platform to clear his name in court, but it also highlights broader issues about accountability in Hollywood. As calls for stricter safety protocols on film sets grow louder, Baldwin’s case serves as a stark reminder of the devastating consequences of negligence and the legal quagmires that often follow.
Fox News host Laura Ingraham took aim at Joe Biden’s far-left Secretary of the Interior Deb Haaland, a former New Mexico congresswoman, during a recent episode of “The Ingraham Angle,” referring to her as “another DEI hire of the Biden administration.”
The term “DEI” stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion—an approach embraced by woke organizations to hire people merely based on their skin color, gender, sexual orientation, or any other “diversity” factor while largely ignoring relevant qualifications.
The segment began as Ingraham and her guest, ex-House Speaker Kevin McCarthy, discussed the devastating wildfires sweeping through the Los Angeles area. Thousands of acres have been scorched, forcing mass evacuations, with drought conditions and high winds worsening the crisis.
McCarthy highlighted the challenges firefighters face, saying, “Could you imagine a poor fireman coming in there and trying to put out a fire with no water? Gavin Newsom fought President Trump. He came in and changed the biological opinion. People know this in California – the little delta smelt – to bring the water down.”
Ingraham shifted the conversation to Haaland, who oversees agencies critical to managing public lands and natural resources. “And Deb Haaland, we gotta call her out too because she’s the interior secretary,” Ingraham stated. “Another DEI hire of the Biden administration. I’m sure she is a lovely person. She is completely incompetent. Completely incompetent. Totally.”
This is not the first time Haaland has faced criticism from conservative figures for her failures and complete lack of knowledge.
Her confirmation hearings were also a trainwreck, where she had trouble forming coherent sentences or giving direct answers, constantly repeating vague terms like “I understand” or “I appreciate what you are saying” without formulating tangible answers to give any information that could help senators understand her qualifications.
Sen. Jim Risch (R-ID) plainly asked Haaland, “Did you or do you now support the Biden action of shutting down the Keystone Pipeline his first day in office?” She refused to answer the question, responding, “I have to respect it, uh, Senator. He is the president of the United States, and I realize that, um, these are some of the things that he talked about when he was running for office.” Not until Sen. Risch had to press three more times did he get a vaguely discernible answer from Haaland, where she finally said, “I will tend to support President Biden’s positions. I assume you could take my answer as a yes.”
During one line of questioning by Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY), Haaland was asked why she made the statement that she would vote to legalize marijuana to account for lost jobs in the oil and gas industry due to extreme government regulation. She claimed her argument was merely one about “diversify[ing] our funding streams.”
Barrasso pressed her, “Is selling marijuana among what the Biden administration calls ‘better choices… to give jobs to displaced oil and gas workers?” Haaland said she didn’t know Biden’s position on the legalization of weed. Barrasso clapped back, “Well, we know what your stance is on replacing the revenue from the energy jobs… And your preference is to turn to drugs is what you’ve recommended to the voters.”
During another exchange, Haaland had difficulty answering basic questions about oil and gas pipelines on federal lands from Sen. James Lankford (R-OK), ultimately admitting she didn’t know the answer to the question.
In 2022, Haaland got wrecked over her failure to answer basic questions about oil leasing, telling a Republican senator, “I’m not an economist” to justify her lack of knowledge. She ended up furiously scribbling notes to hide her complete ineptitude.
WATCH: Democrat staffers furiously scribble notes for Biden Interior Secretary Deb Haaland as she struggles to get through her Senate testimony pic.twitter.com/pT4a1VO8Xx
In 2023, a Republican congressman proposed reducing her annual salary to $1, a move that ultimately failed. Earlier, she was involved in a heated exchange with Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO), who accused her of pursuing an “agenda for radical climate change.”
Secretary Haaland apparently doesn’t know who’s in charge of the Interior Department. Hint: it’s supposed to be her 👇 pic.twitter.com/c1BSXtiViW
The leftist website Mediaite reported on Ingraham’s comment, trying to paint Haaland as a historic figure due to her being “the first Native American to serve as a cabinet secretary.”
Despite some individuals attacking legal efforts for sanctuary cities for the unborn measures in New Mexico counties and municipalities by claiming they would create a constitutional right to abortion, the state Supreme Court today made very clear it would not make that determination in a lawsuit on the matter.
The ordinances were crafted using the federal Comstock Act, which prohibits the mailing of abortion-related materials, which would include the unsafe medication abortion pills.
Although the Court struck down these ordinances, it did write, “It is an enduring principle of constitutional jurisprudence that courts will avoid deciding constitutional questions unless required to do so,” adding, “Our forbearance of the constitutional questions, however, should not be construed as commentary on their merit. Rather, we heed the canon of constitutional avoidance and refrain from deciding constitutional issues unnecessary to the disposition of this case.”
During the case, Attorney General Raúl Torrez’s office argued that the ordinances violated the New Mexico Constitution’s Equal Rights Amendment, but the New Mexico Supreme Court declined that argument, writing, “We therefore decline to reach the State’s additional arguments under the New Mexico Constitution.”
The Court concluded, “We hold the Ordinances are preempted in their entirety based on the independent and adequate state law grounds provided in the Reproductive and Gender-Affirming Health Care Freedom Act, the Medical Practice Act, the Medical Malpractice Act, and the Health Care Code, as well as the Uniform Licensing Act.”
Now, the New Mexico Supreme Court, by ruling on the matter, has paved the way for the case to be taken to the U.S. Supreme Court. If the highest court in the land disagrees with the New Mexico Supreme Court that the Health Care Freedom Act explicitly preempts local regulations that interfere with access to reproductive health care, it could mean enforcement of a prohibition on trafficking abortion medications through the mail.
Attorney Jonathan Mitchell, who spearheaded these ordinances and worked on the litigation, wrote following the ruling, “We are thrilled with the New Mexico Supreme Court’s ruling.”
He added, “This is the first court to hold that an ordinance requiring compliance with the federal Comstock Act prohibits the shipment and receipt of abortion-related paraphernalia in states where abortion remains legal. We look forward to litigating these issues in other states and bringing the meaning of the federal Comstock Act to the Supreme Court of the United States.”
Senate Energy and Natural Resources ranking member Martin Heinrich, a far-left Democrat from New Mexico, is once again using his platform to grandstand, this time accusing Committee Chair Mike Lee of Utah of violating “protocol and precedent” over the scheduling of a confirmation hearing for President-elect Donald Trump’s nominee for Interior secretary, former North Dakota Governor Doug Burgum.
In a statement rife with indignation, Heinrich lamented Lee’s decision to hold the hearing next Tuesday without all the necessary paperwork being submitted. “I am extremely disappointed that Chairman Lee has scheduled the first Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee confirmation hearing over my objection and before basic information has been given to the Committee. This is a breach of protocol and precedent, established over decades by Chairs of both parties,” Heinrich declared.
Heinrich, whose record is characterized by obstructionism and environmental extremism, claimed that nominees traditionally submit a questionnaire, financial disclosures, ethics approvals, and undergo an FBI check before hearings proceed. He refused to budge, stating, “Until these steps have been completed, I will not consent to notice of nomination hearings. Every nominee, every party, every administration should be subject to the same standards. I would urge Chairman Lee to reconsider his decision.”
Lee has not responded publicly to Heinrich’s objections, but the senator’s tactics appear to be a continuation of his pattern of attempting to stall progress under Republican leadership.
Meanwhile, Burgum has taken the high road, recently meeting with Heinrich and describing the interaction in positive terms. “Just really fun to talk to someone like Sen. Heinrich,” Burgum said, in part, graciously acknowledging New Mexico’s energy production success while joking about North Dakota’s place behind the state in national rankings.
If confirmed, Burgum would oversee public lands and wildlife conservation while holding significant influence over oil and gas leasing. A staunch advocate for expanding energy production and slashing overreaching environmental regulations, Burgum is expected to face opposition from Heinrich and his Democratic colleagues. However, his credentials as a two-term governor of an energy-rich state and his lack of scandal have garnered bipartisan respect, making his confirmation likely.
As part of his role, Burgum has been informally dubbed Trump’s “energy czar,” tasked with delivering on the administration’s promises of boosting domestic energy production and dismantling red tape that hinders industry growth.
While Heinrich’s obstructionist stance might score him points with his left-wing base, it does little to address the bipartisan concerns of American energy independence and conservation. His theatrics stand in stark contrast to Burgum’s pragmatic and solutions-focused approach, which is likely to resonate during the confirmation process.
In addition to Burgum, Heinrich is also expected to meet with Trump’s Department of Energy nominee, Chris Wright, later this week. Separately, hearings for EPA pick Lee Zeldin and other Trump nominees are moving forward, signaling that the administration’s efforts to enact its energy and environmental policies remain on track despite Heinrich’s predictable roadblocks.
The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Laken Riley Act on Tuesday, marking the first major legislation approved by the 119th Congress. The bill, named after a Georgia nursing student tragically killed by an illegal immigrant, seeks to bolster public safety by tightening immigration enforcement measures. Despite its widespread bipartisan support, New Mexico’s entire Democratic House delegation—Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez, Gabe Vasquez, and Melanie Stansbury—voted against the measure, prioritizing policies that benefit criminal aliens over the safety of their constituents.
The bill passed with a 264 to 159 vote, earning the backing of all voting Republicans and 48 Democrats. This represents an increase in Democratic support compared to last year’s vote on the legislation, signaling growing bipartisan concern over immigration enforcement failures. “We welcome with open arms any Democrat who wants to help us solve these problems because the American people demand and deserve it,” House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., said ahead of the vote.
The Laken Riley Act requires Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to detain illegal immigrants convicted of theft-related crimes and grants states the authority to sue the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for harm caused by federal immigration policies. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step to hold the Biden administration accountable for its perceived leniency on border security.
“It’s striking that one of Gabe Vasquez’s first votes in Congress is against keeping New Mexico families safe. Vasquez wants an America where illegal migrants can murder, rape or steal without fear of punishment,” wrote the National Republican Congressional Committee’s Will Reinert.
“Today, Gabe Vasquez proved to New Mexicans that their safety and well-being is not his priority,” said Congressional Leadership Fund Regional Press Secretary Maureen O’Toole. “What will it take for Vasquez to protect New Mexico families and take border security seriously?”
“House Republicans won’t stop fighting to secure the border and protect American communities,” House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., said. “When will Democrats finally decide enough is enough?” Scalise emphasized that the bill directly addresses the tragic consequences of lax immigration policies, such as the murder of Laken Riley.
Jose Ibarra, the illegal immigrant convicted of Riley’s murder, had a history of prior arrests but was never detained by ICE. This failure to act, critics say, underscores systemic flaws in federal immigration enforcement. Rep. Mike Collins, R-Ga., who introduced the bill, called the measure a “commonsense” approach to protecting American lives.
Despite these arguments, Reps. Leger Fernandez, Vasquez, and Stansbury sided with the majority of their party in opposing the legislation. Their votes have sparked criticism from New Mexicans who view the bill as a straightforward measure to enhance public safety, and their votes resonate even louder since New Mexico is a border state. By opposing the act, the delegation has chosen to align with policies that prioritize illegal immigrants over the well-being of law-abiding citizens.
“I think they put politics ahead of principle,” Speaker Johnson said of Democrats who opposed the bill last year. The same criticism is now being directed at New Mexico’s representatives, who are accused of turning their backs on constituents concerned about rising crime and border insecurity.
The Laken Riley Act’s passage comes amid broader Republican efforts to reintroduce border security legislation as the party takes control of both chambers of Congress. The Senate is expected to vote on the measure later this week, potentially setting up a showdown with Joe Biden, whose administration has faced sharp criticism over its immigration policies.
Far-left Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham is urging New Mexicans via the New Mexico Department of Health (NMDOH) to join the “Dry January” challenge, which means no consumption of alcohol whatsoever during the first month of the year.
“Start the new year with a healthy reset by joining the growing movement of Dry January, a month-long commitment to go alcohol-free and focus on wellness,” wrote the Department in a press release. “Dry January is a global public health initiative encouraging people to take a break from alcohol for the entire month of January.”
In response, state Rep. John Block (R-Alamogordo) wrote on X, “Governor drunk on power (@GovMLG) wants you to join ‘dry January,’” adding, “Sure, guv! I’ll take a glass of a nice dry Cabernet this evening — not paid for by the taxpayers — unlike your extravagant alcohol binge during COVID.”
Governor drunk on power (@GovMLG) wants you to join “dry January.” 😂
Sure, guv! I’ll take a glass of a nice dry Cabernet this evening — not paid for by the taxpayers — unlike your extravagant alcohol binge during COVID🍷
Notably, this comes from the same governor who spent lavishly on beer, wine, and spirits on the taxpayers’ dime during her stringent COVID-19 lockdowns and beyond.
For example, KOB reported, on one occasion, “The receipts we reviewed show about $350 in alcohol purchase for beer, Crown Royal, an assortment of wines and tequila. According to Stelnicki, these alcohol purchases were made over a period of time for a future staff party after the COVID-19 pandemic ends.”
Democrat allies of the governor in the legislature previously introduced and are reintroducing legislation that will increase alcohol taxes on consumers, harming the poorest New Mexicans.
Proponents of the tax are attempting to attack white people for consumption of alcohol, saying they are the reason there are “alcohol harms” in the state.
“Most alcohol in the state is consumed by individuals who are White, yet the highest mortality is observed among individuals who are Indigenous, Hispanic, and Black individuals,” a November presentation from a group presenting the bill in front of the interim Indian Affairs Committee noted, adding, “Most alcohol in the state is consumed by individuals who are White, yet the highest mortality is observed among individuals who are Indigenous, Hispanic, and Black individuals.”
The presentation, which now floats a 12 percent alcohol sales tax and an increased excise tax, notes how consumers would be forced to pay $2.50 more for a bottle of vodka, $15.00 more for a bottle of Scotch whiskey, with unfounded claims that increases would “[r]educe alcohol consumption by approximately 4%-11%”
Now, as the legislation moves through the Legislature during the upcoming January 21 legislative session, New Mexicans should be informed about how this would negatively affect them if it is passed.
The U.S. House of Representatives recently passed the Violence Against Women by Illegal Aliens Act, a bill introduced by Republican Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina.
This legislation mandates the deportation or inadmissibility of illegal immigrants convicted of sex offenses, domestic violence, stalking, child abuse, or violating protection orders. The measure passed with a 266-158 vote, with every Republican and 51 Democrats in favor, while 158 Democrats opposed it.
Among New Mexico’s delegation, Rep. Gabe Vasquez was the sole vote in favor of the bill. Reps. Teresa Leger Fernandez and Melanie Stansbury voted against the measure, joining the majority of their Democratic colleagues in opposition.
The bill, which has sparked intense debate, comes at a time when immigration policies remain a contentious issue. Proponents, including Rep. Mace, argue the legislation addresses safety concerns, specifically targeting individuals convicted of heinous crimes.
In a statement provided to Newsweek, Mace criticized opponents, saying, “158 Left-wing members of Congress just voted against deporting rapists, pedophiles, and murderers of women and kids.”
Opponents, however, contend that the bill unfairly targets immigrants and could have unintended consequences for survivors of domestic violence. Representative Pramila Jayapal, a vocal critic, stated during the debate, “Scapegoating immigrants and attempting to weaponize the crime of domestic violence is appearing to be a time-honored tradition for Republicans.” She also warned that the bill might deter survivors from coming forward due to fears of deportation.
As the bill moves to the Senate, the votes of New Mexico’s representatives highlight the state’s varied perspectives on immigration and crime policy. While Vasquez’s vote may appeal to constituents favoring stricter immigration enforcement, Leger Fernandez and Stansbury’s opposition reflects a commitment to safeguarding immigrant rights and seeking comprehensive reforms.
The Office of Inspector General (OIG) released a 24-page report on January 2, highlighting alleged misuse of $287,972.77 in federal COVID-19 Child Care Stabilization Grant funds by 27 employees under Mayor Tim Keller’s administration. These funds were intended for child care providers but were reportedly used to distribute bonuses to city employees, including high-ranking personnel.
The investigation was prompted by an anonymous tip about the alleged improper use of the grant. According to the report, the funds were diverted to compensate employees not directly involved in child care services. This action appears to violate the grant’s stipulations, which explicitly restrict use to personnel associated with licensed child care facilities or services. “The evidence obtained by the OIG substantiates that employees, including high-ranking department personnel, received several premium pay disbursements in violation of allowable personnel costs,” states the report.
Attorney John Day noted the potential for broader consequences, emphasizing, “The real problem for the city is whether the Department of Justice or U.S. government will look at this,” citing similar federal investigations into misused pandemic relief funds. Day added, “If the Department of Justice determines that money was misused, it could be a significant problem.”
The controversy centers on whether the city’s interpretation of “premium pay” under the grant’s guidelines was appropriate. Associate Chief Administrative Officer Carla Martinez defended the payments, stating, “These were employees who kept childcare centers open during the COVID crisis. These were not bonuses and were not inappropriate.” Martinez argued the funds were used for “necessary overtime funding for critical early childhood caregiver programs and management.”
City Council President Dan Lewis, however, referred the investigation to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, alleging federal crimes. “These funds, approved by the Council, were intended exclusively for early childhood programs,” Lewis said. “However, they appear to have been unlawfully redirected as cash bonuses for the Mayor’s staff.”
Mayor Tim Keller’s spokesperson, Alex Bukoski, dismissed Lewis’ accusations as politically motivated, calling them “a grossly inaccurate overreaction” and part of a series of “bitter rants” against Keller’s administration. The OIG report also notes discrepancies in the grant applications, including electronic signatures of employees who were either unaware or no longer employed at the time of submission. These irregularities raise further questions about the oversight and administration of the funds.
Adding to the complexity, the Accountability in Government Oversight Committee—tasked with reviewing the OIG’s findings—declined to approve the report, citing jurisdictional concerns. By a unanimous 5-0 vote, the committee stated the OIG lacked sufficient authority under the Inspector General Ordinance to investigate some allegations.
The OIG’s recommendations include reviewing the disbursements, potentially reallocating misused funds to the city’s General Fund, and repaying the granting authority. Additionally, they suggest implementing clear policies to define “one-time premium pay” and ensuring authorized personnel handle future grant applications. As scrutiny over the issue intensifies, the matter remains unresolved, leaving questions about accountability and adherence to federal guidelines.
