Politics

Dem-on-Dem clash erupts as Stansbury bucks Heinrich on sweeping energy bill

14 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

A public Democratic family feud is breaking out inside New Mexico’s congressional delegation, with U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury coming out forcefully against a sweeping bipartisan permitting package negotiated and championed by fellow New Mexico Democrat U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich.

Stansbury took to social media this week to declare herself “adamantly opposed” to the Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act, S. 5653, in its current form — putting her directly at odds with Heinrich, one of the four senators responsible for crafting the massive 417-page deal.

“As currently drafted, I am adamantly opposed to this bill,” Stansbury wrote, warning that it “could undermine Tribal sovereignty and consultation, protection of sacred and cultural sites, our public lands and waters, and the ability of our communities to have a say in projects that could impact them.”

She acknowledged the push to speed up major projects but argued that faster permitting cannot come at the expense of tribes, environmental protections or local input.

“We understand the urgency of expediting clean energy and critical infrastructure projects,” Stansbury wrote, “but it cannot be done at the expense of our sovereign Tribal nations, the environment, or the rights of our communities.”

She also took a swipe at the Trump administration, saying reforms should not rest on what she called its “false promises.”

The unusually sharp statement places Stansbury opposite Heinrich on one of the senator’s most significant bipartisan legislative efforts of the year.

Heinrich helped negotiate sweeping bipartisan deal

The Bipartisan American Affordability and Jobs Act was introduced Sept. 30 by Republican Sens. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia and Mike Lee of Utah, along with Democratic Sens. Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Heinrich.

Technically, Capito is the bill’s sponsor, while Heinrich, Lee and Whitehouse are original co-sponsors. But Heinrich was one of the four principal negotiators who spent more than a year working on the package.

The Bipartisan Policy Center described the legislation as the most comprehensive federal permitting reform proposal to date, saying it tackles nearly every major component of the permitting system after decades of failed reform attempts.

Heinrich has portrayed the bill as a way to build energy and transmission infrastructure more quickly while reducing costs.

“It should not take decades to build the infrastructure our country needs,” Heinrich said when the legislation was unveiled.

He said the measure would get to “yes” or “no” on projects faster while preserving environmental safeguards and “protecting the ability of Tribes to formally consult during these processes.”

That assertion now sits squarely against Stansbury’s warning that the legislation could do precisely the opposite.

Heinrich has also emphasized provisions designed to force large data centers to cover costs they impose on the electric grid rather than shifting those expenses onto residential customers.

Tribal consultation becomes flashpoint

The biggest Democratic fault line appears to involve changes to the National Historic Preservation Act.

Under current law, federal agencies generally must consult with State and Tribal Historic Preservation Officers before approving projects that could affect historic or culturally significant properties.

The Heinrich-backed legislation would impose new deadlines and narrow portions of that process.

According to the Bipartisan Policy Center’s detailed analysis, the bill would change how the geographic scope of historic-preservation reviews is determined, narrow what qualifies as an adverse effect and impose deadlines throughout consultation.

As the Bipartisan Policy Center summarized it, under the proposal “the agency, rather than the consulting parties, would decide when review is finished.”

The legislation would simultaneously authorize $200 million annually for the Historic Preservation Fund from fiscal years 2027 through 2036 and provide additional support for Tribal Historic Preservation Offices.

Stansbury breaks with Heinrich

The dispute is notable because both New Mexico Democrats generally position themselves as strong advocates of environmental protections, renewable energy and tribal consultation.

Yet on permitting reform, they now find themselves on opposite sides.

Heinrich argues that the existing federal process is so slow and unpredictable that it prevents the construction of the very clean-energy infrastructure Democrats say they want.

Stansbury, meanwhile, is warning that Congress could go too far in speeding projects along.

Her declaration that she is “adamantly opposed” to the measure represents considerably more than a minor disagreement over legislative language.

It is an open challenge to one of Heinrich’s marquee bipartisan negotiations.

And the Democratic disagreement reaches beyond New Mexico. Heinrich’s fellow Democratic negotiator Whitehouse has enthusiastically promoted the package, arguing it would help “flood the grid with clean, affordable energy.” Meanwhile, progressive and tribal groups are mobilizing against portions of it.

Bill also takes aim at data-center costs

Ironically, the legislation also contains provisions aimed directly at one of the issues that has generated substantial Democratic concern in New Mexico: enormous new data centers.

The proposal would bar utilities from shifting certain infrastructure costs associated with new data centers of 20 megawatts or greater onto other customers. States could also require data centers to provide their own generation, restrict how much electricity they draw or charge them additional amounts that could be used to lower other customers’ bills.

The broader package would also dramatically overhaul the National Environmental Policy Act, shorten litigation timelines, streamline electric transmission development, change portions of the Clean Water Act and Endangered Species Act processes, and make it more difficult for future administrations to revoke already-issued permits.

For Heinrich, those changes represent a bipartisan attempt to solve a system he says has become incapable of building infrastructure at the pace the country requires.

For Stansbury, the current bill crosses a line.

That leaves two prominent New Mexico Democrats publicly fighting over just how much environmental and permitting law Congress should rewrite in the name of faster construction — with Heinrich trying to shepherd his bipartisan deal forward and Stansbury now openly telling colleagues the legislation, as written, should not pass.

Dem-on-Dem clash erupts as Stansbury bucks Heinrich on sweeping energy bill Read More »

Former Dem rival crosses party lines as Hull touts broad NM backing

7 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull unveiled a sprawling list of nearly 80 endorsements Tuesday, highlighting support from dozens of current and former New Mexico mayors, public-safety officials, state lawmakers, former Gov. Gary Johnson and a onetime Democratic candidate for governor as the race enters its final week.

Hull’s campaign announced endorsements from 79 individuals and organizations, including 31 current and former mayors representing 27 New Mexico communities, three county sheriffs, the New Mexico Fraternal Order of Police and the Rio Rancho Firefighters Association.

Among the most notable names is former Las Cruces Mayor Ken Miyagishima, who initially entered the 2026 governor’s race as a Democrat before leaving the Democratic primary to run as an independent. He ultimately ended that bid in July and endorsed Hull, the former longtime mayor of Rio Rancho.

“I have known Mayor Hull for almost 12 years. He is intelligent, hardworking and a man of integrity,” Miyagishima said in the campaign announcement. “My goal is to help transform Mayor Hull into Governor Hull, deliver for the southwestern part of our state, and close the gap in our Native American communities.”

Hull seized on their shared municipal experience, portraying the support of mayors and local public-safety officials as evidence that his campaign is rooted in local government rather than national politics.

“Ken and I didn’t start this race in the same party, but running two of New Mexico’s largest cities taught us both the same lesson: when disaster hits, nobody asks whether you’re a Republican or a Democrat,” Hull said.

He pointed specifically to the recent flooding in San Juan County and previous disasters affecting Ruidoso and other areas, arguing governors must be prepared to coordinate state resources, work with FEMA and local governments and invest in infrastructure intended to reduce future damage.

“That’s the job I’m ready to do on day one,” Hull said.

Johnson, lawmakers and sheriffs join list

The endorsement roster also includes former New Mexico Gov. Gary Johnson, who served two terms as a Republican before later becoming one of the country’s most prominent Libertarian political figures.

Current mayors named by the campaign include Paul Wymer of Rio Rancho, Nate Duckett of Farmington, Mike Morris of Clovis, Robert Noblin of Belen and Lynn Crawford of Ruidoso.

Former mayors backing Hull include Miyagishima, Dennis Kintigh of Roswell, Javier Sanchez of Española, Jim Owen of Rio Rancho and others.

The campaign also listed a large contingent of Republican state lawmakers, including Sens. Craig Brandt, Crystal Brantley, Candy Spence Ezzell, Jim Townsend, Pat Woods and Nicole Tobiassen, along with several House members and former legislators.

Hull’s release described the group as including 17 current and former state legislators, although the accompanying list names 18 current and former legislators.

Public-safety endorsements include San Juan County Sheriff Shane Ferrari, Catron County Sheriff Keith Hughes and Torrance County Sheriff David Frazee, in addition to the state Fraternal Order of Police and Rio Rancho firefighters union.

Campaign puts spotlight on New Mexico donors

Hull also used Tuesday’s announcement to revive one of his campaign’s recurring contrasts with Democratic nominee Deb Haaland: where their donors live.

“These endorsements didn’t come from Washington or California,” Hull said. “They came from Farmington, Clovis, Roswell, Raton, and Rio Rancho.”

Hull’s campaign said 95% of its contributions have come from New Mexico donors, with most donations at $100 or less.

A recent independent review by Source New Mexico actually found an even higher in-state share among Hull’s donors during the latest reporting period: 99% were from New Mexico, compared with about 17% of Haaland’s donors. Haaland, however, dramatically outraised Hull overall, taking in roughly $1.9 million during the Sept. 8-Oct. 5 reporting period compared with approximately $634,000 for Hull.

Haaland’s campaign has pushed back on Hull’s framing by emphasizing the size of its contributions rather than donors’ locations. Her campaign said the average contribution has been relatively small and argued that her fundraising demonstrates broad grassroots support. During the latest reporting period, Haaland’s donations averaged roughly $55, compared with about $450 for Hull, according to Source New Mexico.

Still, Hull has consistently made New Mexico-based financial support a centerpiece of his pitch.

“This race should be decided by people who actually live here,” Hull said, “and that’s who is standing with me.”

Hull and Haaland are competing in the Nov. 3 general election to succeed term-limited Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

With Election Day now one week away, Hull’s latest announcement is aimed at showcasing the breadth of his institutional and local-government support — particularly from mayors, law-enforcement organizations and officials whose names are familiar within communities across the state.

See the full list of endorsements by clicking here.

Former Dem rival crosses party lines as Hull touts broad NM backing Read More »

President Trump unlocks federal aid for NM after historic flooding

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

President Donald Trump approved an emergency declaration for New Mexico on Monday, unlocking federal assistance as communities across northern and western parts of the state continue dealing with severe flooding, damaged infrastructure, evacuations, and widespread cleanup following days of punishing storms.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency announced Oct. 26 that federal disaster assistance is now available to supplement state, tribal, and local emergency response efforts stemming from severe storms and flooding that began Oct. 22 and remain ongoing.

The declaration covers Cibola, Rio Arriba, Sandoval and San Juan counties, along with Acoma Pueblo, the Jicarilla Apache Tribe, Laguna Pueblo, San Ildefonso Pueblo and Zia Pueblo, according to FEMA.

FEMA Administrator Cameron Hamilton also highlighted the federal action on X following the announcement, pointing to Trump’s approval and the agency’s role in supporting the response.

The declaration allows FEMA to coordinate federal disaster-relief efforts aimed at saving lives, protecting property and public health, and reducing the threat of further catastrophe.

Under the action, FEMA can identify and mobilize equipment, personnel and other federal resources deemed necessary to respond to the emergency.

Emergency protective measures classified as direct federal assistance will be funded at a 75% federal cost share, meaning the federal government will cover three-fourths of eligible costs while the remaining share generally falls to state, local or tribal authorities.

FEMA named John E. Brogan as federal coordinating officer for the response.

Additional jurisdictions could be added later if state or tribal officials request them and subsequent damage assessments show additional federal assistance is warranted.

Trump acts after New Mexico delegation urges immediate approval

The declaration came one day after New Mexico’s entire Democratic congressional delegation sent Trump a letter urging him to approve the state’s emergency request without delay.

Sens. Martin Heinrich and Ben Ray Luján and Reps. Teresa Leger Fernández, Melanie Stansbury and Gabe Vasquez wrote that the flooding had overwhelmed state and local resources and required direct federal help.

“It is imperative that the federal government provides direct and immediate assistance to support local and state efforts to respond to the historic and ongoing flooding,” the lawmakers wrote.

The delegation said flooding along the San Juan River, Rio Chama and Animas River had reached historic levels, triggering evacuations, swift-water rescue missions and extensive damage.

The San Juan River at Farmington reached 14.07 feet, according to information supplied by the delegation, exceeding the 12-foot threshold for major flooding. Lawmakers said conditions represented some of the most severe river flooding seen in the area in more than a century.

Hundreds rescued as damage mounts

San Juan County has been among the hardest-hit areas.

Flooding inundated homes around Farmington and Bloomfield, cut off some communities and forced emergency crews to conduct numerous rescues.

The Associated Press reported Monday that at least two people had died in New Mexico amid the broader storm system, while hundreds were rescued as floodwaters damaged homes, roads and other infrastructure across the Southwest. Democrat Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham estimated the eventual recovery price tag could reach roughly $300 million.

State officials previously said hundreds of rescues had been conducted between Farmington and Bloomfield, with some residents forced onto rooftops as rising water surrounded homes. The San Juan River at Farmington also rose above a previous record dating back to 1909.

The flooding has created additional hazards beyond the water itself.

Officials have warned residents in affected areas about possible contamination from sewage and chemicals, damaged propane and natural-gas lines, unstable structures and roadways that may remain unsafe even after water levels recede.

What the declaration does — and doesn’t yet do

The Monday action is an emergency declaration, which is focused primarily on immediate response and emergency protective measures.

It should not automatically be read as authorization for every form of FEMA assistance traditionally associated with a major disaster declaration, such as direct grants to individual homeowners or broad long-term rebuilding reimbursements.

For now, FEMA’s announcement specifically authorizes direct federal assistance and eligible emergency protective measures at the 75% federal cost share.

Further federal assistance — including additional counties, pueblos, programs or categories of aid — could be authorized later following damage assessments and additional requests.

Lujan Grisham said Monday that the state needs substantial help because road, infrastructure and environmental damage can carry enormous costs that are not immediately visible.

“The environmental issues and the road issues and the infrastructure issues alone really are expensive, and they are very hidden costs,” she said while visiting San Juan County.

Trump’s approval now brings FEMA resources formally into the emergency response as New Mexico officials continue assessing just how extensive the destruction is — and how much additional federal help will ultimately be necessary.

President Trump unlocks federal aid for NM after historic flooding Read More »

Election fear machine cranks up over ICE — despite one inconvenient fact

27 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

With Election Day approaching, the left-wing Santa Fe New Mexican is devoting prominent coverage to non-existent fears that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents could descend on New Mexico polling places — despite acknowledging in its own reporting that the state has received no specific threat and that the Department of Homeland Security says it has no planned operations targeting polling locations.

The lengthy report centers on concerns that ICE could appear at voting sites and intimidate voters during the Nov. 3 midterm election, opening with an 81-year-old Santa Fe woman who organized church and neighborhood volunteers to escort nervous voters to the polls.

Her effort, the paper reported, was motivated by fears that federal immigration agents might appear at voting locations and disrupt the election.

But several paragraphs later comes a rather important detail:

There is no known specific threat.

“While New Mexico hasn’t received a specific threat, election administrators are preparing for the unknown, including the presence of federal immigration agents,” the New Mexican reported.

And DHS itself told the paper there are no planned ICE operations targeting polling places.

The agency said ICE conducts targeted, intelligence-driven enforcement and could act if an active public-safety threat arose at a polling location.

That is a substantially different scenario from immigration officers simply being dispatched to polling places to intimidate voters.

Noncitizens aren’t eligible to vote in New Mexico

The entire controversy also runs headfirst into another basic fact: noncitizens are not legally eligible to vote in New Mexico elections.

Article VII of the New Mexico Constitution limits voting eligibility to qualified electors who are citizens of the United States. Federal law separately makes it unlawful for a noncitizen to vote in an election involving candidates for Congress or other federal offices.

DHS made that point bluntly in its response to the New Mexican.

“ONLY Americans should elect American leaders,” a department spokesperson said, adding that people who illegally vote could face criminal charges and immigration consequences.

Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin was similarly direct when asked about the controversy.

“I don’t understand what the concern is about enforcement of immigration at polling places anyways because, honestly, if you’re not a citizen, you shouldn’t be voting anyways,” Mullin said.

He added that agents would not be sent to polling sites for intimidation and said their presence would instead require “a specific threat.”

Federal law does contain narrow exceptions for jurisdictions that separately permit noncitizens to participate in certain purely local elections, but those exceptions do not permit noncitizens to vote in congressional elections, and New Mexico’s Constitution requires U.S. citizenship for its elections.

State officials prepare for a scenario they admit hasn’t materialized

Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver has nevertheless made the possibility of federal intervention a major election-security concern.

“We would be engaging in malpractice if we didn’t prepare for the concern” about ICE agents appearing at polls, she previously told Axios.

Her office has said federal interference is among numerous contingencies election officials have discussed, alongside power outages, cybersecurity issues, unauthorized individuals and other disruptions.

“We take the reality that we may need to prepare for federal interference in our elections very seriously,” Secretary of State spokesperson Lindsey Bachman told the New Mexican.

Preparing for hypothetical emergencies is, of course, part of election officials’ jobs.

But the New Mexican’s own reporting underscores how speculative the ICE scenario remains.

Doña Ana County Clerk Amanda López Askin acknowledged she had not received any concrete warning.

“I haven’t heard any very specific threats for us to be super focused on,” she said.

Yet the article went on to invoke a “growing sense of alarm,” President Donald Trump’s criticism of New Mexico elections, and the nationally watched 2nd Congressional District contest between Democrat Rep. Gabe Vasquez and Republican Greg Cunningham.

An election-year narrative built around a possibility

The paper also cited a Washington Post report about national-security officials privately advising some states and members of Congress to prepare for possible federal involvement in elections.

But New Mexico, the New Mexican acknowledged, was not among the states those officials had advised.

That leaves the core storyline resting on a series of possibilities:

ICE could theoretically appear.

Federal officials could respond to a threat.

Election administrators could encounter an unexpected situation.

Meanwhile, DHS says there are no planned polling-location operations, state officials concede they have received no specific threat, and New Mexico law already restricts voting to eligible U.S. citizens.

The New Mexican nevertheless devoted substantial attention to the hypothetical, including volunteers preparing to personally escort fearful voters into polling places.

New Mexico election officials certainly have reason to prepare for emergencies ranging from power failures to physical threats.

But when it comes to the specter of ICE agents descending on New Mexico polling places, the most concrete fact in the story may be the one buried beneath all the warnings:

No one has identified a specific threat that is actually going to happen.

Election fear machine cranks up over ICE — despite one inconvenient fact Read More »

Meta ordered to pay NM $25 billion — and that’s only half the story

13 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Meta just got slapped with an almost incomprehensible $25 billion judgment in New Mexico — and now comes another jaw-dropping number: the private attorneys who helped the state take on the Facebook parent company could potentially collect as much as $1.27 billion if the blockbuster award survives.

Yes, billion with a “B.”

The extraordinary legal battle exploded into the national spotlight after a New Mexico judge ordered Meta Platforms to pay $25 billion following a jury’s finding that the company misled Facebook users about privacy, access to their personal information, and other representations surrounding its platform.

The case traces back to the Cambridge Analytica scandal, in which the now-defunct political consulting company obtained information connected to tens of millions of Facebook users without their consent and used data for political profiling and targeting.

A New Mexico jury found in September that 26 of 29 statements examined in the case were misleading and calculated more than 43 million violations of the state’s consumer-protection law.

And the $25 billion figure could have been far worse.

District Judge Francis Mathew concluded that application of the state statute could support penalties exceeding a staggering $219 billion before ultimately cutting the judgment to $25 billion.

“Facebook’s wrongdoing — over the course of years and systematically broadcast to the public — goes to the heart of Facebook’s core business practices,” Mathew wrote in the order, according to Reuters.

Meta: New Mexico makes it ‘all but impossible to do business’

Meta is hardly surrendering.

The technology giant has vowed to appeal both the verdict and the mammoth financial judgment, setting up what could become a years-long courtroom war.

Meta Chief Legal Officer C.J. Mahoney blasted the decision, saying the state’s approach makes it “all but impossible to do business in the state of New Mexico.”

Meta has argued that New Mexico failed to establish that every consumer counted in the state’s enormous violation calculation actually saw or relied upon the disputed statements.

That issue could become crucial on appeal.

Legal experts interviewed by Reuters said Meta has substantial arguments for getting the award dramatically reduced, including challenges to how New Mexico calculated tens of millions of individual violations and constitutional arguments over excessive penalties.

In other words, New Mexico may have a $25 billion judgment on paper today — but the state is nowhere near depositing a $25 billion check.

Then came the BILLION-DOLLAR lawyer revelation

Just two days after news of the judgment rocked the technology world, another stunning detail emerged.

Reuters obtained New Mexico’s contract with Chicago-based private law firm DiCello Levitt — and the contingency agreement could allow the outside lawyers to seek up to $1.27 billion if the full $25 billion ultimately reaches state coffers.

Under the contract, the firm may seek a sliding percentage of the state’s recovery: 20% of the first $50 million, 15% of the next $50 million, 10% of the following $150 million, and 5% of amounts recovered above $250 million.

Run that formula against a full $25 billion recovery, and the potential legal fee reaches roughly $1.27 billion.

The money would come out of New Mexico’s recovery — not as an additional charge paid on top of Meta’s judgment.

And that eye-popping payday is far from guaranteed.

A judge would still have to approve the attorneys’ fees, Meta could prevail on appeal, and appellate courts could slash the underlying judgment.

‘We won’t see any of that money unless we win’

Albuquerque attorney Randi McGinn, whose firm worked with DiCello Levitt and played a prominent role at trial, acknowledged that reality.

“People will say it’s a lot of money,” McGinn told Reuters. “But the truth is, we won’t see any of that money unless we win an appeal.”

McGinn said her firm is entitled to roughly one-third of the fees it earned under its arrangement with DiCello Levitt.

DiCello Levitt declined to discuss its potential fee with Reuters, although attorney Corban Rhodes called the judgment a major moment for consumer privacy enforcement.

Contingency arrangements allow governments to hire outside lawyers without paying their standard hourly rates upfront. Instead, private firms assume the risk of litigation in exchange for a portion of any eventual recovery.

Supporters say the practice gives smaller state legal offices the firepower necessary to take on corporations with enormous legal teams.

Critics argue the arrangement can create questions about whether lawyers with a direct financial stake in enormous penalties have interests that perfectly align with the public.

Fordham University law professor Howard Erichson told Reuters that billion-dollar contingency fees are exceptionally unusual and said the sheer size of the possible award would likely draw careful judicial scrutiny.

New Mexico AG celebrates Big Tech takedown

Attorney General Raúl Torrez portrayed the ruling as a warning shot to technology companies.

“It has been a long time coming holding Big Tech accountable,” Torrez said after the ruling.

Torrez said the judgment signaled that New Mexico intends to aggressively protect consumers and their personal information.

The Meta case began in 2021 amid the fallout from revelations that Cambridge Analytica had harvested information associated with as many as 87 million Facebook users.

New Mexico alleged that Meta misrepresented who could gain access to Facebook users’ information and how the company handled harmful material on its platform.

Meta has denied wrongdoing and argued in court that it does not sell users’ personal data.

The $25 billion order dwarfs even the $5 billion penalty the Federal Trade Commission imposed on Facebook in 2019 over privacy issues stemming from the Cambridge Analytica scandal.

It also follows other major courtroom losses for Meta in New Mexico this year, including verdicts totaling hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation involving allegations about youth safety and sexual exploitation on the company’s platforms. Meta has contested those claims as well.

$25 billion today — maybe far less tomorrow

For now, the headline numbers are staggering:

$25 billion against Meta.

More than 43 million alleged consumer-law violations.

A theoretical statutory penalty topping $219 billion.

And potentially $1.27 billion for the private attorneys who helped New Mexico secure the judgment.

But one enormous question hangs over all of it: How much money will actually survive the appeals process?

Meta has made clear it intends to fight.

Legal experts say it has meaningful grounds to challenge the award.

And even McGinn cautioned that the litigation could drag on for years before anyone sees the money.

So New Mexico may currently be sitting on one of the biggest corporate judgments in American history.

Whether it ultimately becomes one of the biggest corporate payouts is an entirely different question.

Meta ordered to pay NM $25 billion — and that’s only half the story Read More »

Haaland has telling response to news anchor’s simple Epstein question

28 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland offered a revealing response when pressed by KOB 4 about her 2014 flight aboard a private plane arranged through Jeffrey Epstein, repeatedly distancing herself from the decision by emphasizing that it was then-gubernatorial candidate Gary King’s campaign — before telling the station moments later that governors themselves should ultimately be held accountable for what happens under their administration.

The exchange came during an in-depth interview with KOB’s Tessa Mentus, who asked Haaland why voters should view her presence aboard the Epstein-arranged charter as an “unfortunate coincidence” rather than a lapse in judgment by someone serving as King’s running mate.

“Right, so yes, I was a running mate with Gary King,” Haaland nervously responded. “It was Gary King’s campaign, and how would I know that?”

Mentus followed with a straightforward question: Did Haaland ever wonder how the campaign had obtained such a plane?

“No,” Haaland said.

She explained that the campaign had meetings scheduled in Washington, D.C., the following day and said there was not enough time to take a commercial flight.

“He said, we’re just going to hire this plane and fly to Washington, D.C.,” Haaland said.

Haaland then repeatedly stressed her reliance on King.

“I trusted my running mate,” she told Mentus. “It was his campaign. He was running the campaign, and I trusted him, so I don’t know what to say.”

Haaland said she did not learn that her name appeared on the flight manifest until the records became public this year.

“I had no idea,” she said when Mentus asked whether she only recently learned Epstein had played a role in arranging the charter.

The underlying flight has been documented through records released in the Epstein files. New Mexico Political Report reported in February that King, Haaland and campaign staff flew from Santa Fe to the Washington area on Sept. 8, 2014, aboard a private aircraft arranged through an Epstein-connected company. Campaign finance records showed King’s campaign paid $22,060 to charter company InJet. Emails reviewed by the outlet showed that a request had been made to Epstein to help secure transportation for King.

The aircraft was not Epstein’s personal plane, a distinction Haaland’s campaign has repeatedly emphasized. Her campaign has also said she never interacted with Epstein and was not informed of his role in arranging the charter.

KOB turns Haaland’s answer into accountability question

Mentus then pivoted from the 2014 campaign to the job Haaland is now seeking.

“As governor, you have to hire the right people around you and trust that they’re going to make the right decisions,” Mentus said, before asking who should ultimately be held responsible when problems emerge within agencies such as the Children, Youth and Families Department or Public Education Department.

Should voters blame department heads, Mentus asked, or the governor?

Haaland’s answer was immediate.

“No, you hold me accountable,” she said. “I’m the governor.”

The juxtaposition was striking.

Minutes earlier, Haaland had defended her lack of knowledge about the Epstein-linked flight by emphasizing that King was running the campaign and that she trusted him to make decisions.

Yet when asked how that same principle of delegated responsibility should work if she becomes governor, Haaland said responsibility ultimately stops with the person at the top.

Haaland is the Democrat nominee for governor in the Nov. 3 election, facing Republican Gregg Hull in the race to succeed term-limited Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham.

Haaland and King crossed paths again this year

Haaland’s effort to put distance between herself and King also comes after both were present at the Albuquerque Hispano Chamber of Commerce’s “La Noche Encantada” gala on Feb. 21.

When the Piñon Post previously asked Haaland’s campaign about her current relationship with her former running mate, spokeswoman Hannah Menchhoff said Haaland may have seen King at the event but maintained there had been “no ongoing correspondence” between the two. The gala itself took place Feb. 21 at the Albuquerque Convention Center.

The relationship has attracted renewed attention because newly released Epstein records have shown that King’s contacts with Epstein were more extensive than initially portrayed publicly.

Emails reviewed by New Mexico Political Report showed King had personally sought Epstein’s help with fundraising and transportation during the 2014 campaign. Additional records showed Epstein-linked companies contributed money to King’s campaign, even as attorneys working with Epstein discussed using corporate entities to avoid unwanted publicity surrounding the convicted sex offender’s contributions.

Haaland’s campaign has consistently maintained those interactions belonged to King, not Haaland.

There remains no evidence that Haaland personally communicated with Epstein or knew beforehand that he had arranged the September 2014 charter.

But Mentus’ questioning exposed a broader issue that goes beyond whether Haaland personally knew Epstein: how much responsibility a candidate bears for decisions made by the people running an operation on their behalf.

Haaland’s answer regarding 2014 was essentially that she trusted the person in charge.

Her answer about the governor’s office was considerably less ambiguous.

“You hold me accountable,” she said. “I’m the governor.”

WATCH: 

Haaland has telling response to news anchor’s simple Epstein question Read More »

Andrea Romero’s ethics mess just took another ugly turn

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

The New Mexico State Ethics Commission has acknowledged that its general counsel improperly granted Democratic state Rep. Andrea Romero additional time to respond to an ethics complaint — after her taxpayer-funded attorney obtained the extension through private communications that the commission’s own executive director later called improper.

The admission adds another controversy surrounding the Santa Fe lawmaker, who has already faced scrutiny over her former employment with the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office and her leadership of the Legislature’s Jeffrey Epstein “Truth Commission.”

According to documents obtained by the Santa Fe New Mexican, Ethics Commission General Counsel Zach Goodrich gave Romero’s attorney, Rodney Gabaldon, an additional 30 days to respond to a complaint filed by Española resident Pablo Lujan.

The problem: Goodrich did not have the authority to grant it.

Commission Executive Director Jeremy Farris acknowledged the issue after Lujan challenged the extension, also describing the private text exchange between Goodrich and Gabaldon as improper “ex parte” communication.

“This is what political corruption looks like: state institution after state institution bending [its] rules around Andrea Romero,” Lujan told the New Mexican.

“Regular New Mexicans do not receive backchannel favors sealed with a ‘no problem,’” he added.

That reference came directly from the text exchange.

Gabaldon wrote Goodrich on Sept. 29 seeking a month-long extension in three cases, including Romero’s, citing personal health reasons.

“No problem,” Goodrich replied before saying he would send an email confirming new dates.

“Thanks brother,” Gabaldon responded.

The exchange was not initially included in the commission’s public proceedings portal.

Under the Ethics Commission’s published guidance, a respondent may file an answer within 15 days after receiving notification of an administrative complaint. 

The 30-day extension granted to Romero would have pushed her response until Nov. 2 — just one day before New Mexico’s Nov. 3 general election.

Lujan argued that timing deprived voters of an opportunity to see Romero’s explanation before casting ballots.

“By moving that response to the eve of the election, the Commission has not merely given a politician more time — it has denied voters a meaningful opportunity to examine her account before casting their ballots,” he wrote.

After acknowledging the problem, Farris said Romero and her attorney should file any intended response “expeditiously.”

Complaint stems from Romero’s DA job

The underlying complaint concerns Romero’s decision to simultaneously serve in the Legislature while working part time for the First Judicial District Attorney’s Office.

Romero eventually resigned from the prosecutor’s office after Attorney General Raúl Torrez clarified that district attorneys should not employ sitting legislators except under the narrow circumstances addressed in a 2024 legal opinion dealing with special assistant district attorneys. That opinion specifically examined whether a legislator could serve as a special prosecutor in a particular capacity — not simply become an employee of a prosecutor’s office. 

Romero maintained that she had relied on previous guidance from the Attorney General’s Office, while Torrez disputed the broader interpretation placed on his office’s earlier opinion.

The controversy has been especially notable because Romero herself holds powerful ethics-related positions in the Legislature. She currently chairs the House Rules and Order of Business Committee, serves as vice chair of House Judiciary, and chairs the House Special Investigatory Committee created to examine Epstein’s activities in New Mexico. 

Richardson relationship raises another question

Romero’s role in the Epstein investigation has also drawn scrutiny because of her previous public praise for former Democrat Gov. Bill Richardson.

After Richardson’s death in 2023, Romero praised the longtime Democrat political figure on Facebook and shared photographs of herself with the former governor.

Those posts take on additional significance because Richardson later became an important subject of the state’s Epstein inquiry.

Richardson had documented contacts with Epstein and visited Zorro Ranch. Newly released material has prompted the Truth Commission to seek government records concerning Richardson and Epstein, while commission documents have listed Richardson among passengers connected to Epstein’s aircraft. 

Virginia Giuffre also alleged that Ghislaine Maxwell directed her to have a sexual encounter with Richardson. Richardson emphatically denied the allegation, said he had never met Giuffre, and was never charged with wrongdoing related to her claim. 

Romero’s past praise of Richardson does not by itself establish any impropriety. But it adds another political relationship surrounding a commission whose stated mission is to scrutinize how powerful people and institutions interacted with Epstein.

Haaland disappears from ‘Truth Commission’ report

Even more contentious was the commission’s handling of Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland.

Records released this year showed that Haaland, then Gary King’s 2014 lieutenant governor running mate, traveled aboard a private aircraft arranged through Epstein during the campaign. The King-Haaland campaign announced the return of more than $36,000 in Epstein-linked campaign contributions around the same period. Haaland’s campaign has said she had no relationship with Epstein and did not know how the aircraft had been arranged. 

Republican Truth Commission members Andrea Reeb and Bill Hall subsequently said the panel had agreed to include a reference to Haaland’s flight in its interim report — only to discover that her name was missing from the final document.

The report did, however, name other prominent figures appearing in Epstein-associated flight records, including Richardson and former President Bill Clinton. 

Reeb publicly accused the commission of protecting Haaland during her gubernatorial campaign.

“The only justifiable reason to remove Haaland’s name from the report is to protect her from any political fallout while she is campaigning to be New Mexico’s next governor,” Reeb said. 

Romero denied that characterization. She said all four commission members participated in developing the report and said the panel had collectively chosen not to identify victims or people whose connections to Epstein were considered merely “tangential.” 

That dispute has never fully gone away.

Senate Republicans had previously asked the commission to subpoena Haaland over the flight, arguing the panel should apply the same scrutiny to powerful New Mexico politicians that it was applying to agencies, banks and other individuals. 

Lujan: institutions are being ‘corroded’

Now Romero faces questions not about how she is handling another politician’s ethics, but about how state ethics officials handled a complaint against her.

Lujan said he intends to pursue disciplinary complaints against both Goodrich and Gabaldon over the private communications.

He also contrasted Romero’s response to the controversy over her prosecutor job with former Republican Rep. Andrea Reeb, who recently stepped down from the Legislature after a federal judge ruled her simultaneous legislative and prosecutorial roles ran afoul of separation-of-powers requirements.

“In my view Romero is no longer involved in isolated ethics disputes,” Lujan told the New Mexican, arguing that the controversies now touch the DA’s office, Legislature, Epstein commission and State Ethics Commission.

For an elected official who is simultaneously helping oversee legislative ethics and chairing a commission built around the promise of exposing institutional failures and politically connected figures, the latest acknowledgment from the State Ethics Commission creates a particularly uncomfortable question:

Are New Mexico’s accountability institutions applying their own rules consistently when the person under scrutiny is one of the Legislature’s most powerful Democrats?

Andrea Romero’s ethics mess just took another ugly turn Read More »

Cunningham battles Vasquez — and the moderator — in fiery KRQE debate

32 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican Greg Cunningham came out swinging in Friday night’s KRQE News 13 debate, repeatedly putting Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez on the defensive over police, immigration enforcement, New Mexico Downwinders, taxes, and his voting record.

But at several points, Cunningham appeared to be debating more than just Vasquez.

Moderator Dean Staley repeatedly interrupted, challenged, redirected, and pressed Cunningham during some of the evening’s most contentious exchanges — at times turning the CD2 showdown into what looked more like a two-front debate for the Republican challenger.

The Oct. 16 debate pitted Vasquez, who is seeking a third term, against Cunningham, a combat Marine veteran, retired law enforcement detective, and Republican challenger.

And Cunningham wasted little time drawing one of the night’s sharpest contrasts: his decades in law enforcement versus Vasquez’s past rhetoric about police.

Cunningham forces Vasquez to answer for defund-police remarks

Staley initially confronted Vasquez with video from a 2020 protest in which Vasquez said police reform was “not just about defunding the police,” but about defunding what he described as a system privileging white people.

Asked whether he regretted the remark, Vasquez initially pivoted to his record of directing money toward police departments and blamed Republican attacks for distracting voters from other issues.

Staley pressed him again: Did he regret it?

Vasquez responded that he does not currently support defunding police.

That opened the door for Cunningham.

“Was that you in that costume?” Cunningham asked, referring to Vasquez’s appearance in the widely circulated protest video. “Was that you wearing that hat and the mask and calling to defund police?”

After Cunningham pressed him directly, Vasquez acknowledged that it was.

Cunningham then moved to Vasquez’s congressional record, asking why the Democrat voted against a congressional resolution honoring and supporting law enforcement officers.

“Did you vote yes or no?” Cunningham asked as Vasquez argued Republicans had inserted language into the resolution that Democrats objected to. Vasquez called the resolution “useless.”

Before Cunningham could continue pressing the point, Staley stepped in.

“If I may, I’d like to move on,” the moderator said, citing the limited debate time.

It would become a recurring pattern.

Cunningham finds himself sparring with moderator

Throughout the debate, Staley frequently subjected Cunningham to sharp follow-ups — sometimes challenging the premise of his answers rather than simply moving to the next question.

When Cunningham argued that repeat offenders, prosecutors, judges, and a lack of accountability were central to New Mexico’s gun-crime problem, Staley responded: “I don’t hear that you’re especially concerned though about the availability and the flow of guns into our community.”

Later, during a discussion of SNAP work requirements, Cunningham said assistance programs must remain available for vulnerable Americans while fraud and abuse are eliminated.

Staley repeatedly pushed him on people who had lost benefits.

When Cunningham said officials did not yet know how many affected recipients were improperly receiving assistance, Staley shot back: “Well, it seems like you might want to find out before you kick them off the rolls.”

Cunningham responded that requiring able-bodied adults without children to work or participate in their communities was not the same as indiscriminately throwing people off assistance.

On taxes, Staley again interrupted Cunningham’s broader answer and demanded a specific spending cut.

“Can you name it, though?” he asked.

Those follow-ups were within a moderator’s role, but their frequency meant Cunningham repeatedly had to defend his premises to Staley while simultaneously trying to draw contrasts with the incumbent congressman.

ICE exchange becomes especially contentious

That dynamic became particularly noticeable during the immigration portion.

Cunningham argued that legal immigration should be made faster and less expensive, supported bringing back a worker program similar to the Bracero program, and emphasized enforcing immigration laws.

He also argued that cooperation between local detention facilities and federal immigration authorities can allow dangerous offenders to be transferred into federal custody before they return to the community.

As Cunningham attempted to explain how that process works, Staley repeatedly interrupted and challenged his interpretation.

“It sounds like you’re blaming sanctuary cities” for some of ICE’s controversial enforcement actions, Staley said.

Cunningham pushed back: “No, sir. I’m telling you what a big part of the situation is.”

He explained that if authorities fail to transfer wanted offenders while they are already in custody, federal agents later have to locate them at their homes or workplaces — places where bystanders can become caught up in enforcement actions.

“If we would allow ICE to separate criminals at the moment that they’re arrested, we would eliminate a lot of what we’re seeing,” Cunningham argued.

Vasquez accused the Trump administration of targeting people without criminal records and described ICE enforcement as overly broad.

When Cunningham attempted to question Vasquez in response, Staley cut him off.

“I’ll be asking the questions if I may,” the moderator told Cunningham.

Staley then continued pressing Cunningham over ICE, asking whether he saw a broader “pattern” of misconduct by federal agents.

Cunningham distinguished between individual officers who behave improperly and his broader support for law enforcement.

“I see men and women, our brothers and sisters and family members that got into law enforcement to do the right thing that are risking their lives every day to go out there and enforce the law,” Cunningham said. “That’s what I see. And that’s what I support.”

‘You’re our congressman’

Cunningham’s simplest attack of the night may also have been one of his most effective.

Again and again, Vasquez blamed President Donald Trump and Republicans for economic problems.

Cunningham turned the argument around.

“You’re our congressman,” he told Vasquez. “You’re there to get something done.”

Cunningham argued that Vasquez could not campaign as an incumbent member of Congress while simultaneously treating problems in Washington as somebody else’s responsibility.

He pointed to proposals involving taxes on overtime and tips and tax relief for Social Security recipients as policies he said could immediately leave more money in working New Mexicans’ pockets.

Cunningham corners Vasquez on Downwinders

The most heated candidate-to-candidate confrontation came over the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act and New Mexico Downwinders.

Cunningham accused Vasquez of campaigning on helping Downwinders but voting against the broader legislation that ultimately carried compensation expansion.

For Cunningham, the issue is also personal: he said his wife is a Downwinder.

“When you stand up and you tell people you’re going to do something, and then you go to Washington and you don’t do it, that creates a sense of mistrust,” Cunningham said.

Vasquez responded that he had worked with Downwinder advocates and opposed the overall reconciliation package because of other provisions involving taxes, Medicaid, and assistance programs.

Cunningham kept returning to the vote itself.

“Is your vote a story or is it your vote?” he asked.

Vasquez attempted to explain the larger legislation.

Cunningham interrupted with another direct challenge: “Did you vote yes or no to help New Mexico Downwinders?”

Vasquez said he voted against the broader bill.

“You voted no to compensate and give New Mexicans what they deserve,” Cunningham fired back.

When Vasquez pointed to his endorsement from Downwinder advocates, Cunningham answered, “It doesn’t matter who endorses you.”

“My wife is a Downwinder,” Cunningham added. “I represent her.”

Moderator keeps Cunningham on the hot seat

The adversarial moderation continued later.

When Cunningham was asked about artificial intelligence and began discussing the water and power demands of data centers — a major New Mexico issue directly connected with AI development — Staley twice redirected him, stressing that he was asking about AI “itself.”

When Cunningham tried to challenge Vasquez over a campaign contribution tied to Oracle ownership during the same discussion, Staley again cut in and demanded Cunningham answer whether the federal government should regulate AI.

Cunningham answered simply: “Yes.”

Staley similarly pressed Cunningham multiple times on Iran, asking him point-blank whether he supported the war after Cunningham explained that, as a combat veteran, he wanted American troops home but opposed allowing Iran to acquire a nuclear weapon.

Staley did challenge Vasquez during the debate as well — most notably by refusing to let him dodge the question about his 2020 police remarks and later asking whether Democrats bore responsibility for Biden-era border policies.

Vasquez conceded in the latter exchange that Democrats “absolutely bear the responsibility for some of the awful policies under the Biden administration” involving asylum seekers.

Still, Cunningham spent a significant portion of the evening not merely rebutting his opponent but responding to repeated skeptical follow-ups from the moderator.

Cunningham keeps returning to the record

Despite the interruptions and rapid-fire questioning, Cunningham continually brought the debate back to Vasquez’s votes.

His closing statement distilled that argument.

“We are, as politicians, we are the sum of our votes,” Cunningham said. “We can stand up here and say whatever we want to say. But ultimately, what we vote and how we vote is who we are.”

He cited RECA, taxes on tips and overtime, and immigration legislation before drawing a contrast between himself and Vasquez.

“The contrast could not be more stark,” Cunningham said.

He closed by pointing to his record as a combat Marine, police officer, business owner, father of six, and grandfather of nine.

“My life has been in service,” Cunningham said. “My life will continue to be service to the people of New Mexico. I’ll fight for them.”

For much of Friday night, Cunningham did just that politically — taking on an incumbent congressman while repeatedly having to defend his answers against an aggressive moderator at the same time.

Watch the full debate here:

Cunningham battles Vasquez — and the moderator — in fiery KRQE debate Read More »

Scalise leads GOP power players into NM as Cunningham makes CD2 push

7 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

LAS CRUCES — Republican congressional candidate Greg Cunningham brought some of the most powerful Republicans in the U.S. House to southern New Mexico Thursday, using a Las Cruces campaign event to spotlight rural health care, technology, economic development, and his bid to unseat Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez in the 2nd Congressional District.

House Majority Leader Steve Scalise of Louisiana joined Cunningham at Electronic Caregiver on Main Street alongside House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Brett Guthrie of Kentucky and Arkansas Rep. Steve Womack, a senior House appropriator.

KFOX14/CBS4 had announced the event as a press conference centered on the closely watched CD2 contest. 

But the gathering quickly became as much about the Las Cruces company hosting it as the congressional race itself.

After touring Electronic Caregiver, which develops remote health-monitoring technology, Cunningham said the facility demonstrated the kind of high-skill innovation he wants to keep and expand in New Mexico.

“As a native New Mexican, I speak constantly on the campaign trail about our children, and our grandchildren, and our futures, and the opportunities that are not provided for our children and grandchildren right now,” Cunningham said. “We need to make sure that we keep the best and brightest of New Mexico right here working.” Pasted text

Cunningham called the technology he saw “off the charts” and “astounding,” arguing that its potential was especially significant for rural communities where patients may travel long distances for basic medical care.

“Our rural communities, folks that live in our rural communities, should not have to drive an hour away to get health care,” Cunningham said. “We should not have to pay higher prices than anywhere else in the world.” Pasted text

Cunningham links NMSU, technology, and jobs

Cunningham also laid out a broader economic-development vision connecting New Mexico State University with growing technology companies in southern New Mexico.

“I want New Mexico State University to become a magnet for technology and innovation, and for that to be a feeder program into what’s happening in this building behind me,” he said. Pasted text

That theme was echoed by Guthrie, chairman of the House committee with jurisdiction over major health-care and technology issues.

Guthrie said he had recently visited Silicon Valley but came away impressed by what was happening in Las Cruces.

“There’s nothing more impressive going on there that’s not going on here,” Guthrie said. “It’s absolutely astounding.” Pasted text

He praised the possibility of creating jobs for New Mexico college graduates while using technology to deliver medical services outside traditional hospitals and doctors’ offices.

Guthrie said remote-care systems could also help combat improper billing by creating better verification that patients actually received services billed to taxpayers.

“This system is the most impressive one I’ve seen to ensure you’re getting care and the payer can know they’re getting what they pay for,” Guthrie said. Pasted text

$50 billion rural health program enters campaign fight

Cunningham also used the event to contrast himself with Vasquez over a federal rural health program.

“I will support the Rural Health Transformation Act that provides money for programs like this,” Cunningham said. “My opponent voted against it.” Pasted text

The underlying vote requires some context.

Congress established a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program as part of the sprawling 2025 Republican reconciliation law, providing funding from fiscal years 2026 through 2032 for states with approved rural-health transformation plans. 

Vasquez did vote against the overall H.R. 1 package on July 3, 2025; the final House vote was 218-214. But the rural-health fund was only one provision of a much larger law containing tax, Medicaid, food-assistance, energy, and other policy changes. Vasquez has said he opposed the broader package because he believed other provisions would harm New Mexicans, particularly through changes affecting health coverage and assistance programs. 

Scalise nevertheless made the rural-health fund a centerpiece of his remarks, saying Republicans wanted to direct money toward patients who need it while cracking down on health-care fraud.

“We created a $50 billion rural health care fund,” Scalise said, arguing that technology like Electronic Caregiver’s could help address the difficulty of reaching patients in remote communities. Pasted text

Scalise: ‘We need him on our team’

The event also demonstrated the national Republican investment in Cunningham’s campaign.

Scalise, the No. 2 Republican in the House, made no ambiguity about the political purpose of his visit. His current position as House majority leader is confirmed by the House’s official leadership roster. 

“We need him on our team,” Scalise said of Cunningham. “We need him working on behalf of all the citizens of New Mexico in Washington, D.C.” Pasted text

Womack was similarly direct.

“I came to help Greg win this race because it’s that important to our current majority,” he said, before praising the health technology he saw during the visit. Pasted text

The Republican congressman from Arkansas currently serves on the House Appropriations Committee and chairs its Transportation, Housing and Urban Development subcommittee. 

Scalise turns up heat on Vasquez

During questions after the prepared remarks, Scalise broadened his attack from health care to the larger battle for control of Congress.

He described the election in stark ideological terms, calling it “common sense versus communism” and accusing Vasquez of siding with what Scalise characterized as the “far left socialist wing” of the Democrat Party on taxes, immigration, and other issues. Those descriptions were Scalise’s political characterizations, not neutral assessments of Vasquez’s record. Pasted text

Scalise also claimed the CD2 contest had been tightening and said Cunningham had “a real opportunity to flip this seat from Democrat to Republican.” Pasted text He did not identify a specific poll in the remarks provided, so that assertion should be understood as a campaign claim rather than an independent election forecast.

Cunningham, meanwhile, used the appearance to argue that national Republican leaders see economic potential in southern New Mexico beyond the political stakes of one congressional race.

“We want to take what’s happening here in southern New Mexico with CD2 and take it national,” Cunningham later told KVIA. “The goal was today was to open their eyes and to give them an idea of what our potential is and what New Mexico has to offer for the country and for the rest of the world.” 

With Election Day less than three weeks away, Thursday’s gathering made another point unmistakable: national House Republican leaders are paying attention to New Mexico’s southern congressional district — and Cunningham is increasingly bringing some of Washington’s biggest GOP names to make his case.

Scalise leads GOP power players into NM as Cunningham makes CD2 push Read More »

Okpareke puts Stansbury’s record on the hot seat in fiery CD1 debate

27 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican congressional candidate Ndidiamaka “Didi” Okpareke used a televised debate Monday to repeatedly challenge incumbent Democrat U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury over New Mexico’s affordability crisis, poor educational outcomes, and what Okpareke portrayed as a gap between federal spending announcements and results families can actually see.

The debate, hosted by KOAT Action 7 News in partnership with the Albuquerque Journal and News Radio KKOB, gave voters in New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District a rare side-by-side look at the two candidates competing for the Albuquerque-area seat. KOAT confirmed the debate focused on affordability, gasoline prices, education, Medicaid, artificial intelligence, food insecurity, and several other national issues.

While Stansbury repeatedly defended her tenure by pointing to federal funding, social programs, and opposition to policies backed by President Donald Trump, Okpareke consistently returned to a different question: What have New Mexicans actually gotten for it?

Okpareke challenges Stansbury’s federal-spending pitch

Asked to identify the biggest problem facing CD1 residents, Stansbury said families are struggling to afford basic necessities.

“They can’t put a roof over their head, food on the table, and gas in their tank,” she said.

Stansbury blamed tariffs and Trump administration policies and touted millions of dollars she said she has helped direct toward housing, food programs, health care, and other community needs.

Okpareke immediately challenged that defense.

“It’s unfortunate because there’s not one single family that can say that they’ve seen the difference from federal dollars in our district right now,” she said.

The Republican, a pharmacist and small-business owner, said her own family has experienced the same economic pressures facing voters and argued that congressional representation must go beyond announcing federal grants.

She called for a greater emphasis on health care, job creation, affordability, and “economic security.”

The contrast was clear throughout the night: Stansbury emphasized government investment and programs, while Okpareke repeatedly questioned whether the spending has translated into better everyday conditions.

The Albuquerque Journal has reported that Stansbury points to federal funding for schools, hospitals, housing, behavioral health facilities, and water infrastructure as major achievements of her tenure.

Taxes, jobs, and manufacturing

When moderators turned to gasoline prices, Okpareke expanded her affordability argument into a broader economic platform.

“The way to overcome the current crisis that we are facing is by putting more money in your pocket,” she said. “The way that we do that is by cutting taxes.”

Okpareke also called for expanding private-sector opportunities in New Mexico and specifically floated pharmaceutical manufacturing as an industry the state could attract.

“We could have pharmaceutical manufacturing plants right here in New Mexico where we make the medication that we consume,” she said.

Her answer presented a consistent theme: lower taxes, more private employment, and growing industries that produce goods rather than relying primarily on government assistance.

Stansbury responded by tying current gasoline and food costs to the conflict with Iran and tariffs.

“The most immediate way that we end this disastrous inflation on our communities is by ending the illegal and unconstitutional war in Iran,” she said.

She also called for reversing changes affecting Medicaid and food programs and continuing federal investments in infrastructure, education, and economic development.

Okpareke goes directly after Stansbury on education

Some of the sharpest exchanges came when the candidates were asked about New Mexico’s persistent struggles in education.

Stansbury leaned on her own experience as an Albuquerque Public Schools graduate and argued that greater investment is the answer.

“I know that public schools can change lives, as they’ve changed mine,” she said.

She highlighted her congressional work involving early childhood education, K-12 schools, colleges, and trade programs.

Okpareke was having none of the spending-first argument.

“Everyone at home, please listen to me clearly,” she said. “The job of a congresswoman is to create laws.”

She then directly confronted Stansbury’s record.

“Right now, we have a congresswoman who has created absolutely no laws. What is she doing in Washington?”

That statement was a pointed campaign attack rather than a complete description of Stansbury’s legislative activity. Stansbury has introduced numerous measures and has highlighted legislation and provisions she helped advance, including housing legislation enacted earlier this year and multiple bipartisan bills she has sponsored or co-sponsored. 

But Okpareke’s larger argument focused less on Washington procedure and more on outcomes.

“It’s very easy to say that you’ve secured federal dollars for the district, but we are 50th in education,” she said.

“No more rhetoric, no more gaslighting; just let us know if you can do the job or not.”

Mississippi versus more spending

The education discussion also exposed a broader philosophical divide.

Asked what state New Mexico should look to for ideas, Okpareke pointed to Mississippi and its renewed focus on core academic fundamentals.

Stansbury instead emphasized New Mexico’s expansion of early childhood education, arguing the state has become a leader in that area.

The competing answers illustrated one of the night’s clearest contrasts: Okpareke emphasized measurable academic outcomes and basic skills, while Stansbury defended government investment beginning in early childhood.

‘These aren’t handouts’

Stansbury pushed back hard against Republican criticism of federal programs.

“These aren’t handouts; this is how people survive in our communities,” she said, pointing to Medicaid, Medicare, military installations, scientists, and other federally supported parts of New Mexico’s economy.

She accused Trump and congressional Republicans of pursuing policies that would harm those programs.

Okpareke’s argument was not that the government has no role, but that voters should ask whether the current approach has produced enough improvement in wages, affordability, schools, and opportunity.

That theme allowed her to repeatedly bring the debate back to Stansbury’s incumbency rather than simply trading national partisan talking points.

Debate ranges from Epstein to AI

The candidates also faced questions about the release of files connected to Jeffrey Epstein, Medicaid changes scheduled to take effect in January, allegations involving the DEA and so-called “fentanyl walking,” and whether members of Congress should continue receiving pay during a government shutdown.

Artificial intelligence, workforce development, and food insecurity also made the agenda.

But the night’s most sustained contrast was over the basic role of government.

Stansbury defended federal spending and programs as essential tools for helping struggling New Mexicans.

Okpareke used the debate to challenge whether those policies have delivered the promised results, while outlining an alternative centered on tax relief, private-sector job creation, domestic manufacturing, educational fundamentals, and greater accountability from Washington.

For a challenger making her first run for elected office against a three-term incumbent, Okpareke repeatedly put Stansbury’s record — rather than merely Trump or national Republican politics — at the center of the discussion. 

And that gave voters a notably sharper contrast than the usual exchange of party talking points: one candidate defending what Washington has spent and protected, and the other asking whether New Mexicans can actually feel the difference.

Watch the debate on KOAT by clicking here.

Okpareke puts Stansbury’s record on the hot seat in fiery CD1 debate Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 257
Scroll to Top