Politics

NM attorney scores major legal win in groundbreaking abortion lawsuit

Leave a Comment / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico attorney Mike Seibel has secured a $200,000 settlement in a closely watched wrongful-death case involving the estate of a 26-week unborn child — a case Seibel says marks an unprecedented legal development in litigation against abortionists.

The lawsuit, Wabbington v. Boyd, was brought against longtime late-term abortionist Curtis Boyd, his former Southwestern Women’s Options practice, Emily Cohen, and the late Carmen Landau. The case was settled and dismissed with prejudice on Sept. 14, 2026. Pasted text Pasted text

Seibel, working with co-counsel Justin Hall, represented the interests involved in the case through their abortion-injury legal work. According to Live Action News, the settlement is believed to be the first in which the estate of a child who died during an abortion recovered money through a wrongful-death action against abortionists. Pasted text

“This is the first time that an abortionist has ever been sued for the wrongful death of a baby,” Seibel told Live Action News. “There have been numerous cases for injuries to the mother, but in this case both the mother and the baby’s estate sued.” Pasted text

The legal significance goes beyond the dollar amount.

A final court order appointing a personal representative for the estate stated that Baby Wabbington was a “26 week old viable fetus” and, under New Mexico precedent, qualified as a “person as defined under the Wrongful Death Act.” The order further stated that the child was entitled to equal protection under New Mexico and federal law. Pasted text

Seibel has seized on that language as an important step in developing legal recognition for unborn children.

“This case recognized the baby to have an estate, and receive compensation for wrongful death, as a ‘person’ under New Mexico law,” he said. Pasted text

Case centered on informed consent

The lawsuit did not rest solely on broader arguments about abortion. At its core were serious allegations involving informed consent.

According to the complaint, the child’s mother was using methamphetamine when she presented for the abortion in 2020. The lawsuit alleged that providers knew or should have known about her substance-use history and observed signs consistent with impairment, yet nevertheless proceeded with the consent process and the abortion. Pasted text Pasted text

The complaint alleged that the mother lacked the legal capacity to provide valid informed consent while intoxicated and that providers failed to wait until she was sober before obtaining consent. Pasted text

Seibel argued that the providers also failed to discuss programs that could have helped the mother address her substance abuse while continuing the pregnancy.

“Records contain no discussion of reasonable alternatives including continuing the pregnancy with meth cessation support and referral to treatment,” Seibel said. Pasted text

He pointed specifically to programs such as UNM Health’s Milagro Program, which provides prenatal care and substance-abuse treatment, as well as Lovelace Women’s Hospital’s G.R.A.C.E. Program for pregnant women dealing with addiction. Pasted text

“This omission deprived the patient of material information needed to make an informed decision,” Seibel said. Pasted text

Lawsuit alleged remains were never sent to funeral home

The case also included disturbing allegations about what happened after the abortion.

According to the complaint, the mother requested that the baby’s remains be released to Riverside Funeral Home for services. Instead, the lawsuit alleged that the remains were placed in a medical-waste container and destroyed. Pasted text

The lawsuit accused the providers of unfair trade practices, including allegedly offering funeral services for aborted children without intending to transfer the remains to a funeral home. It also accused the defendants of attempting to limit or discourage potential malpractice and emotional-distress claims through paperwork given to patients. Pasted text

Those were allegations contained in the complaint; the $200,000 settlement resolved the litigation without a trial determining each allegation.

Seibel points to major contradiction in New Mexico law

For Seibel, the case also exposes what he views as a fundamental contradiction in New Mexico law: an unborn child can be recognized as a “person” for purposes of a wrongful-death claim while abortion remains legal.

“You can collect for the death of the unborn baby as a person, but you can still murder the unborn baby under New Mexico law,” Seibel said. Pasted text

He argued that every legal recognition afforded to an unborn child strengthens the broader argument for personhood.

“Every time we give the unborn baby rights we solidify personhood,” Seibel said. Pasted text

Seibel was equally critical of the treatment of the child’s mother, arguing that she was particularly vulnerable because of her substance-use condition.

“The abortion industry preyed on the mother’s vulnerable condition for profit,” he said. “They not only failed to properly inform her of programs to help her substance abuse, but they failed to properly consent her before ending the life of her preborn child.” Pasted text

He also noted that Medicaid was billed for the procedure. Pasted text

A potentially significant legal foothold

Because the case settled rather than proceeding to a verdict, it does not amount to a judicial finding that every allegation in the complaint was proven.

But Seibel argues that the combination of the court’s recognition of the child’s estate, the wrongful-death framework, and the resulting monetary recovery could provide attorneys with a new avenue in future cases involving alleged abortion injuries and informed-consent failures.

“This settlement recasts the informed consent debate to give a powerful tool to collect damages against an abortionist,” Seibel said.

“But, most importantly, it was the first ever case where the dead aborted child, identified as a ‘person’ in the court record, was able to collect damages against the abortion industry.” Pasted text

For Seibel, that is the larger significance of the case: not merely winning compensation, but establishing another legal foothold for treating an unborn child as a rights-bearing person under New Mexico law.

NM attorney scores major legal win in groundbreaking abortion lawsuit Read More »

Things get spicy fast in New Mexico’s lieutenant governor debate

10 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Republican state Sen. David Gallegos of Eunice used New Mexico’s first lieutenant governor debate Thursday to draw sharp contrasts with Democrat State Land Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard on crime, government dependency, abortion, education, data centers, and the direction of state government.

The hourlong debate, hosted at the Albuquerque Journal and sponsored by the Journal, KOAT-TV, and News Radio KKOB, gave voters one of their first extended side-by-side looks at the two candidates who could soon preside over the state Senate and stand first in line to the governor’s office. 

Gallegos, a longtime legislator from Eunice, repeatedly emphasized rural New Mexico, public safety, permanent tax relief, and reducing government barriers to economic growth. Garcia Richard, who became the Democrat nominee after Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver withdrew and the party’s State Central Committee selected a replacement, repeatedly returned to affordability, social programs, health care, and the agenda she shares with gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland.

From the opening minutes, Gallegos framed the election as a choice over whether New Mexico needs a change in direction.

“I think this state’s been hurt for many years,” he said, adding that his focus would be “protecting New Mexicans first.” 

Gallegos rejects temporary checks, pushes permanent relief

When asked how New Mexico should use an expected revenue windfall, Garcia Richard proposed raising the minimum wage, expanding the child tax credit, and increasing the working families tax credit.

Gallegos countered that state leaders should look beyond another round of one-time rebate checks.

He praised gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull’s approach of pursuing changes that would provide more permanent relief rather than handing residents “$500 here, $500 there.”

Gallegos also called for examining regulations and other government-imposed costs that he said make it harder for New Mexicans and businesses to prosper, while describing the state’s enormous oil-and-gas revenues as “a blessing, not a curse.”

The candidates then produced one of the debate’s liveliest exchanges over Medicaid, SNAP, and other government assistance.

Gallegos described those programs as a “hand up, not a handout,” arguing that the long-term goal should be helping New Mexicans become self-sufficient rather than perpetually dependent on Washington.

Garcia Richard responded that she had relied on Medicaid and WIC after having her first child.

“I now stand before you running for the second-highest office in our state,” she said.

Gallegos quickly turned her own example back toward his argument.

“You proved my theory,” he replied, saying her story demonstrated that assistance can help someone through a difficult period before that person moves forward independently.

Public safety becomes central dividing line

Gallegos was equally direct when an audience member asked what single issue he would address immediately.

“Public safety,” he answered.

He recounted staying at an Albuquerque hotel where an employee warned him to move his truck because it could be stolen. Gallegos argued that New Mexico needs to give police more funding, backing, and respect, and said communities such as Rio Rancho show a different approach to law enforcement.

“Albuquerque is known for ‘Breaking Bad,’ and that’s not good for our state,” he said. 

Earlier, Gallegos criticized what he described as “catch-and-release,” called for keeping dangerous repeat offenders incarcerated, and advocated cooperation with federal immigration authorities when dealing with criminal offenders.

Garcia Richard agreed that New Mexicans do not feel safe but drew a sharp line on immigration enforcement, saying local police should concentrate on violent criminals and illegal drugs rather than cooperating with ICE in schools, hospitals, and other public spaces. She accused federal immigration enforcement of “terrorizing” communities in those settings. 

KOAT likewise identified public safety as one of the debate’s major fault lines. KOAT

Taxpayer-funded abortion facilities draw stark split

The candidates were perhaps furthest apart on abortion.

Asked whether taxpayer dollars should continue funding reproductive-health facilities that perform abortions, Garcia Richard said “Absolutely.”

Gallegos responded just as emphatically.

“I’d absolutely not,” he said.

Gallegos argued that taxpayers should not be financing facilities specifically designed around abortion services and said medically necessary procedures can be handled by doctors and hospitals.

“We don’t need to be building facilities statewide to fund an industry,” he said. 

Garcia Richard later challenged Gallegos directly over his opposition to abortion, asking whether he could still govern under New Mexico’s existing laws.

Gallegos said he would be bound by state statute and acknowledged that a lieutenant governor cannot simply rewrite abortion law. He said any change would need to pass the Legislature, while advocating parental notification or consent involving minors. 

Gallegos confronts Garcia Richard on education record

Education produced another pointed exchange.

Garcia Richard, a former teacher, advocated placing literacy coaches in classrooms and defended New Mexico’s taxpayer-funded Opportunity Scholarship program.

Gallegos responded by reminding viewers that Garcia Richard previously voted against legislation aimed at addressing third-grade reading proficiency through retention of some struggling students.

Garcia Richard defended herself by arguing that the much-discussed “Mississippi Miracle” in education also included literacy coaches and additional assistance for struggling students.

Gallegos’ response was brief:

“Still voted no.”

He also explained his opposition to the original free-college proposal, saying he wanted publicly financed higher education tied to graduates remaining in New Mexico for a period afterward.

Data centers: Gallegos says harness them instead of simply stopping them

The candidates also offered sharply different approaches to the exploding data-center industry.

Garcia Richard reiterated Haaland’s promise for a day-one moratorium on new large-scale projects until state officials establish safeguards governing water and electricity, but avoided the fact that her campaign, along with others, have taken hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from big data centers and their executives.

Gallegos argued that New Mexico should capture the jobs and investment while requiring projects to address their own resource needs.

He suggested using small modular nuclear reactors for electricity and desalinating New Mexico’s plentiful brackish water rather than drawing from existing freshwater supplies.

“I think it’s coming,” Gallegos said of the industry. “If it’s not going to be done, it’ll be done somewhere else.”

‘There’s got to be a compromise’ on gubernatorial debate

One of Gallegos’ sharpest attacks was directed not at Garcia Richard, but at her running mate.

Asked whether Haaland and Hull should debate, Gallegos said New Mexicans deserve to see the gubernatorial candidates confront one another directly.

“There’s got to be a compromise because the people of New Mexico deserve this,” he said, adding that debates reveal a candidate’s “backbone,” knowledge, and vision. 

Garcia Richard pushed back, insisting that “no one is running or hiding” and defending Haaland’s experience and statewide campaigning. 

The gubernatorial campaigns still have not agreed on a debate date, despite invitations from New Mexico media organizations. The Journal reported that Hull accepted its original invitation while Haaland had not, though the campaigns have since exchanged competing proposed dates. 

Gallegos closed the lieutenant governor debate by returning to the constituency he said is too often overlooked in Santa Fe.

“I’m rural New Mexico,” he said. “I want to stand up for the rural people in this state because they don’t feel they have a voice.”

Garcia Richard closed by promoting the Haaland-Garcia Richard ticket’s plans on doctors, housing, affordability, and government programs.

The debate ultimately put two distinctly different governing philosophies on the same stage — something New Mexicans are still waiting to see from the candidates at the top of the ticket.

Things get spicy fast in New Mexico’s lieutenant governor debate Read More »

Haaland stumbles through national-TV interview as she dodges debates

19 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland used a national NewsNation interview Wednesday to pitch herself as an experienced manager, promise a day-one pause on new large-scale data centers, and blame President Donald Trump for a host of New Mexicans’ economic problems.

But several of the interview’s most notable moments came from what Haaland did not address: her unresolved debate record, the substantial data-center-linked money flowing into her campaign, and a direct question about how she would separate herself from the Biden administration she served for four years.

Asked why she has yet to debate Republican nominee Gregg Hull, Haaland told NewsNation she was ready.

“I am happy to debate my opponent,” Haaland said, claiming her campaign had offered eight possible dates. “It’s up to him to choose a date that works for him.”

That explanation leaves out a much messier record.

‘Happy to debate’ — after declining debate invitations

KRQE reported this week that it invited both candidates to participate in an early-October debate back in July. Hull accepted. Haaland declined. KRQE said no specific date had even been discussed at that point.

KOB also announced an Oct. 8 televised debate after the campaigns had previously agreed to participate, but a dispute over the date later blew up the arrangement. Haaland has since proposed Oct. 12, 13, or 14 for a joint statewide debate, while Hull says those dates were already known to conflict with his schedule, and has continued committing to the Oct. 8 KOB date.

Haaland’s campaign told KRQE that it had previously offered additional dates during negotiations, some of which are no longer available. So both campaigns are now pointing fingers over the breakdown.

But that context makes Haaland’s NewsNation answer — that she is simply waiting for Hull to choose from her dates — far less straightforward than it sounded on national television.

Tough talk on data centers — while taking industry-linked money

The other glaring tension came when NewsNation asked Haaland why data centers have become such a major focus of her campaign.

“Yes, a moratorium on day one until we can get accountability measures in place,” Haaland said, citing concerns about water, land, clean energy, and community input.

“I think the most important is community input,” she added.

Yet the campaign-finance backdrop makes that position considerably more complicated.

Searchlight New Mexico reported that Oracle America contributed $12,400 directly to Haaland, while people whose identifying details match Oracle and Clayco executives contributed at least another $74,800. Clayco is among the firms involved in Project Jupiter, while Oracle is one of the companies tied to the massive Doña Ana County development.

Piñon Post’s additional review of Haaland’s Sept. 14 filing found still more.

The report shows a $7,500 contribution from Matthew VanderZanden, listed as a “Chief Executive Officer”; $7,500 from Mike Casey, listed as “Chief Operating Officer”; and $7,500 from Kevin Hughes, listed as “External Affairs.” Those names and titles match senior STACK Infrastructure officials.

The same filing shows $2,500 each from Kenneth Glueck, Josh Pitcock, and Julia Robin, whose names and titles match Oracle officials.

It also records $12,400 from Oracle America itself, along with $12,400 contributions from donors named Michael Sicilia and Clayton Magouyrk, whose names, locations, and titles match Oracle’s co-CEOs.

Altogether, Piñon Post has identified at least $117,200 from Oracle America and individuals whose identifying information matches senior figures at Oracle, Clayco, and STACK.

That does not establish that the money changed Haaland’s position. But it creates an obvious political tension: Haaland is campaigning on tougher controls for an industry while accepting substantial contributions connected to companies operating inside that same industry.

Searchlight also reported another important limitation to Haaland’s proposed moratorium: it applies to new large-scale data-center development. Project Jupiter is already underway, and Haaland has previously said, “I don’t have the power to stop Project Jupiter.”

Asked how she differs from Biden — Haaland largely recited her résumé

NewsNation also gave Haaland a direct opportunity to separate herself from the Biden administration.

The host noted that some voters had been unhappy with that administration, and asked: “How do you plan to set yourself apart?”

Haaland did not identify a specific Biden policy she opposed.

Instead, she discussed her history as an organizer, Democrat Party chair, member of Congress, and Interior secretary, then pointed to her work on protecting the area around Chaco Culture National Historical Park.

It was an answer about experience, not much of an answer about separation from Biden.

Trump gets the blame

Later, Haaland shifted heavily toward Trump while discussing affordability.

She said Trump’s policies are making New Mexicans “sicker, poorer and hungrier,” cited changes to Medicaid and SNAP, blamed tariffs for increased prices, and blamed the Iran conflict for higher gasoline costs.

She then said she wants to “put more money in the pockets of New Mexicans” through measures including the child tax credit, working families tax credit, and a continued clean-energy transition.

What went mostly unaddressed was New Mexico state government’s own role in affordability, regulation, and utility policy — despite Haaland running for the state’s top executive office.

A halting national-TV appearance — with conspicuous gaps

The delivery itself was also notable.

By Piñon Post’s count of the NewsNation transcript, Haaland said “um” 24 times and “uh” 14 times during the roughly seven-minute interview — 38 filler words in all.

Several answers were punctuated by repeated pauses, verbal restarts, and detours.

Asked to separate herself from Biden, she moved instead into her résumé.

Asked about debates, she portrayed herself as eager to participate without mentioning KRQE’s report that her campaign had declined its invitation.

Asked about data centers, she talked at length about accountability, water, clean energy, and community input, but never mentioned the significant industry-linked money her campaign has accepted.

That leaves voters with several unresolved contrasts.

Haaland says she is “happy to debate,” while KRQE says she declined its invitation, and the campaigns remain locked in a fight over dates.

She says large data centers need a moratorium and stricter safeguards, while her campaign has accepted substantial money from Oracle and individuals linked to companies involved in the industry.

And when explicitly asked what would separate her from the Biden administration she served in for four years, she did not identify a concrete policy disagreement.

Those are exactly the kinds of contradictions, omissions, and unanswered questions a face-to-face debate could force both candidates to address before voters cast their ballots.

Haaland stumbles through national-TV interview as she dodges debates Read More »

Vasquez ducks multiple NM debate invites, demands debate in El Paso

40 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez is accusing Republican challenger Greg Cunningham of avoiding southern New Mexico voters for not accepting a proposed Univision debate — even as Cunningham says he has already accepted three televised debate invitations and Vasquez has publicly confirmed only one of them.

The dispute has become the latest flashpoint in New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District race, where Cunningham is pushing for more head-to-head appearances and arguing that voters deserve to see the candidates directly defend their records and policy positions.

Cunningham announced Sept. 11 that he had accepted debates from KRQE Channel 13, KOB 4 and KOAT 7, with the latter co-hosted by the Albuquerque Journal and KKOB radio. His campaign said Vasquez had not confirmed the KOB or KOAT forums. Vasquez and Cunningham are both confirmed for the KRQE debate scheduled for Oct. 16.

“Voters in this district deserve to hear from Gabe and myself, on the same stage, on the same night,” Cunningham said. “I’ve said yes to all three of these debates. The Congressman hasn’t.”

Cunningham went further, accusing Vasquez of repeating what happened in 2024.

“He dodged the voters in 2024, and he’s running the same play in 2026,” Cunningham said. “Kicking the can down the road until the calendar runs out isn’t a scheduling problem. It’s a strategy that demonstrates weakness.”

There is documented history behind that criticism, although the circumstances were disputed at the time. KOB reported in 2024 that after months of scheduling disagreements between Vasquez and Republican Yvette Herrell, the station selected a debate date. Vasquez’s campaign declined, Herrell accepted, and KOB instead conducted a one-on-one interview with Herrell.

Rather than announcing acceptance of the two additional New Mexico debates Cunningham has accepted, Vasquez has shifted attention to another proposed forum.

“I am calling on @cunninghamfornm to do the right thing – accept the Univision debate and stop leaving out southern New Mexicans,” Vasquez wrote Sept. 18.

His campaign says the Spanish-language event would be hosted by Univision and reach voters throughout southern New Mexico through the El Paso media market. Vasquez’s campaign has accused Cunningham of “staying silent” on the invitation. Vasquez was born in El Paso and raised in Ciudad Juárez, Mexico.

There is an important distinction regarding location.

The Univision outlet serving the market is based in El Paso, Texas, outside New Mexico and outside NM-02. But the material released by Vasquez’s campaign does not establish that the debate itself would physically take place in an El Paso studio. It describes the event as a Univision-hosted debate serving the El Paso media market.

Vasquez is pressing Cunningham to participate in a debate hosted by a Texas-based television outlet serving southern New Mexico, not that a Texas venue has yet been confirmed.

Meanwhile, Cunningham has accepted three debates involving major New Mexico news organizations.

The debate dispute comes as Cunningham increasingly focuses his campaign on Vasquez’s past statements and congressional votes, particularly on crime, policing, taxes and immigration.

Cunningham, a former Albuquerque police detective and Marine veteran, has accused Vasquez of trying to portray himself as a moderate despite earlier comments surrounding the “defund the police” movement. KOAT reported that Cunningham has made law enforcement, crime and border security central themes of his campaign.

Vasquez’s earlier record gives Cunningham material to use.

During the 2020 policing debate, Vasquez discussed reallocating law-enforcement funding and said he was willing to consider eliminating police budget positions or line items deemed unnecessary. Reporting has also documented his comments during that period supporting broader arguments about shifting resources away from policing.

Vasquez now rejects the characterization that he supports defunding police, and his congressional record includes several votes and initiatives supporting law-enforcement funding.

In January, Vasquez voted for an appropriations package containing more than $4 billion for state and local law enforcement, and in September he joined Republican Rep. David Kustoff in demanding that the Justice Department release congressionally approved funding for the Regional Information Sharing Systems program.

That evolution is exactly the type of record Cunningham argues should be tested in multiple televised debates.

Vasquez’s vote on the sweeping federal tax-and-spending package known as H.R. 1 is another issue likely to surface on a debate stage.

Vasquez voted no when the House approved the final version on July 3, 2025. The legislation passed 218-214.

Among its provisions was the federal tax deduction promoted as “No Tax on Tips.” The legislation also contained a separate overtime deduction along with numerous other tax, spending, Medicaid and federal-policy changes.

Republicans therefore accurately note that Vasquez voted against the legislation containing the tip-tax provision, although it was not a standalone vote solely on tips.

Cunningham has similarly sought to contrast himself with Vasquez on immigration and border enforcement. Vasquez advocates what he calls a “New American Immigration Plan,” emphasizing border technology and legal pathways, while Cunningham has emphasized tougher enforcement, cartel activity and support for law enforcement.

Those disagreements give the candidates substantial material for direct questioning.

For now, however, only one debate involving both men is publicly confirmed: KRQE on Oct. 16.

Cunningham says he is prepared to appear at three New Mexico debates and has challenged Vasquez to do the same.

Vasquez, rather than confirming the two remaining forums, is challenging Cunningham to add the Univision event serving the El Paso television market.

“Show up,” Cunningham said in his original statement. “New Mexico is watching.”

Whether voters ultimately get one face-to-face debate, several, or all four proposed forums now depends on which additional invitations the two campaigns agree to accept.

Vasquez ducks multiple NM debate invites, demands debate in El Paso Read More »

Haaland chokes on Project Jupiter cash question, REFUSES to return their $87K

30 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland’s attempt to appear tough on New Mexico’s increasingly controversial data center boom ran headfirst into a glaring campaign cash problem Thursday after she was pressed on donations tied to Project Jupiter — and did not commit to giving the money back.

At a press conference in Albuquerque, Haaland announced she would sign a day-one executive order imposing a temporary moratorium on new large-scale data center projects if elected governor, saying the pause would remain in place until the Legislature creates new “guardrails” for the industry. Her announcement came just days after reporting showed her campaign had accepted at least $87,200 from data-center-related sources connected to Oracle and Clayco, two major entities tied to Project Jupiter. Searchlight New Mexico reported that Oracle America gave Haaland $12,400, while individuals matching top leaders at Oracle and Clayco gave at least $74,800 more.

Project Jupiter has become one of the most politically explosive development fights in New Mexico, with residents and environmental groups raising concerns over water, power, permitting, transparency, and the sheer size of the proposed artificial intelligence data center campus in Doña Ana County. Oracle has promoted the project as a major economic opportunity, saying it has already delivered nearly $80 million in tax revenue and is expected to bring more than $4.7 billion in long-term economic impact to the state and county.

But while Haaland tried to pitch herself as the candidate who would hold data centers accountable, a KOB 4 reporter asked the question hanging over the entire event: “Some reporting came out recently tying tens of thousands of dollars of donations from Project Jupiter to your campaign. How do you assure voters that this will be a fair process in holding Project Jupiter accountable?”

Haaland did not answer by saying she would return the money. She did not pledge to reject future Project Jupiter-linked cash. Instead, she launched into a defense centered on the cost of campaigns.

“Thank you so much for the question. And of course, I’m the first person to say that elections are entirely too expensive. You know, I’m a lot older than a lot of folks in this room. I remember when presidential elections for the entire country cost 25 million dollars and now, um, it’s just over the top at how expensive everything has gotten. Uh, trust me, I wish I didn’t have to raise as much money as I do just to be able to protect New Mexicans and have a better New Mexico for everyone. Uh, but I believe that I can walk and chew gum at the same time. Um, my first, if I’m elected governor, my first, uh, priority is for every single New Mexican to make sure that our communities are safe, healthy, that they can move forward, that they have, um, the investments they need. We are facing, uh, some really tough times. Uh, forty percent of our population who are on Medicaid stand to lose those benefits on January first. Uh, our, uh, SNAP benefits that people rely on, um, I am — I feel very confident that I know how to navigate the federal government. And so I am working very hard and not taking anything for granted in this election.”

KOB 4 later shared the exchange on X, writing, “Deb Haaland says she will sign a moratorium on data centers until certain protections are in place. When KOB asked about campaign donations from Project Jupiter, here was her response.” The post had drawn thousands of views within hours.

The response quickly drew criticism online, with X users accusing Haaland of dodging the question. One commenter credited KOB for asking but said the answer was “nothing more than word salad.” Another wrote that she “didn’t answer the question,” while another asked why she accepted $12,400 from Oracle “if she doesn’t like data centers.”

Others focused on Haaland’s “walk and chew gum” line. One commenter wrote that if Haaland could do both, “then she should return the money back to Project Jupiter and tell them New Mexico and our water are not for sale.” Another commenter said she was “meanwhile receiving money from Project Jupiter,” while another praised KOB for asking the question but added, “Too bad she didn’t answer it.”

The backlash also reflected the broader public frustration surrounding Project Jupiter. Oracle disclosed more than $3.4 million in spending to promote the project as it sought to influence the state Environment Department’s review of an air quality permit, according to Searchlight New Mexico. The State Ethics Commission called it “likely the largest lobbying advertising campaign ever disclosed in New Mexico.”

Haaland’s campaign is now trying to walk a narrow line: accepting data center-linked money while promising to regulate the same industry. Her proposal calls for a pause on new large-scale data centers and requirements related to transparency, tribal consultation, renewable energy, water protections, union jobs, decommissioning bonds, and clawbacks for companies that fail to meet state standards. New Mexico Political Report reported that Haaland said she “cannot be bowled over with donations to my campaign” and that Project Jupiter would have to follow state law under her proposed framework.

But the central issue remains unresolved. According to the Santa Fe New Mexican account provided from the press conference, Haaland said she had not had conversations about returning the campaign money but planned to discuss the idea with her team. In other words, after being directly asked about the Project Jupiter-linked donations, Haaland still did not commit to returning the cash.

Republican gubernatorial nominee Gregg Hull has criticized the timing of Haaland’s announcement, calling her moratorium push suspicious after revelations about the Oracle and Project Jupiter-linked donations. New Mexico Political Report reported Hull saying her press conference came two days after it was discovered that she had taken nearly $100,000 from Oracle and Project Jupiter executives.

For Haaland, the optics are difficult: stand in front of an “Agua es Vida” message, promise to protect New Mexico’s water, and then decline to clearly say she will give back money tied to the very data center interests now seeking influence and approval in the state.

Her answer to KOB’s question did not include a bright-line pledge. It did not include, “I will return the money.” It did not include, “I will stop taking Project Jupiter-linked donations.” Instead, Haaland lamented the cost of elections, insisted she could “walk and chew gum at the same time,” and pivoted to Medicaid, SNAP, and the federal government.

For New Mexicans already skeptical of Project Jupiter, Haaland’s response may only deepen concerns that her new data center crackdown is less about drawing a hard line against Big Data and more about political damage control after the money trail became public.

WATCH:

Haaland chokes on Project Jupiter cash question, REFUSES to return their $87K Read More »

Stansbury lets slip what Dems are planning if they capture Congress

23 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat U.S. Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico is openly telling supporters that House Democrats are already preparing for “in-depth oversight and impeachments of administration officials” next year if voters hand the party control of the U.S. House in November.

The comments came in a video circulating on X this week, in which Stansbury tied Democrats’ ability to pursue the plans directly to the outcome of the Nov. 3 midterm elections.

“We in the House are gearing up in terms of our planning for oversight,” Stansbury said in the video. “I know many of you are deeply frustrated that this administration is not being held accountable under the law.”

She continued: “We are gearing up for next year and the President is damn right that we are going to be conducting in-depth oversight and impeachments of administration officials next year. So we are in the process of planning for all that.”

Stansbury did not identify in the clip which Trump administration officials Democrats are considering for impeachment, nor did she specify potential articles or alleged impeachable conduct.

What she did make explicit was that the plans depend on Democrats winning control of the chamber.

“That of course requires that we actually have control of the House, or at least a majority in the House that actually wants to do their jobs,” Stansbury said before pivoting to the election.

Oversight role gives remarks added significance

Stansbury is not merely commenting from the sidelines.

The Albuquerque Democrat sits on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and serves as the ranking Democrat on its Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency, putting her directly inside one of the committees that would gain significantly greater investigative authority if Democrats took the majority.

Her congressional office has repeatedly pressed for witch hunts of the Trump administration this year, including a June request that House Oversight and Judiciary committees hold public hearings and investigate the Drug Enforcement Administration over its handling of a fentanyl operation affecting New Mexico.

The new comments go beyond a generic promise of congressional scrutiny, however: Stansbury specifically used the plural “impeachments” and said Democrats are already “in the process of planning.”

Under the Constitution, the House has the sole power to impeach federal officials. A majority vote in the House can approve articles of impeachment, but removal requires conviction by two-thirds of senators present after a Senate trial.

Comes amid active impeachment fight

Stansbury’s remarks also arrive as impeachment is already an active issue in the current Congress.

On Sept. 15, the House voted 232-147, with 47 members voting present, to table a resolution seeking to impeach President Donald Trump. Eighteen Democrats joined Republicans in voting to table it, while 147 Democrats voted against tabling it.

Stansbury herself voted against tabling the Trump impeachment resolution, according to the official House Clerk roll call. Fellow New Mexico Democrat Gabe Vasquez also voted against tabling it.

Voting against tabling a resolution is not the same as a final vote to impeach. But coupled with Stansbury’s newly circulated remarks, it provides additional context for her comments about what a Democrat-controlled House could pursue next year.

Viral post seizes on remarks

A conservative X account sharing the video characterized Stansbury’s comments as an admission that Democrats’ post-election priority would be impeachment rather than economic or border issues.

“If Democrats take the House, they’re not talking jobs, borders, or prices. They’re talking impeachments,” the account wrote, adding: “That’s the agenda. Revenge first. America last.”

That is the account’s political characterization, not Stansbury’s own wording.

Stansbury framed the issue differently. In the clip, she presented oversight and potential impeachments as a matter of legal accountability, saying supporters were frustrated that the administration was “not being held accountable under the law.”

She then immediately stressed the importance of November’s election, calling it “one of the most consequential elections of modern political history” and urging viewers to register and vote.

Stansbury is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and currently represents New Mexico’s 1st Congressional District.

The clip therefore offers voters a relatively direct preview of at least one priority Stansbury says Democrats are preparing for should they obtain House control: not simply hearings and subpoenas, but potentially multiple impeachment proceedings against Trump administration officials.

Exactly who those officials would be — and on what grounds Democrats would seek to impeach them — remains unanswered in the video.

Stansbury lets slip what Dems are planning if they capture Congress Read More »

New financial reports reveal stark Haaland-Hull fundraising divide

10 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland outraised Republican Gregg Hull during New Mexico’s latest campaign-finance reporting period.

But a line-by-line review of the candidates’ actual reports shows a much more complicated picture than the topline numbers alone: Haaland is operating a heavily nationalized, high-volume fundraising and campaign apparatus, while Hull’s donor base is overwhelmingly rooted in New Mexico.

Haaland reported $3,430,730.61 in net monetary contributions between late June and Sept. 7, compared with $943,415.80 for Hull. She ended the period with roughly $3.43 million cash on hand, while Hull reported about $509,652. Haaland spent $2,280,527.51 during the same period; Hull spent $731,601.79. Those figures come directly from the candidates’ Sept. 14 First General Reports filed with the Secretary of State.

The Santa Fe New Mexican highlighted the fundraising disparity Monday.

Piñon Post went deeper — examining not only how much each campaign raised, but where the contributions came from and where the money went once it entered the campaign accounts.

The contrast is striking.

More than 61,000 Haaland contributions came from outside New Mexico

Haaland’s filing contains 74,634 positive contribution transactions, totaling about $3.44 million before refunds.

Of those, Piñon Post’s analysis found 61,312 came from addresses outside New Mexico, totaling approximately $2.05 million. Just 13,319 came from New Mexico addresses, totaling about $1.37 million. Three additional transactions totaling $23,400 could not be cleanly classified by state from the filing.

That means approximately 82.2% of Haaland’s positive contribution transactions came from outside New Mexico.

By dollars, out-of-state contributions accounted for about 59.6% of her gross positive contributions during the period.

The filing also contained 226 contribution refunds totaling roughly $11,116, bringing Haaland’s official net contribution total to the reported $3.43 million.

The geographic spread is extensive.

Haaland received positive contribution transactions from all 50 states, as well as Washington, D.C., Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands and military-associated overseas addresses.

California alone accounted for 12,052 contribution transactions totaling more than $408,000. Texas produced another 3,654 transactions totaling roughly $218,000. Massachusetts contributed about $120,000, while New York and Washington each generated thousands of transactions.

The first few pages of Haaland’s 7,557-page filing illustrate the pattern: alongside Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Santa Fe and other New Mexico donors are contributors from San Francisco, Chicago, Las Vegas, Phoenix, Oakland, New York City, Providence, Boulder, Seattle and dozens of other out-of-state communities.

This is not a new phenomenon. Haaland’s campaign has openly promoted its national small-dollar reach; in April it reported more than 314,000 individual donations and said over 96% of its online donations during that reporting period were under $100.

Then there’s Hull

Hull’s report is almost the geographic reverse.

Piñon Post counted 1,902 positive contribution transactions in his filing.

Of those, 1,859 — 97.7% — came from New Mexico addresses.

Those New Mexico contributions totaled $891,844.94, or approximately 94.5% of the money Hull raised during the reporting period.

Only 43 positive contribution transactions came from outside New Mexico, totaling $51,570.86.

Put another way: Haaland recorded more than 1,400 times as many out-of-state contribution transactions as Hull during the period and nearly 40 times as many out-of-state dollars.

Hull campaign spokesman Ryan Saylor told the Santa Fe New Mexican that “more than nine out of every ten dollars we raised came from New Mexicans, across 1,900 contributions, and over half of those gifts were $100 or less.”

The filing substantiates the central geographic claim.

Hull’s donor pages repeatedly identify New Mexico retirees, teachers, nurses, construction workers, sales representatives, truck drivers, small-business owners and ranchers from Albuquerque, Rio Rancho, Farmington, Las Cruces, Alamogordo, Hobbs, Roswell, Carlsbad and smaller communities across the state.

His campaign made a similar argument following an earlier filing, saying 415 of 424 donations during that period came from New Mexicans.

The ActBlue footprint

Haaland’s expenditure report contains repeated payments to ActBlue Technical Services for credit-card processing.

Piñon Post calculated 14 ActBlue payments totaling $91,128.11 during the reporting period. Individual payments included $840.45, $2,617.02, $2,927.04, $5,783.49, $6,709.92 and, near the end of the period, an $8,628.55 payment on Sept. 7.

By comparison, Hull reported $16,465.34 in Anedot contribution-processing fees, along with a separate $41.03 WinRed expense.

There is an important distinction: Haaland’s individual contributor entries do not label every donation as having passed through ActBlue. The report therefore does not establish that all 74,634 positive transactions were ActBlue transactions.

What the filing does establish is the scale of the fundraising operation.

Haaland’s median positive contribution was approximately $12.50, and roughly 97% of her positive contribution transactions were $100 or less.

Hull’s median positive contribution was $100, while his filing contained a fraction of Haaland’s transaction volume.

Raising millions also costs millions

The spending reports add another dimension to the comparison.

Haaland spent $2.28 million during the period — more than three times Hull’s $731,602.

Her largest expenditure stream was not travel, campaign events or office supplies. It was the professional infrastructure needed to run a large national campaign.

Piñon Post’s vendor analysis found Haaland paid Washington, D.C.-based Sage Media Planning & Placement approximately $616,314.84, principally for advertising buys.

She also paid Washington-based MissionWired approximately $520,808.18 for digital fundraising.

Combined, those two firms accounted for approximately $1.137 million — essentially half of Haaland’s entire spending for the period.

MissionWired entries in the report are explicitly described as “Digital Fundraising,” including payments of $61,988 on July 10 and $50,000.24 on July 31.

The campaign also spent heavily on staffing and infrastructure. Piñon Post calculated approximately $300,049 in direct campaign-worker salaries, plus roughly $130,538 in payments to Payroll Data Processing, largely for payroll taxes and services.

Haaland also spent about $30,761 on Blue Cross Blue Shield health insurance for campaign personnel. Her report shows a $13,974.74 health-insurance payment alone on June 30.

Then there is the technology and communications apparatus.

Haaland’s campaign reported approximately $67,014 to NGP VAN for campaign software, $54,783 to Message Digital for texting, and $50,477 to Switchboard for texting services.

Other notable expenditures included roughly $59,257 to McKenna Media for media production, $32,342 to Cat Eye Studios for direct-mail consulting, $27,000 to Washington-based GBAO for research, $24,096 to Elias Law Group for legal services, approximately $16,497 to Spiros Consulting for research and $16,144 to Strategies 360 for fundraising consulting. The report itself lists GBAO’s $27,000 expenditure as “Research Services” and documents multiple Elias Law Group and Cat Eye Studios payments.

More than $600,000 spent on two pieces of the fundraising machine

One comparison puts the scale into perspective.

Haaland spent approximately $520,808 on MissionWired’s digital fundraising operation and another $91,128 in ActBlue processing fees.

Combined: $611,936.29.

That is roughly 84% of everything Hull spent on his campaign during the entire reporting period.

And Haaland’s approximately $616,315 Sage Media bill alone was nearly as large as Hull’s entire $731,602 expenditure total.

Hull’s spending is smaller — and heavily aimed at advertising

Hull’s campaign is hardly devoid of professional consultants or out-of-state vendors.

His largest vendor was Virginia-based Peakland Strategies, which received approximately $312,715.38, or about 43% of Hull’s total spending.

The filing shows repeated Peakland payments for campaign consulting and television work, including a $67,424.68 consulting payment on July 21, a $22,652.69 consulting expenditure on Aug. 28 and a $100,000 television/cable airtime and production payment on Aug. 31.

Hull also spent $70,250 with Red Surge for television/cable airtime and production and $63,003.67 with Albuquerque-based Cumulus for radio airtime and production.

Another $18,000 went to Content Creators LLC for television/cable production.

Other significant Hull expenses included approximately $43,718 to Rio Rancho-based Rycor LLC for consulting, campaign materials and postage; $33,150 to Jose Orozco, primarily for consulting and reimbursements; roughly $22,787 to Perez & Assoc./Perez & Associates for fundraising consulting; approximately $19,525 to Manny Lardizabal for consulting and campaign-office expenses; and about $15,967 to Albuquerque-based Graphic Connections for campaign materials.

Hull’s filing also contains the sort of smaller travel and campaign expenses common in a statewide race — gas stations, parking, restaurants, hotels, flights and community-event fees — alongside those much larger advertising and consulting bills.

Two different campaign machines

Haaland emphasized the breadth of her coalition after filing the report.

“I know firsthand how hard people work to earn every paycheck, and I am deeply grateful for everyone who shares my vision for New Mexico,” she said, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican.

Her campaign has previously touted raising more money from New Mexico than any other candidate in the race, while also emphasizing hundreds of thousands of contributions and a large national small-dollar network.

Hull, meanwhile, is raising significantly less money overall but has emphasized the in-state nature of his support. His campaign has described its fundraising model as building support “one donor at a time” among New Mexicans.

The filings show both campaigns rely on professional political consultants, advertising companies and technology vendors. They also show unmistakably different fundraising maps.

The raw headline is $3.43 million for Haaland versus $943,416 for Hull.

The deeper numbers are 61,312 out-of-state Haaland contribution transactions versus 43 for Hull; approximately $2.05 million in out-of-state Haaland contributions versus $51,571 for Hull; and a Haaland campaign spending more than $600,000 during the period on digital fundraising and ActBlue processing alone.

Hull’s campaign, meanwhile, derived more than 94 cents of every contribution dollar from New Mexico addresses, then directed a large portion of its substantially smaller budget toward television, radio and campaign consulting.

Those figures do not determine which candidate has broader voter support. Campaign donations are not votes.

But they do provide a detailed picture of two fundamentally different financial operations competing to elect New Mexico’s next governor.

New financial reports reveal stark Haaland-Hull fundraising divide Read More »

Embattled Dem’s latest filing packed with fast food, hotels, 94 ‘Bank Card’ charges

6 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

New Mexico state Rep. Joseph Hernandez’s latest campaign-finance report is in, and the spending pattern previously documented by the Piñon Post did not end with the earlier filings.

The Shiprock lawmaker’s First General Report, filed Sept. 14 with the New Mexico Secretary of State, shows another $6,797.40 in campaign expenditures, including hotels, restaurants, fast food, gas stations, convenience stores, taxis, airfare, grocery and retail purchases, and a new reporting description that appears again and again:

“Bank Card.”

A Piñon Post line-by-line review found 99 individual expenditure entries in the new report. Ninety-four of them — nearly 95% — contain “Bank Card” as the transaction description. Those transactions account for $6,407.40 of the $6,797.40 spent during the reporting period.

Using a debit or bank card is not itself unusual or evidence of wrongdoing. But “Bank Card” explains only how the expenditure was paid, while many of the accompanying purpose categories remain broad descriptions such as “candidate travel, lodging, and meals,” “meetings and appearances,” or “fundraising events.”

The filing comes weeks after Piñon Post reported on more than $101,000 in prior Hernandez campaign spending, including restaurants, fried-chicken chains, grocery and big-box stores, hotels, gift cards, cash withdrawals and unusual banking transactions.

The newest disclosure shows many of those same spending patterns continuing.

Another trail of fast food and restaurant charges

The latest report contains at least $1,000 in readily identifiable restaurant, fast-food, diner and coffee-shop spending, not counting grocery stores, convenience stores or many merchants whose names do not make the nature of the purchase obvious.

Among the familiar names are Domino’s, Panda Express, Taco Bell, Dairy Queen, Golden Corral, Sonic, Which Wich, McDonald’s, Little Caesars, Starbucks and Blake’s Lotaburger.

On July 10, the campaign spent $46.02 at Domino’s in Salt Lake City.

Four days later came $11.48 at Panda Express in Roswell and $17 at Taco Bell in Farmington.

Then came $19 at Dairy Queen in Monte Vista, Colorado, on July 15; $30 at Domino’s in Golden, Colorado, on July 17; and, on July 20, $50.30 at Golden Corral in Pueblo and $28.81 at Sonic in Golden.

The food spending continued into August.

On Aug. 3, the campaign reported $29.57 at Great American Bagel in Chicago, $19.15 at McDonald’s in Shiprock, and $49.39 at Starbucks in Farmington.

Two days later came $61.55 at TJ’s Diner in Farmington, followed the next day by $53.22 at Nataani Nez Restaurant in Shiprock.

On Aug. 7, Hernandez’s campaign reported $34.03 at Little Caesars in Albuquerque.

Three days later came $41 at Domino’s in Shiprock, followed by $5.57 at The Coffee Ship. The next day brought $9.17 at Sonic in Shiprock.

On Aug. 13, the campaign spent $22.03 at Blake’s Lotaburger and reported two charges — $8 and $115.50 — at Daanzho Restaurant in Dulce.

Then came another $7.30 at Starbucks, $13.34 at McDonald’s, $8.09 at Sonic, and $8.75 at The Coffee Ship before the reporting period ended.

A conservative tally of only readily identifiable fast-food and counter-service chains — including Domino’s, Panda Express, Taco Bell, Dairy Queen, Sonic, Which Wich, McDonald’s, Little Caesars, Blake’s and Great American Bagel — comes to more than $350 in this single report alone.

That does not include sit-down restaurants, coffee shops, buffets or food purchases from grocery and convenience stores.

The Chicago trip is now in the campaign ledger

The report also provides the most detailed campaign-finance picture yet of Hernandez’s trip to Chicago, where the National Conference of State Legislatures held its 2026 Legislative Summit from July 27 through July 29 at McCormick Place. NCSL’s official schedule confirms the conference dates and shows events running throughout July 29, including a closing event at Navy Pier that evening.

Hernandez later withdrew from his reelection campaign after reports surfaced about a Chicago hotel incident during the conference. Hernandez apologized for his behavior and said he was seeking professional help for “challenges with alcohol.” News reports citing a Chicago police report said officers responded after reports of a man running naked in a hotel hallway and knocking on doors.

His new campaign report now shows $828.40 in campaign-account transactions in Chicago from July 27 through July 30 alone.

On July 27, Hernandez’s campaign reported spending at a Chicago taxi service, HOB Restaurant, four separate Hyatt Regency Chicago transactions and another Chicago merchant.

The HOB Restaurant entry was $48.05. The listed address — 329 N. Dearborn St. — corresponds to the House of Blues Restaurant & Bar in Chicago.

On July 28, the campaign reported another taxi transaction and two purchases at Expresso and Milk.

Then came July 29 — the date associated with the hotel incident in news reports.

Hernandez’s campaign reported seven expenditures that day totaling $378.98: $21.23 at “Chicago Down Town Hotel,” $20.22 at “Cmt Chicago IL,” three taxi charges of $14.41, $17.38 and $24.61, a $17.88 McCormick Place charge, and a much larger $263.25 “Pin Debit Dda” transaction at a Chicago address.

All seven were placed under “candidate travel, lodging, and meals.”

All seven were described as “Bank Card.”

The following day, July 30, the campaign reported another $199.12 in Chicago transactions: $50 and $120 entries at “China Hotel” and two additional taxi charges.

The filings themselves do not establish that any of those purchases were improper, nor do they disclose what specifically was purchased in the $263.25 debit transaction.

Hotels across several states

The latest disclosure also contains substantial lodging expenses outside Chicago.

On June 29, the campaign spent $411.09 at Inn of the Mountain Gods in Mescalero. The next day came $320.55 at Hyatt House Denver.

On July 10, the campaign reported $363.14 at the Grand America Hotel in Salt Lake City, presumably for the Council of State Governments West conference. Three days later, another Salt Lake City hotel entry — Hyatt Place — cost the campaign $681.39.

Other lodging expenses included $108.97 at Candlewood Suites in Roswell, $123.09 plus a separate $4 charge at a Hampton Inn in Pueblo, and $160.72 at Staybridge Suites in Albuquerque.

There were also repeated gas-station and convenience-store expenditures at Allsup’s, Maverik, Speedway, Sinclair, Shiprock Quickstop, 7-2-11, Circle K and other locations.

And one familiar merchant from Hernandez’s older reports surfaced again.

On Aug. 3, the campaign spent $47.68 at Circle W in Waterflow, categorized once again as “candidate travel, lodging, and meals.”

Even another ATM entry

Despite the new emphasis on “Bank Card,” one transaction was reported differently.

On July 20, Hernandez himself is listed as the payee of a $10 ATM transaction.

Its campaign-purpose category reads:

“00-No Category Applies (Explain Below).”

The expenditure entry provides no substantive explanation of what the $10 was used for.

Previous Hernandez reports reviewed by Piñon Post included much larger cash-style and self-directed transactions, including $1,200 “Cash Out” entries, an over-the-counter transaction, ATM withdrawals and a $9,074.35 contribution Hernandez described as a “placeholder” to bring a negative reported balance above zero.

$6,797 spent, $4,245 raised

The new filing shows Hernandez entered the reporting period with $24,295.34 in cash.

He reported raising $4,245 while spending $6,797.40, leaving a closing balance of $21,742.94.

Contributions during the period included $500 from the Rio Grande Chapter of the Sierra Club PAC, $300 from the NEA-New Mexico Advocacy Fund for Public Education, $250 from Friends of Liz Stefanics, and $1,500 across two contributions from Craig Corwin. Hernandez also reported a $120 contribution from himself.

His campaign’s final reported expenditure in the filing came on Aug. 24, one day before he publicly announced his withdrawal from the reelection race.

That charge was $233.19 at Shamrock Food Service Warehouse in Farmington, categorized as a fundraising-event expense.

And, like 93 other expenditures in Hernandez’s newest report, its description consisted of the same two words:

“Bank Card.”

To read Hernandez’s latest campaign report, click here.

Embattled Dem’s latest filing packed with fast food, hotels, 94 ‘Bank Card’ charges Read More »

Vasquez, Haaland board the Buttigieg baggage train

17 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democrat U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez and gubernatorial nominee Deb Haaland welcomed Joe Biden’s former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg to Las Cruces on Sunday, tying their campaigns to one of the Biden administration’s highest-profile former Cabinet officials — whose four years overseeing the nation’s transportation system were marked by a series of major failures, safety controversies and federal watchdog warnings.

Hundreds of people attended the rally at Centennial High School, according to the Santa Fe New Mexican, where Buttigieg campaigned for both Democrats and praised his former Biden administration colleague Haaland and Vasquez.

Buttigieg told the crowd Vasquez had him “on speed dial” while he led the Department of Transportation, touting federal money directed toward projects in southern New Mexico.

Cunningham, Vasquez’s Republican challenger, responded by highlighting the political company Vasquez was keeping.

“Gabe Vasquez has spent four years telling southern New Mexico he is a moderate,” Cunningham said in a statement reported by the New Mexican. “Today he is on a stage with a woman who ran the Interior Department while Washington froze new oil and gas leasing and a man who wanted to decriminalize illegal border crossing. That is not an accident.”

Vasquez, meanwhile, used social media after the rally to argue his campaign is about “unity, respect, and putting New Mexico values FIRST.”

But Buttigieg’s appearance also revives scrutiny of the record he compiled as transportation secretary from 2021 through January 2025.

Nationwide FAA shutdown on Buttigieg’s watch

One of the most extraordinary breakdowns occurred in January 2023, when a failure of the Federal Aviation Administration’s Notice to Air Missions system forced officials to halt departures across the United States.

It was the first nationwide ground stop of that scale since Sept. 11, 2001.

Buttigieg later testified that contract personnel had unintentionally deleted files while attempting to synchronize the live NOTAM database with its backup. The FAA grounded departures for nearly two hours while the problem was addressed.

The outage ultimately exposed much deeper problems.

A subsequent Government Accountability Office review found that the FAA considered 51 of its 138 air-traffic-control systems “unsustainable,” including systems suffering from obsolete functionality and difficulty obtaining replacement parts. GAO found that 17 were particularly concerning and that some modernization projects remained six to 10 years away.

Air-traffic-controller shortages persisted

The FAA also struggled with chronic controller shortages during Buttigieg’s tenure.

By May 2024, major airlines were publicly pressing the government to address staffing deficiencies, with some critical facilities relying on mandatory overtime and the FAA easing flight requirements around New York because it did not have enough controllers.

The FAA did increase hiring — including 1,811 controllers in fiscal 2024, slightly above its target — but the shortage remained a significant operational problem. Later GAO analysis found that the controller workforce had declined by roughly 6% over a decade while flights using the system increased about 10%. The shortage had roots extending before Buttigieg’s tenure, including pandemic-era training disruptions, but it remained unresolved when he left office.

Watchdog: FAA’s Boeing oversight was ‘not effective’

A separate and particularly serious criticism came from the Transportation Department’s own inspector general.

In October 2024, DOT’s Office of Inspector General concluded that the FAA’s processes for overseeing Boeing 737 and 787 production were “not effective.”

The watchdog said Boeing had experienced repeated production problems and that FAA’s processes for identifying and resolving manufacturing deficiencies needed improvement.

The scrutiny intensified after an Alaska Airlines Boeing 737 MAX 9 lost a door plug in flight in January 2024.

The FAA subsequently grounded 171 MAX 9 aircraft, halted Boeing’s planned production expansion and increased inspectors at Boeing facilities.

The National Transportation Safety Board later concluded that Boeing’s inadequate training and oversight caused the incident — but it also found the FAA was ineffective in ensuring Boeing corrected known, repetitive manufacturing problems.

East Palestine response became political disaster

Buttigieg also faced fierce criticism following the Feb. 3, 2023 Norfolk Southern derailment in East Palestine, Ohio, where cars carrying hazardous chemicals left the tracks and residents raised concerns about contamination and health effects.

Buttigieg waited roughly three weeks before personally visiting the community.

He later acknowledged that he should have acted publicly sooner.

“I could have spoken sooner about how strongly I felt about this incident, and that’s a lesson learned for me,” Buttigieg told CBS at the time. He later similarly acknowledged that he should have visited sooner.

Transportation secretaries do not ordinarily travel immediately to every derailment, and federal transportation personnel were on the ground earlier. Still, Buttigieg’s delayed public response became one of the defining controversies of his Cabinet tenure.

Billions for EV chargers, sluggish deployment

Another signature Biden-era transportation initiative also suffered a slow rollout.

The 2021 infrastructure law authorized $7.5 billion for two major federal EV-charging programs, including the $5 billion National Electric Vehicle Infrastructure program overseen by the Federal Highway Administration.

Yet the first NEVI-funded stations did not open until late 2023.

By April 2025 — several months after Buttigieg left office — GAO found that the NEVI and Charging and Fueling Infrastructure programs combined had produced just 384 publicly open chargers. GAO also concluded that DOT and the Joint Office responsible for the effort had failed to fully define performance goals for major portions of the initiative.

The $7.5 billion was never intended to be spent immediately and was authorized across several fiscal years, but even Congress expressed concern about the pace of deployment, according to GAO.

Hundreds of watchdog recommendations remained open

The problems were broader than individual headline-making episodes.

By April 2024, GAO reported that DOT had 212 open recommendations, including 20 designated as priority recommendations because addressing them could improve safety, government operations, transparency or the stewardship of federal money.

DOT’s own inspector general also identified aviation safety, air-traffic modernization, surface transportation safety, infrastructure management, grant stewardship, cybersecurity and fraud prevention among the department’s major management challenges during Buttigieg’s final full year in office.

Haaland and Vasquez are presenting Buttigieg as a successful former Cabinet colleague who helped steer federal money toward New Mexico. Their opponents have a markedly different record to point to: a nationwide FAA shutdown, persistent controller shortages, ineffective Boeing oversight, a painfully delayed East Palestine appearance, a sluggish multibillion-dollar EV-charger rollout and hundreds of outstanding federal watchdog recommendations.

As Buttigieg attempts to build his own national profile ahead of 2028, Vasquez and Haaland are making clear that they are comfortable putting his Biden-era record alongside their own on the 2026 campaign trail.

Vasquez, Haaland board the Buttigieg baggage train Read More »

Vasquez attacks rival’s national spotlight, backlash follows

28 Comments / New Mexico, News, Politics / By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez went on the offensive against Republican challenger Greg Cunningham after Cunningham used a nationally televised GOP convention speech to hammer crime, border security and fentanyl in New Mexico — accusing his opponent of abandoning New Mexicans to “kiss the ring” of President Donald Trump.

Cunningham, a retired Albuquerque police detective and Marine Corps veteran, spoke Thursday at the Republican Midterm Convention in Dallas, where he was among candidates from competitive congressional districts given a national platform. KOAT reported that Cunningham’s appearance underscored the growing national attention surrounding New Mexico’s 2nd Congressional District race.

Vasquez responded with a video recorded from his truck.

“While New Mexicans are struggling to make ends meet, my opponent, @cunninghamfornm, is choosing to fly to Texas to stand on a stage and support President Trump and this extreme MAGA administration,” Vasquez wrote.

In the accompanying video, Vasquez contrasted Cunningham’s Dallas appearance with his own campaigning in southern New Mexico.

“I’m sitting in my truck heading to our campaign office to make some calls with some of our volunteers here in Las Cruces,” Vasquez said, adding that he had recently traveled through Silver City, Hatch, Deming and Las Cruces.

Then he turned his attention to Cunningham.

“So where’s my opponent today?” Vasquez asked. “Well, he’s in Dallas speaking at the Trumpapalooza. He’s kissing the ring, he’s cozying up with MAGA donors who are making millions in the Trump economy.”

Cunningham used stage to focus on New Mexico

Cunningham’s actual convention address, however, was heavily focused on New Mexico and his law-enforcement background.

He recounted serving in the Marine Corps during Desert Storm before joining the Albuquerque Police Department, where he said he worked patrol and narcotics and spent years undercover targeting gangs and cartels.

Cunningham then criticized Democratic leadership over crime, drugs and border security.

“Well, where has that gotten us?” Cunningham asked after noting Democrats control New Mexico’s governorship and Legislature and currently hold the state’s congressional delegation.

He also attacked Vasquez directly over his past rhetoric concerning policing and immigration enforcement.

“New Mexicans do not have to live this way,” Cunningham said. “Yes, the border can be closed. Illegal crossings can be stopped.”

The Dallas appearance was hardly accidental. Cunningham was specifically included among Republican nominees from competitive House districts featured at the convention, and national coverage singled out NM-02 as one of the races receiving attention.

Vasquez instead sought to turn the focus toward household expenses.

“Meanwhile in New Mexico folks here are digging deeper and deeper just to stay afloat, to buy a tank of gas, a gallon of milk, to pay for their prescriptions, to pay for their utility bills,” he said.

He opened the video by pointing out that national diesel prices had crossed $6 per gallon.

That claim is accurate. The national average exceeded $6 for the first time this week amid major global supply disruptions, including the conflict involving Iran and attacks on Russian refining infrastructure, according to Reuters.

The cost-of-living issue has also become politically difficult for the Trump administration and congressional Republicans, with Reuters reporting that high prices remain a major concern as the midterms approach.

Vasquez’s sharpest personal attack involved Trump’s recent social-media posts floating the name “New America” for New Mexico.

“Greg just stepped off the stage where just yesterday President Trump was openly mocking New Mexico and not a peep from Greg,” Vasquez said. “Pretty spineless if you ask me.”

Trump recently posted an altered image replacing “Mexico” with “America” in the state’s name, prompting widespread reactions from Democratic elected officials. Trump cannot unilaterally change New Mexico’s legal name; doing so would require changing the state Constitution.

Vasquez then took the argument further.

“This should give an idea to all New Mexicans of how Greg would govern in Congress,” he said. “For Donald Trump and for New America, not for the gente.”

“Or should I say for the people because I’m not sure Trump is going to let you speak Spanish in his New America,” Vasquez added.

That latter remark was political rhetoric; there has been no announced proposal to prohibit New Mexicans from speaking Spanish.

Vasquez’s post also drew a wave of criticism in the replies on X.

Some commenters simply wrote “As he should” in response to Cunningham attending the convention, while another posted “New America.” Others accused Vasquez of being responsible for New Mexico’s economic problems or dismissed his attack as a “dumb take.”

One user told Vasquez, “New Mexicans are struggling because of your leadership,” while another predicted, “you’re gonna lose.” Another mocked what the user described as Vasquez being “ratioed again.”

Social-media replies are not a scientific measure of voter sentiment and can be shaped by algorithms, activist accounts and national audiences. But the response showed that Vasquez’s attack did not go unanswered online.

The increasingly sharp rhetoric reflects the stakes in NM-02.

Vasquez and Cunningham are running in a district Trump carried in 2024 even as voters reelected Vasquez to Congress. Trump defeated Kamala Harris there 49.9%-48.1%, while Vasquez defeated Republican Yvette Herrell 52.1%-47.9%. The district is one of 23 Trump-won House seats currently represented by Democrats.

Cunningham is attempting to make the race about crime, policing, the border and Democratic control of New Mexico.

Vasquez, meanwhile, is increasingly framing Cunningham as an extension of Trump and arguing that economic costs should dominate the campaign.

After Cunningham took that argument to a national Republican audience in Dallas, Vasquez made clear he was not going to let the moment pass quietly.

Vasquez attacks rival’s national spotlight, backlash follows Read More »

1 2 3 4 5 6 … 255
Scroll to Top