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.