Crooked Bough News Round-up

— What to know about public financing in New Mexico’s upcoming primary election

 

at 4/17/26 4:30pm

Voters cast ballots early at the University of New Mexico polling center on Oct. 31, 2025. (Danielle Prokop / Source NM)New Mexico is one of the few states that allows candidates seeking elected office to use public money for their campaigns — but don’t expect it to be a factor in any high-profile races. Under state law, candidates vying for political offices such as the governor’s seat and the state Legislature are not eligible to use public financing. Only New Mexico’s state and district court judges can use public money in the 2026 election cycle. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Allowing aspiring judges to use public money serves two purposes, according to New Mexico’s State Election Director Mandy Vigil: It levels the playing field and it helps to prevent conflicts of interest down the line. “It comes from a place of wanting to eliminate the need for fundraising in offices where we want the candidates and those that are elected to be impartial,” Vigil told Source NM. “Judges are someone that we all expect to be impartial and not really beholden to anyone for any reason.” The state treasury holds the money in a Public Election Fund and only doles it out to candidates once the Secretary of State’s Office qualifies them. New Mexico is one of 15 states to offer public financing options in elections, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. In previous election cycles, candidates seeking election to the Public Regulation Commission were also eligible for public financing to eliminate the chance of soliciting donations from people or companies they would later regulate. However, a committee now nominates potential commissioners for PRC seats and the governor chooses appointees from the committee’s pool. The amount of money a candidate can receive changes depending on whether their race is contested. In a contested race, the state multiplies the number of voters in that district by a dollar amount — in some districts, it’s as high as 68 cents per voter — to determine how much money goes into the pot from which candidates can draw. In the First Judicial District, which includes Santa Fe, the pot is just more than $62,505, according to the New Mexico Secretary of State’s guide. The 10th Judicial District, which serves De Baca, Harding and Quay counties, has a pot of less than $1,500. If candidates do not face an opponent in the general election, Vigil said they are not eligible to receive public funding. The law requires candidates to obtain a certain number of “qualifying contributions,” which are $5 donations to the state’s Public Election Fund, to make the ballot. The required number is equal to a percentage of total registered voters in the judicial district. This year’s election is the first in which judicial candidates are able to collect those through an online portal, Vigil said. “I think that has made a huge difference in the complexity of the process,” she said. “Understanding that judges don’t have to fundraise and can receive public funds…seems to resonate and feels reasonable.”

[Category: Election 2026, New Mexico Secretary of State]

— Federal regulatory staff protest proposed New Mexico pipeline for data center

 

at 4/17/26 3:23pm

A map of the proposed pipeline Energy Transfer submitted in its January 2026 application to the U.S. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. (Via FERC)Federal regulatory staff this week filed a protest to a proposed pipeline to fuel the Project Jupiter data center in southern New Mexico, likely delaying its construction. New Mexico environmental groups seek federal regulators to deny pipeline for Project Jupiter In a Jan. 29 application to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Dallas-based developer Energy Transfer — which owns Transwestern Pipeline Company — sought expedited approval for a 17-mile pipeline crossing federal, private and state trust lands. The $60-million “Green Chile Project” would pipe 400,000 dekatherms of gas from El Paso daily to the private power plants fueling the proposed data center Project Jupiter. In federal filings, the Texas company requested approval for construction to start on April 15 in order to complete the project by August. The project already faced potential roadblocks when the New Mexico State Land Office denied the rights for construction on state trust land. Several New Mexico environmental groups this week also filed a formal challenge with the FERC. The April 13 FERC staff protest, signed by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission Acting Secretary Debbie-Anne Reese, noted that the developers’ application was incomplete. Specifically, the company failed to provide confirmation from the New Mexico State Historic Preservation Office that no “historic properties” would be affected, documentation required under FERC’s regulations and the National Historic Preservation Act. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE “Without this documentation, the environmental concerns cannot be adequately addressed before the end of the protest period,” the document reads. The New Mexico Historic Preservation Division received a request to review the project on April 14, New Mexico Department of Cultural Affairs Director of Communications and Marketing Daniel Zillmann told Source NM Friday. The state office has 30 days to review project submissions for any historical sites, he said. Celeste Miller, acting director for media relations at FERC, said in a statement provided to Source NM that if Transwestern Pipeline Company cannot resolve the issues raised in the protests within 30 days, the project will not be eligible for the expedited “blanket certificate.” Instead, she said, it would have to undergo the process for a “project-specific certificate,” which according to FERC rules, requires more detailed flings and public notice to receive approval. Energy Transfer Vice President for Corporate Communications Vicki Granado did not provide responses to Source NM’s written questions about how the FERC agency protest would impact the timeline, telling Source NM in a statement that, “we continue to work with FERC so all necessary requirements are met as we move through this process.” In addition to the protest filed by the Center for Biological Diversity, Sierra Club, and Food & Water Watch, another group representing Doña Ana residents sought to intervene on the project: Hold the Line Campaign, which organizes against several proposed oil and gas pipelines in New Mexico, Texas and Louisiana. Jon Copeland, a community organizer in El Paso for the group, told Source NM that FERC’s staff protest was “nearly unheard of.” FERC’s protest is a first step, but it’s not justice, Copeland told Source NM in a call. We need real accountability for the people and the land this pipeline will destroy.”

[Category: Environment & Climate Change, Gov & Politics, data centers, Doña Ana County, FERC, Green Chile Pipeline, oil and gas, Project Jupiter]

— New Mexico to impose new federal food aid document requirements to reduce errors

 

at 4/17/26 3:00pm

The New Mexico Health Care Authority will begin imposing additional documentation requirements for federal food assistance recipients beginning May 1, 2026. (Getty Images)The New Mexico Health Care Authority will soon impose additional requirements on federal food assistance recipients, part of an effort to bring down the state’s high rate of errors and thereby avoid huge financial penalties established in the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Beginning May 1, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program recipients will be required to provide documentation regarding costs for housing, utilities and dependents to receive SNAP benefits. Those costs factor into how much in monthly food benefits recipients receive. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE In addition to ensuring that recipients receive the correct benefit amount, according to a Thursday announcement from the HCA, implementing more documentation requirements will bring down the state’s high rate of SNAP administration errors. The “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” President Donald Trump signed last year threatens stiff penalties for states with high rates of SNAP over- or underpayment to recipients. New Mexico’s error rate is 14.6%, according to recent estimates from the federal Agriculture Department, which is among the nation’s highest.  If the state does not bring down its error rate significantly, it could be required to pay for a portion of the total SNAP benefits it receives from the federal government, which otherwise fully funds SNAP benefits. Failure to bring the rate below 6% could mean New Mexico is required to come up with $153 million.  New Mexico has the nation’s highest SNAP participation rate. More than one in five New Mexicans receive federal food assistance.  Tim Fowler, an HCA spokesperson, told Source NM in an email Friday that the HCA does not have an estimate of how much the new documentation requirements will bring down the error rate.  “However, this is key to ensuring accurate case determination, which will improve our overall accuracy rates,” he said. “Our team will regularly assess how this new process improves compliance levels.” State officials have previously attributed the state’s high rate of miscalculations to staffing and technological issues. The state also waived multiple documentation requirements at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, which officials said resulted in more errors.  New Mexico agency seeks funds to bring down SNAP error rate — but not too quickly New documentation requirements include rental or mortgage statements, utility bills or letters from childcare providers showing monthly costs. The authority will also accept sworn statements in certain circumstances, and the HCA officials said caseworkers can assist households in obtaining the required records.  “When families provide complete information about their expenses, we can make sure their benefit amount is calculated correctly,” said Acting HCA Deputy Secretary Niki Kozlowski in a statement. “Without verification, those expenses may not be counted, which could result in lower SNAP benefits than a family actually qualifies for.”  Authority officials noted that the new requirement won’t immediately disrupt benefits for current SNAP recipients. Beginning next month, SNAP recipients will be asked to provide the records the next time they renew their benefits, according to the HCA.  “Our priority is to provide benefits to eligible New Mexicans,” Fowler said, “as we continue evaluating the fiscal and operational effects of this change.”

[Category: Uncategorized, New Mexico Health Care Authority, One Big Beautiful Bill Act, SNAP and hunger in New Mexico, snap error rate, Supplemental Assistance Nutrition Program]

— New Mexico Election 2026: trail notes

 

at 4/17/26 2:00pm

Greg Cunningham, a former Marine and Albuquerque Police Department detective, received an endorsement from President Donald Trump in his bid to unseat incumbent U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) (Danielle Prokop/Source NM)Last week, former Marine and Albuquerque detective Greg Cunningham lost his only opponent in the June 2 Republican primary for the state’s 2nd Congressional District, currently represented by Democratic U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez. This week, Cunningham picked up a notable endorsement: from President Donald Trump. Trump posted to his social media platform Truth Social and said Cunningham “knows the Wisdom and Courage required to Defend our Country, Support our Brave Military, Veterans, and Law Enforcement and Ensure PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH.” Vasquez has represented the district, which stretches roughly from Albuquerque’s South Valley to the U.S.-Mexico border, since 2022 when he narrowly defeated Republican Yvette Herrell. “Greg is running against a Radical Left Democrat named Gabe Vasquez, who tried to raise Taxes by over $4 Trillion Dollars, and voted against all of our Tax Cuts, including NO TAX ON TIPS, NO TAX ON SOCIAL SECURITY, and NO TAX ON OVERTIME,” Trump wrote. “As your next Congressman, [Cunningham] will work tirelessly to Grow the Economy, Cut Taxes and Regulations, Unleash American Energy DOMINANCE, Promote MADE IN THE U.S.A., Keep our Border SECURE, Stop Migrant Crime, and Defend our always under siege Second Amendment.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE In a statement, Cunningham said he was “deeply honored” to win the president’s endorsement. “I got into this race because the people of our district deserve a representative who actually understands what’s at stake on our border, in our communities, and for our families,” he wrote. “I will never stop fighting for them.” Republican leaders in the U.S. House of Representatives — including Speaker Mike Johnson, Majority Leader Steve Scalise, Majority Whip Tom Emmer and House GOP Conference Chair Lisa McClain — also endorsed Cunningham this week. Busy week for Deb Haaland’s campaign Deb Haaland, the former U.S. Interior secretary who’s seeking the Democratic nomination to be New Mexico’s next governor, reported massive fundraising results this week. Her nearly 13,000-page campaign finance report shows her gubernatorial campaign raised more than $4.1 million in the last six months — much more than her opponent’s $1.2 million. Those campaign documents also show that she has a nearly five-to-one advantage over Democratic challenger Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman in terms of cash on hand.  Haaland also released her first campaign ad this week. The 30-second spot mentions her journey from being a “single mom who struggled to afford groceries and rent” to a “leader who took on Trump to protect our health care — and won.” Bregman believes he’s the ‘tough person’ needed to govern NM Source NM sat down with Bregman this week for an in-depth discussion about his Democratic campaign for governor. Although major polls give Haaland a double-digit lead over Bregman in the upcoming primary election, he told Source he believes he’s the right choice for the job.  Read the discussion here. NM Libertarian Party says lack of GOP candidates could provide a welcome boost The Libertarian Party of New Mexico this week revealed its official slate of candidates. Among them are Jason Vaillancourt, a candidate for state auditor, and Rhett Trapman, running for U.S. Senate. Republicans failed to get candidates on the ballot in both races, though the party is mounting write-in campaigns for them.  Libertarian Party Chair Chris Luchini told Source NM he believes that if Vaillancourt and Trapman receive enough signatures to qualify for the ballot, most Republicans will vote for them instead of a Democrat come Election Day. “If we run a candidate in a two-way race against the Democrat, say, 75% to 80% of Republicans will vote for any name on the ballot that isn’t the Democrat,” he said. “Politics, unfortunately, seems to be more driven by hate than love.” As a result, Luchini said the Libertarian Party is poised to greatly expand its voter base and visibility, not to mention potentially even win one of the races. Moreover, the noticeable lack of Republicans on the ballot will enable the Libertarian Party to return to major party status, he said. The party first gained major party status in 2018 and lost it following the 2024 election. State law requires minor parties to receive on Election Day at least 5% of the votes cast in the previous presidential or gubernatorial election to achieve major party status. This year, that equates to a little more than 46,000 votes.  The Libertarians must also have at least one-third of 1% of the state’s registered voters to become a major party. According to the latest figures from the Secretary of State’s Office, 2% of voters are registered with parties other than the major Democratic or Republican parties, though the data does not specify how many are Libertarians. Luchini said Libertarians receiving 5% of the vote is certainly possible, especially since they seem likely to grab so many votes from Republicans this year. “Im not here to give advice to the other parties about maintaining their house,” he said. “But the Republicans’ results speak for themselves.” The race for a vacant seat Two political newcomers competing for the Democratic nomination to replace a retiring Las Cruces state representative are rapidly racking up endorsements. U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez (D-N.M.) endorsed nonprofit director Lori Martinez, who is seeking to fill the Legislature’s District 37 seat after longtime Rep. Joanne Ferrary announced she would not seek reelection. Ferrari previously endorsed Martinez and is her campaign’s biggest donor, recently filed campaign finance reports show. New Mexico Primary 2026: NM House of Representatives, District 37 Her opponent, attorney Matilda “Tilli” Villalobos, is boasting plenty of endorsements of her own. The Laborers’ International Union of North America Local 16 endorsed her and former presidential candidate Andrew Yang’s Forward Party, which recently submitted paperwork to officially become a minor party in New Mexico, is also supporting her campaign. In an unconventional move, Planned Parenthood Votes New Mexico endorsed both Martinez and Villalobos. The organization did not immediately respond to Source NM’s requests for comment. The two candidates are virtually neck and neck when it comes to money, campaign finance reports show. In total, Martinez raised nearly $24,000 since October and has $19,000 remaining. Villalobos reported raising just more than $27,000 and has $21,000 left. U.S. Senate candidate arrested at Alamogordo protest Matt Dodson, a Democratic Socialist challenging incumbent U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) in the June 2 primary, spent two nights in jail last week after he was arrested at a protest near Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo. Court records show authorities “warned [him] not to be in the roadway” during the demonstration and allege Dodson did not heed those warnings. The protest, called Shut Down Drone Warfare, was organized by a coalition of organizations including CODEPINK: Women for Peace, Veterans for Peace, Ban Killer Drones and People’s Arms. Holloman Air Force Base is one of the largest drone training bases in the nation. The protest’s goal was to “peacefully interrupt business as usual” and protest the use of drones by the U.S. in Gaza, Iran, Lebanon and Venezuela.  In a call with Source NM, Dodson said the law he broke was “equivalent to a parking ticket” while he was passing out fliers and said he “should have never been arrested.”  “However, what I experienced every step of the way is exactly what everyone running for office and every incumbent in office needs to experience,” Dodson said. “Because our entire jail system just needs to reform from top to bottom.” Dodson got out of jail April 10 after two nights inside. A bench trial is scheduled for May 11. NM Supreme Court schedules oral arguments in state Rep. Dow candidacy case The New Mexico Supreme Court on Friday scheduled oral arguments for April 21 in the election case involving state Rep. Rebecca Dow (R-Elephant Butte). A state district court judge last week ruled to remove Dow from the ballot for New Mexico House District 38 after Democrat Tara Jaramillo, who previously held Dow’s seat, argued that Dow had inappropriately filed screenshots of her nominating petitions rather than the forms themselves. The Secretary of States office this week asked the court to uphold that ruling. In her appeal, Dow contended that the issue at hand is “at worst a formatting mistake.” In his written request earlier this week for oral arguments, Dows lawyer Carter Harrison notes that Dow maintains that it was not even a formatting mistake because the filing of online nominating petitions with the proper filing officer is done, well, online, making it irrelevant what format she printed the petitions in, or if she printed them out at all. Harrison goes on to write that the court should be aware that the case is enormously consequential: in addition to disenfranchising the voters of District 38, who have consistently electorally supported Rep. Dow for the better part of a decade and who did so again this cycle, the District Courts decision ousts the House minority party of its caucus chairwoman, and may (depending upon electoral outcomes in a handful of other races) give the majority party the two-thirds supermajority in the chamber that it needs to override gubernatorial vetoes. While the outcome for Dow remains pending, ballots for overseas and military voters cant wait according to the Secretary of States office. In response to a query from Source NM, SOS Director of Communications, Legislative and Executive Affairs Lindsey Bachman confirmed that, Given the requirements of state and federal laws, and also considering that there has not been a stay issued pending the appeal of the Dow case, the ballots must be mailed on April 18 and will not include Dows name as a candidate for State House District 38. The Secretary of State’s Wednesday response to Dow’s appeal noted the pending overseas deadline, as well as the office’s requirement to submit a report to the U.S. Department of Justice by April 20 certifying that military and overseas ballots were properly sent. According to the filing, the issue impacts 90 voters registered in Doña Ana, Socorro and Sierra counties. Neither Dow nor Harrison responded immediately to Sources request for comment on Friday.

[Category: Election 2026, Deb Haaland, Donald Trump, Greg Cunningham, Mike Johnson, Rep. Joanne Ferrary, Sam Bregman, U.S. Rep. Gabe Vasquez]

— NM Land Commissioner decries Trump ‘land grab’ along New Mexico-Mexico border

 

at 4/17/26 1:04pm

Federal authorities intend to seize seven acres of New Mexico trust land along the Mexico-New Mexico border to build new wall infrastructure, according to an announcement April 17, 2026, from the State Land Office. (Map courtesy NM SLO)The U.S. Customs and Border Protection agency intends to seize seven acres of state trust land along the New Mexico-Mexico border, according to the State Land Office. The federal government first awarded the parcel near Santa Teresa to the State Land Office in 1898 to generate money for local schools. But over the last several years, according to correspondence the Land Office provided along with a news release Friday, the federal government has sought to purchase a strip of it along the border to beef up border infrastructure. According to a March letter the Land Office provided, CBP officials in March determined acquiring the parcel was needed “to construct new border infrastructure along the United States/Mexico border, namely, steel bollard border barrier, the installation of detection technology, and roads.” GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE The CBP in March offered the state roughly $800,000 for the parcel, which a U.S. Department of Justice attorney wrote is the fair market value for the property. After the Land Office did not respond to an April 1 deadline to respond to that offer, CBP officials alerted the state that it intended to seize the property and would file necessary paperwork to do so Friday, according to Land Office spokesperson Joey Keefe. Commissioner of Public Lands Stephanie Garcia Richard, in a statement Friday, described the federal government’s effort as “historic overreach” by President Donald Trump’s administration and said her office is reviewing any recourse it may have to prevent the acquisition. “Doing business with these thugs was simply not an option,” she said, referring to the federal effort to purchase the property. “Unsurprisingly, the President threw a temper tantrum when he couldn’t automatically get his way and is now going to forcibly take our state land and deny our school kids the revenue that comes from it.” Keefe told Source NM on Friday morning that the federal government is expected to file the necessary paperwork to “condemn” the property for acquisition Friday afternoon. CBP officials did not provide a response to Source NM about its effort to acquire the land as of publication time Friday.  Garcia Richard said the seizure of the property is the latest escalation in years of conflict between the State Land Office and federal border authorities seeking to build a border wall on state trust land.  Her predecessor, Aubrey Dunn, a Republican who later changed his party registration to Libertarian, tried to prohibit the federal government’s trespasses onto state trust land to build a border wall in 2018 during Trump’s first term.

[Category: Immigration, Border wall, Commissioner Stephanie Garcia Richard, N.M. State Land Office, New Mexico border, Santa Teresa, Trump border wall, U.S. Customs and Border Protection]

— With GOP defections, US House passes bill extending legal status for 350,000 Haitians

 

at 4/17/26 12:57pm

Massachusetts Democratic U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley speaks at a press conference April 15, 2026, outside the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. From left to right just in back of her are House Minority Whip Katherine Clark, New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen, GOP Rep. Mike Lawler and Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)WASHINGTON — The U.S. House on Thursday passed a measure that would extend Temporary Protected Status for Haiti for three years, in a rare rebuke by the GOP-led Congress to President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign. Ten Republicans defected, including Reps. Maria Salazar, Mario Díaz-Balart and Carlos Giménez of Florida, Rich McCormick of Georgia, Don Bacon of Nebraska, Mike Lawler and Nicole Malliotakis of New York, Mike Turner and Mike Carey of Ohio and Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania.  Rep. Kevin Kiley, a California independent who caucuses with the GOP, also voted for the bill.  The bill, which succeeded 224-204, came as Trump’s administration has sought to revoke legal protections for immigrants with Temporary Protected Status, or TPS, including Haitian nationals, amid his crackdown on immigrants without legal status.   The bill now heads to the GOP-led Senate, and should that chamber pass the measure, would almost certainly be vetoed by Trump.  Discharge petition The Democratic-led effort came to the floor under a discharge petition, which allows a bill to skirt Republican leadership and be brought to the House floor once it gains the signatures of a majority of House members. U.S. Rep. Ayanna Pressley — a Massachusetts Democrat and co-chair of the House Haiti Caucus — brought forth the petition in January and it reached the 218-signature threshold in late March. Pressley’s petition forced a floor vote on a bill from New York Democratic Rep. Laura Gillen. The version voted on by the House would require the secretary of Homeland Security to designate Haiti for TPS until April 2029.  Lawler, a New York Republican, was an original co-sponsor of Gillen’s measure. Lawler, Salazar, Fitzpatrick and Bacon had also signed on to Pressley’s discharge petition. The bill’s passage in the House came just days before the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments over Trump’s efforts to revoke TPS for 350,000 Haitians and 6,000 Syrians.  A federal judge in February blocked the termination of TPS for Haiti from going into effect — shortly before the designation was slated to end.  TPS is provided by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security secretary to nationals who cannot safely return home. The deportation protection lets individuals legally work in the United States, with renewal cycles that range from six to 18 months.   ‘A death sentence’ “Let us be clear about what deportation would mean — we would be sending parents back into danger, ripping our seniors away from their caregivers, faith leaders back into instability, and essential workers back into insecurity,” Pressley said at a Wednesday press conference she and Gillen held with colleagues and advocates regarding the effort.  “To deport anyone to a country that is grappling with layered political, humanitarian and economic crises is unconscionable, it is dangerous and it is preventable,” Pressley added.  “To deport anyone to Haiti right now is unlawful, and it would be a death sentence.” 

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics, Immigration]

— National Guard ‘follows the Constitution,’ general says of troops possibly deployed to polls

 

at 4/17/26 12:53pm

Members of the National Guard patrol the entrance to the Union Station stop on Washington, D.C.'s Metro system, on March 25, 2026. President Donald Trump was appearing at a GOP event at Union Station that night. (Photo by Jane Norman/States Newsroom)The National Guard’s top general told Congress on Friday that it would follow the Constitution and the law when he was asked about the possibility President Donald Trump would order troops to polling places for the midterm elections. The remarks at a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee hearing came as Democratic lawmakers also voiced unease over the continuing deployment of nearly 2,500 National Guard members in Washington, D.C. Rep. Joe Morelle, a New York Democrat, asked Gen. Steven Nordhaus, chief of the National Guard Bureau, what assurances he could provide to Americans concerned about the deployment of troops at the polls.  “The National Guard, obviously, always follows the Constitution, law, policy and guidance, both at the federal and the state level,” Nordhaus said. Federal law prohibits the deployment of the military to polling places unless necessary “to repel armed enemies of the United States” and violations are punishable by up to five years in prison. Trump has said that he should have ordered the National Guard to seize ballot boxes during the 2020 election, which he falsely maintains was stolen. Steve Bannnon, a former Trump adviser, has publicly urged the president to send the military and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents to patrol the polls. Trump last year deployed National Guard members to several Democratic-led cities, in some instances federalizing them against the will of governors, who typically command National Guard members. He also sent active-duty Marines into Los Angeles. Opponents of the deployments expressed fears that they represented a test run for intimidating voters. While the deployment to the District of Columbia continues, Trump withdrew troops from other cities after the Supreme Court in December left in place a lower court decision barring a deployment in Chicago. Rep. Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, questioned how long the D.C. deployment is sustainable. She also referred to reporting by ABC News that the Pentagon intends to keep troops in D.C. through the end of Trump’s term in January 2029. “Picking up waste in the District of Columbia does not prepare anyone for conflicts that could arise in Europe, Asia and the Middle East,” McCollum said.

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]

— New Mexico environment officials adopt rules for firefighting foams containing PFAS

 

at 4/17/26 10:05am

Aqueous Film-Forming Foams, which are used to put out fuel fires at airports or oil and gas sites, will now be regulated as hazardous waste in New Mexico under new rules adopted on April 13, 2026. (U.S. Air Force photo/Staff Sgt. Alex Mercer)New Mexico adopted rules this week to allow state environment officials to regulate fire-fighting foam containing so-called “forever chemicals” as hazardous waste, the first state in the country to apply the strict requirements to the substance. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE A unanimous decision by the state Environmental Improvement Board on Monday allows the New Mexico Environment Department to monitor and limit the use of the firefighting foams that have polluted groundwater in and around military installations in New Mexico. The rules are the result of law enacted last year.  Aqueous Film-Forming Foams, which are used to put out fuel fires at airports or oil and gas sites, contain per-and-polyflourylakyl substances — PFAS — that build up in water and soil and in people’s bodies and are linked to serious health conditions. State environment officials can now treat AFFF substances as they do other toxic substances, such as lead or benzene.The state will roll out efforts to document where the foams are stored, on military bases, oil fields or other areas that require immediate fire suppression. The rules require facilities that store the foams to report the quantities to the environmental department. Forever chemicals’ detected in Clovis-area blood tests, New Mexico environmental officials say “Designating discarded PFAS-laden firefighting foams as a hazardous waste means the Environment Department can require cleanup,” Environment Secretary James Kenney said in a statement. “This week’s decision puts to rest any argument to the contrary and will help expedite cleanup efforts around military installations.” The state remains mired in litigation over the cleanup of PFAS, including a U.S. Department of Defense case in Denver federal appeals court from 2022 over New Mexico’s authority to require the federal government follow state hazardous waste laws. Zachary Ogaz, general counsel for NMED, told Source NM the rule change is a direct response to the appeal. “This does give us a much stronger footing in our litigation, the Department of War is going to have to find  a more creative legal argument, if it hopes to prevail against us in court,” Ogaz said. Cameron Oden, a University of New Haven assistant professor in environmental engineering who studies PFAS disposal, said New Mexico is the first state to classify the fire-fighting foam itself as hazardous waste. He said the state’s law change is part of a broader patchwork of state laws responding to the ambiguity of federal law governing hazardous waste, particularly PFAS. “This is a prime example of the issue, as historically, military installations have been exempt from state regulations because they are a federal institution,” Oden said.

[Category: Environment & Climate Change, Health, AFFF, hazardous waste, New Mexico Environment Department, PFAS, PFOA, PFOS]

— Limits on speech rights for military retirees at issue in Sen. Kelly case against DOD

 

at 4/17/26 10:04am

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz., speaks at a news conference at the U.S. Capitol on Feb. 11, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Heather Diehl/Getty Images)WASHINGTON — Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s legal team is urging a federal appeals court to uphold a ruling that allows the former Navy captain to keep his retirement rank and pay while his First Amendment case against the Pentagon moves forward.  Benjamin C. Mizer, partner at Arnold & Porter, wrote in a brief filed April 15 that the Defense Department violated Kelly’s constitutional rights when it tried to punish him for appearing alongside other Democrats in the “Don’t Give Up The Ship” video.  The Trump administration’s appeal of the district court’s ruling, he wrote, doesn’t cite “a single case” that has expanded the limited speech rights of active-duty military members to “retirees like Senator Kelly.” The legal precedent the Trump administration did reference, Parker v. Levy, “involved an active-duty officer directly urging soldiers at his wartime military post to refuse specific orders to deploy and fight,” Mizer wrote.  “Senator Kelly, by contrast, is a retired officer and legislator who publicly called, alongside other Members of Congress, for adherence to settled law, not defiance of it,” Mizer wrote.  ‘Illegal orders’ video posted in November Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, and Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or national security, posted the video at the center of the case on Nov. 18. They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.” “No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.” Mizer wrote in his legal brief that “Kelly never told members of the armed forces to refuse any particular military orders. The video did not even identify any specific military orders or operations.” Mizer added the obligation to refuse clearly illegal orders “is a bedrock of the law of armed conflict.” Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced in January that he would attempt to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay for his participation in the video, leading the senator to file a lawsuit.  Senior Judge Richard J. Leon of the District of Columbia District Court issued a preliminary injunction in February, blocking that from taking effect while the case progresses through the legal system.  The Trump administration appealed the preliminary injunction to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which has scheduled oral arguments for May 7. Karen LeCraft Henderson, nominated by President George H.W. Bush in 1990; Cornelia T.L. Pillard, nominated by President Barack Obama in 2013; and Florence Y. Pan, nominated by President Joe Biden in 2022, make up the three-judge panel that will decide whether to uphold the district court’s preliminary injunction or overturn it.  DOJ argues discipline at risk Assistant Attorney General Brett A. Shumate wrote in a 71-page brief filed March 20 the district court judge’s ruling “was gravely wrong and sweeps far beyond Kelly’s suit, calling into question the military’s ability to maintain discipline among servicemembers.” Shumate added later in the filing that “while retired officers may well have greater speech rights than active-duty servicemembers in some respects, the district court erred in holding that they are indistinguishable from civilians for purposes of First Amendment analysis.  “The court reasoned that retired officers cannot undermine discipline as significantly as active-duty servicemembers, but that conclusion is unsupportable.” Shumate contended that the “district court also erred insofar as it suggested that Kelly is entitled to heightened First Amendment protection because he is a Member of Congress. Whatever enhanced speech rights Kelly has in that capacity, they come from other constitutional provisions, not the First Amendment.” “If anything, Kelly’s role in Congress provides more, not less, reason to hold him as accountable as other servicemembers for counseling disobedience to lawful orders, given that his ‘leadership position’ as a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee gives him ‘unique sway over the military,’” Shumate wrote. 

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]

— Pushback leads Homeland Security to compromise on some warehouse detention centers for immigrants

 

at 4/17/26 10:04am

U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock, a Georgia Democrat, in March visits a wastewater treatment facility in the city of Social Circle that the city says would be overwhelmed by plans to convert a warehouse to house up to 10,000 immigration prisoners. The city locked the facility's water meter, forcing the Department of Homeland Security to consider trucking out sewage and bringing in water. (Photo courtesy of U.S. Sen. Raphael Warnock)Some of the Trump administration’s controversial new warehouse immigration detention centers are getting scaled back and postponed as states and cities fight back and new Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin reviews actions taken by his ousted predecessor, Kristi Noem. Some states and cities have seen more communication and compromise as Mullin takes over and the Department of Homeland Security faces a continued funding shutdown that has reached 60 days. That includes discussions about a proposed Arizona detention center where DHS agreed to scale back the number of prisoners by two-thirds and pay a city for lost taxes, and a proposed center in Maryland with a similar offer from the department. A lawsuit also is holding up work on that detention center. And in Georgia, a small city cut off the water supply to a proposed immigrant holding site. A plan to house up to 1,500 immigrants in Surprise, Arizona, starting as soon as May was scaled back to 542 detainees starting in October at the earliest, and DHS agreed to pay the city $300,000 a year for lost property taxes. The department also may offer more to help with any police costs, after negotiations with DHS under Mullin. “With the new leadership there’s been a lot of communication,” Surprise Mayor Kevin Sartor told a local radio show April 15, a contrast to the “very frustrating” experience of how the city learned from news reports in January that DHS had purchased a 418,000-square-foot distribution center for $70 million.    “We do have a different leadership style,” Mullin said in a CNBC interview April 16, comparing himself to Noem. “We want to make sure people understand that we’re here working for the people, not against you.”  In Maryland, the new DHS administration has also offered a scale-back from 1,500 detainees to 542, in a Williamsport warehouse bought for $102 million in January. An April 15 court order keeps most work on the center paused as the state continues a lawsuit claiming “impacts on the environmental, economic, and public health and safety interests of the state.” In Arizona, dozens of Democratic state lawmakers sent a letter in April asking the city of Surprise to “stop the facility from opening at all costs,” but Mayor Sartor has said he doesn’t see a legal basis for a lawsuit. The mayor’s office is nonpartisan, but Republicans predominate among registered voters in the city by almost 2-1 over Democrats.  Communities across the country are facing the results of a massive detention expansion fueled in large part by the record $45 billion approved for increased immigration detention by Congress last summer. U.S. Reps. Maxwell Frost Darren Soto tell Kristi Noem not to open ICE facility in Central Florida Other state and local action on the plan to repurpose warehouses for detention centers include a Kansas City, Missouri, ban on nonmunicipal detention facilities passed in January, Developers halted the sale of a south Kansas City warehouse in February. Owners of an Indiana warehouse sent a letter saying they weren’t in active negotiations with for the site, which had been reported as a potential detention center and drew local opposition from the town of Merrillville. Democratic lawmakers in Florida opposed plans for a warehouse detention center near Orlando in February, while some Republican lawmakers supported it.  In Georgia, the city of Social Circle cut off water and sewer service for a $128.6 million warehouse proposed to hold 10,000 detainees, saying the town of 5,000 people did not have the capacity to serve it. “The city’s infrastructure cannot accommodate this level of demand,” according to a February statement from the city, despite a “certainly creative” solution suggested by DHS to fill a water-supply cistern at times of low demand.   Stateline reporter Tim Henderson can be reached at thenderson@stateline.org. This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Source New Mexico, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

[Category: Economy, Immigration]

— Q&A: Bennie Thompson on his recent visit to the Adams County ICE facility

 

at 4/17/26 10:04am

Photo courtesy of Mississippi Today Audio recording is automated for accessibility. Humans wrote and edited the story. Mukta Joshi is an investigative reporter at Mississippi Today. She is spending a year as a New York Times Local Investigations fellow examining immigration and criminal justice issues. She can be reached at mukta.joshi@nytimes.com. Under federal law, members of Congress have the right to make unannounced visits to ICE detention centers, where more than 60,000 people are currently being held. In June, Immigration and Customs Enforcement restricted the visits, requiring a seven-day notice, and a dozen Democratic representatives sued the Trump administration. A federal judge ruled in their favor in December, paving the way for lawmakers to inspect the facilities. On April 9, Rep. Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi and one of the lawmakers who sued the administration, visited the Adams County Correctional Center outside of Natchez. The facility, the second largest ICE detention center in the country when full, is in Rep. Thompson’s district. He said he wanted to talk to people being detained there, look into complaints about the living conditions and try to learn more about a reported suicide by one of the detainees late last year. I talked to him a few days after his visit.  Here are excerpts from our conversation, lightly edited for clarity and length.  Could you tell me a little bit about your decision to visit and inspect the facility? There have been complaints from attorneys about not being able to talk to their clients. There have been complaints about hearings not being held like they should have been. Complaints about inmates not getting access to proper clothing. So we wanted to look at it, and we went down and met the warden, along with an ICE representative who oversees several facilities like that. We looked at the infirmary; we looked at the housing. We talked about food, we talked about health care, we talked about how inmates are processed and all of those things. And obviously, when you expect somebody, you put your best foot forward, right? The place was clean. I had an opportunity to talk with about 50 inmates in an open setting.  And it’s probably a facility for around 2,500 people. They had about 1,400 on the day we were there. When you met with them, you said it was in an open setting. So does that mean that you were able to have confidential conversations, or were there guards or administration around?  Well, there were people around, but, you know, I didn’t get any hesitancy from any of the inmates.  They talked about having difficulty with ICE processing, their current status. That was a big thing. I got no complaints from being mistreated, per se. Anything that I asked, I got an answer. I had brought my own interpreter. We had people there from Russia, China, Afghanistan, Eritrea, Sudan, obviously, anything in South America. From the people we talked to, it was a broad representation of the immigrant population trying to come to this country. Could you tell me a little bit more about the process of your visit? Like, how many people accompanied you? And did you go from unit to unit, or did your team take photographs?  Well, you can’t take a camera.  Not even you? No. I had to take my shoes off. Had to take my belt off. I was able to put them back on after screening, but yeah, I was told nobody comes in, even employees, without being fully screened. Did you try to ask if you could take photographs? No. I mean, I didn’t. You know, my phone was left in the vehicle. And once you went inside, the 50 detainees who volunteered to meet with you, were they all together and they came forward?  They came together and we talked. Now, I was told that some 300 wanted to talk. That would have been, I mean, just, we couldn’t. I wasn’t in a position to handle that many people, three staffers with me and myself. What was the location where you met these 50 detainees?  It was in an auditorium-like facility, you know, they were brought in. It was an open room – large enough to accommodate more people than that, but it was about 50. At any point, did you go from unit to unit to see what the living conditions look like? Yes, I went to several units. For the most part, you know, open dormitory style, bunk beds, the shower facilities in the rear of the room. You know, they all look just alike. That’s what I saw.  Could you talk a little bit more about what you saw, in terms of the hygiene conditions? You mentioned earlier that the facility seemed clean. There’s no question that, me coming, the place was clean. You know, I did not ask anybody, “How did it look any other time?” I talked to several other people who worked there, and they were, I mean, it’s a job with benefits. So they saw it as an opportunity to work close to home. Were you able to speak to any of the guards there?  Just casual conversation. I was basically there to look at the facility, to talk about the recent death and address some of the complaints that had gotten up to my office. And again, like I said, on the suicide, ICE had basically said it’s under investigation and that they would have a final report soon now. But that was kind of expected. I don’t know if there’s a coroner’s report from the county on that. You might get that. I would encourage you to do that. You mentioned that the capacity of the place is about 2,500 but the day that you were there, there were about 1,400. Do you know why that might be? Have you heard anything about that? I have not. You know, for the most part, we kind of thought that a lot of the people were being moved from that facility to Alexandria, which is the airport that they use. Alexandria, Louisiana. Basically when they leave there, they go to Alexandria, and that’s the last stop on the deportation route. You see what I’m saying? That’s where they depart from. The things that you saw in Adams, would you say they were similar or different from what you’ve been seeing or hearing nationally? Generally, we only hear a lot of complaints. A lot of complaints. Just with that three-and-a-half-hour visit, it’s kind of hard to boil down beyond what you’re being told. So my visit won’t be my last visit. I will do an unannounced visit just to see. Letting them know was not a problem, but I would have no hesitation or reservation about another visit unannounced.  Did anything at all that you saw there concern you at all? Like, when you went to the kitchen, what did you see? What were the bathrooms like? The bathrooms were clean, the kitchen was clean, the commissary was clean. I went through the entire infirmary, talked to the staff, asked them about the process when people come in: If people have pre-existing conditions, are they treated versus people who don’t have any? If a person says, I’m sick, how long does it take for that person to at minimum see a nurse? You know, they have nurse practitioners on staff, and doctors come. They say they have two doctors. They have more nurse practitioners. So, without having a complaint on a particular thing, I asked about a dental complaint that I had, and they said, you know, like root canals and those kinds of things, they have to send out for. Other things that can be addressed with antibiotics or something like that, they can do in house. Last week, when I was interacting with the spokesperson for CoreCivic, the prison operator, about the suicide incident that happened in December, I had some questions about the sort of mental health care and health care in general that’s available at the facility. The spokesperson said that the onsite medical clinic is staffed by licensed health care professionals, including physicians, nurse practitioners, psychiatrists, psychologists, mental health counselors and dentists. And I’ve heard consistently from other detainees, and including you now, that there are two doctors there. So does CoreCivic’s statement match with what you saw? I saw two mental health officers. I did not talk to a mental health person there, but I was told they were available. I did not see any doctors, although I was told they are there. I met with the head person, who’s a nurse administrator, but I think the primary contact is with the nurse practitioner. Obviously, if it’s something more serious, I would assume that it’s referred to the doctor. So they told you that for dental procedures, people are sent outside. But did they mention that there was a dentist who was on site? Yes. OK, but they weren’t there when you were there? No, they weren’t there.  Do you have any last thoughts before we get off the call? No. But if you got any questions about what was seen and what was told, just put it on to me and I’ll get it answered. Note to our readers: If you know something about the detention center, if you know someone who works there or is detained there, or want me to find out something about it for readers, please get in touch. I will not use your name or any part of your submission without contacting you first. If you prefer to get in touch with me anonymously, send me a message on Signal @mmj.2178. Or you can contact me via email at mukta.joshi@nytimes.com.  Our mailing address is P.O. Box 12267, Jackson, MS 39236. This story was originally produced by News From The States, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Source New Mexico, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

[Category: Gov & Politics]

— Forest Service plan to close research stations stokes fear as wildfire season approaches

 

at 4/17/26 6:13am

Clouds hang over Lake Cushman, as seen from the mountains of the Olympic National Forest. The U.S. Forest Service has announced plans to close 57 research stations in 31 states. (Photo by Alex Brown/Stateline)The U.S. Forest Service’s plan to close scores of research stations could threaten the nation’s wildfire readiness, many foresters fear, and erode decades of work to understand timber production, soil health, pests and diseases, watersheds and wildlife. Late last month, the Forest Service announced plans to close 57 of its 77 research stations, located across 31 states, merging them into a single organization in Fort Collins, Colorado. The agency described the move as a way to consolidate, not cut, the agency’s scientific work, and “unify research priorities.” It’s unclear how many scientists will be affected by the transition, but it comes as part of a larger agency reorganization that is expected to move roughly 5,000 employees to new outposts. Forest Service leaders have framed the closures as a way to reduce the agency’s real estate footprint, citing a facilities budget Congress has shrunk, as opposed to curtailing its scientific work. But many longtime foresters fear the closures will threaten vital research that has been the backbone of forest management for state agencies, timber companies and tribes. Many of the research stations slated for closure study fire behavior, forecast smoke dispersal and help inform evacuation decisions. “The research arm of the Forest Service is one of the unsung heroes in forest management around the world,” said Mike Dombeck, who served as chief of the Forest Service under President Bill Clinton and remains a vocal conservation advocate. “It is the premier forest research entity in the world, on everything from invasive species to wildland fire risk, watershed protection, basic silviculture and harvest methods.” The Forest Service’s revamp also will relocate the agency’s headquarters from Washington, D.C., to Salt Lake City and restructure its regional management system. The research arm of the Forest Service is one of the unsung heroes in forest management around the world. – Former U.S. Forest Service Chief Mike Dombeck The Forest Service did not grant a Stateline interview request. The agency has not said how much money it expects to save by closing the research stations. Many Western leaders are skeptical that the consolidated operation will be able to replicate the work of the existing research stations. State officials said they’ve been given few details about how the transition will play out and whether existing research will continue. In Washington state, the Forest Service plans to close research stations in Seattle and Wenatchee, while maintaining a facility in Olympia. “The station in Seattle does some of the most practical-based research that we use for fire and forest management,” said Washington State Forester George Geissler. “We dont want to lose that work. Theyve said theyll keep Olympia open, but we dont know what that looks like. Are they making sure we dont lose the ongoing research?” Forestry veterans say it’s important for the agency to continue its scientific work across a wide variety of forests and climates. “This is research thats been going on for decades or even a century or more,” said Kevin Hood, executive director of Forest Service Employees for Environmental Ethics, a nonprofit that advocates for agency workers. “Theyre able to see how climate change impacts are playing out in a dry ponderosa forest or a humid hardwood forest. There are research plots and experimental forests that have been diligently studied for decades. This could be a loss of a lot of knowledge.” The Pacific Wildland Fire Sciences Laboratory, for instance, plays a crucial role in issuing wildfire smoke forecasts that are relied on throughout the Northwest. After a hot, dry winter, that work could be critical as a dangerous wildfire season approaches. In Vermont, the Burlington research station slated for closure studied maple syrup production and the effects of acid rain on different tree species, according to VTDigger. And in Mississippi, the Southern Institute of Forest Genetics, also on the chopping block, has guided tree improvement programs that improved growth and pest resistance in Southern timber forests. Some conservation advocates are concerned that the research station closures are aimed at suppressing studies that might show the environmental harms of logging or mining. President Donald Trump has pledged to increase timber production on federal lands. He has moved to limit environmental reviews and protections for endangered species to speed up logging projects. In an interview with the Deseret News, Forest Service Chief Tom Schultz said that the move was designed to ensure that the Forest Service’s research “will better align with the priorities of the administration” — minerals, recreation, fire management and “active management” of forests, which can include timber harvests and thinning projects. He said the research would support not just forests but also private landowners. “It’s not streamlining, its dismantling,” said Chandra Rosenthal, Western lands and Rocky Mountain advocate with Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, a group that defends whistleblowers in the federal service. “It’s going to really impact how the Forest Service makes decisions on the ground. The way the Trump administration is trying to make a lot of decisions is gut feelings.” In a webpage set up to respond to news coverage of the move, the Forest Service said it is a “myth” that the station closures will eliminate scientific positions or cancel research programs. But many forestry veterans said that attrition is inevitable, as researchers are asked to move their families across the country to work under a new model with few details. “Theres concern that were going to see a lot of really good individuals who cannot uproot their families that well lose,” said Geissler, the Washington state forester. “Its taken a long time to develop that kind of expertise. Its scary.” Foresters in both conservative and liberal states said they rely heavily on the research the Forest Service provides. Most were unwilling to comment extensively about the closures without seeing more details. “That work is absolutely important, and I sure hope it continues,” said Wyoming State Forester Kelly Norris. “I dont think research should stop. It may need to look a little different.” Some leaders said there may be opportunities for states, through forestry agencies and universities, to pick up the slack and ensure research continues, even if the Forest Service is no longer playing a lead role. “This is still a little bit of an unknown area, but well have to make sure that if theres a gap there, that were working with our universities and (state) research centers to make sure that is still being provided,” said Utah State Forester Jamie Barnes. Nick Smith, public affairs director with the American Forest Resource Council, a timber industry group, expressed support for the agency’s effort to consolidate its work, saying he’d had “limited interaction” with the research stations. While some of the Forest Service’s work is controversial, agency veterans say its research program is valued by loggers and tree-huggers alike. “Nobody was asking for this,” said Robert Bonnie, who served as undersecretary of agriculture for natural resources and environment during the Obama administration. “There was no call to do anything like this.” Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.  This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Source New Mexico, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

[Category: Environment & Climate Change, Gov & Politics]

— NM Supreme Court declines AG’s request to intervene in Otero County ICE detention contract

 

at 4/17/26 6:12am

The New Mexico Supreme Court on April 16, 2026, denied the state Department of Justice’s request to prevent Otero County from executing a federal immigrant detention contract. (Source NM file photo)In a unanimous decision Thursday, the state Supreme Court denied a New Mexico Department of Justice request to intervene and stop Otero County from contracting with federal immigration authorities to hold immigrant detainees at its facility in Chaparral.  The NMDOJ on April 1 urged the Supreme Court to grant a writ of mandamus that would have prohibited Otero County from executing an agreement with the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency and private company MTC to hold roughly 900 immigrant detainees at the Otero County Processing Center.  In his petition to the court, Attorney General Raúl Torrez argued that New Mexico municipalities, including Otero County, lack the legal authority under state law to hold federal immigrant detainees who have not been charged or convicted of crimes.  Torrez also reiterated his agency’s contention that the Otero County contract is void because the county did not receive approval from the New Mexico Department of Finance and Administration, which Torrez said state law requires for agreements between multiple local, state or federal government agencies.  The court’s intervention was needed, Torrez said, to “prevent the execution of an invalid agreement.” The Supreme Court’s one-page decision Thursday does not explain why the court ruled against the NMDOJ. Torrez, in an emailed statement to Source NM on Friday, said he “respects the court’s decision.” “We will continue to monitor the situation to ensure compliance with the new law that becomes effective in just a few weeks,” he said. “The Legislature has made its intention clear that these kinds of contracts should be eliminated and that they do not benefit the people of New Mexico.” Otero County’s jail is one of three detention facilities statewide that house ICE detainees. Earlier this year, the Legislature passed House Bill 9, the Immigrant Safety Act, which prohibits counties from entering agreements with ICE to hold immigrant detainees, and goes into effect May 20.  But Otero County has continued to extend its contract despite the state law, most recently on March 25. The NMDOJ has stepped in twice in recent months, including saying the Otero County Commission violated a state transparency law, in efforts to nullify the contract.  Unlike the two other ICE detention facilities in New Mexico that are privately-owned, Otero County owns the facility that is now subject to House Bill 9. As a result, county officials have said exiting the county’s ICE agreement would cost hundreds of jobs and prevent the county from paying off bondholders who financed the facility’s $68 million construction in 2007.  In a statement to social media on Thursday afternoon, Otero County Commission Chair Vickie Marquardt applauded the court’s decision.  “The Supreme Court did exactly what courts are supposed to do — apply the law as written, without regard to political pressure,” she said. “Otero County is grateful for that.” The county, with the help of outside counsel it hired to stave off litigation regarding its ICE contract, filed nearly 300 pages of exhibits and filings in response to the NMDOJ’s petition. Otero County Attorney R.B. Nichols, in the county’s statement, said the NMDOJ’s petition raised “legal theories that no branch of New Mexico stat government had questioned in 18 years of continuous operations in federal contract.” Nichols added that the court’s ruling means the county’s contract “remains in full force and effect. Operations at the Otero County Processing Center continue without interruption.” 10:10 amThis story was updated following publication to include a response from the New Mexico Department of Justice.

[Category: Immigration, house bill 9, immigrant detention, New Mexico Supreme Court, Otero County]

— NM House Republicans urge litigation over governor’s disaster spending ‘overreach’

 

at 4/16/26 4:47pm

Three New Mexico House Republican leaders said litigation may be necessary to prevent Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s emergency spending practices, and they’re calling on an interim legislative committee to take up the matter at a meeting April 17, 2026. (Source NM file photo)Republicans in the New Mexico House of Representatives are calling on an interim legislative committee to consider suing Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham over her continued emergency spending, according to a letter House GOP leaders released Thursday. The Republicans are urging the Legislative Council Service committee, which meets Friday, to add an item to its agenda related to “possible litigation” prohibiting Lujan Grisham from funding the state’s disaster response from a certain state fund without legislative approval. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Lujan Grisham’s disaster spending from the state’s Appropriation Contingency Fund, which is effectively the state’s savings account, has caused friction with the Legislature, including with members of her own party. In total, the governor has spent roughly $380 million via emergency orders from the fund since July 1, 2024, even though the Legislature put just $150 million into the fund in that period. Funding has gone for wildfires, floods, National Guard deployments and, recently, to pay for food assistance amid a federal government shutdown. Lawmakers unanimously approved a bipartisan bill, House Bill 180, during the legislative session earlier this year that would have required the governor to secure legislative approval, via a special legislative session, if she wished to spend more than lawmakers allocated to newly created disaster response funds. The governor vetoed the bill March 10, however, saying the bill “introduces structural delays at precisely the moment when speed and flexibility matter most.” In a letter Tuesday to the LCS committee Co-Chairs House Speaker Rep. Javier Martínez (D-Albuquerque) and Senate Pro Tem Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque), Republican Reps. Gail Armstrong (R-Magdalena), Alan Martinez (R-Rio Rancho) and Rebecca Dow (R-Elephant Butte) said the governor’s veto means she will continue her illegal spending, a matter that “can only be settled in a court of law.”  Martinez and Stewart did not immediately respond to Source NM’s request for comment Thursday afternoon. Neither did a governor’s office spokesperson.  By the #s: NM’s beleaguered emergency fund source of growing tension between governor, Legislature The Legislative Council meeting Friday morning is the first of several months of interim legislative committee hearings on a number of topics, including health care, criminal justice, the environment and more. As of Thursday afternoon, its agenda did not include the disaster spending issue. The letter asks the committee to also consider whether a lawsuit is warranted for nearly $7 million in spending the governor line-item vetoed from the state’s roughly $11 billion spending bill, vetoes the Republicans say left the budget bill with “nonsensical or unimplementable” spending provisions.  “These two items need serious review by the Legislative Council, including the consideration of possible litigation, to protect the Legislature’s power of appropriations from the illegal usurpation of legislative power due to executive branch overreach,” the Republican lawmakers wrote. 

[Category: Gov & Politics, disaster spending, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, House Bill 180, House Speaker Javier Martínez, Legislative Council, Senate Pro Tem Mimi Stewart]

— Ballots become battlegrounds for voting rules, redistricting, election power

 

at 4/16/26 2:56pm

An election worker hands out “I Voted” stickers in Salt Lake City on Election Day in 2024. More than 30 initiatives on ballots across the country this year focus on democracy, including questions on voting rights, election processes, redistricting and similar issues. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)More than a third of state ballot measures that voters will be asked to consider this year relate to democracy, with questions on voting rights, election processes, redistricting and similar issues. “It’s the redistricting fights that are really getting heated after the Trump administration began pressuring Republican-led states to shore up the GOP majority in Congress in preparation for the midterm election,” said Quentin Savwoir, director of programs and strategy at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a progressive policy organization that tracks ballot initiatives. For example, next week Virginians will be asked whether they want to temporarily allow the state to redraw its congressional districts, in response to aggressive congressional map changes in other states that have been encouraged by President Donald Trump. If approved, the proposal could create four Democrat-leaning districts and affect the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives. Early voting on the referendum is already underway, with polls showing it has a narrow margin of support. Meanwhile in Missouri, supporters of a citizen-led referendum that challenges the state’s recently gerrymandered congressional map say they have enough signatures to get their measure on the November ballot. The map, passed last year by Missouri’s Republican-majority legislature at Trump’s urging, carves an area around Kansas City — currently represented by a Black Democrat — into three Republican-favored districts. As of March 31, 83 ballot measures have already qualified for the ballot this year in states across the country, though that number could rise as residents continue to gather signatures and legislators vote to add their proposals, according to the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. Another 341 measures are in the process of qualifying. Currently, 31 of those 83 measures are democracy related, with another 87 democracy-related proposals in the works. Some of this year’s democracy-related initiatives also focus on requiring identification to vote. In Nevada and North Carolina, for example, voters will be asked to consider constitutional amendments that would require voters to present photo identification. Ballot measures are questions put before voters on local or statewide ballots. They typically land on a ballot in one of two ways: Either citizens write a proposed law and gather enough signatures to get it on the ballot, or the state legislature proposes a measure and asks voters to approve it. Citizen-led ballot initiatives are allowed in 19 states. In recent years, as more voters have approved initiatives around progressive causes such as raising the minimum wage, legalizing abortion or expanding Medicaid, conservative legislators in states such as Florida and Missouri have tried to limit such citizen-led ballot initiatives. Already this year, dozens of bills have been proposed that would create more obstacles to citizen-led initiatives. The bills would impose hurdles such as adding restrictions for signature gathering, raising the vote threshold required for a ballot measure to pass, or giving lawmakers more power over ballot language, according to The Fairness Project, a nonprofit that advocates for increased use of ballot measures. This year, a larger share of ballot measures have been referred by state legislators, a shift from 2024 when a wave of citizen-led initiatives dominated the November ballot. In some states, citizen-led proposals and opposing legislatively referred proposals “are creating a very crowded ballot that may confuse voters,” said Chris Melody Fields Figueredo, executive director at the Ballot Initiative Strategy Center. “People might be having to run ‘yes’ or ‘no’ campaigns at the same time. So voter education is going to be incredibly important.” Stateline reporter Anna Claire Vollers can be reached at avollers@stateline.org. This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Source New Mexico, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

— Homeland Security’s SAVE program divides election officials as November nears

 

at 4/16/26 2:55pm

Bonneville County residents cast their votes during the May 21, 2024, primary election at The Waterfront Event Center in Idaho Falls, Idaho. (Photo by Pat Sutphin for the Idaho Capital Sun)As the midterms approach, Republican and Democratic election officials are split over a powerful federal computer program at the center of President Donald Trump’s quest to expose noncitizen voters and compile lists of voting-age Americans. A U.S. House Administration Committee hearing Thursday underscored the partisan divide over the Department of Homeland Security’s SAVE program. The online tool can verify U.S. citizenship by checking names against a host of government databases. Republicans have embraced SAVE — Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements — as an effective new way to identify potential noncitizen voters. But Democrats have spurned it amid fears Trump is building a national voter database and concern that the program wrongly flags U.S. citizens. Kansas Republican Secretary of State Scott Schwab and Minnesota Democratic Secretary of State Steve Simon staked out opposing views on SAVE during Thursday’s hearing. Purging noncitizens registered to vote is an ongoing focus of the Trump administration, though studies show noncitizen voting is extremely rare. Kansas ran its voter roll through SAVE last year after the Trump administration refashioned the program, initially intended to check whether individual noncitizens are eligible for government benefits, into a citizenship verification tool and made it free for states. Schwab said SAVE had led Kansas to identify more than 5,500 registered voters who had died out of state. “SAVE is one of the most important tools states have to verify voter information,” Schwab told the committee. But Simon has previously raised concerns about the program. He signed a Dec. 1 letter with 11 other Democratic secretaries of state that said SAVE was likely to degrade rather than enhance state efforts to ensure free, fair and secure elections. The program is likely to misidentify eligible voters and chill voter participation, they wrote. “I’m not throwing shade on my colleague, Secretary Schwab, but we have made the determination that it’s not yet ready for use in Minnesota,” Simon said Thursday, adding that Minnesota law doesn’t allow the use of SAVE. Program central to Trump elections push SAVE underpins Trump’s efforts to assert more White House power over federal elections, which under the U.S. Constitution are administered by states. The Department of Justice is suing 29 states and the District of Columbia for access to their unredacted voter rolls, including sensitive personal data on voters, such as driver’s license and partial Social Security numbers.  A Justice Department attorney said in federal court last month that the department has an agreement to share the information with Homeland Security for the purpose of identifying noncitizens. Trump also signed an executive order last month that limits voting by mail and directs Homeland Security to compile lists of voting-age American citizens. The order says the lists will be derived from SAVE data, along with naturalization and Social Security records. At least five lawsuits have been filed against the order, including a challenge brought by Democratic state officials. The White House is also pressuring Congress to pass the SAVE America Act, Trump’s signature elections proposal. The measure would require voters to provide documents proving their citizenship. Among its provisions is a requirement that states run their voter rolls through the SAVE program. The House passed the bill in February. The Senate is debating a version of the legislation, which doesn’t appear to have enough votes to overcome a filibuster. Nonprofit alternative available “Election integrity is not a complicated issue. Only eligible voters should be casting ballots in our elections. One illegal vote is too many,” said Rep. Bryan Steil, a Wisconsin Republican and the House Administration Committee chair. In January, Steil introduced the Make Elections Great Again Act, which contains similar provisions to the SAVE America Act but is more sweeping in its scope. It would impose additional limits on mail-in voting and require states to use SAVE to update voter lists every month. Rep. Joe Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the committee, suggested states already have effective options other than SAVE. He singled out ERIC, or the Electronic Registration Information Center, a nonprofit organization that allows states to compare voter registrations and other data to identify out-of-date registrations, deceased voters and in some cases possible illegal voting. “I think it would probably be malpractice not to talk about Electronic Registration Information Center,” Morelle said. Twenty-five states and the District of Columbia belong to ERIC. Some Republican-led states withdrew from the organization several years ago after Trump urged them to leave amid false conspiracy theories, which he helped promote, that the 2020 election was stolen from him. Simon said ERIC offers “really good” data that provides tremendous value in helping to keep Minnesota’s voter roll up to date.  “Good data is the coin of the realm here,” he said. Kansas doesn’t participate in ERIC. Schwab, who is running for governor in Kansas’ Republican primary, said it would be a good tool but that it’s expensive. ERIC charges new members a one-time $25,000 fee, in addition to annual dues approved by its board of directors, according to the organization’s bylaws. Larger states pay more each year than smaller ones, with annual dues ranging from roughly $37,000 to $117,000, its website says. “We don’t have the resources to join,” Schwab said.

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]

— US House Dems at ag hearing excoriate Trump cuts proposed for farm and food aid

 

at 4/16/26 2:54pm

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins, speaking at a Future Farmers of America event Aug. 18, 2025, at the Tennessee State Fair. (Photo by John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout)Democrats on a U.S. House spending panel slammed President Donald Trump’s proposed cuts to farm and nutrition programs Thursday, as Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins pledged to collaborate with members of both parties to address their concerns. The president’s budget request would make deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, gutting programs to help feed hungry people and support farmers in need — even as the rising costs of groceries, gas and other necessities made those programs even more essential, Democrats on the House Appropriations Agriculture Subcommittee told Rollins. “Itll be hard for our constituents to believe that USDA serves Americas farmers and rural communities when USDA is taking away their services,” the panel’s ranking Democrat, Sanford Bishop of Georgia, said. The proposed USDA budget for fiscal 2027 would cut $4.9 billion, or nearly one-fifth of the department’s budget. Already, due to the Republican spending and tax cuts law last year, 2.5 million people have lost access to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the department’s major food assistance initiative. Trump overall in his budget request is seeking a huge boost in defense spending accompanied by cuts in domestic programs. Accessibility, cooperation promised Rollins defended the budget proposal, but projected a spirit of cooperation with the panel, which writes the annual spending bill for her department, telling Democrats and Republicans that she would be happy to address their priorities. She offered to field direct phone calls from several members. Asked by Michigan Republican Rep. John Moolenaar about foreign growers undercutting U.S. sugar producers, she said she was ready to take on the issue in upcoming trade negotiations. “Weve got a lot going on around the world, but anything you hear, Congressman, that you think would be helpful for me, any way I can lean in… I would love to get more involved in that,” she said. “We are making progress but it does need to remain a priority.” Rollins also touted some of her department’s wins over the past year, noting that bird flu cases were down 61% and that egg prices had also dropped.  The administration has also increased exports of key crops and Republicans’ massive spending and tax cuts bill raised the exemption to the federal estate tax that allows more family farms to be inherited with fewer taxes, she said.  She also called the Make America Healthy Again initiative that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has spearheaded, with USDA also playing a major part, “one of our most important legacies.” She agreed to Maine Democrat Chellie Pingree’s request to develop a “comprehensive overview” for the Make America Healthy Again philosophy. Rollins vows no Farm Service Agency closures Democrats on the panel, including leading members Bishop and full Appropriations Committee ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, hammered the budget request’s many cuts. The budget would eliminate more than 70 USDA programs and was particularly ill-timed as prices continue to climb, DeLauro said. “The price of everyday goods continues to escalate: Grocery prices are up, gas prices are up, utility costs, housing costs, health care costs are through the roof,” she said. “And the administrations only plan is to decimate the public programs that help alleviate the strain on working families and farmers across the country.” Bishop complained that assistance from the Farm Service Agency, which provides credit, disaster relief and other financial programs, would be more difficult for farmers to access. Rollins sought to justify the proposed decrease, noting that the cuts Bishop mentioned made up only about 4% of the total department budget.  But she also said she would never close a Farm Service Agency office and offered to work directly with the Democrat and others to address understaffed offices. “But as we are looking to make sure we are honoring the taxpayer, making sure were doing the best we can with every tax dollar, while putting the farmers first, (we are) taking key advice from you,” she said.  She added that members should contact the department “if you hear of an FSA office that isnt fully staffed, or that the farmers arent getting what they need — and I realize theyre out there, Im not living in some Pollyanna world, these are very difficult times.” She ended her dialogue with Bishop by telling him to “feel free to call me, sir, anytime.” Power of the purse DeLauro and Bishop led a push to assert Congress’ power to control spending, executed by Appropriations committees in both chambers. Bishop said he expected USDA to “not circumvent this appropriations process by refusing to spend or obligate program funding once it is signed into law.” DeLauro quizzed Rollins about a grant program that was created in a December 2024 law to assist farmers hit by extreme weather events over the prior two years. “Not a single dime” of the $220 million appropriated in the law had been allocated to qualifying states, DeLauro said. Again, Rollins was conciliatory, saying the issue was a priority for the department and that funding for DeLauro’s home state was “at the finish line.” “Yes ma’am, we’re moving on that,” she said.

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]

— Scores of Forest Service plans could be upended after Boundary Waters mining vote

 

at 4/16/26 2:54pm

Seagull Lake in the Boundary Waters. Superior National Forest is home to 20% of all fresh water in the entire national forest system. A congressional vote to allow mining in the area could have broad national ramifications. (Photo by Christina MacGillivray/Minnesota Reformer)Congress’ move to allow mining in a national forest near a wilderness area may have broad ramifications across the country. The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to overturn a mining ban in Minnesotas Superior National Forest, the headwaters of the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. By using an obscure tool known as the Congressional Review Act to open the national forest for mining, lawmakers have called into question the validity of every management plan issued by the U.S. Forest Service over the past several decades. That could result in legal chaos for thousands of permits covering logging, grazing, mining and outdoor recreation.  Over the past year, Congress for the first time has used the Congressional Review Act to revoke management plans for regions managed by the Bureau of Land Management, seeking to allow more mining and drilling. Such plans had not previously been considered “rules” subject to lawmakers’ review.  Under the act, federal agencies must submit new regulations to Congress before they can take effect. Because management plans, which function as high-level guidance documents, were never considered rules, federal agencies did not submit them to Congress for review.  Using a new legal theory, Republicans in Congress have opened reviews and revoked several specific plans that limited resource extraction in Alaska, Montana, North Dakota and Wyoming. But those actions call into question whether more than 100 other such plans are legally in effect, since they are now considered rules that were not sent to Congress as the law requires. Public lands experts say the new interpretation could create legal jeopardy across hundreds of millions of acres managed by the Bureau of Land Management, threatening any permit issued under a management plan drafted after the passage of the Congressional Review Act in 1996. Now, for the first time, Congress has used the review tool to overturn a management decision on Forest Service land.  “There’s a huge playing field of actions that would be forbidden if none of these management plans are lawfully in place,” Robert Anderson, who served as solicitor for the Department of the Interior during the Biden administration, told Stateline earlier this year. “This could bring things to a screeching halt.” Longtime outdoors writer Wes Siler, who has written extensively about the Boundary Waters review battle, said in a post Thursday that the vote will destroy the Forest Service’s ability to conduct regular business for the foreseeable future. If the agencys management plans suddenly become invalid, he wrote, not only could this grind industrial operations on (Forest Service) land to a halt as all of this winds its way through federal court, but it could also set (the Forest Service) the task of re-doing 30 years of work. On Thursday, the Senate voted 50-49 to revoke a Biden-era plan that banned mining on land in the Superior National Forest. The resolution will now go to President Donald Trump for his signature. A Chilean mining company has proposed to mine for copper, nickel and cobalt along Birch Lake in Minnesota. The planned mine would sit at the headwaters of the wilderness area’s watershed. The Boundary Waters is the most popular wilderness in the country, and advocates say the water is so pristine that many visitors fill their bottles straight from the surface of its lakes. Wilderness proponents say such mines have a long track record of pollution, and leaks from the proposed site would flow downstream and irreversibly contaminate the treasured Boundary Waters. U.S. Rep. Pete Stauber, the Minnesota Republican who sponsored the review action, has said the mine would bring jobs to the region. Opponents have argued that the tourism economy centered on the Boundary Waters is a larger economic driver, and noted that the mine will be run by a foreign company that will likely export the copper to China.  U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Minnesota Democrat, led the effort to uphold the mining ban on the Senate floor. Following the vote, she said that supporters of the Boundary Waters would likely mount a legal challenge, questioning the use of the Congressional Review Act to revoke a public land order from the Forest Service.  “I question the legality of what Congress did,” Smith said, according to the Minnesota Reformer.   Two Republican senators, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, also voted against the measure. Tillus also questioned the use of the Congressional Review Act. Its a precedent that I think our Republican colleagues are going to regret,” he told The Minnesota Star Tribune.  The Forest Service oversees nearly 200 million acres of land, managed for multiple uses, including timber harvests, grazing, outdoor recreation and wildlife habitat. Some legal experts fear the management plans governing those activities are now in legal jeopardy.  “That right there is chaos,” Peter Van Tuyn, a longtime environmental lawyer and managing partner at Bessenyey Van Tuyn LLC, told Stateline earlier this year.  “Those (plans) go across the full spectrum of what land managers do: conservation and preservation, mining approvals, oil and gas drilling, resource exploitation, public access and recreation,” he added. “There’s a very real chance that a court could say that a resource management plan was never in effect and all the implementation actions under the umbrella of that plan are invalid.” Stateline reporter Alex Brown can be reached at abrown@stateline.org.  April 17, 20269:59 amEditor’s note: This story has been updated to correct a reference to The Minnesota Star Tribune. This story was originally produced by Stateline, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Source New Mexico, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

— Trump picks new director for Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

 

at 4/16/26 2:54pm

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia. (Photo courtesy of CDC)WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump on Thursday said he will nominate Erica Schwartz, who served in the president’s first administration, to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, a seat left vacant for months after his last director said she was ousted in a rift over childhood vaccines. Trump announced his new pick on his social media platform, Truth Social, touting Schwartz’s career as a medical doctor with the U.S. armed forces. “She is a STAR!” he wrote. Schwartz was a deputy surgeon general during Trump’s first term, and previously served as the director of health, safety and work life while a rear admiral in the U.S. Coast Guard. Trump’s previous CDC director, Susan Monarez, told U.S. senators under oath in September that Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired her for not agreeing to pre-approve changes to the childhood vaccine schedule, and for refusing to fire agency scientists without cause.  Monarez held the position for just 29 days before she was ousted. She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on a party-line vote in July. The president also announced nominations of several other health officials to fill open spots at the CDC. “I am also pleased to announce the appointment of Sean Slovenski as the CDC Deputy Director and Chief Operating Officer, Dr. Jennifer Shuford, MD, MPH, as the CDC Deputy Director and Chief Medical Officer, and Dr. Sara Brenner, MD, MPH, as Senior Counselor for Public Health to Secretary Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,” Trump wrote. “These Highly Respected Doctors of Medicine have the knowledge, experience, and TOP degrees to restore the GOLD STANDARD OF SCIENCE at the CDC, which was an absolute disaster focused on ‘mandates’ under Sleepy Joe,” he added. The CDC’s vaccine advisory committee adjusted recommendations for childhood vaccines in September, withdrawing the agency’s recommendation that children receive the COVID-19 vaccine.

[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]

— Coalition grows in opposition to northern NM uranium mine proposal

 

at 4/16/26 2:37pm

A coalition of New Mexico elected officials, including six state lawmakers, issued a statement April 16, 2026, opposing a proposed uranium operation in the Chama Valley near Canjilon. (Photo of Chama Valley courtesy Bureau of Land Management)A wide range of New Mexico elected officials issued a statement Thursday reiterating their opposition to an exploratory uranium mining operation in northern New Mexico, as well as detailing their next steps to halt a Canadian company’s efforts to break ground in Rio Arriba County.  Gamma Resources, Ltd., a Vancouver-based uranium company, issued a notice of intent to the Carson National Forest in late February to dig up to 12, 500-feet-deep boreholes near Canjilon, N.M. to explore uranium potential along a 4-mile-strip of forestland.  In a pitch to investors about the potential for the operation, the company cited President Donald Trump’s push to expand domestic energy production, as well as evidence suggesting 2.9 million pounds of uranium exists within the 4,625-acre area the company has identified for exploration. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Local community organizations expressed outrage about the proposal after Source NM first reported on it last month. Since then, members of New Mexico’s congressional delegation have announced they intend to legislatively prohibit uranium mining in the Carson National Forest, and, on Thursday, additional state, local and community leaders expressed opposition.  Six New Mexico state lawmakers voiced opposition in the statement Thursday, which came from U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján’s office. They called on the United States Forest Service to halt any review of the company’s proposal until Congress acts to prohibit uranium mining in the Carson National Forest. “I strongly oppose any uranium drilling in the Chama watershed, especially by a foreign-owned company seeking to exploit our public lands. This proposal puts the health of our acequias, the safety of our drinking water, and the survival of Tribal and rural communities at unacceptable risk for short-term profit,” Sen. Leo Jaramillo (D-Española), whose Senate District 5 contains the proposed uranium site, said in the statement.  Gamma Resources officials did not immediately respond to Source NM’s emailed request for comment Thursday about the coalition’s statement of opposition. Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez (D-Albuquerque) told Source NM on Thursday that she and fellow lawmakers are still evaluating what, if anything, the Legislature could do to prevent the uranium operation from going forward.  Canadian-based company seeks exploratory permit to drill uranium in northern New Mexico But she is putting the matter at the top of the list of the agenda for the Legislature’s Environmental Caucus, which formed in December, and she expects one or more interim legislative committees to take up the issue in the coming months. She said she hopes to at least ensure a full environmental review occurs. “I just think people always dive into these projects without adequate study, research and regulation to ensure the air, water and soil are not contaminated, not to mention the safety of people,” she told Source NM.  In addition to the state lawmakers, other officials who expressed opposition include chairs of both the state Land Grant Council and Acequia Commission, as well as the CEO of Ghost Ranch, which is south of the proposed uranium operation.  Rio Arriba County Chairman Moises Morales also said in the statement he intends to bring the matter before the county commission “to determine what official actions we can take to oppose uranium mining in our county and protect our communities for generations to come.”

[Category: Environment & Climate Change, Canjilon, Carson National Forest, Gamma Resources Ltd, Sen. Antoinette Sedillo Lopez, Sen. Leo Jaramillo, U.S. Sen. Ben Ray Luján, uranium]

— New Mexico AG Torrez’s report on CYFD is dangerously wrong

 

at 4/16/26 12:42pm

On April 8, 2026, New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez appeared at a news conference with Carla Garcia, the surviving aunt of Jaydun Garcia, a 16-year-old who died by suicide in 2025 while in state custody, to unveil a blistering report on the Children, Youth and Families Department. (Danielle Prokop/Source NM)One year ago, just as New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez was beginning his investigation of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, I wrote a column for Source NM published under the headline “Torrez’s CYFD investigation will fail if it leaves people out.” He left people out. The investigation failed. The result is a report that is likely to worsen problems it highlights; it may even trigger events that lead to more children dying. As we predicted a year ago, Torrez got it right concerning the problems plaguing CYFD, including an arrogant obsession with secrecy so extreme that Torrez is, rightly, suing over it. But he’s dangerously wrong about the reason for those problems — and he’s descended to Trump-style tactics to support his central claim. Trump tries to justify his horrendous immigration policy with horror stories about immigrants committing terrible crimes, reveling in the hideous details. Of course, these horrors have nothing to do with the actual record of immigrants. It’s equally wrong, and dangerous to children, when Torrez uses the same tactic in his report. So Torrez tells us about children gruesomely abused until they died, often seemingly under the nose of CYFD. But the overwhelming majority of cases are nothing like the horror stories. Far more common are cases where poverty is confused with neglect. Yet, in the entire 220-page report, the word poverty does not appear even once. With only horror stories as evidence, Torrez claims that, “Instead of safeguarding vulnerable children, the Department has prioritized family reunification at virtually any cost.” He labels this a “systemic moral failing.” After all, what else could explain the horrors, right? The real answer is right in the report: “CYFD has systematically de-professionalized its workforce…Combined with crushing caseloads, inadequate training, and absent supervision, this approach fuels burnout and turnover.” Now consider these two explanations, incompetence and overload or family preservation fanaticism, in light of Torrez’s condemnation of CYFDs ongoing failure to implement whats known as differential response models, and respond to different types of cases with different approaches. Doing so, the report claims, can ease investigator workloads and reduce repeat maltreatment by diverting lower-risk cases away from full investigations. Surely an agency in the grip of a fanatical devotion to family preservation would rush to embrace differential response. But an agency so deluged that it can only lurch from crisis to crisis would not. Such an agency inevitably will make horrific errors in all directions, tearing some children needlessly from their homes, even as it leaves others in danger. Torrez didn’t see that, because he didn’t look. Instead of cherry-picking cases that confirmed his biases, he could have commissioned an audit of a representative random sample of cases. And while he brags about how many people he interviewed, no voices from birth parents whose children were wrongfully removed or their attorneys are in his report. Even among foster youth, Torrez is selective. All over the country, many such young people have spoken out about how much better off they would be if their families simply got help. Others will say they should have been taken sooner. Odds are all of them are right. But the voices of the wrongfully removed appear nowhere in Torrez’s report. Research shows repeatedly that, in typical cases, children left in their own homes do better than comparably-maltreated children placed in foster care. Most recently, a study from Sweden, found that — again compared to children who suffered the same kinds of maltreatment but were left in their own homes — the foster youth were four times more likely to die by age 20. The most common cause of death was one with which New Mexico is tragically familiar: suicide. In contrast, another massive study finds that, in the United States, taking away more children does nothing to reduce child abuse deaths. The harm isn’t just caused in group homes and institutions, which Torrez rightly condemns. There also is a high rate of abuse in family foster homes. So it’s ludicrous to suggest, as Torrez does, that the problems can be fixed with a caseworker hiring binge and being nicer to foster parents. Instead, the problems almost certainly will get worse. Torrez’s Trumpian stereotyping of families is likely to set off another foster-care panic — a sharp, sudden spike in needless removals of children like the one that sent entries skyrocketing more than 40% just from 2022 to 2023. That means more children forced into a deluged system where they may be four times more likely to die, and also more children left in dangerous homes. What might one call the issuance of a report that indulges in horror stories, ignores evidence and is likely to leave the system even worse? I’d call it a systemic moral failure.

[Category: Commentary, children, Youth and Families Department]

As of 4/18/26 1:10pm. Last new 4/17/26 5:28pm.