Rnews Crooked Bough News Round-up: Source NM

Source NM

— Trump rapid third-country removal policy blocked at appeals court: at 9/18/26 4:49pm
An airplane sits on the tarmac at Mesa Gateway Airport on the evening of April 9, 2026, outside of the Arizona Removal Operations Coordination Center, an ICE facility where detainees are temporarily housed before they are put on a plane to either be deported or moved to a different ICE facility. (Photo by Jerod MacDonald-Evoy/Arizona Mirror)WASHINGTON — A federal appeals court Friday struck down the Trump administration’s policy to quickly send noncitizens to countries they are not from, finding that immigrants must have an opportunity to challenge their removal if they fear for their safety. The decision largely upheld a Boston federal judge’s February ruling that found the Department of Homeland Securitys policy unlawful. But the immigration officers can still conduct third-country removals if they follow the proper procedures, such as adequate notice and an opportunity for an immigrant to raise a fear-based claim to that country of removal. Third-country removals, deportations from the United States to a nation other than an immigrant’s home country, occur when the immigrant’s home country does not accept the person’s repatriation. Once rare, the procedure has spiked under the second Trump administration that has entered into partnerships with several countries, some with human rights concerns, to take third-country removals from the U.S. The three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 1st Circuit also raised doubts that a country that accepts a person that is not their own citizen could “credibly provide blanket assurances that all removed noncitizens will not be persecuted or tortured there unless it intends to provide them with some sort of affirmative protection against rogue agents and non-state actors.” The panel also upheld the lower courts finding that the notice to a third country was inadequate – about 24 hours – and that the policy was unlawful. It gives “no notice at all of an impending third-country removal when the country to which the noncitizen is to be removed has provided credible (in the State Departments judgment) diplomatic assurances that noncitizens removed there from the United States will not be persecuted or tortured,” the panel wrote. The panel included circuit judges Lara E. Montecalvo, Jeffrey R. Howard and Seth R. Aframe. Former President Joe Biden nominated Montecalvo and Aframe. Former President George W. Bush nominated Howard. The Trump administration in May 2025 made an emergency request to the Supreme Court after U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy blocked the policy. The Supreme Court in June 2025 temporarily allowed for the removals, before sending it back to the lower court. Murphy again in February issued an order that blocked the policy and required DHS to carry out the statutory obligations of proper notice of removal to a third country and to give a noncitizen enough time to raise any concerns for their safety to their removal to a third country. The Trump administration later appealed to the First Circuit, and could appeal again to the Supreme Court. DHS did not respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment Friday.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics, Immigration]
— Federal judge dismisses lawsuit over Title X grant funding for pregnancy prevention efforts: at 9/18/26 4:49pm
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit over the new language guiding the application process for grants under Title X, a program meant to serve lower income families who may not otherwise have access to family planning services, including contraception. (Photo by Kelcie Moseley-Morris/Stateline)A federal judge in Pennsylvania on Thursday dismissed a lawsuit challenging changes to the way grants are awarded under a program that provides funding for services such as family planning and reproductive health wellness exams. The National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association and the Family Health Council of Central Pennsylvania filed the lawsuit in June, alleging that U.S. Health and Human Services was politicizing the Title X grant funding program and violating the intent of the law with its new process for evaluating applications. U.S. District Judge Jennifer P. Wilson, an appointee of President Donald Trump, said the family planning organizations that filed the lawsuit did not present a “sufficiently concrete harm” in their case and dismissed it. “… What plaintiffs face is uncertainty over how to best apply for a federal grant, and that is not a sufficient hardship to create a justiciable controversy,” Wilson wrote in her ruling. Stateline previously reported that according to the complaint, the case was initially assigned to U.S. District Judge Yvette Kane, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, but the case was reassigned the same day to Wilson. Congress established the Title X grant program in 1970 to serve low-income or uninsured people, including those who make too much to qualify for Medicaid, who may not otherwise have access to family planning and reproductive health services. Typical services at Title X-funded clinics include contraception, pregnancy tests, testing for sexually transmitted infections and wellness exams. Abortion services cannot be covered by Title X dollars. The complaint argued that the federal agency’s 2027 funding round, which opened in April and closes in January, requires all applicants to meet an “alignment review” to determine their eligibility for funding. Applicants are required to align their work with the priorities laid out by HHS and associated federal agencies, which includes a commitment to ending diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and gender-affirming care. The complaint also said the agency requirements conflicted with the law, which states that factors such as how many patients would be served by an applicant must be considered as well. According to a news release from the American Civil Liberties Union, which assisted in representing the organizations in the case, HHS removed the provision stating it could reject applicants for failing to meet the alignment review. Contraception services dropped after ‘defunding’ provision hit clinics The Trump administration’s funding notice also shifts the focus of the Title X grants from expanding access to services such as contraception to achieving healthy pregnancies and strengthening family formation. It also directs clinics to promote natural methods of family planning, such as menstrual cycle tracking, which is less effective than contraception at preventing pregnancy, according to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. Clare Coleman, president and CEO of the National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, told Stateline in June that the process was designed to favor new applicants who had never applied for funds before. That could include religious organizations such as crisis pregnancy centers and major Catholic health systems. “At a time when people across the country are struggling with high costs, this administration is trying to force health care providers to adhere to its political priorities to secure federal funding,” Coleman said in a statement on Friday. “While this federal court ruling is a significant setback, NFPRHA and its members will continue to prioritize nationally recognized clinical standards, evidence-based best practices, and patient experience in delivering Title X-funded care, over demands for ideological alignment.” Stateline has reached out to HHS for comment about the case. Stateline reporter Kelcie Moseley-Morris can be reached at kmoseley@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: Abortion Policy, Health]
— New report digs into whether state investments in kids are paying off: at 9/18/26 4:00pm
From left to right, U.S. Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Dahveed Torres and Gabrielle Uballez, executive director of New Mexico Voices for Children, discuss ways the state can ensure their recent investments in children's well-being make a tangible difference for everyday people, during a Sept. 9, 2026 roundtable. (Daniel Montaño/KUNM)New Mexico has made some major investments aimed at improving the lives of kids around the state. Just this year the Legislature passed and the governor signed into law free universal childcare, which came a year after creating a trust fund specifically dedicated to early childhood. This story originally appeared on KUNM. But a new report from New Mexico Voices for Children takes a deeper look at whether or not any of those are actually making a difference on a day-to-day level. They call it the Childrens Roadmap. The report brings together formerly disparate data on education, health care and family economic security, and makes recommendations for how to make those policies work for everyday people, no matter where they are. Emily Wildau, director of policy for Voices, said since passing the laws and making the headlines, the state now has a real challenge on its hands. “At the same time,” she said, “there is the very unsexy work of implementing well.” That means making sure programs that already exist, as well as anything coming down the pipe, actually reach the families that need them. Wildau said health care is a good example, as the state has stepped in to cover Affordable Care Act subsidies that were cut by the Trump Administration, and have kept costs low while expanding the number of people covered. “But do people even have a place to use their health insurance?” she said. There are some counties that completely lack pediatricians, school-based health centers and OB-GYNs. The problem comes up elsewhere too, like childcare. Gabrielle Uballez, executive director of Voices, said the state has added about 10,000 new childcare slots over the last year. But she said the state needs to learn how to expand that coverage to more rural areas while maintaining a high quality. The report makes policy recommendations for ensuring students get support, addressing health care workforce shortages, and increasing family security by increasing incomes, and expanding access to public benefits and tax credits. That’s why they’re hosting a series of roundtable discussions around the state. “This isnt everything, and not every answer is here,” she said. “But there are a lot of provocative pieces of information that will help us find new solutions to all these issues.” U.S. Sen.Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.) attended the first roundtable on Sept. 9, which was hosted in the same building as NM Voices for Children headquarters in downtown Albuquerque. He said he was inspired by the discussion, which included representatives from several other nonprofits and advocacy organizations, and even the University of New Mexico School of Medicine. “The only way that we are going to really invest and see the results that we want to see in our greatest asset, which is the next generation,” he said, “is if we start working together across all of those silos.” The next roundtable will take place in Farmington on September 25 — details are available online — and they’re hosting a virtual event in October. Support for this coverage comes from the W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
[Category: Education, Gov & Politics, Health, universal childcare]
— Rural women who got C-sections more likely to be prescribed opioids at home, study finds: at 9/18/26 3:01pm
HIALEAH, FL - SEPTEMBER 23: Mary Arguedas, who does not have insurance because she can not afford it, waits to be examined by her OB/GYN, Vivian Chona, at the Jessie Trice Community Health Center, Inc. on September 23, 2009 in Hialeah, Florida. A new census report showed that 53.1 percent of adults ages 18-64 in Hialeah lack health insurance -- almost three times the national average. (Photo by Joe Raedle/Getty Images)Women giving birth in rural communities were more likely than peers in urban areas to receive oral opioid prescriptions for pain upon leaving the hospital after a cesarean section, according to a new analysis of data from half a million C-sections. The study was conducted by researchers at Truveta, a health data and analytics company owned and governed by 30 health systems across the nation. Researchers compared pain-management prescriptions from more than 540,000 C-sections between January 2018 and July 2026. While hospital pain medication use was consistent across groups, the researchers said it varied after patients were discharged from hospitals: For every 100 women who underwent a C-section, roughly 10 more women living in rural communities received an opioid prescription than women in urban communities. Women in rural communities were also more likely to receive prescriptions for acetaminophen and non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen. About 1 in 3 births across the nation is delivered by C-section. Typically, several types of pain medications are used together. The researchers evaluated three groups of pain medications including acetaminophen (Tylenol), NSAIDs and opioids, such as oxycodone and fentanyl. While managing pain for recovery after a C-section is crucial, some hospital systems have been trying to curb opioid prescriptions amid the nation’s opioid epidemic to lessen addiction risks. Opioid medications also come with many side effects. Substance use disorder and mental health conditions are the leading underlying causes of maternal death, according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They contributed to more than 1 in 5 pregnancy-related deaths, according to CDC data from 38 state maternal mortality review committees. The Truveta researchers also examined prescribing by race, ethnicity and documented history of substance use disorder. Unadjusted findings showed somewhat higher opioid prescribing after discharge among Black or African American women and among women with a documented history of substance use disorder. However, the team didn’t determine whether these differences were statistically significant or account for other factors that might help explain them. “The fact that were seeing kind of more open prescriptions upon discharge, given that recommendation, especially within the context of substance use disorder in maternal health specifically — it does raise a very important question about whats driving that difference in prescribing, and what happens after women are going home,” said Madhura Vachon, lead researcher of the analysis and a former epidemiologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@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: Health]
— NMSU students in Las Cruces take part in National Voter Registration Day: at 9/18/26 2:36pm
The League of Women Voters of Southern New Mexico partnered with the Doña Ana County Clerk’s Office to register potential voters on Sept. 15, 2026, National Voter Registration Day, on the New Mexico State University main campus in Las Cruces. (Photo by Leah Romero for Source NM)Several dozen people registered to vote on New Mexico State Universitys main campus on Tuesday for National Voter Registration Day, with less than two months left until the midterm general elections. The annual nonpartisan civic holiday is recognized each September as a coordinated push to register new voters and update registrants’ information ahead of the general election. The League of Women Voters of Southern New Mexico partnered with the Doña Ana County Clerk’s Office again this year to set up several locations across the NMSU campus to help people register and provide information about voting locations, ballot boxes and candidate details. Britnie Robertson, an New Mexico State University freshman from Rio Rancho registered to vote in her first election on Sept. 15, 2026. (Photo by Leah Romero for Source NM) “I can tell anybody, New Mexico wants you to vote,” Rebecca Courtney, a member of the league and part of LWV’s voter registration effort, told Source NM. The League started its voter registration campaign on Sept. 4 at the Branigan Cultural Center in downtown Las Cruces and has registration and informational events scheduled through Oct. 17 at various public buildings and the Farmers and Crafts Market of Las Cruces. Volunteer registration agents are partnering with the local public high schools as well to register newly eligible voters who did not already complete their registration while applying for a driver’s license. A majority of the university students who registered on Tuesday were freshman, Courtney told Source NM, some of whom filled out their registration for their hometowns in New Mexico outside of Las Cruces. Their completed forms are sent to their respective county clerk’s offices for processing. Britnie Robertson, an NMSU freshman from Rio Rancho, told Source she registered to vote for the first time Tuesday and is excited to participate, though she is still learning about the candidates that will be on the ballot. The League of Women Voters traditionally releases a voter guide with candidate information and answers to hot topic questions. Courtney told Source NM that the southern New Mexico guide is expected to be released in early October. The League refers people to Vote411.org to find a consolidated list of voter guides as well as information about registering to vote online, how to check your registration status and how to request an absentee ballot. The southern New Mexico chapter is also partnering with KRWG public media to host local candidate forums that will be recorded and broadcast several times ahead of the midterms. “We only have two jobs to do—empower voters and defend democracy. Thats what we do,” Courtney told Source NM. Early voting begins Oct. 6 and ends Oct. 31, while the last day to apply for an absentee ballot is Oct. 20.
[Category: Election 2026, 2026 election, League of Women Voters, voter registration]
— Judge says case challenging Trump’s anti-weaponization fund ‘still alive and kicking’: at 9/18/26 1:37pm
President Donald Trump addresses the nation from the East Room of the White House on July 16, 2026 in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Saul Loeb/Pool - Getty Images)WASHINGTON — A federal judge told the Trump administration Friday a case against the Department of Justice’s $1.8 billion “anti-weaponization” fund is “still alive and kicking.” The administration sought to dismiss the case brought against President Donald Trump’s negotiated settlement terms to drop his $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for a years-old grievance over leaked tax returns. The settlement, brokered by the DOJ and Department of Treasury and met by heated opposition even from Republicans, established a massive taxpayer-funded settlement fund to pay “victims of lawfare.” It also included retroactive relief from tax audits and enforcement for Trump, his sons Don Jr. and Eric, and the Trump Organization. Critics of the fund asserted the likelihood that violent participants who assaulted police during the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol could reap a reward from the pot of money. The administration maintains the fund never became operational and that the case is moot, though it refused to provide a sworn statement requested by the court saying as much. Attorney General Todd Blanche testified at his July 15 confirmation hearing that the fund is “dead” and “never started.” 30 days to produce documents On Friday, Judge Leonie Brinkema at the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of Virginia overruled the government’s objection to producing evidence and gave DOJ 30 days to produce documents potentially revealing who structured the deal. The “real concern,” she said is “this concept of taxpayer money being used to promote political viewpoints.” “I think the fund now is gone, but is there a functional equivalent?” she asked, noting violators of federal laws that the administration opposes, like protections for abortion clinic clients, could be paid from a DOJ judgment fund. Plaintiffs, including individuals and interest groups, sued the DOJ, Blanche and Treasury officials, including Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano. Among the numerous plaintiffs are Andrew Floyd, a former assistant U.S. attorney who alleges he was fired for prosecuting Jan. 6 defendants, and the nonprofit National Abortion Federation, which represents abortion providers and advocates for abortion access. Pooja Boisture, counsel for the plaintiffs, argued Friday the fund is “discriminatory.” “This fund was designed to reward and give credence to election deniers and violators of the FACE Act,” she said, referring to the 1994 law that penalizes violence or threats from protesters against those entering to abortion clinics. In response to a request for comment on Friday’s hearing, a DOJ spokesperson said, “The Department is confident that the court lacks jurisdiction over this lawsuit against the (anti-weaponization fund), which never started and isn’t moving forward.” Constitutional question The plaintiffs also allege the tax immunity arrangement for Trump, his sons and private conglomerate amounts to an unfair gain or advantage for the president, therefore violating the Constitution’s emoluments clause. The National Treasury Employees Union is also party to the suit and brought the claim of an emoluments violation, as well as allegations of injury to tax auditors who may have been told to stop any audits of Trump. “These members have no good options: If they comply with a request to terminate audits, they violate their oath of office; and if they refuse to comply, they will likely face retaliation for insubordination,” the union argued in a court filing. The plaintiffs allege the president has ongoing audits that will be terminated under the immunity deal. Lisa Newman, attorney for the legal advocacy group Democracy Forward that is representing the plaintiffs, also told Brinkema, “We do plead that the president was participating in negotiation of the settlement.” Newman referred to public reporting by The New York Times on May 19 that a loss in an IRS audit of Trump’s previous tax returns could cost him roughly $100 million. Andrew Block, senior counsel for the Justice Department, told Brinkema he’s “not aware there are or (are) not” audits of the president’s tax returns from that period of time. “It is speculation to say … that there was an improper request,” he said. Brinkema shot back that Trump’s underlying $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS is “unique.” “The plaintiff is absolutely controlling the defendants” who are at risk of being fired by the president on “a whim,” she said. Settlement castrated by judge Brinkema said the Florida federal judge in Trump’s IRS case “castrated” the settlement in a July 13 order, adding the president’s underlying lawsuit against the nation’s tax enforcement agency is “extraordinarily relevant” to the lawsuit before her. Judge Kathleen Williams for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, where Trump filed his lawsuit, wrote in a 56-page order that “No sitting President has ever sued federal agencies completely subject to his control for monetary benefits, or any benefits that inure to him, his family, and associates.” “The failure of any attorney in this case to address, on this docket, the relationship of this Article II proscription with the benefits conferred by the ‘settlement’ is a glaring omission that speaks to the control of the Lead Plaintiff,” Williams wrote.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]
— US Supreme Court denies New Mexico Forward Party candidates’ appeal to appear on November ballot: at 9/18/26 1:08pm
New Mexico Forward Party Chair Bob Perls, pictured outside U.S. District Court in Santa Fe on Aug. 28, 2026. The U.S. Supreme Court on Sept. 17, 2026, declined his appeal to appear on the November general election ballot. (Joshua Bowling/Source NM)The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear the New Mexico Forward Party’s appeal to have its two statewide candidates appear on the Nov. 3 general election ballot. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE In a Thursday filing with no further comment, Justice Neil Gorsuch denied the minor political party’s appeal of lower court rulings that prevented party Chair Bob Perls and candidate Michael Vigil from appearing as candidates for the U.S. Senate and Office of the State Auditor, respectively. The party’s attorneys sought help from the nation’s highest court on Tuesday after the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a U.S. District Court judge’s decision not to have Perls’ and Vigil’s names printed on the ballot. Attorneys for the candidates had argued in court that they faced overly burdensome requirements to make the ballot as minor party candidates. They failed to collect the more than 14,000 signatures required to run under the nascent centrist party’s banner, while Democrat and Republican candidates are only required to gather about 2,500 and 2,350 signatures. However, attorneys for New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver in a Thursday Supreme Court filing countered that much of the pressure facing New Mexico Forward Party candidates was self-imposed. “NMFP formed a few months ago in May. It could have formed at any time — its national party affiliate has existed since 2022 — but it chose to do so halfway through an election year,” they wrote. “Three of its candidates were able to get on the ballot, while two were not. Mr. Perls and Mr. Vigil were unable to convince enough voters to sign their petitions for statewide office. They have resorted to the courts to get on the ballot anyway.” The Secretary of State’s Office did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Perls in a statement noted that the federal, appellate and Supreme Court decisions have focused only on his motion to get on the November ballot and not on his broader lawsuit challenging the state’s ballot access requirements. “After months of litigation and thousands of dollars and man-hours spent, we are back to square one with a court case in U.S. District Court to be heard in the coming months,” he said. “But we heard loud and clear from tens of thousands of New Mexicans who talked to our volunteers and our candidates and signed our petitions that they want more and better options at the voting booth going forward.”
[Category: Election 2026, Gov & Politics, Bob Perls, Forward Party, Justice Neil Gorsuch, New Mexico Forward Party, New Mexico Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver, U.S. Supreme Court]
— Federal judge sides with manufacturers, blocks New Mexico’s PFAS labeling rule: at 9/18/26 12:01pm
U.S. District Judge Margaret Strickland granted a preliminary injunction on Sep. 16, 2026, that blocks implementation of New Mexico’s rule that manufacturers must label consumer products that contain PFAS chemicals. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)New Mexico’s effort to require manufacturers to label consumer products that contain so-called ‘forever chemicals’ infringes on commercially protected speech, according to a preliminary injunction issued Wednesday by U.S. District Judge Margaret Strickland. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE The disputed rule stems from the PFAS Protection Act, which the New Mexico Legislature passed and Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham enacted last year. It would require manufacturers to label consumer products containing PFAS — aka per and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board sanctioned the rule in March. Studies show PFAS is linked to kidney and reproductive cancers, decreased fertility, fetal developmental delays, disruption of immune responses and liver function in humans. The American Chemistry Council, which advocates for chemical manufacturers, and several national manufacturer organizations, sued the New Mexico Environment Department on July 1. The organizations argued that the state requirement violates the First Amendment by enforcing manufacturers to communicate a government-mandated message and asked for the court to stop implementation of the rule set for next year. In her order, Strickland wrote that New Mexico failed to demonstrate how the label “is a rational vehicle to achieve the goals of protecting consumer and environmental health,” and added that “the state proclaims the regulation exists to raise consumer awareness, but underneath intends the label to operate as a warning in disguise.” The label itself does not comment on whether PFAS poses a risk to consumer or environmental health and safety, a requirement needed to supersede the plaintiff’s right to commercially protected speech, Strickland wrote. “I’d be lying if I didn’t say I was disappointed, New Mexico Environment Department Secretary James Kenney told Source NM. Kenney said that New Mexico absolutely” plans to move forward in challenging the injunction, adding that NMED won many of its arguments and that Strickland “made a solid roadmap” for the department to consider. For example, the plaintiffs argued the PFAS label does not convey factual information due to the broad nature of what constitutes a PFAS chemical and that the label is controversial. Strickland disagreed with both arguments, saying New Mexico’s labelling rule has the same definition of PFAS as other states that have passed similar regulations — Colorado, California and Connecticut. She added that the plaintiffs provided no evidence that consumers find the image inflammatory or controversial. New Mexico’s labelling rule has faced backlash from the national manufacturing community since its inception. In addition to the American Chemistry Association, the National Association of Manufacturers and six other manufacturing organizations were parties to the lawsuit, with NAM issuing a statement welcoming the judge’s ruling. “The NAM is committed to securing permanent relief to ensure manufacturers aren’t forced to redesign products, packaging and manufacturing lines to accommodate an unconstitutional labeling requirement that imposes tremendous costs on both businesses and consumers,” Linda Kelly, NAM chief legal officer, said in a statement. But for NMED, the issue is about transparency. “This preliminary injunction shows that the intent of industry is to keep New Mexicans in the dark and not educate them on what types of PFAS might be coming in from their grocery stores or big box retailers,” Kenney told Source NM. “Education shouldn’t scare the American Chemistry Council, but here in New Mexico — apparently it does.”
[Category: Environment & Climate Change, Gov & Politics, Health, American Chemistry Council, Environment Secretary James Kenney, New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico Environmental Improvement Board, PFAS, PFAS Protection Act, U.S. District Judge Margaret Strickland]
— Trump administration faces second lawsuit to block ICE agents at polls: at 9/18/26 11:12am
Signs in English and Spanish direct voters to the polls at the Salt Lake County Government Center in Salt Lake City on Tuesday, Nov. 5, 2024. (Photo by Spenser Heaps for Utah News Dispatch)WASHINGTON — A coalition of civil rights groups and union organizations Friday sued the Trump administration to prevent the deployment of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to polling locations during November’s midterm elections. The suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia is the second this month, following comments from top Trump officials citing a federal policy to allow ICE officers to enter polling locations in certain circumstances to conduct immigration enforcement. The groups argue the policy violates the federal law that prohibits “armed men” at election sites, and also causes voter intimidation, which is barred under the Voting Rights Act. Under federal law, “troops” or “armed men” are allowed at polling locations only if “such force be necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.” And the section of the Voting Rights Act the groups cite prohibits “intimidation,” “threats,” or “coercion” against a person for voting or attempting to vote. “The result is predictable: voters across the country—particularly Black, Latino, and Asian voters, naturalized citizens, and members of mixed-status families—are afraid to vote, help others vote, and participate in civic life,” according to the suit. Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin earlier this month noted that agents could conduct immigration enforcement at polling places. And before U.S. senators this week, FBI Director Kash Patel did not rule out sending FBI agents to polling locations, but said officers would “follow the law.” The Department of Justice dismissed the idea that officers would be sent to polling locations. “The DOJ has never said it would send federal law enforcement to polling locations,” a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement to States Newsroom. “Any suggestion otherwise is fearmongering.” In a statement to States Newsroom, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said those “who are here legally and are not breaking other laws have nothing to fear.” “Allegations that DHS law enforcement engages in ‘racial profiling’ are disgusting, reckless, and categorically FALSE,” the spokesperson said. “What makes someone a target for immigration enforcement is if they are illegally in the U.S.—NOT their skin color, race, or ethnicity.” The DHS spokesperson added that ICE was not planning any operations that targeted polling locations. NAACP among groups suing “We reject this administration’s attempt to desecrate our polling sites by converting them into militarized zones through the unlawful deployment of ICE or any other federal agent, Kristen Clarke, the NAACP’s general counsel, said in a statement. NAACP is one of nine groups that filed suit. The rest are Mi Familia en Accion, Asian Pacific American Advocates, the National Urban League, Minnesota 8, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the International Union of Painters and the United Food and Commercial Workers International. “Turning the fundamental right of exercising our vote into a high-stakes encounter with the militarized strong arm of the current administration isnt protection and it isnt oversight; its disenfranchisement, period,” Clarke said. “The NAACP calls on the court to reject this blatant attempt by federal officials to obstruct our elections through tactics pulled straight from the Jim Crow playbook. The nine groups are represented by the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund, the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law, LatinoJustice PRLDEF, the National Immigration Law Center, Protect Democracy and the Democracy Defenders Fund.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]
— Trump likes data centers. Congress seems stuck. The midterms could deliver a verdict.: at 9/18/26 11:07am
Alabamans hold up signs that read “No Data Center” at a County Commission meeting on Aug. 24, 2026, in Hayneville, Alabama, in the Lowndes County Courthouse. (Anna Barrett/Alabama Reflector)WASHINGTON — The rare 2026 issue that draws huge support from Republicans and Democrats in Congress is the same one that’s mobilized many Americans: restrictions on giant data centers. The House has overwhelmingly passed legislation forcing state regulators to consider requirements that data centers absorb the cost of the electricity they use. But there’s more to be done, say data center critics, and they’re finding there is no easy or even obvious answer about what to do next. Leave it to state and local governments to decide whether and how the centers should function? Should their size be restricted? Should they be banned altogether? The future of data centers has become a flashpoint in this year’s congressional races. It’s woven into the debate about affordability, artificial intelligence and corporate influence on government. “People see big energy cost increases and say data centers must be the reason,” said Daniel Birdsong, senior lecturer in political science at the University of Dayton. Before leaving Washington for an extended recess not due to end until after the election, the House voted Wednesday 417-3 on a bill that requires states to consider having data centers using large amounts of electricity pay the full additional cost of that generation, as well as transmission and distribution upgrades that are needed. Obstacles to action The vote was only a prologue for action. There’s no clear next chapter, as skepticism is coming from critics at the White House and among progressives. The biggest obstacle appears to be President Donald Trump. “The people that say AI is going to destroy the World, and that Data Centers are bad for your neighborhood, are the same people that said, just a short time ago, that the World would be extinguished by ‘Climate Change,’” he said on his Truth Social site Monday. “That HOAX never worked out for them, and now they’re on to the next one. These people are Revolutionaries, but Revolutionaries for a Bad and Evil Cause. Soon you’ll find out they’re working for people that do not have the best interests of the United States in mind!” Data centers, including the one pictured here in Boardman, Oregon, on May 18, 2026, have been built along the Columbia River Gorge during the last few years. (Photo by Jordan Gale/Oregon Capital Chronicle) Senate leaders have not said how or if they’ll take up the House bill, or any other data center legislation. Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., the Senate’s second-ranking Democrat, was not optimistic. “There aren’t many alternatives to a president who thinks this is a wonderful asset and communities who think just the opposite,” he said. The lawmakers know this much: Their constituents don’t like data centers. “I’ve never seen people come together across the political spectrum like I have the last few months on concerns about big tech, concerns around AI, concerns around data center development,” said Rep. Chris Pappas, D-N.H. A national University of Massachusetts Amherst Poll released this week showed just 11% said they backed the construction of the data centers in their local area. Sixty-five percent were opposed, and about half said they were strongly opposed. “Opposition to AI data centers has emerged as one of these rare areas of consensus,” said poll director Tatishe Nteta. The political divide Solutions tend to fall along three very general lines: A complete ban or moratorium; giving state and local governments more tools to regulate the centers; and withdrawing federal support. Putting pressure on utility companies appears to have the most legislative traction. Rep. Rob Latta, R-Ohio, chairman of the House Energy Subcommittee, found the House-passed legislation would protect consumers from runaway center-inspired utility rates. The bill, he said, “protects American ratepayers from being forced to cover the cost of energy infrastructure upgrades needed to support data centers.” Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Fla., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, saw the measure as help for constituents facing affordability issues. “Data centers cannot come at a cost to neighbors who are already facing high grocery, gas, utility, health care and housing costs,” she said. At the Edison Electric Institute, which represents the nation’s investor-owned electric companies, Drew Maloney, president and CEO, said in a statement that he appreciated Congress’ work and that EEI’s members “will continue working in lockstep to ensure large customers cover the costs of the energy infrastructure they use, and communities have a strong voice from the beginning of the planning process.” Construction underway for the PAX-1 data center hub in Middlesex Township, Cumberland County, Pennsylvania. (Photo by Peter Hall/Capital-Star) But some environmental activists saw big flaws in the bill. “With only a weak directive to states to voluntarily consider adopting cost protections against the energy costs of data centers for ratepayers, state regulators could ultimately choose to ignore this bill,” said Sara Chieffo, senior vice president for government affairs at the League of Conservation Voters. A report last year from the Department of Energy’s Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory found that in 2023, data centers used roughly 4.4% of total electricity in this country. It forecast that the figure could double or triple by 2028 to meet the needs of more data, notably from artificial intelligence. Consumers’ costs are generally figured by how much it costs to generate and deliver electricity. State and local regulators usually set those rates. Looking ahead While the House bill had strong Democratic support, many in the party wanted to go further. “It’s a step forward,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-New York, told reporters when asked about the House bill. “But more needs to be done.” That could include some sort of ban, or at least a moratorium, on building more centers, an approach favored by many Democratic progressives. “Communities should have the right to say ‘no’ to a data center being shoved down their throats,” Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., told colleagues in a floor speech. In the Senate, some Democrats sent a strong signal that they wanted to do more than the House bill provided. The bill “does nothing to meaningfully address the rising costs of AI data center development. Instead, it relies on a voluntary framework that does not require AI data centers to pay the full cost of the energy they consume or the strain they place on the grid,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich of New Mexico, top Democrat on the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. “We need legislation that makes AI data centers pay their fair share and actually protects families,” he said. An audience member attending a Pulaski County, Arkansas, Quorum Court agenda-setting meeting holds a sign opposing data centers on June 9, 2026. (Photo by Ainsley Platt/Arkansas Advocate) Among this week’s efforts was new legislation from a group of House Democrats to end certain currently available federal tax incentives available to data centers. “Tax cuts need to go to families, not data centers. We absolutely should not cut healthcare and food assistance for children and seniors to pay for tax giveaways to corporations,” said Rep. Kristen McDonald Rivet, D-Mich., one of the bill’s lead sponsors, at a Capitol Hill press conference. “Why incentivize this right now?” asked Rep. Don Davis, D-N.C., another top sponsor. Political fallout Find a close House or Senate race and chances are good there’s a brawl between candidates over who can best deal with the data center issue. In Ohio, Sen. Jon Husted, a Republican, is in a close battle with former Sen. Sherrod Brown, a Democrat. Husted is the lead sponsor of the Senate ratepayer protection bill. Husted tried to get the Senate to consider the measure Thursday but it was blocked by Heinrich. Asked why he doesn’t support a ban, Husted said, “Whether you want a data center should be a local decision. What we should do is protect the ratepayers from bearing the burden of the cost of building the electricity those data centers use.” Husted is in a difficult position, Birdsong said, because his call for limits on data centers “puts him at odds with Trump.” Close House races have similar fights. In Michigan, Rep. Tom Barrett, a Republican, is campaigning as the voice of the consumer. One way to deal with data centers, he said, is by “stopping federal overreach and preventing the secrecy pledges that have plagued Michigan and undermined the power of local residents.” The House, though, left Washington and won’t be back voting until a lame-duck session starting Nov. 8, sparking outrage from Democrats. “That means ZERO votes on lowering costs, ending corruption, addressing AI, or responding to the Iran war before Election Day,” tweeted Rep. Johnny Olszewski Jr., D-Md. The Senate’s scheduled to be around through September, but there’s no sign it will take a close look at the data center issue. The big hope is that it will continue to be discussed back home and lawmakers will return ready to act or at least debate. “We have to understand, ‘What’s the real implication here?’” Davis said.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]
— Tribes hit hard by wildfires face health effects, cultural losses: at 9/18/26 10:00am
The Columbia Princess Ferry stays on the Gifford side of the Columbia River as the Modrite Fire exhibits extreme fire behavior just south of Inchelium, Washington. Fires in the state hit tribes particularly hard this year. (Photo courtesy of Colville Tribal Broadcasts, News and Information)Neighbors across the Colville Tribes communities in Washington state knew Matilda Bob’s log home as the “rainbow house,” for its brightly painted exterior. Now it’s gone. Sparked by a lightning strike in mid-July, the Kaiser Canyon Fire destroyed Bob’s home and 42 other houses on the Colville Reservation, along with 100 outbuildings such as sheds and barns, tribal leaders said. “I couldnt believe that it had happened,” said Bob. “It went so fast.” Tribal leaders across Washington and Oregon told Stateline that this year’s record-breaking wildfires burned timber that they rely on for income, threatened food sources and waterways, and harmed the health of their communities. Power outages left families without food they’ve hunted or gathered and frozen. Hotter, drier conditions driven by climate change already have made wildfires nationwide more frequent and intense, a trend that is expected to accelerate. Substandard housing and higher rates of acute and chronic underlying health conditions, including respiratory illnesses, make tribal communities more vulnerable during and after the fires. “What typically used to be like a two-month fire season for us when I first started fighting fire about 25 years ago — now thats at least three months and sometimes longer, depending on the year,” said Cody Desautel, executive director of the Colville Tribes, who is also a forester and wildland fire expert. An especially warm winter also left Washington state with about half its usual snowpack, raising drought concerns and wildfire risks. Nighttime view of the Kaiser Canyon Fire during firing operations on Whitmore Mountain. (Photo courtesy of Colville Tribal Broadcasts, News and Information) This year saw particularly devastating fires in eastern Washington, including arson-instigated fires that destroyed over 700 homes in Spokane. The conditions prompted Washington state Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson to declare a statewide state of emergency on Aug. 1, citing an “unprecedented” red flag alert of extreme fire danger from the National Weather Service. The Colville Reservation includes the southern portion of Ferry County, which has the second-lowest median household income of all counties in the state. The tribe lost a significant amount of timber, a main source of income, during the fires. Many residents didn’t have home insurance because the housing didn’t qualify or they couldn’t afford it, said Cindy Marchand, chairwoman of the Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation, adding that about half of homes destroyed in the fires weren’t insured. Other residents couldn’t afford to upgrade to more fire-resistant material, she said. “The rates are just astronomical in the sense that a lot of people in our area are not able to afford this,” Marchand said. “We have elders living on a single income, theyre on a fixed income, and so theyre having a hard time making it as it is.” By mid-September, the total acres burned across the state reached roughly 900,000 acres, the worst since 2015. Since July, about 200,000 acres burned across the Colville Reservation alone, with the Kaiser Canyon Fire scorching over 138,000 acres and the Modrite fire burning more than 57,000 acres. In Oregon, over 60,000 acres burned across the reservation of the Confederated Tribes of Warm Springs, where at least six homes were destroyed. The Wrights Spring Fire in Oregon burned through 55,000 acres across Klamath County, national forest and tribal lands. Health effects Faith Zacherle-Tonasket has seen how the wildfires have affected perinatal health. Founder of xa?xa? Indigenous Birth Justice, which offers perinatal and doula support across the Colville Reservation, Zacherle-Tonasket said three of her clients went into early labor during this year’s fires. She and her team believe stress amid displacement due to evacuations contributed to the early labor. Emerging research is also showing how wildfire smoke is a primary pollutant affecting pregnancy. Zacherle-Tonasket also helps lead the River Warrior Society, a nonprofit offering wildfire relief for tribal and non-tribal members. The group has been coordinating shelter placements for elders, donations and food assistance. “This is one of the biggest fires our reservation has had,” she said. “The biggest need we have on our reservation is air purifiers.” Respiratory health has been a major concern post-wildfires amid smoke and poor air quality. American Indian and Alaska Native people disproportionately have chronic respiratory health conditions exacerbated by wildfire smoke, including asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Matilda Bob’s father, a veteran who is now displaced with her, has COPD. Along with respiratory distress, there’s been “tremendous stress, anxiety, grief, trauma — and we expect and know that those behavioral health needs are going to continue beyond this current emergency. Post-fire recovery creates additional health concerns,” said Dayna Seymour, the Colville Tribes’ health and human services chair. “Our members are going in now to clean up the ash and debris, and arent really always sure whats in that ash and debris, whether theres hazardous materials, heavy metals, asbestos or other contaminants.” Seymour added that community members helped deliver medications to their displaced neighbors and helped each other dig fire lines. Research shows disproportionate smoke exposure among tribes in California, noted University of Kansas Assistant Professor Melinda Adams, a cultural fire practitioner and scholar who teaches in the Department of Earth, Energy, and Environment. “Because wildfire is increasing in frequency and intensity,” said Adams, a member of the N’dee San Carlos Apache Tribe of Arizona, “we must look at cumulative effects and identify patterns in human and environmental health while investing in climate and wildfire mitigation strategies that include Indigenous knowledge.” Prescribed burns, carefully controlled fires to reduce brush that could fuel megablazes, are crucial tools in preventing dangerous wildfires and preserving ecosystem health. But regulatory barriers have made implementing traditional Indigenous burn practices difficult, Desautel and Adams said. This week, the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee advanced legislation that would streamline approval of prescribed burns, while the EPA issued guidance last year. Funding and staffing limitations are also a barrier, Desautel added. The Indian Forest Management Assessment Team found that Indian trust forest lands are funded at about a third per acre of comparable federal forests. Waterway pollution, cultural art lost Seymour added that traditional foods including huckleberries and herbs and roots, such as bitterroot and camas, that the tribes rely on were scorched across the land. “Those are things that we utilize to help us in ceremony, that we utilize to eat for subsistence. So that was a huge loss for our people,” Seymour said. In Oregon, while no homes were lost on the Klamath Tribes’ lands, leaders still have concerns and uncertainty around environmental aftereffects, particularly on traditional food systems the tribes were finally in the process of regenerating. The tribes had just started restoring their ancestral salmon after removal of four dams two years ago. Last year, the tribes documented the first adult Chinook salmon in the Williamson River, and earlier this year detected the first salmon hatch in over a century in the tributaries of the Upper Klamath Lake. “The biggest (wildfire) impact is the effects on hunting and gathering that may be felt in the future. …With this high-intensity, high-severity wildfire, theres likelihood of sedimentation into the streams that could serve as spawning grounds for that new salmon,” said Tim Sexton, Wildland Fire Program Manager at the Klamath Tribes. Research is showing how wildfires affect fish habitats. Deer stand near firing operations on the western perimeter of the Kaiser Canyon Fire, near Omak Lake Road and Coyote Creek Road area on July 25, 2026. (Photo courtesy of Colville Tribal Broadcasts, News and Information) Klamath Tribes Chairman William Ray Jr., a former firefighter of 40 years, said he’s been advocating for tribal control of the waterways amid pollution that already existed before this year’s wildfires. “We have ecological collapse going on. Our water quality in our lake and rivers isnt very good,” he said. At the Colville Reservation, Zacherle-Tonasket said many of her community members are holding off on traditional hunting and instead her nonprofit has gotten discounts from local butchers to help families. “We don’t want to hunt this year,” she told Stateline. “It’s just ethically not right to hunt when our own animals are suffering the way we are.” Bob said that many cultural heirlooms burned — her own traditional beadwork, a 100-year-old berry basket passed down from her great grandmother, and her nephew’s handmade attire worn during special dances at powwows. But her family will continue to dance as they do “for the people who can’t,” she said, on their ancestral land. “Every time your foot hits the floor’s a prayer,” she said. “We were raised to respect the land. … We’re still standing in the fact that were all OK, that we all made it, that we didnt lose anybody.” Stateline reporter Nada Hassanein can be reached at nhassanein@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: Health]
— With vote-by-mail court fight settled, attention shifts to protections at the polls: at 9/18/26 9:59am
Voters at Deering High School in Portland cast their ballot in Maine’s June 9, 2026 primary election. (Photo by Jim Neuger/ Maine Morning Star)Voting rights groups and Democratic officials are looking to defend against what they see as possible election interference from the Trump administration ahead of the upcoming midterm elections, now that they’ve won a major battle over mail ballots. Common Cause, a nonpartisan pro-democracy organization, announced a “voter protection” campaign Thursday that would place thousands of volunteers at polling sites in 25 states. The initiative is designed to counter potential administration moves to intimidate voters, such as ordering troops or law enforcement officers to polling places. The Democratic Party is also upping its voter protection efforts, launching its own initiative this week to deploy 10,000 volunteers to assist voters at polling locations in all 50 states plus seven U.S. territories. Both efforts are described as preemptive efforts to head off any possible attempts by President Donald Trump to skew election results. Trump for years has alleged, without evidence, U.S. elections are beset by myriad attempts at fraud. He has used that pretext in attempts to enact policies to restrict voting, including the order limiting vote-by-mail that the U.S. Supreme Court blocked for this election. ‘Breathing down our neck’ Voting rights advocates say they are preparing for more efforts to dissuade voters from casting ballots. Voters are “facing aggressive and deliberate threats from this administration and anti-voter forces that are tied to this administration,” Common Cause CEO Virginia Kase Solomón said. “Whether it be voter intimidation at the polls, the attacks on mail-in voting or attempts to collect your personal data, the barriers that voters are facing right now … are not only real, they are urgent. And they are intentionally designed to make everyday Americans give up.” The Democratic plan, led by the Association of State Democratic Conferences, a coalition of the 57 state and territorial party leaders, was also in part a reaction to Trump, ASDC Chair Jane Kleeb said in an interview. “We had to react to the threat that was breathing down our neck,” Kleeb, who is also the chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said in an interview. Trump has broadly accused Democrats of trying to cheat, and has placed particular focus on the possibility of noncitizens voting. White House spokeswoman Lauren Bis wrote in a Thursday email that the administration would continue to guard against that possibility. “Despite extreme Democrats and the media claiming it never happens, the evidence of non-citizens registering and voting in our elections continues to pile up,” Bis wrote. “Any non-citizens found registering and voting in our elections will be arrested and held accountable. Only Americans should be electing American leaders.” The Justice Department has charged a handful of voter fraud cases of foreign nationals in recent months. The administration has also argued a software glitch in New Jersey that registered 6,600 noncitizens showed why tighter regulations on voting are needed. “There continues to be a narrative and a concern that noncitizens are voting,” Ari Mittleman, the executive director of the civic education group Keep Our Republic, said, adding that examples like the New Jersey glitch kept the issue “on the minds of many.” Troops at the polls? Common Cause officials and Kleeb highlighted the possibility of federal troops or law enforcement, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, at polling places as a strong concern. “We dont know exactly what Donald Trump is going to do,” Kleeb, whose interview was conducted before the Supreme Court’s mail voting decision on Sept. 14, said. “But if we take him at his word, he will disrupt the vote-by-mail process, and he will have people outside of polling locations to intimidate voters.” Administration officials have dismissed the idea of sending federal agents to the polls, but have not completely ruled it out. FBI Director Kash Patel repeatedly dodged the question during a U.S. Senate hearing Wednesday. At a press conference this month, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said ICE would not have a sizable presence at election sites, but could deploy as part of the agency’s routine duties. “ICE isnt there to patrol the polling places,” Mullin said. “Were there to enforce specific threats. The only reason why we would be at polling places: Because there is a threat to that polling place or we are serving a warrant on someone we are actively tracking down.” And then-White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt called a question about sending ICE agents to the polls “disingenuous” at a February press briefing. “I cant guarantee that an ICE agent wont be around a polling location in November. I mean, thats frankly a very silly hypothetical question,” she said. “But what I can tell you is I havent heard the president discuss any formal plans to put ICE outside of polling locations.” Disinformation, distrust Trump’s relentless focus on election regulations has contributed to a distrust of elections. Only 34% of adults in a AP-NORC and USAFacts poll this month said they trust government certifications of election results “a great deal” or “quite a bit.” Solomon said on the Thursday press call announcing the voter protection drive that the administration and its allies were seeking to sow distrust in the election. The program, which the group said was the country’s largest nonpartisan election protection effort, hopes to counter that narrative by installing voter advocates at polling stations. Volunteers will receive about an hour to 90 minutes of training on their state’s voting laws and how to help voters. ASDC volunteers will also receive about an hour of training. “They are trained to check for things like signage, polling place accessibility, long lines,” Common Cause Director of Policy Carol Evans said. “They are trained to be a positive and joyful presence at the polls to make the experience better for voters. And importantly, they are our eyes and ears on the ground to alert us to serious issues.” In another voter education initiative, Keep Our Republic has launched a series of town hall-style events in the five states in which it operates — Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin — to give election officials a platform to speak to voters and increase trust in the election process, Mittleman said.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]
— New Mexico Secretary of State launches election-season ‘good questions’ campaign: at 9/18/26 9:45am
The New Mexico Secretary of State's Office on Sept. 18, 2026, launched the "good questions" campaign intended to answer voters' questions heading into the Nov. 3 general election. (Screenshot)The New Mexico Secretary of State on Friday announced the launch of a new election-season campaign geared at answering voters’ questions. The good questions campaign, according to a news release, was developed with Albuquerque-based Esparza Advertising and will appear as digital ads on a variety of sites, and on social media and radio. The state’s Sunshine Portal shows an approximate $64,600 contract with the agency by the SOS; Lindsey Bachman, the Secretary of State Office’s director of communications, legislative and executive affairs, said the campaign cost just under $60,000 before taxes. The campaign, the Secretary of State’s office says, is intended to answer voters’ most common questions, all of which can be found on a dedicated webpage, and include queries such as: “Am I still registered?” and “Can I register on Election Day? Other questions delve into more political terrain, such as “Can noncitizens vote?” (the answer is no) and “Have changes with USPS or at the federal level changed my ability to vote by mail this year?” (the answer is also no). US Supreme Court blocks Trump rule limiting mail voting, sides with Dem states “With everything being said about the election this year, I have been really concerned about voters getting bad information about the process that keeps them from casting a ballot,” Secretary of State Maggie Toulouse Oliver said in a statement. “We know that New Mexicans have good questions about our elections, and the truth is that New Mexico runs some of the most accessible, secure and accurate elections in the country. We want to cut through the noise and provide voters with more information about what makes our process so great as well as the facts they need to safely vote and trust that their vote counted.” The office’s news release notes the new campaign follows Toulouse Oliver’s previous efforts to combat rising election misinformation, including a Rumor versus Reality webpage and the 2024 “seeing is no longer believing” campaign focused on AI misinformation in elections.
[Category: Election 2026, 2026 election, election, misinformation, New Mexico Secretary of State]
— New Mexico Supreme Court rejects 2 Project Jupiter challenges, allows permitting process to resume: at 9/17/26 4:13pm
The New Mexico Supreme Court on Sept. 17, 2026, allowed regulatory proceedings to proceed for the Project Jupiter data center, pictured on June 26, 2026. (Courtesy of Alexa Reynaud, Food & Water Watch, with aerial support provided by LightHawk)The New Mexico Supreme Court on Thursday unanimously shot down two environmental groups’ challenges to regulatory proceedings for the Project Jupiter data center under construction in Doña Ana County. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE In brief orders, the court denied August requests from the Santa Fe-based New Energy Economy and the national Center for Biological Diversity that challenged the data center’s pending air quality permit application with the New Mexico Environment Department and its use of an emergency water well for construction. The New Mexico Supreme Court in August paused regulatory proceedings for Project Jupiter while it evaluated the environmental groups’ complaints. The air quality permit hearing was initially scheduled to begin Monday in southern New Mexico. In the orders, which offered no further comment on the court’s rulings, justices also unpaused the regulatory proceedings that have been frozen since August. “I don’t know what to say,” Colin Cox, a New Mexico-based attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity, told Source NM Thursday. “I’m a little surprised that they granted both stays, which was pretty extraordinary and then pulled them without any explanation.” In a statement, New Energy Economy Executive Director Mariel Nanasi said the plaintiffs were “terribly disappointed,” but acknowledged they had asked the state’s highest court “for extraordinary relief.” “We went to the Supreme Court because we believed the rules of this proceeding were stacked against meaningful public participation,” she said. “We sought a fair opportunity for the public to obtain the evidence, test the claims being made by the applicant and present its case before New Mexico decides whether to authorize an enormous new source of pollution.” The New Mexico Environment Department’s hearing officer who presided over the air quality permit application abruptly recused himself from the matter in August. The department has yet to appoint a replacement or hold a scheduling conference to set a new hearing date. NMED spokesperson Drew Goretzka told Source NM that department officials will follow the guidance of the new hearing officer. State environment officials will decide whether to grant the data center developer’s request to issue an air quality permit for its proposed on-site energy source, a natural-gas powered fuel cell system. Projections show that, if approved, it would emit as many greenhouse gases annually as New Mexico’s largest cities combined.
[Category: Data Centers in New Mexico, Environment & Climate Change, Gov & Politics, Center for Biological Diversity, data centers, New Energy Economy, New Mexico Environment Department, New Mexico Supreme Court, Project Jupiter, Project Jupiter data center, Trend – Data Centers]
— New Mexico lawmakers warn of ‘urgent threat’ over federal nuclear oversight shortfalls: at 9/17/26 3:45pm
Crews demolish and replace structural steel circa November 2024 at the radioactive waste repository Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico. The state Legislature’s Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee cited WIPP and other nuclear facilities in the state in Sept. 16, 2026 letters to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and President Donald Trump regarding their concerns regarding lack of safety oversight and rollback of safety directives. (Courtesy of U.S. Department of Energy)A bipartisan committee of the New Mexico Legislature on Wednesday warned that two developments in the federal government’s nuclear administration — the rollback of safety requirements and the obstruction of independent safety oversight — have created an “urgent threat” to workers, communities and national security. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE The Legislature’s Radioactive and Hazardous Materials Committee unanimously approved letters from its chair, state Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces), to U.S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright and one to both Wright and President Donald Trump calling for immediate federal intervention to address nuclear safety concerns. The letters, which the committee announced in a news release, also were sent to the state’s congressional delegation, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham and other state officials. The letter to Wright raises concerns about the so-called “Project Velocity,” which the letter characterizes as DOE’s “effort to reduce its regulatory requirements.” Last month, the letter says, the DOE issued 46 new or revised directives. “The RHMC is gravely concerned that these extensive changes to nuclear safety requirements have moved forward without sufficient transparency or critical review regarding the technical and experiential basis for the changes and that the new directives pose serious risks to the residents of New Mexico,” the lawmakers write. In a letter addressed to both Trump and Wright, lawmakers wrote that the 46 new or revised directives issued by the U.S Department of Energy in August “moved forward without sufficient transparency or critical review” and that subject matter experts “were kept in the dark.” The DOE removed or weakened requirements that were developed by prior safety concerns, the letter continues, citing the removal of emergency preparedness requirements and the process for employees to raise technical safety concerns. The effort to revise the directives was to “remove unnecessary barriers” in federal nuclear operations. Energy Secretary Wright said in a statement in August. U.S. Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) and U.S. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-OH) also called on Secretary Wright to justify the directive changes in their own letter, also sent on Wednesday. New Mexico’s lawmakers also point out that some of the now-eliminated safety requirements were implemented due to mishaps in New Mexico, including the multiyear shutdown at the plutonium facility in Los Alamos Laboratory and a 2014 incident at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in which radioactive material leaked and exposed 21 workers to low amounts of radiation. The letter to both Wright and Trump details concerns regarding “the collapse in communication and cooperation” between the DOE and the U.S. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, which provides oversight and safety recommendations for the nation’s nuclear facilities. The nuclear oversight board was denied access to observing biweekly safety meetings, received redacted information on safety reports and were not provided technical reviews on eight occasions from Jan. 1- June 30, according to a report to Congress from July. The letter also calls on Trump to fill the rest of the safety board seats. Currently, the five-member safety board only has one Senate-confirmed member, making the three-member quorum needed to issue formal safety recommendations impossible. New Mexico understands better than almost any state what is at stake when the nations nuclear weapons enterprise operates without strong, independent safety oversight,” Steinborn said in a statement. “Protecting workers, communities and the American public is a national security responsibility. President Trump and Secretary Wright must put Americans safety first by restoring the DNFSBs full access and ensuring that changes to nuclear safety requirements are transparent, technically justified and independently reviewed.
[Category: Gov & Politics, Department of Energy Secretary Chris Wright, Los Alamos National Laboratory, New Mexico, President Donald Trump, Radioactive and Hazardous Materials interim committee, U.S. Department of Energy]
— Bipartisan push to set rules for college athletes’ pay continues to advance in US Senate: at 9/17/26 3:11pm
Fans cheer on the University of Nebraska Cornhuskers at Memorial Stadium in Lincoln, Nebraska. (Photo by Aaron Sanderford/Nebraska Examiner)WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate on Thursday took another step forward on a sweeping bipartisan bill to overhaul the college sports world. The measure, clearing its second procedural hurdle on a 77-22 vote, would set national standards for college athletes’ compensation, provide certain antitrust protections to the NCAA, establish a five-year eligibility timeline for athletes and bar professional athletes from competing in college athletics. GOP Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas and Democratic Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington state championed the bill, with Republican Sen. Eric Schmitt of Missouri and Democratic Sen. Chris Coons of Delaware as original cosponsors. Senators will now move ahead with debating and possibly amending and conducting a final vote on the measure. ‘Reason to the craziness’ Cantwell took to the Senate floor to push for her colleagues’ support ahead of Thursday’s procedural vote, saying the bill attempts to “bring some reason to the craziness that has basically been plaguing the most important aspects of college sports.” She noted that the “historic” measure would put into law “more than a dozen important provisions that help athletes and protect them for the future.” But critics argue the measure, which is notably neutral on the classification of athletes as employees, would undermine the labor rights of college players. One of the most vocal opponents, Sen. Chris Murphy, told MS NOW on Thursday that the bill “seeks to preserve the exploitative model of college sports.” The Connecticut Democrat also criticized the priorities of Congress in taking up the college sports issue amid the war in Iran and its impact on gas prices. “We have a war that is out of control in the Middle East, we have gas prices that are soon going to be $6 a gallon,” Murphy said. “This seems to be the last issue that Congress should be dealing with, and I think it shows how out of touch Republicans are.” As of mid-afternoon Thursday, the procedural vote on the college sports bill and a procedural vote on a federal judge, to be followed by a confirmation vote if successful, were the only items on the Senate majority whip’s notice for floor action. NCAA guidelines fallout The bill marks a major attempt to combat many of the problems facing the college sports landscape, which continues to wrestle with the fallout of the NCAA’s guidelines in 2021 allowing athletes to profit from their name, image and likeness. College sports leaders also are grappling with a patchwork of state NIL laws, gender inequity in compensation deals and the NCAA’s controversial transfer portal, among other key issues. Adding fuel to the fire, a federal judge last year approved the terms of a nearly $2.8 billion antitrust settlement, which paved the way for schools to directly pay athletes. Meanwhile, if the Senate ultimately passes the bill in the coming days, the House would not take up the measure until the lame-duck session beginning after the midterm elections. The lower chamber left town Wednesday for a seven-week campaign break ahead of the midterms in November.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics]
— New Mexico Dem governor nominee Haaland announces data center moratorium executive order if elected: at 9/17/26 1:47pm
Deb Haaland, the former U.S. Interior secretary and Democratic nominee to be New Mexico's next governor, on Sept. 17, 2026, said she would sign an executive order, if elected, to immediately halt new large-scale data center projects while state lawmakers craft guardrails around such developments. (Joshua Bowling/Source NM)Deb Haaland, the former U.S. Interior secretary and New Mexico’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee, on Thursday said if elected she would sign an executive order immediately upon taking office to pause all new large-scale data center proposals while state lawmakers craft guidelines for such developments. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE Several lawmakers announced plans in recent months to introduce such a moratorium, amid increasing public consternation about data centers, and as various local governments also grapple with the issue. Haaland said she hopes that any guardrails the Legislature proposes in next year’s legislative session include specific requirements, including: prohibiting non-disclosure agreements; requiring that developers build their own renewable energy infrastructure; requiring closed-loop cooling systems; prioritizing hiring New Mexicans for union jobs; mandating compliance with the state’s clean-energy goals; adhering to high standards for light pollution, noise and more; and imposing decommission bonds similar to those in the oil and gas industry. Developers must exceed those standards to qualify for incentives from state business programs, she said. “Big tech’s mantra may be ‘move fast and break things,’ but here in New Mexico, we do things our way,” Haaland told reporters during a news conference at the Indian Pueblo Cultural Center in Albuquerque. “The lack of transparency, the NDAs and backroom deals will never build trust with New Mexico communities.” She said she remains open to working with a diverse range of industries seeking to do business in the state, but wants to first establish guardrails to protect New Mexico’s air, land and water. “I want to be crystal clear that New Mexico is open for business,” she said. “These guidelines will provide more predictability and certainty and will help businesses be more responsible, and that’s good for everyone.” Haaland cited her time as Interior secretary under the Biden administration and said she oversaw the investment of more than $10 billion in statewide infrastructure, conservation and clean energy projects. Her announcement comes as her latest campaign finance reports show she’s received donations from Oracle, one of the tech companies behind the controversial Project Jupiter data center in Doña Ana County, and its CEO. During the news conference, Haaland said that campaigning for office is excessively expensive work and said she remained committed to holding industry leaders to account, even if they donate to her campaign. New Mexico State Ethics Commission says Oracle’s $3.4M Project Jupiter ads sought to sway permitting “I believe that I can walk and chew gum at the same time,” she said. When asked how she would apply the proposed guardrails to data center developments that finish construction before New Mexico elects a new governor, she said it would be “embedded into any rulemaking that the Legislature decides to work up.” Haaland’s plan also calls for data center developments to use renewable energy. Developers across the nation have increasingly proposed building small nuclear reactors on-site to power their data centers. Haaland said she would prefer other renewable energy sources, such as solar, wind and geothermal power. “The majority of New Mexicans that I speak with are not in favor of nuclear anything,” she said. “We have all the sun, we have all the wind, we have all the geothermal.” The state House Democratic Caucus in a Thursday statement responding to Haaland’s plan said that no industry should have “free rein in our state.” “Over the past several months, members of the House Democratic caucus have been working diligently on a range of legislation for the 2027 session to address these concerns,” the statement said. “New Mexicans deserve clean and safe water, affordable utility bills, and assurance that if data centers set up shop here, they must benefit our communities and provide good paying union jobs.” A spokesperson for Gregg Hull, the former Rio Rancho mayor running as the Republican nominee for governor, told Source NM that Hull believes a moratorium “signals to businesses that New Mexico is closed for business” and referred to Hull’s prior comments on the matter. Hull previously said in a statement to Source NM that he doesn’t “support a blank check, either.” “Data centers need to be sited responsibly — with real accountability for water use, energy impact, and community input and with siting decisions driven by local infrastructure capacity, not just available land,” he said at the time. “As governor, I’d rather fix the guardrails than shut the door on an entire industry.”
[Category: Data Centers in New Mexico, Election 2026, Gov & Politics, data centers, Deb Haaland, Gregg Hull, Project Jupiter, Project Jupiter data center, Trend – Data Centers]
— White House yanks nominee to lead Immigration and Customs Enforcement: at 9/17/26 12:42pm
Federal immigration officers were at the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport on March 23, 2026 to help with airport security as a partial governemnt shutdown continued. (Photo by Ross Williams/Georgia Recorder)WASHINGTON — The White House Thursday withdrew the nomination of Richard “Lance” Schroyer to lead the agency the president tasked with carrying out his mass deportation campaign, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Schroyer, a former Oklahoma state trooper, had yet to have his confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The chair of the committee, GOP Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, had no objections to Schroyer’s nomination, his office said in an email to States Newsroom. Richard Lance Schroyer (Photo courtesy Department of Homeland Security) The White House did not immediately respond to States Newsroom’s request for comment. The withdrawal was announced in a brief statement on the White House website along with those of several other nominees. The Trump administration nominated Schroyer on June 27. He worked to establish Oklahomas law enforcement partnership with the federal government to assist with immigration enforcement in the 287g program, and is a close ally of Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin, who previously served as Oklahoma’s U.S. senator. Schroyer also worked in law enforcement for nearly 30 years. The current acting director of ICE is David Venturella, a longtime federal immigration official and former vice president of the private prison company GEO that rakes in billions through federal contracts by detaining immigrants at its facilities across the country. He took over in May after former acting ICE director Todd Lyons stepped down, following the shooting of two U.S. citizens by immigration officials in Minneapolis earlier this year. The White House has not announced a replacement for Schroyer. The last time the Senate confirmed someone to lead ICE was 11 years ago.
[Category: DC Bureau, Gov & Politics, Immigration]
— New Mexico Election 2026: Constitutional Amendments 1-3: at 9/17/26 12:30pm
Voters cast ballots at Holly Plaza Election Center in Albuquerque during the June 2, 2026, primary election. (Danielle Prokop/Source NM)Several amendments to the New Mexico Constitution will appear on the Nov. 3 general election ballot which, if approved, would require governors to explain their vetoes, eliminate the requirement to hold school elections on odd-numbered years and pare back the governor’s authority to nominate regents at public universities. To place a constitutional amendment on the ballot, state lawmakers must first sponsor them as joint resolutions during a legislative session. Source NM reviewed these three constitutional amendments, as well as the Legislative Council Service’s arguments for and against each of them. Source NM also spoke with state lawmakers who sponsored or co-sponsored each one. A fourth amendment, which seeks to give state lawmakers paid salaries for the first time, will also appear on the ballot, and will be detailed in a separate news story. Constitutional Amendment 1: pocket vetoes When the Legislature passes a bill, the governor must sign it before it becomes a law. New Mexico law requires that the governor sign or veto bills, with a written message indicating why she or he approved or disapproved of the bill, by a specific date after the legislative session. If the governor does neither, it becomes a “pocket veto,” meaning the bill does not become a law but the governor does not have to explain why. The proposed amendment would require the governor to provide written messages explaining vetoes. If the governor does not act on a bill, it would become law under the proposed amendment. State Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Galisteo) co-sponsored a resolution in the 2025 legislative session to get Constitutional Amendment 1 on the ballot, and told Source NM he believes the measure supports “transparency and good government.” “I’ve been in the Legislature for 12 years and it’s really hard to pass legislation,” he said. “When you have legislation that just passed, sometimes with a large majority, it goes up to the governor’s desk and the governor doesn’t sign it and doesn’t tell you why, what are you supposed to do?” The Legislative Council Service’s guide to constitutional amendments provides two arguments for and against Constitutional Amendment 1. Supportive arguments include providing more transparency to the public and the Legislature, and potentially bringing more balance to the three branches of state government. Opposing arguments include a concern that the amendment is superfluous and could be burdensome, and that it doesn’t adequately define its requirement for the governor to provide a “substantive explanation” with a veto. Constitutional Amendment 2: school elections Currently, New Mexico school districts can only hold statewide elections in odd-numbered years, when many local governments hold elections for city council seats. Supporters of Constitutional Amendment 2, which would eliminate that requirement if approved, say that the current model imposes too much of a burden on schools. If a school district needs to put a bond question on the ballot to get funding for big projects, they would rather do that during a bigger general election when voter turnout is higher, Sen. Linda Trujillo (D-Santa Fe), who co-sponsored the resolution to get this on the ballot, told Source NM. “This is really to streamline” a district’s process to put bond questions before voters, she said. Putting school elections on a November general election ballot would require the state, rather than individual school districts, to foot the bill for the election and would put important local issues before voters during what are typically elections with the highest levels of turnout. Trujillo said she’s encountered a common misconception that moving school elections to a general election ballot, which often includes mid-term or presidential races, would suddenly allow school board candidates to run in partisan elections. That is not the case, she said. She added that the requirement prohibiting local school races and bond questions from appearing on a general election ballot is “kind of the last little semblance of women not being allowed to vote in anything but school elections.” The Legislative Council Service published five arguments in favor of the constitutional amendment and four in opposition. The arguments in favor are: School districts won’t have to pay for expensive mail-in elections; higher levels of participation in school elections; it could increase the number of school districts that participate in the state capital outlay system and result in new construction; districts could still choose to hold special elections; it would dilute the “outsized influence” of advocacy groups in influencing school elections. The arguments against the proposal are: Adding to a general election ballot could increase voter fatigue and increase election costs; it could lead to politicizing school elections; it could reduce the voting power of teachers and school staff by increasing the size of the electorate; and it could diminish the attention paid to school elections if they’re on a crowded ballot. Constitutional Amendment 3: nominating university regents Constitutional Amendment 3, which would require that the governor appoint university regents from a pool selected by a nominating committee, has been in the works for so many years that “I’ve lost count,” Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces) told Source NM. He said he’s taken issue with the regent selection process since he was first elected, initially to the state House of Representatives, 20 years ago. In New Mexico, the governor appoints regents, whom the state Senate must confirm, to oversee the state’s public universities. Current law also requires that boards of regents contain a roughly equal number of people from different political parties. Steinborn said that system has allowed governors in several administrations to appoint friends or political allies to the posts. If approved, Constitutional Amendment 3 would task the Legislature with creating a regent nominating committee. The governor would have to choose regents from a pool of people selected by the nominating committee. It would also prevent someone from serving as a regent if they changed their political affiliation in the year prior to their appointment. “It’s been abused and we’ve had too many appointments that had no higher education experience and nothing to offer our state,” Steinborn said of the current model. He co-sponsored a resolution to get this placed on the ballot during this year’s legislative session. He said it was the “perfect moment — between governors, when no one was protecting their power,” to finally get this done. The Legislative Council Service published two arguments for and against the proposal. In support, it wrote that a nominating committee could comprehensively vet candidates to ensure they have the necessary experience to oversee a university, and a nominating committee could remove the influence of politics from the process. In opposition, it wrote that the amendment would alter the checks and balances that currently exist between the Legislature and the governor’s office, and that it could weaken the accountability for the governor and the Senate in the appointment and confirmation processes.
[Category: Election 2026, constitutional amendments, pocket veto]
— Free online English courses available for immigrant workers in New Mexico, state officials announce: at 9/17/26 10:24am
New Mexico workforce officials announced on Sept 16, 2026, a program to provide online English-language training for immigrant workers tailored to high-demand fields of employment. (Oscar Wong/Getty Images)Local employers, adult education providers and other organizations around New Mexico now have no-cost access to online English courses to help workers and job seekers learn English tailored to their lines of work, state workforce officials announced Wednesday. GET THE MORNING HEADLINES. SUBSCRIBE The Workforce English program comes via the state Department of Workforce Solutions’ Office of New Americans division, which was codified legislatively and signed into law earlier this year by Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham. According to a news release, the new program partners with the EnGen English instruction platform and provides more than 170 career-aligned courses curated for fields in high demand — healthcare, energy and early childhood education — through virtual workshops and multilingual tutoring. “This is precisely the sort of practical program that the Office of New Americans was designed to bring to the workers and businesses of our state,” Workforce Solutions Secretary Sarita Nair said in a statement. “When employees have the language skills to grow and thrive in their jobs, everybody wins.” The program grows out of surveys and focus groups conducted between November 2025 and January 2026 by the University of New Mexico and three immigrant advocacy groups in coordination with the agency that found two-thirds of immigrants and refugees surveyed expressed the need for work-specific English training. One of the immigrant advocacy organizations, the Albuquerque-based Encuentro, is utilizing the program with two groups beginning-level adult English. “This initiative gives us the resources and scale to serve multilingual learners far beyond what was previously possible,” Teresa Guevara, director of Educational Programs at Encuentro, said in a statement. Immigrants make up significant portions of jobs in key industries throughout the New Mexico economy — construction jobs (24%), manufacturing (18%), healthcare and social services (13%) and education (13%) — according to data from the American Immigration Council. “Removing language barriers unlocks the incredible potential of New Mexicos immigrant and refugee workforce,” Leonardo Castañeda, director of the Office of New Americans, said in a statement. “Investing in our multilingual talent helps local employers build resilient teams while driving economic prosperity across our entire state.”
[Category: Gov & Politics, Immigration, American Immigration Council, Department of Workforce Solutions, Encuentro, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham, Office of New Americans, Sarita Nair]
— Wendell Berry's death should be his revival in our culture: at 9/7/26 2:55pm
Wendell Berry with Nip and Jed, Lane's Landing Farm, Henry County, KY 2012. (Photo by Guy Mendes)Throughout his life, Kentucky writer Wendell Berry described death not as an end, but as a stage in a cycle of renewal. Those who die return in body to the earth and endure in the memory of those who loved them. In Three Elegaic Poems, dedicated to his dying grandfather, Berry says the old man is set free in our remembering.” “Grown brighter than vision. . . hes hidden among all that is, and cannot be lost. Berrys death at age 92 comes while his ideas are as relevant as ever. The tired labels of liberal and conservative are blurring, just as Berry himself always defied easy categorization. He held prescient and timely fears that rootless people would snap in the face of rapid change and ruthless power. In a time of division, and with the hope of reconciliation, its worth examining how Berry’s ideas might apply to Kentucky today. Hard work is a central value in Berrys writings and at the forefront of what Kentuckians hold dear. And from debates about welfare cuts to the need for jobs that can pay rising bills, it is at the core of our major political debates. For Berry, work was not just about sacrifice and drudgery. He was in favor of labor as a vocation; work as a calling with purpose. He advocated for more small farms not just because he was an agrarian. He had a Jeffersonian vision of widespread ownership where work is a source of pride and a nourishing contribution to self and community. Its a far cry from the many jobs of today that are stripped of ownership and meaning, and that leave workers alienated and vulnerable. Wendells Berrys writings were also about place. In a world of anywheres, Berry encouraged becoming a somewhere. Knowing a physical place and its people intimately and over time instilled an ethic all on its own. What I stand for, said Berry, is what I stand on. That principle is on display in the current debate over data centers in rural Kentucky. Republicans, Democrats and Independents are defending the character of their communities, an integrity they see as threatened by power- and water-thirsty data centers. Opposition to data centers also comes from growing concerns about artificial intelligence, especially among young people. Berry, who never owned a computer and farmed with horses, was a lifelong critic of unbridled technology. At his angriest, Berry railed against the power of unaccountable corporations that ravaged communities to bolster profits. These concerns are also spreading, as with a Mercer County man who spoke out against a local data center proposal and told Kentucky Public Radio, Conservatism is dead, and thats unfortunate. And a corporatocracy has taken over. Berrys criticism of the economic system focused most on agriculture, as in his 1977 book “The Unsettling of America.” There he took on the agribusiness model that ever more rapidly consolidates food production in the hands of a powerful few. Now dwindling beef farmers, for example, are caught in a globalized system and captive to the wishes of four massive corporations that control the market. They struggle under the Trump tariffs and are speaking out about new efforts to undercut prices with imported beef. Berry praised the alternative of the New Deal-era tobacco program, which his grandfather inspired and his father helped create. The program was designed around farmer-led cooperation and resulted in fair prices from modest patches. Here was a government that created a framework that empowered local people and communities. Thats much different than one that takes control away and distributes wealth upward. In “The Hidden Wound,” Berry described racism as something that doesn’t just harm Black people but corrupts whites as well. In a time of backlash against talking about race, he reminds us of the loss we all experience from a broken whole. Berry was a small-r republican and a small-d democrat. He expected people to live with virtue and devotion. And he hammered the powerful that exploit and extract. His alter ego, the Mad Farmer, called on people to denounce the government and embrace the flag. Wendell Berry sought an economy that linked the soul and the household to the land, community and everything beyond. If we want to avoid “The World-Ending Fire,” the title of another Berry book, we might well listen to his words “lest the dead die a second and more final death.” This story was originally produced by Kentucky Lantern, 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: Commentary]

As of 9/23/26 2:39pm. Last new 9/19/26 5:28am.

First feed in category: Source NM