Update: April 8, 2025, 4:20 pm
A federal judge in Washington, D.C. today ordered the Trump White House to restore the Associated Press’s access to select press events, finding that the administration acted unlawfully when it excluded the AP over a disagreement about editorial language.
The ruling by U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden granted a preliminary injunction in Associated Press v. Budowich, a case challenging the AP’s removal from the limited-access White House press pool in late January. The exclusion followed the AP’s decision not to adopt the term “Gulf of America,” a phrase mandated in Executive Order 14172, which directed federal agencies to refer to the Gulf of Mexico by the new name.
AP editors declined to use the term, citing its longstanding policy of following the U.S. Board on Geographic Names and its editorial independence. The outlet continued using “Gulf of Mexico” in coverage after the executive order was signed on January 20. Within days, the White House Press Office removed the AP’s reporter and photographer from events requiring pool credentials, including presidential travel and briefings in the Oval Office.
In granting the injunction, Judge McFadden found that the exclusion violated the First Amendment’s prohibition on viewpoint discrimination. “The Court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the Government opens its doors to some journalists – be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere – it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints,” McFadden wrote. “The Constitution requires no less.”
The Associated Press has held permanent positions in the White House press pool for more than a century. The court’s order restores the outlet’s pool access while the case proceeds.
White House officials named as defendants in the lawsuit have not said whether they will assk an appeals court to stay the injunction.
Update: April 8, 2025, 10:15 am
The Supreme Court blocked Tuesday morning a lower court order that required reinstatement of fired employees at several federal agencies, including those on probationary status. In a short 8-1 ruling the justices held that the preliminary injunction issued by the U.S. District Court in San Francisco should be stayed because numerous nonprofit organizations standing in as plaintiffs for civil service personnel in the case lack standing to sue.
The case, Office of Personnel Management et al. v. American Federation of Government Employees et al., returns to the San Francisco-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Judge William Alsup of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered the injunction on March 13. Employees of the Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury and Veterans Affairs were to be re-hired under that mandate.
The Ninth Circuit denied on March 17 a government request for a stay of Allsup’s preliminary injunction.
Update: April 8, 2025, 10:02 am
The Western Slope’s U.S. Representative has signed on to cosponsor a bill that would take back Congressional authority over tariffs.
Jeff Hurd, a Republican, signed on Tuesday to H.R. 2665 along with fellow GOP legislator Don Bacon of Nebraska and two Democrats.
The bill is similar to a measure in the Senate also filed by a bipartisan team of legislators.
Update: April 7, 2025, 8:17 pm
Four Republican members of Colorado’s congressional delegation are urging President Donald Trump to keep U.S. Space Command headquartered at Peterson Space Force Base in Colorado Springs, warning that relocating the command would risk national security and cost taxpayers billions.
In a letter dated April 7, Reps. Lauren Boebert, Jeff Crank, Gabe Evans, and Jeff Hurd said the current location offers operational readiness, established infrastructure, and strategic proximity to other military installations, including North American Aerospace Defense Command, U.S. Northern Command, and the Space Force’s Space Operations Command. “Transferring the Command at such a turbulent time,” the lawmakers wrote, “would jeopardize our national security, needlessly put American lives at risk, and create an unnecessary waste of taxpayer resources.”
U.S. Space Command is responsible for coordinating the military’s space-based operation and was reestablished in 2019. A January 2021 decision to move the headquarters to Huntsville, Alabama was paused by the Biden administration and later reopened to further review. A 2022 Government Accountability Office report noted that relocating the command could delay readiness by up to seven years and duplicate capabilities already available in Colorado.
The Colorado lawmakers referenced the integration of defense contractors, the city’s aerospace workforce, and the anticipated role of Space Command in supporting missile detection and tracking through the Golden Dome initiative. The letter adds to renewed calls to make Colorado Springs the command’s permanent home.
Update: April 7, 2025, 7:07 pm
U.S. Navy Vice Adm. Shoshana Chatfield, the U.S. military representative to NATO’s Military Committee, has been relieved of her duties, according to a Monday report by Stars and Stripes. The Pentagon has not publicly disclosed the reason for her dismissal.
Chatfield, a former president of the Naval War College, was the first woman to hold the post in Brussels. Her removal follows a string of high-ranking dismissals by the Trump administration in recent weeks, including that of Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the former Chief of Naval Operations; Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr., the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; and Adm. Linda Fagan, who was commandant of the Coast Guard.
The personnel actions appear to be part of a broader shakeup led by Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and President Donald Trump, who have prioritized removing senior officers perceived to support diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in the armed forces. According to Stars and Stripes, “Chatfield had voiced support for DEI programs during her tenure at the Naval War College,” which some defense officials viewed as a potential factor in her dismissal.
“Chatfield was on a list of senior military officers targeted as ‘woke’ by the conservative American Accountability Foundation, which sent a letter to Hegseth saying that ‘purging the woke from the military is imperative,'” according to The Associated Press.
Chatfield has been a commissioned naval officer since 1988. A helicopter pilot and a veteran of the American war in Afghanistan, she has received numerous decorations, including the Bronze Star and the Distinguished Service Medal.
Update: April 7, 2025, 4:40 pm
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. today put on hold a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to seek the return of a person legally in the U.S. who was deported to El Salvador’s notorious terrorism prison.
Roberts’ order is an administrative stay to allow all of the high court justices to consider a petition filed by the Department of Justice to stay the ruling from a federal district court judge in Maryland.
This morning the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, based in Baltimore, rejected a government effort to block the preliminary injunction. A majority opinion criticized the administration’s effort to leave the man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, in foreign confinement.
“The United States Government has no legal authority to snatch a person who is lawfully present in the United States off the street and remove him from the country without due process,” wrote Judge Stephanie D. Thacker. “The Government’s contention otherwise, and its argument that the federal courts are powerless to intervene, are unconscionable.”
Thacker referred to the fact that, as the government conceded in the lower court, Abrego Garcia’s removal from the U.S. was an “administrative error.” “The facts — we concede the facts,” a government lawyer told the district court. “This person should — the plaintiff, Abrego Garcia, should not have been removed. That is not in dispute.”
A concurring judge on the appellate panel highlighted the risk inherent in the Trump administration’s argument that any effort to force the government to get Abrego Garcia back intrudes on the president’s foreign policy powers.
“The facts of this case . . . present the potential for a disturbing loophole: namely that the government could whisk individuals to foreign prisons in violation of court orders and then contend, invoking its Article II powers, that it is no longer their custodian, and there is nothing that can be done,” wrote Judge J. Harvey Wilkinson III.
Judge Paula Xinis of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland ordered last week that the government “to facilitate and effectuate the return of Plaintiff Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia to the United States by no later than 11:59 PM on Monday, April 7, 2025.”
Update: April 4, 2025, 6:35 pm
U.S. Sen. Michael F. Bennet is co-sponsoring a bill that would limit President Donald Trump’s authority to impose tariffs.
Bennet, D-Colo., joined three other Democrats and four Republicans in pushing the measure. If enacted into law, the proposed Trade Review Act of 2025 would require all new tariffs to be approved by Congress within 60 days.
“President Trump’s global trade war, including against some of our closest allies like Canada and Japan, is already sowing chaos and uncertainty – and working Americans are paying the price,” said Bennet. “This legislation will restore Congress’ authority over trade policy, as dictated by the Constitution, to protect the American people from shortsighted and harmful tariffs like these.”
Extensive and widespread tariffs on numerous other nations were announced by by Trump this week.
Update: April 4, 2025, 4:37 pm
A federal appeals court has reinstated a lawsuit brought by a California mother who claims that school officials violated her constitutional rights by addressing her child by a new name and pronouns without notifying her.
In an opinion issued April 4, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court decision that had dismissed the case. The suit was filed by Aurora Regino against the Chico Unified School District and several district officials. Regino alleges that the school’s actions infringed on her right as a parent to direct her child’s upbringing.
A federal district judge in Sacramento dismissed the case last year, concluding that Regino had not identified a clearly established right that would entitle her to relief. The Ninth Circuit disagreed, holding that the lower court applied the wrong legal test. The panel in Regino v. Staley sent the case back for further proceedings, instructing the court to consider whether Regino’s asserted right is “deeply rooted in this Nation’s history and tradition, and implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
The ruling comes amid ongoing national debate over school policies related to gender identity. According to a 2023 Education Week story, parents in multiple states have filed similar lawsuits, often arguing that such policies interfere with their ability to make decisions for their children.
Advocacy organizations and some educators have countered that requiring schools to inform parents about every instance of name or pronoun use could expose vulnerable students to harm, especially in unsupportive home environments. That argument has figured into public testimony in legislative hearings and policy debates in several states.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling does not decide whether the Chico school district’s policy is lawful, but it ensures that the legal questions at issue will proceed to further review in the district court.
Update: April 3, 2025, 5:45 pm
Two of Colorado’s members of Congress are renewing a quest to secure better pay and benefits for federal wildland firefighters.
Under the proposed Tim’s Act, named for the late Wyoming firefighter Tim Hart, hazardous duty pay would go up. The measure would also afford more generous retirement benefits and allow firefighters additional paid time off.
“Congress has now finally enacted a permanent pay fix, but the work continues as we now turn to other critical issues—addressing recruitment and retention, housing, mental health benefits, rest, recuperation, and the overall well-being of our nation’s wildland firefighting workforce,” said Rep. Joe Neguse, D-Boulder, the lead House sponsor of the bill.
Neguse has led the charge to secure salary increases for federal firefighters. In 2021 Congress enacted, and President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. signed, the Wildland Firefighter Paycheck Protection Act. And the Biden-era Bipartisan Infrastructure Act includes provisions Neguse secured that gave firefighters a temporary pay hike and additional access to mental health services.
Neguse stressed that he believes U.S. government wildland firefighters are not being treated fairly. “Federal wildland firefighters are our nation’s unsung heroes,” he said. “This workforce is underpaid and undervalued, despite putting their lives on the line to protect our homes, families, and communities. Unconscionable.”
Sen. Michael F. Bennet is advocating for a similar bill in the Senate. In a press release emailed to reporters Thursday, Bennet argued that firefighters face more dangerous fires during the ongoing era of climate change and that Congress should compensate for that with recognition of their need to rest.
“These brave firefighters deserve support for their mental and physical health and more time to recover,” said Bennet. “This legislation ensures they receive the benefits they deserve for their life-saving work.”
This is the pair’s fourth attempt to convince Congress to enact Tim’s Law. Previous efforts came in 2021, 2023, and this past January.
Update: April 2, 2025, 8:27 pm
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) ranked among the most effective members of the U.S. House during the 118th Congress, according to a March 2025 report from the Center for Effective Lawmaking.
The nonpartisan research group, a joint project of the University of Virginia and Vanderbilt University, issues Legislative Effectiveness Scores (LES) based on how successfully members sponsor and advance bills. The average score is set at 1.0. Neguse earned a 4.162—more than four times the chamber average—placing him second among House Democrats and seventh overall.
Neguse introduced 30 bills during the session. Three passed the House. Two became law. The report further notes that major provisions from three additional measures he sponsored were enacted after being folded into broader legislative packages.
The Center’s methodology tracks not only bill introductions and floor votes, but also committee actions and whether the proposals address substantive issues or symbolic concerns. The analysis gives higher weight to bills that become law.
In addition to his high score for this Congress, Neguse appeared in the report’s “Exceeding Expectations” category for the third time in a row. The designation is reserved for members whose performance surpasses their statistical benchmark by at least 50 percent.
“Members in this category are not only consistently effective but also exhibit a pattern of outperforming expectations by a significant margin,” the report stated.
The study emphasized that effective lawmakers often use multiple strategies to move legislation—offering stand-alone bills, adding provisions through amendments, and working bills into omnibus packages. The report found that this approach applied regardless of party affiliation or majority status.
Neguse represents Colorado’s 2nd Congressional District. The full report is available at thelawmakers.org.
Update: April 2, 2025, 7:16 pm
Colorado Sen. John W. Hickenlooper has mounted an effort in Congress to force pharmaceutical companies to limit price increases on Medicare-covered drugs to the annual inflation rate.
Under the proposed Lower Drug Costs for Families Act, drug companies would pay a penalty if they exceeded that cap. The fines would be paid into the Medicare Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund, which is used to support Medicare solvency.
The measure also would apply the inflation rate annual ceiling on price increases that now applies to Medicare recipients to all commercial insurance policies. It would also change the base year from which inflation is calculated from 2021 to 2016.
Senate sponsors of the bill also include Democrats Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Catherine Cortez-Masto of Nevada, Ruben Gallego of Arizona, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Jack Reed of Rhode Island, Elissa Slotkin of Michigan, Tina Smith of Minnesota, Peter Welch of Vermont, and Ron Wyden of Oregon. Independent Angus King of Maine is also a co-sponsor.
A similar bill is pending in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Update: March 31, 2025, 7:09 pm
Federal Trade Commission chairman Andrew N. Ferguson issued a letter Monday asking the U.S. Trustee in St. Louis to assure that 23andMe Holding Co., the owner of personal data submitted by millions of Americans who sought DNA tests, be kept private.
23andMe filed for bankruptcy protection in a Missouri federal court on March 23.
According to a statement the company issued, “23andMe is seeking authorization from the Court to commence a process to sell substantially all of its assets through a chapter 11 plan or pursuant to Section 363 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code.”
Ferguson took issue with the possibility that private data could be transferred as part of the bankruptcy process.
“[A]ny bankruptcy-related sale or transfer involving 23andMe users’ personal information and biological samples will be subject to the representations the Company has made to users about both privacy and data security, and which users relied upon in providing their sensitive data to the Company,” Ferguson wrote. “Moreover, as promised by 23andMe, any purchaser should expressly agree to be bound by and adhere to the terms of 23andMe’s privacy policies and applicable law, including as to any changes it subsequently makes to those policies.”
Consumers who provided DNA to 23andMe cannot count on laws that protect privacy in the healthcare setting to protect them. “You are treated by the law essentially as a consumer, not as the patient,” said Harvard Law School professor I. Glenn Cohen in a March 20 interview with The Harvard Gazette. “Now, there are other federal laws that cover you a little bit,” Cohen added. “The Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act prevents health insurers, but also employers, from using genetic information in a way that is discriminatory.”
23andMe has not seen much recent financial success. According to an NPR report, the company fired at least 40% of its workforce last autumn.
Update: March 31, 2025, 4:50 pm
Colorado U.S. Rep. Jason Crow has introduced the End Dark Money Act, aiming to increase transparency in political campaign financing by addressing the influence of undisclosed contributions, commonly referred to as “dark money.”
“Dark money” refers to political spending intended to influence voter decisions where the donor’s identity remains undisclosed. Such contributions often flow through nonprofit organizations classified under section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, which are not required to reveal their funding sources. This lack of transparency has raised concerns about the potential for undue influence in the democratic process.
The proposed End Dark Money Act seeks to close loopholes that allow significant donors to obscure their political contributions via these “social welfare” organizations. By repealing existing prohibitions, the legislation would enable the Internal Revenue Service to establish new guidelines ensuring that nonprofits adhere to their primary social welfare missions. Organizations primarily engaged in political activities would be required to register as political action committees (PACs), disclose their donors, and potentially lose their tax-exempt status.
Democrat Crow, who represents the urban Front Range’s Arapahoe County, argued in a press release that his bill is necessary to combat corruption. “Corruption is harming the American people and making it harder for working families to achieve the American Dream,” Crow said. Americans are “sick and tired of special interests and billionaires . . . using campaign finance loopholes to influence our elections.”
The introduction of this bill aligns with ongoing efforts to reform campaign finance laws in response to the 2010 Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed corporations and unions to spend unlimited amounts on elections. According to the public interest nonprofit organization Open Secrets, the Citizens United ruling has led to a significant increase in dark money contributions, with estimates indicating that such spending exceeded $750 million in the 2020 election cycle alone.
The End Dark Money Act has garnered support from several other advocacy groups, including the End Citizens United Action Fund and Public Citizen.
U.S. Rep. Nikema Williams, D-Georgia, is a cosponsor of the bill.
Republicans have blocked versions of the measure during previous sessions of Congress, including in 2022.
Update: March 27, 2025, 10:42 am
A federal appeals court on Wednesday upheld a lower court’s order that prevented President Donald Trump from suspending billions of dollars in federal aid to states. The March 26 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit allows an injunction to remain in effect while litigation proceeds in a Rhode Island federal court.
The lawsuit was filed by 22 states, including Colorado, and the District of Columbia. It challenges a January 2024 directive from the Office of Management and Budget that required federal agencies to “pause” the release of financial assistance until agency heads confirmed the funding aligned with the administration’s priorities. The plaintiffs argue that this blanket freeze lacked legal authority and disrupted critical programs.
The freeze affected a wide range of federally funded state programs, including Medicaid, maternal and child health services, mental health and substance use disorder treatment, school-based civil rights enforcement, education for homeless students, HIV prevention, community policing, and disaster response grants. According to court filings, agencies were given less than 24 hours to implement the freeze without clarity about which grants were covered.
The U.S. District Court in Providence issued a temporary restraining order, which it later converted into a preliminary injunction. The court found that Trump’s action likely violated the Administrative Procedure Act, the Spending Clause, and the constitutional separation of powers.
“Here, the Executive put itself above Congress,” Judge John J. McConnell, Jr. wrote. “It imposed a categorical mandate on the spending of congressionally appropriated and obligated funds without regard to Congress’s authority to control spending. Federal agencies and departments can spend, award, or suspend money based only on the power Congress has given to them–they have no other spending power. The Executive has not pointed to any constitutional or statutory authority that would allow them to impose this type of categorical freeze.”
The First Circuit agreed that the administration had not demonstrated a strong likelihood of prevailing on appeal. It emphasized that the states had challenged discrete, final agency actions, as opposed to a generalized policy, and had demonstrated potential harm to essential services.
The case remains pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island, where the plaintiffs seek permanent relief against enforcement of the funding pause.
The case in the appeals court is New York v. Trump, No. 25-1236. In the U.S. District Court the case is New York v. Trump, No. 25-cv-39.
Update: March 26, 2025, 6:36 pm
A federal appeals court upheld Wednesday a decision blocking the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from extending tobacco regulations to premium cigars, a category that industry groups have long argued merits separate treatment.
In a March 26 opinion the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed a 2022 ruling from the U.S. District Court in the nation’s capital. The dispute centers on a 2016 FDA rule that sought to bring all cigar products under the authority of the 2009 Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act. The FSPTCA required FDA to regulate “all cigarettes, cigarette tobacco, roll-your-own tobacco, and smokeless tobacco,” but left the decision about whether to regulate other tobacco products to the agency’s discretion.
Three national trade associations sued, claiming that regulation of premium cigars was not supported by the administrative record before the agency. They specifically argued that cigar smoking is not a significant health threat because most cigar smokers are “occasional users,” udo not inhale the chemicals contained in the product, and are adults. The trade associations based those assertions on two studies. Public health organizations, including the National Academies, have countered that all combustible tobacco carries substantial health risks regardless of usage patterns.
The appeals court agreed with the trade associations. “The FDA’s rationale was factually incorrect,” Judge A. Raymond Randolph wrote in its opinion. And “even if the FDA had said nothing about the supposed lack of evidence, its analysis of the choice” before the FDA about whether to regulate or not regulate “shows that it did not ‘examine the relevant data.’”
The district court had previously found that the FDA disregarded public input suggesting that premium cigars are generally smoked less frequently, by older consumers, and pose different public health risks than other tobacco products. “In the end, instead of addressing the relevant data before it, the agency resorted to a common refrain to obscure the issue: ‘There were no data provided to support the premise that there are different patterns of use of premium cigars and that these patterns result in lower health risks,’” U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta wrote in 2022. “That statement was not accurate then, and despite litigation counsel’s efforts, it is not accurate now.”
While the D.C. Circuit’s ruling halts enforcement of the current rule, it does not prevent the FDA from initiating a new rulemaking process. The issue remains open for further federal action.
Update: March 21, 2025, 8:37 pm
A federal judge in Washington sharply criticized Thursday the Department of Justice for its response to an order in a case challenging the recent deportation of Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador.
Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia said that the U.S. government has provided “woefully insufficient” responses to a decree issued the previous day.
Boasberg had ordered on March 17 that government lawyers disclose, by Thursday, details about the timing of airplane flights that transported the immigrants out of the U.S. He also compelled the Department of Justice to explain why that disclosure would constitute a breach of the state secrets privilege, a rarely-invoked doctrine that allows the executive branch to conceal information even from courts.
Boasberg, who serves as chief judge of the federal district court in the nation’s capital, issued last Saturday a temporary restraining order blocking the removal from the country of the Venezuelans under the guise of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. The Trump administration invoked that law, which has been rarely used and not since World War II, to justify the removal from the U.S. of members of the Tren de Aragua gang.
Two aircraft took off despite Boasberg’s order. Upon arrival in El Salvador, the Venezuelans on board were transferred to El Salvadoran law enforcement custody and were then taken to a massive prison in that Central American nation.
Department of Justice lawyers told Boasberg during a hearing on Monday called to examine whether the administration complied with the TRO that they did not have to obey the order blocking the deportations until it was committed to writing and that the flights took off after it was verbally issued but before a formal written order was posted to the federal courts’ electronic database.
The government lawyers also argued that federal courts lost their jurisdiction over the planes once they reached international airspace.
In the response to the Monday order filed by government lawyers on Wednesday the Department of Justice accused Boasberg of “unnecessary judicial fishing” and said Trump might invoke the state secrets doctrine. Boasberg shortly thereafter required information to support the possible invocation of that obscure principle.
After the government responded to that Wednesday order and filed a declaration by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement official based in Texas, Boasberg declared that response to have “repeated the same general information about the flights” that was shared in court on Monday.
Boasberg ordered Thursday that the government file, by Friday, an affidavit by an official “with direct involvement in . . . Cabinet-level discussions” related to the state secrets privilege and for the administration to decide by March 25 whether it would seek to use the doctrine. Deputy attorney general Todd Blanche filed that affidavit.
Boasberg, on the federal bench since 2011, sat on the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court for seven years and has been a member of the U.S. Alien Terrorist Removal Court since 2020. The veteran jurist was also, after being appointed by President George W. Bush in 2002, a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court for nine years.
Trump and several of his political allies attacked Boasberg this week, accusing him of not deferring enough to presidential prerogatives.
Update: March 20, 2025, 8:15 pm
U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet held town hall meetings with constituents in three cities around the state this week and made clear that he thinks Democrats need to develop a different strategy for confronting the Trump administration and Congress’ majority Republicans.
In an event in Golden Wednesday evening Bennet hinted that changes might need to include new leadership.
“I do think, on the leadership question, it’s always better to examine whether folks are in the right place, and we’re certainly going to have that conversation,” the state’s senior senator said.
Bennet’s remark follows concern within Democratic ranks about the decision by Senate minority leader Charles E. Schumer of New York to support ending debate on a six-month federal spending bill. Schumer was joined in that vote by nine other Democrats in the chamber.
The public, Bennet argued, did not receive a clear message from Democratic senators that they would fight policies that might be harmful to communities and people. “It is really important that we are able to lift up the stakes that we’re fighting for — for the American people to know what we’re fighting for on their behalf,” he said. “And I don’t think it was clear in this debate that we were.”
Some people in attendance at the town hall meeting expressed frustration about a perceived lack of effort by Congressional Democrats to fight the new administration’s initiatives.
Amanda Arlington, a Parker resident and former Denver Public Schools teacher, told Bennet she thinks the Democrats do not have any plan. “I feel like you’re talking pretty,” she said. “I want to see obstruction.”
In Colorado Springs on Thursday Bennet took aim at Trump’s approach to foreign policy and education.
“This president ran on the idea of “America first,” he said. “I don’t think there’s anything “America first” about putting us at the end of the line when it comes to our national security, when it comes to our international relationships.” Bennet referred to Trump’s handling of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization alliance in which the United States has been the lynchpin since shortly after World War II.
In response to a question from an audience member about the possible impacts of Thursday’s executive order that mandates the Department of Education wind down its work, Bennet was harshly critical of Trump.
“He has now put the head of the worldwide Wrestling Federation in there as the Secretary of Education to begin with, and then he says, ‘we’re going to shut it down.’ I don’t want to go back to a time you mentioned, [when] special needs kids . . . where they never get the chance to be integrated into the rest of the school community, to be able to have a shot at a fair education. That has been one of the critical things that the Department of Education has done.”
“We have to change that system,” Bennet argued, addressing the quality of American public education. “We have to make it work better. But dismantling it is not the answer.”
During Bennet’s Golden meeting he urged those present to remain active in political affairs and to let public officials know of their concerns and priorities.This, he said, is the most appropriate response to political developments with which some may disagree.
“We are living, in this country, in a profound reactionary period, and we have had that in American history before,” Bennet argued. “Every single time there’s been a reactionary period in our history, it has always been followed by a profound period of progressive change in this country. Always. And that’s going to happen again. But we have to get from here to the other side of this to be able to do that. And the only way we’re going to be able to do that is to show up.”
U.S. Rep. Brittany Petterson, a Democrat who represents the state’s 7th Congressional District, accompanied Bennet to the Golden town hall meeting and also spoke with attendees.
Update: March 18, 2025, 4:21 pm
Colorado’s two U.S. senators, Michael F. Bennet and John Hickenlooper, have signed a letter that asks the secretary of agriculture to reinstate $1 billion in funding to link farmers with food banks and school districts.
Two programs – the Local Food Purchase Assistance Cooperative Agreement Program and the Local Food for Schools Cooperative Agreement Program – facilitate purchase of food by states, territorial governments, and Native American nations and tribes. All fifty states, four territories, and dozens of tribal governments have used the programs.
“We have grave concerns that the cancellation of LFPA and LFS poses extreme harm to producers and communities in every state across the country,” the group of 30 senators that signed the letter wrote. “At a time of uncertainty in farm country, farmers need every opportunity to be able to expand market access for their products.”
A spokesperson for the state’s Department of Education said that the freeze of the two grant programs affects future grants, not any current access to funds by Colorado school districts.
“This grant hadn’t been awarded yet,” said Jeremy Meyer, the Colorado Department of Education’s director of communication. He explained that the state previously benefited from a USDA grant between 2022-2024.
Update: March 18, 2025, 1:16 pm
President Donald Trump may have retreated on a planned executive order that would have eliminated two national monuments in California. The two preserves, Chuckwalla National Monument and Sáttítla Highlands National Monument, were established by President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.
According to a March 17 report by Forbes, “the White House appears to have deleted language indicating President Donald Trump eliminated two national monuments in a recent executive order, following criticism from local officials over whether Trump had authorization to rescind protections.”
The White House issued a fact sheet on Friday evening that claimed the two national monument designations “[locked] up vast amounts of land from economic development and energy production.” That statement no longer appears in the fact sheet.
The 740,000-acre Chuckwalla National Monument is largely located on U.S. Bureau of Land Management lands in Riverside and Imperial counties. The preserve was designated on Jan. 7 of this year.
“The lands within the new national monument are part of the ancestral homelands of numerous Indigenous communities, including the Iviatim, Nüwü, Pipa Aha Macav, Kwatsáan, and Maara’yam peoples (Cahuilla, Chemehuevi, Mojave, Quechan and Serrano Nations) and include ancient trail systems that people continue to travel today by foot and through songs passed down across generations,” according to a BLM webpage that is still online. “The area contains an abundance of artifacts including ceramics, tools, habitation sites, and petroglyphs. Many of the region’s native plants were gathered for food, including mesquite and ironwood seeds, wild grasses, and cacti.
Biden set aside Sáttítla Highlands National Monument on Jan. 14. That preserve, located on the Klamath, Modoc, and Shasta-Trinity national forests, includes 224,676 acres. It includes the Medicine Lake Volcano, which is ten times larger than Washington’s Mt. St. Helens, and “provides protection to tribal ancestral homelands, historic and scientific treasures, rare flora and fauna, and the headwaters of vital sources of water,” according to a US Department of Agriculture Forest Service webpage.
Environmental advocates were harshly critical of Trump’s planned move.
“People of all political affiliations love their national monuments and their access to them,” said Chris Hill, chief executive officer of Conservation Lands Foundation. “Chuckwalla and Sáttítla Highlands national monuments are some of the nation’s most spectacular and culturally significant landscapes, and they were widely supported when they were designated last year.”
“Instead of respecting the years of strong Tribal leadership, bipartisan collaboration and heartfelt advocacy from local communities, businesses and elected officials, the administration’s action is a shameful insult to the Indigenous cultural connections, vital habitats, outdoor access, and local economies these monuments support,” Hill continued.
Ileene Anderson, a California-based staff member with the Center for Biological Diversity, called the possible revocation of Biden’s designations “gruesome.”
“Both these monuments were spearheaded by local Tribes with overwhelming support from local and regional communities including businesses and recreationalists,” she said in a statement. “This vindictive and unwarranted action is a slap in the face to Tribes and all supporters of public lands.”
Photo: Night sky view from Mount Hoffman toward Mount Shasta, with Little Glass Mountain Obsidian Flow in the middle ground. Photo by Bob Wick, courtesy USDA Forest Service.
Update: March 17, 2025, 10:36 pm
Estes Park’s member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Democrat Joe Neguse of Boulder, received an accolade last week for his productivity as a legislator.
According to GovTrack.us, Neguse had the most bipartisan support of any member of the Colorado congressional delegation for his bills. He also had the second-highest number of bills enacted into law of any member of the House during the 118th Congress.
“The twelve counties that make up Colorado’s 2nd District — from the Western Slope to the Wyoming border — truly represent the essence of our great state,” Neguse said in a media release. “And in our communities, we do things a bit differently than other places. We listen to each other. We respectfully exchange views. And we know when it’s time to roll up our sleeves and work together to find solutions that will benefit our people, our cities, our state, and our nation. I’m deeply proud that in adopting this mindset in the last Congress, our office was able to accomplish many legislative goals from the last two years—collaborating with lawmakers from across the political spectrum and advancing locally driven initiatives.”
Neguse, first elected to represent the Centennial State’s 2nd Congressional District in 2018, is now the assistant minority leader of the House.