Rep. Raúl Grijalva dies at 77
Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva (D-Ariz.), 77, died Thursday after a long battle with lung cancer.
The longtime leader of the House Progressive Caucus, Grijalva was a well-known figure in Congress, recognized nationally for his appearances in committee rooms and on cable television spots, and locally for more more informal interactions on Capitol Hill.
'The Office of the 7th District of Arizona is saddened to announce the passing of Congressman Raúl M. Grijalva. Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle,' his office shared in a statement.
'He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments.'
Grijalva was the longest-serving member of Arizona's congressional delegation. He was re-elected to serve a 12th term in November, but had been absent for the opening weeks of the new Congress.
The Arizona Democrat spoke out frequently denouncing the Trump administration's deportation policies as the son of Mexican immigrants and railed harshly against the cuts to the federal workforce.
'President Trump's latest reckless decision to fire thousands of employees at the Department of Education jeopardizes critical student aid programs, weakens protections for students' civil rights, and undermines essential support for students with disabilities,' the lawmaker wrote in a Thursday post on X before his passing.
In 2017, Grijalva and a Democratic colleague were arrested outside Trump Tower during immigration-related protests.
In addition to immigration advocacy, he was also a strong supporter of climate justice legislation.
'From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices,' his office wrote in a statement.
'He led the charge for historic investments in climate action, port of entry modernization, permanent funding for land and water conservation programs, access to health care for tribal communities and the uninsured, fairness for immigrant families and Dreamers, student loan forgiveness, stronger protections for farmers and workers exposed to extreme heat, early childhood education expansion, higher standards for tribal consultation, and so much more.'
Office staff have promised to carry out his life's mission despite his passing.
'We are heartbroken in the face of this news but determined to carry on his legacy. While the special election is being carried out, our office will continue to provide constituent services,' their statement said.
'Serving Southern Arizona was the honor of Raúl M. Grijalva's life. Having represented our communities for over 50 years was a privilege.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Laura Loomer faces internet backlash after ‘body shaming' AOC during NYC's Puerto Rico day
The Internet has come out in full force against far-right activist Laura Loomer after she 'body shamed' New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — with Internet sleuths digging up a photo of the Trump ally in a similar-looking outfit. 'Yikes AOC has gained at least 50 pounds since getting into Congress,' Loomer wrote on X while sharing a clip of Ocasio-Cortez wearing a red dress as she spoke at New York City's Puerto Rican Day Parade on Sunday. 'She's getting massive,' Loomer added before tagging the congresswoman. However, social media users did not take kindly to Loomer's bizarre criticism. Her post drew in over 13,000 largely negative comments by Monday morning. 'Body shaming isn't the way,' one person commented under the post. Another chimed in: 'I am no Democrat but you attacking another woman's look is very disgusting.' Countless Internet users took the attack on AOC as a moment to dunk on Loomer's appearance. 'If I looked in the mirror and saw what you see staring back at me, I would never speak about another person's appearance,' one person wrote. 'You look like you're wearing a purge mask, no offense,' another chimed in. 'You are the last person who should comment on someone's appearance, Looner. You're a walking plastic surgery nightmare,' a commenter added. 'She could gain another 100 and still be more attractive than you,' another person wrote. Some users even dug up photos of Loomer donning a similar red tank top dress – which they claim looked even worse on the MAGA activist. 'Here's you in an almost identical dress. What's with the belly? Pregnant?' one person wrote. 'Haha good one, is this you?' another person wrote alongside the same photo of Loomer. Other took pity on Loomer's apparent cry for help, with one commentator writing,' You are not being a very nice person. Have you considered going to therapy? @betterhelp can help.'
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Bring in the troops!': Trump raises the stakes as ICE tactics spark protests in L.A.
For those concerned about Donald Trump and his authoritarian-style agenda, the last few days have been, at a minimum, unsettling. On the East Coast, for example, military vehicles, including tanks, are getting into position to roll down the streets of the nation's capital, for a June 14 military parade to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army — which also happens to coincide with Donald Trump's birthday. And then, of course, there's the West Coast. As The Associated Press summarized: Tensions in Los Angeles escalated Sunday as thousands of protesters took to the streets in response to President Donald Trump's extraordinary deployment of the National Guard, blocking off a major freeway and setting self-driving cars on fire as law enforcement used tear gas, rubber bullets and flash bangs to control the crowd. In recent months, federal officials, including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, have engaged in overly aggressive and legally dubious tactics while executing the White House's deportation agenda, sparking a predictable public backlash. As NBC News reported, it was against this backdrop that ICE officers on Friday carried out raids in three locations across the city, where dozens of people were taken into custody. California Gov. Gavin Newsom condemned the raids, calling them 'chaotic federal sweeps' that aimed to fill an 'arbitrary arrest quota,' and protests soon followed. It was the next day when Trump announced that he was calling up 2,000 National Guard troops to quell the protests, ignoring the objections of the state's Democratic governor. As The New York Times reported, 'Governors almost always control the deployment of National Guard troops in their states,' and this marked 'the first time since 1965 that a president has activated a state's National Guard force without a request from that state's governor.' (Sixty years ago, it was Lyndon B. Johnson who sent troops to Alabama to protect civil rights demonstrators.) Last year, while serving as South Dakota's Republican governor, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said that if Joe Biden tried to federalize National Guard troops, it would constitute a 'direct attack on states' rights' and spark a 'war' between Washington and GOP-led state governments. Over the weekend, however, Noem took the opposite position. Around the same time, by way of his social media platform, Trump proceeded to celebrate the 'great job' National Guard troops did in Los Angeles before the troops actually arrived, which was bizarre but consistent with the incumbent president's general approach to reality. For his part, Newsom — whom Trump keeps describing as 'Newscum' because the president has the temperament of an ill-tempered tween — accused Trump of 'inciting and provoking violence,' 'creating mass chaos,' and 'militarizing cities.' The California Democrat added, 'These are the acts of a dictator, not a president.' After Tom Homan, the administration's 'border czar,' raised the prospect of arresting state and local elected officials, Newsom effectively dared Homan to try. There's no reason to believe that conditions will improve quickly. The governor has formally asked Trump to pull Guard troops, an appeal that will likely be ignored. In the meantime, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has suggested he's prepared to deploy U.S. Marines onto American streets — a point that was echoed by U.S. Northern Command. Asked whether Americans might soon see active-duty Marines on the streets of Los Angeles, House Speaker Mike Johnson told ABC News that he doesn't believe such a step would be 'heavy-handed.' Soon after, the president told reporters that he's meeting with U.S. military leaders, and after publishing a statement about Los Angeles having been 'invaded and occupied,' there was renewed speculation about whether the Republican might be preparing to invoke the Insurrection Act. Indeed, Trump also wrote that he was directing Noem, Hegseth and Attorney General Pam Bondi, 'to take all such action necessary to liberate Los Angeles from the Migrant Invasion.' Shortly after midnight, on Monday morning, Trump also wrote online, 'Looking really bad in L.A. BRING IN THE TROOPS!!!' He similarly told reporters that he expects to have U.S. troops 'everywhere.' In his latest New York Times column, David French concluded, 'It's too early to declare a constitutional crisis, and in any case, debating the label we attach to any new event can distract us from focusing fully on the event itself. But each new day brings us fresh evidence of a deeply troubling trend: America is no longer a stable country, and it is growing less stable by the day.' A few weeks before Election Day 2024, as he referred to Americans he disagreed with as 'scum,' then-candidate Trump talked about the possible deployment of the National Guard or the U.S. military on American soil to be used against those he labeled 'the enemy from within.' At the time, it led many to wonder whether Trump, if returned to power, might be willing to use — or in this case, abuse — military resources to stifle dissent. Republicans characterized such concerns as hysterical and paranoid. Eight months later, those fears are suddenly relevant anew. This is a developing story. Check back for updates. This article was originally published on
Yahoo
32 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Democrats ignore Nevada's upside down, regressive, and unfair tax structure. Again.
The Nevada Legislature Building underwent a face lift prior to this year's session, but the Democratic legislative leadership's economic agenda, inasmuch as there is one, remained the same as it ever was. (Photo: Richard Bednarski/Nevada Current) Democrats nationwide are awash in conflicting opinions about how to stanch the loss of young and working class voters before the U.S. backslide into autocracy is irreversible, if it's not already. Some Democrats blame 'wokeness.' Some Democrats say the party needs to lean in on kitchen-table issues. Some think they should do nothing and just wait for Trump and Trumpism to collapse under the weight of its self-generated slagheap of corruption, lawlessness, malice, and counterproductive policies. Some Democrats, including at least half of those in Nevada's congressional delegation, seem to think the best way to inspire the electorate is to make sure every sentence they mutter includes a noun, a verb, and the word 'bipartisan.' And on and on. And then there are Nevada's Democratic state legislative leaders. They chose to meet this inflection point by yet again allowing generous public subsidies for deep-pocketed Californians to serve as the featured attraction of this year's recently concluded Nevada legislative session. Yes, ding dong, the film tax credit bill is dead. Praise be, etc. But Democratic legislative leadership — Senate Majority Leader Nicole Cannizzaro and Assembly Speaker Steve Yeager — whether by design or neglect, allowed a government giveaway scheme to film corporations to become the one and only thing about the 2025 Legislature working class voters, especially young ones, most likely ever heard about. Assuming they heard about anything legislative at all. Ever since it was plopped onto the Nevada policy landscape more than a decade ago by then-Democratic state senator, now Democratic state Attorney General Aaron Ford, the film tax credit has always been a predominantly Democratic production. One of the chief legislative sponsors of this year's version was state Sen. Daniele Monroe-Mareno, who also currently serves as chair of the state Democratic Party. To reiterate, a critical mass of voters nationwide, including voters on which Democrats once relied, are marinading in nihilism and cynicism, and evidently don't grasp the goals, agenda, priorities — the point — of the Democratic Party, or just cold stopped caring. Against that backdrop, Democrats in Nevada put on a big show about a scheme to use nearly $2 billion of public money to enrich two of California's largest film corporations and one of the nation's most prominent corporate developers of master-planned communities. Weird. In Nevada, Democrats over the last ten years have been very successful at doing what(ever) it takes to win and maintain majorities in both houses of the state Legislature, an endeavor which, luckily for them, had more to do with voter registration numbers and redistricting power than policy positions. As a result, mean-spirited reactionary policies that are racist, poverty-shaming, misogynistic, anti-LGBTQ, anti-democracy, anti-immigrant, and anti-rights — policies designed first and foremost to feed the MAGAfolk — are (mostly) not enacted here. Keeping such pernicious policies (mostly) at bay in Nevada is no small consideration. Winning enough elections to block Republicans from enacting that stuff is arguably the crowning state-level achievement of contemporary Nevada Democrats. But when it comes to pro-active progress, specifically on economic policy, the Nevada Democratic legislative agenda, inasmuch as there is one, is tired (they're 'for' education), and worse than useless (inveterate footsie-playing with industries, mischaracterizing public giveaways to private corporations as 'economic development'). In the meantime, with only the occasional exception, they can rarely be bothered to acknowledge, let alone confront, the fact that the state has one of the country's most upside-down tax structures, in which the smaller your income, the higher the percentage of it you pay in taxes. Giving working families a break by lowering the state's aggressively high sales tax rate would leave a budget hole that would have to be filled by generating revenue elsewhere (evergreen suggestion: raising Nevada's lowest-in-the-nation gaming tax). Under Nevada's constitution, raising or creating taxes requires a two-thirds vote of both legislative houses, majorities Democrats have not had and would probably be afraid to use if they did. In Washington state, which is bluer than Nevada but whose residents have also suffered under a regressive tax structure, it took 15 years of advocacy from organizations and politicians to finally enact a tax on the ultra-wealthy (another good suggestion). Reforming Nevada's tax structure would likewise be a long process. That's assuming Democrats and, for that matter, their most powerful progressive organizational allies, would do something they so far haven't: get started on a public education campaign advocating tax fairness that would also enable the state to be a little less cheap and a little more responsible when it comes to funding public services, programs, and projects. If only the state's Democratic legislative brain trust had spent as much time advocating for an equitable tax system as they've spent advocating and/or rubber-stamping government handouts to corporations and billionaires. The first quarter of the 21st century has been economically harder on Nevada than any other state. It's perhaps a testament to the state Democratic Party's long-hailed organizational oomph that Nevada didn't go for Trump in 2016 and 2020, and only finally fell to Trump last year. It remains to be seen if and how Democrats nationally can generate enough trust and optimism to pull the country out of its degenerative spiral. If they do, there might be some Nevadans, including some state legislators, who will make a meaningful contribution to the effort. But if prior performance is any indication of future results, it's hard to imagine Nevada legislative and party leadership having much of a role in that. At least not in a good way. A version of this column originally appeared in the Daily Current newsletter, which is free and which you can subscribe to here.
