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
12 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mass. governor's race intensifies as GOP candidates seize on LA protests
If you're a member of the Bay State's political and chattering class, and you needed a reminder that Massachusetts is officially in the thick of a gubernatorial campaign season, then you didn't have to look much further than your email inbox on Monday. There, you would have found dueling press releases from Mike Kennealy and Brian Shortsleeve, the two former Baker administration officials dueling for the GOP nomination for the Corner Office in 2026. The target, inevitably, was Democratic Gov. Maura Healey, who'd signed onto a statement with her fellow Democratic governors criticizing the Trump administration's decision to federalize National Guard forces in response to immigration protests in Los Angeles. The statement, issued through the Democratic Governors Association, took the Republican White House to task for its unusual decision to sidestep Golden State Gov. Gavin Newsom when it called in the National Guard — which 700 U.S. Marines have since supplemented. The White House's end-run was 'an alarming abuse of power. Governors are the commanders-in-chief of their National Guard, and activating them within their own borders without consulting or working with a state's governor is ineffective and dangerous,' the DGA's statement asserted. Kennealy, who served as Baker's housing and economic development czar, was first out of the gate at little after 4 p.m., arguing that, by opposing the federal response, the Democratic incumbent was 'legitimizing criminal behavior under the guise of protest.' Shortsleeve, who ran the MBTA under Baker, followed up around 6:30 p.m. He got in a similar shot, condemning Healey for appearing to side with 'rioting protesters waving foreign flags' who were 'violently attacking American law enforcement officers.' Shortsleeve also slammed Healey for her management of the state's hugely expensive migrant crisis and, by implication, her criticism of the aggressive tactics of federal immigration agents as they've rounded up undocumented people across the state. 'If cooperation between the federal and state governments is what she wants, you wouldn't know it by her refusal to work in an orderly way to ensure criminal illegal immigrants in our state were delivered to federal law enforcement for deportation instead of released onto our streets,' Shortsleeve said. Kennealy, who didn't explicitly mention the migrant crisis, but who has been publicly critical, observed that 'when the federal government offers help to restore order and protect citizens, we take it — because doing the right thing for our people should always come before scoring partisan points.' Read More: Rümeysa Öztürk chose grace over bitterness. What we can learn | John L. Micek Taken together, the broadsides from the two Republican hopefuls were a reminder that the migrant crisis, which has subsided in its intensity, remains a potent line of attack, and that the Democratic incumbent remains vulnerable on the issue. More than half of respondents (52%) to a UMass Amherst/WCVB-TV poll in February, for instance, said they disapproved of the Arlington Democrat's management of the shelter crisis. Their mood was reflective of national trends. A broader UMass poll in April found Americans to be of 'two minds' on the issue, supporting a path to citizenship, even as they supported the White House's moves against migrants with criminal records. A CBS News poll completed before Saturday's unrest in Los Angeles, however, provided a reminder that public patience for the White House's tactics extends only so far. That's because support for enforcement against non-criminals drops off precipitously, the poll found. While 55% of respondents approved of Trump's deportation goals, only 44% approved of his approach to the deportation effort. Healey, in public appearances, repeatedly has drawn that line. She's stressed that she supports taking criminals off the streets, even as she's decried the apparent shroud of secrecy that's enveloped the apprehension of such noncriminal migrants as Tufts University graduate student Rümeysa Öztürk and Milford High School student-athlete Marcelo Gomes da Silva. Read More: Gov. Healey demands answers after ICE arrests Mass. high school student 'This is part of the problem that we're seeing with ICE across the country. And certainly here in Massachusetts, people are being picked up. We have no information about their circumstances,' Healey said after an unrelated news conference at the State House last month. 'There have been real questions raised about due process and whether or not ICE and immigration officials are ... complying with due process here and in other states. And we need answers.' It's not clear, however, if the Massachusetts voters were grasping the subtlety of that policy fine line. An internal poll by Kennealy's campaign pointed to a similar vulnerability for Healey on immigration issues, The Boston Herald reported last month. And 49% of respondents to a University of New Hampshire poll last week said they approved of her job performance, compared to 45% who said they disapproved. With the poll's 3.3% margin of error, that's a statistical dead heat. Even still, Healey's loyalists pounced on the UNH canvass, dismissing it as an outlier, as they pointed to other public polling that showed her more broadly popular overall. 'Governor Healey is going to earn reelection because she understands Massachusetts people need someone who's going to fight to lower costs for them, going to fight to increase housing opportunities for them, going to fight back against Donald Trump,' state Democratic Party Chairperson Steve Kerrigan said during an interview on WBZ-TV's 'Keller @ Large' program that aired last weekend. 'And frankly, neither Mike Kennealy nor Brian Shortsleeve are willing to do any of that.' The lingering question is what happens if Massachusetts, which already has been targeted by the White House, finds itself facing a Los Angeles-style protest that results in Trump doing a gubernatorial end-run by federalizing the state National Guard or, at its extreme end, dispatching U.S. troops to Boston or some other city. If elected, would Kennealy or Shortsleeve acquiesce in the face of such an action? Or would they protest a usurpation of their executive authority? At that point, the question moves from political to practical. Healey staked out her territory with that DGA statement. The responses from Shortsleeve and Kennealy would speak volumes about how they intend to lead during what presumably would be the final two years of Trump's term. That's something that Massachusetts voters would have to decide for themselves. Which makes their answers bear watching. Can the Mass. GOP flip this Taunton state House seat? | Bay State Briefing Mass. lawmakers get bad grades on industry report card. But who's failing whom? | John L. Micek Math is hard. Midterm math is harder. The lessons Mass. needs to learn for 2026 | John L. Micek Read the original article on MassLive.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Pentagon diverts $1 billion from barracks improvements to send troops to border
SAVANNAH, Ga. (WSAV) – The Pentagon is diverting $1 billion from army barracks upkeep and maintenance funds to send more troops to the Southern border. In their fiscal plan for the rest of 2025, the Pentagon has decided to move over a billion dollars from Facilities, Sustainment, Restoration, and Modernization, a fund that is primarily used for barracks upgrades, to fund President Trump's border mission. The Pentagon has the discretion to move around some funds between accounts as long as that money has already been appropriated by Congress through a process called reprogramming. 'To kind of go back to this old mantra of the military that we have to just suffer the whole time is kind of disappointing and disheartening, especially when we saw some progress moving forward to go away from that,' John Hartman, a veteran who was stationed at Fort Stewart until 2019 and now lives in Savannah said. The Government Accountability Office released a scathing report in 2023 identifying unsafe and unsanitary conditions in barracks around the country. WSAV reported exclusively on some of the poor conditions in the barracks at our own Fort Stewart. 'The desperation and the depression that's caused by the barracks and the housing,' one soldier living in the Fort Stewart barracks at the time said. Now, the Pentagon is diverting $1 billion of the money that was meant to go toward fixing barracks issues. 'Issues with washing machines not working, mold, stuff like that, ACs going out. It's Fort Stewart, that happening in the middle of the summer is brutal, especially when you've been outside all day in the heat working,' Hartman said of the conditions during his time at the installation. Even staunch Trump administration supporter Rep. Buddy Carter (GA-01) has advocated for balance. 'I've been to visit the barracks at Hunter Army Airfield, at Fort Stewart. I will tell you they are in need of repair,' he said. 'Sending money to the southern border is not a bad thing. It's a good thing, but at the same time, we can do both.' Rep. Carter said he's a proponent of replacing the funds with a provision in the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' making its way through Congress. However, that bill has not been passed, and the funding is not guaranteed. 'It doesn't matter whether it comes back or not. There's still going to be backlog. There's still going to be expenses that pile up. At the end of the day, you're just kind of digging a deeper hole,' Hartman said. 'It's a complicated situation, but the answer is not taking such a large amount of funding away from bettering the lives of our service members to push it toward this other issue.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
13 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What's targeted in Trump's request for $9.4 billion in budget cuts from Congress
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is looking to cancel $9.4 billion in spending already approved by Congress. That's just a sliver of the $1.7 trillion that lawmakers OK'd for the budget year ending Sept. 30. The package of 21 budget rescissions will have to be approved by both chambers of Congress for the cuts to take place, beginning with a House vote expected Thursday. Otherwise, the spending remains in place. The White House is betting that cutting federal investments in public media and some foreign aid programs will prove politically popular. Republicans say if this first effort is successful, they hope more rescission packages will follow as they look to continue work by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency once run by billionaire Elon Musk. Democrats describe the cuts as inhumane and say they would rip life-saving support from hungry and sick people across the globe. Republicans are describing the cuts as 'modest' and say the U.S. will continue to play a critical role in helping the world's most vulnerable people. Here's a look at some of the spending the White House is trying to claw back: Public media on the chopping block The Republican president has asked lawmakers to rescind nearly $1.1 billion from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which represents the full amount it's slated to receive during the next two budget years. Congress has traditionally provided public media with advanced funds to reduce political pressures. The corporation distributes the money mostly to public television and radio stations around the country, with some assigned to National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting System to support national programming. The White House says the public media system is politically biased and an unnecessary expense. Much of the conservatives' ire is focused on NPR and PBS. 'We believe that you all can hate us on your own dime,' said Georgia Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, during a hearing in March. But about two-thirds of the money goes to more than 1,500 locally owned public radio and television stations. Nearly half of those stations serve rural areas of the country. 'They want to punish the national guys, that's fine,' said Rep. Mark Amodei, a Republican who said he was undecided going into this week's vote. 'But I'm trying to get a handle on what it means for my stations in Nevada, because the ability to fundraise at the national level ain't the same as the ability to fundraise in Reno.' The association representing local public television stations warns that many of them would be forced to close if the GOP bill passes. Those stations provide emergency alerts, free educational programming and high school sports coverage and highlight hometown heroes. Meanwhile, local radio stations say their share of the allocation provides funding for 386 stations employing nearly 10,000 people. Dozens of stations rely on the public grants for more than half of their budget. Many others for nearly half. Some Republicans say they worry about what the cuts would mean for local public stations but tough decisions are necessary. Rep. Dusty Johnson, R-S.D., said South Dakota Public Broadcasting does a 'really good job of covering the state Legislature" and other public affairs. 'So these rescissions are not going to be comfortable for South Dakota to deal with,' Johnson said. 'That being said, we're $37 trillion in debt." Funding to combat diseases Trump's administration is looking to claw back about $900 million from $10 billion that Congress has approved for global health programs. That includes canceling $500 million for activities related to infectious diseases and child and maternal health and another $400 million to address the global HIV epidemic. The administration says the $500 million rescission for infectious diseases would not reduce treatment but would 'eliminate programs that are antithetical to American interests and worsen the lives of women and children, like 'family planning' and 'reproductive health,' LGBTQI+ activities, and equity programs.' It makes a similar assurance on the HIV funding, saying it would eliminate 'only those programs that neither provide life-saving treatment nor support American interests.' Scores of humanitarian aid groups have asked lawmakers to oppose the proposed cuts. Catholic Relief Services called on donors to contact their members of Congress to urge them to vote against the bill. Without the U.S. assistance, "countless lives are at risk, and the needs will continue to rise,' said the plea to supporters. The importance of the United States' contribution to the global HIV response cannot be overstated, according to the Joint United Nations Program on HIV/AIDS. It says the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, or PEPFAR, has saved more than 26 million lives and averted almost 5 million new HIV infections since it was launched in 2003 under President George W. Bush, a Republican. 'Instead of facing a death sentence, people supported by PEPFAR are raising families, building their communities, and helping their communities grow and develop,' said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. Refugee assistance The Trump administration is looking to cancel $800 million, or a quarter of the amount Congress approved, for a program that provides emergency shelter, water and sanitation, and family reunification for those forced to flee their own country. The program also helps vetted refugees who come to the U.S. get started in their new country. The White House says 'these funds support activities that could be more fairly shared with non-U.S. Government donors, providing savings to the U.S. taxpayer.' Refugees International urged Congress to reject what it described as a reckless proposal. Promoting stability About 45% of the savings sought by the White House would come from two programs designed to boost the economies, democratic institutions and civil societies in developing countries. The administration wants to claw back $2.5 billion of the $3.9 billion approved for the Development Assistance program at the U.S. Agency for International Development and about $1.7 billion, or nearly half of the funds, dedicated to the State Department's Economic Support Fund. The administration says in its request to Congress that the Development Assistance account is supposed to fund programs that work to end extreme poverty and promote resilient democratic societies, but in practice many of the programs 'conflict with American values' and bankroll corrupt leaders' evasion of responsibilities to their citizens while providing "no clear benefit to Americans.' U.S. leaders have often argued over the years that helping to eradicate conditions that lead to political upheaval abroad is not just the right thing to do but also the smart thing. 'By helping stem pandemics and war and helping countries become healthy, free-market democracies, we are actually helping our own country,' said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. Republicans are rejecting the dire warnings. Rep. Robert Aderholt, R-Ala., said ' waste, fraud and abuse is what this is all about.'
