logo
GOP lawmaker links Colorado ‘sanctuary state' policy to Boulder attack

GOP lawmaker links Colorado ‘sanctuary state' policy to Boulder attack

The Hill2 days ago

Rep. Gabe Evans (R-Colo.) on Monday linked what he called 'sanctuary state' policy in his state to the recent attack in Boulder.
During an interview on NewsNation's 'The Hill,' a clip was shown from a Monday press conference on the attack in which Boulder Police Chief Stephen Redfearn said that the suspect 'was not on our radar in Boulder.'
'We don't — we had no prior contacts with him here,' he added. 'I don't and can't speak to his criminal history, I'm not sure if the special agent in charge has anything to add, but this was not someone we were aware of prior.'
'How?' NewsNation's Blake Burman questioned Evans
'Yeah. And here's why I'm frustrated, because one of the major points of the 9/11 Commission, which says, 'How do we prevent major terrorist attacks from happening in the United States again?' says that federal, state and local law enforcement have to be able to work together and share information,' Evans told Burman on 'The Hill.'
'Unfortunately, Colorado is a sanctuary state where our governor, just within the last month, signed into a law another bill that fines state and local law enforcement $50,000 if they share information with immigration and customs,' he added. 'We know this guy overstayed two visas. We know this guy is illegally present in the United States, and that makes him off limits for any information sharing between state and local law enforcement with their federal authorities.
In 2019, according to Courthouse News Service, Colorado Gov. Jared Polis (D) signed a law practically barring arrests by local law enforcement for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Polis also recently signed a bill barring people's personal information from being given to federal immigration authorities by local governments, according to The Washington Post.
Mohamed Soliman, who is alleged to be behind the recent Boulder attack, was said on Sunday by the White House to be an 'illegal alien' who overstayed his visa.
'A terror attack was committed in Boulder, Colorado by an illegal alien,' Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, said previously on the social platform X.
'He was granted a tourist visa by the Biden Administration and then he illegally overstayed that visa. In response, the Biden Administration gave him a work permit. Suicidal migration must be fully reversed,' he continued.
The Hill has reached out to Polis's office for comment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Pulled NASA nomination blindsides space community: ‘Major blunder'
Pulled NASA nomination blindsides space community: ‘Major blunder'

The Hill

time19 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Pulled NASA nomination blindsides space community: ‘Major blunder'

The aerospace community was caught off-guard this week by President Trump's withdrawal of tech entrepreneur Jared Isaacman's NASA nomination. Announced days before the Senate's likely confirmation of Isaacman, the withdrawal sparked a swirl of rumors and concerns, as budget cuts loom and NASA stretches into its sixth month without a leader. Trump, in a social media post over the weekend, offered few details but said his decision was made after a 'thorough review of prior associations.' One space policy executive called the reasoning 'complete bull—-.' 'That's like the worst excuse in the world,' said the executive, who was granted anonymity to speak freely about withdrawal. Isaacman's nomination had already advanced through the Senate Commerce Committee in a 19-9 vote and was expected to hit the full floor this week. When reached for comment Wednesday, he told The Hill he is 'grateful' for the support from the space community. The White House also did not offer specifics, stirring further frustration. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt briefly addressed the decision in a briefing Tuesday, telling reporters Trump 'wants to ensure all of his nominees are aligned fully with the America first mission of this administration.' 'I was frankly gobsmacked,' Mark Whittington, an author who studies space, politics and policy, told The Hill. 'Jared Isaacman is well-regarded by just about everybody.' While Isaacman — a billionaire entrepreneur and commercial astronaut — was not originally considered a contender for the role, observers said the aerospace community was largely open to his new perspective at the agency. 'People who follow the space program think he would be perfect for NASA administrator, and I can see no reason why this is happening,' Whittington said. Rumors quickly circulated over the weekend that the decision might have something to do with Isaacman's ally, Elon Musk, who stepped down from his role leading Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) last week. Two sources close to the White House suggested Isaacman's ties to Musk may have also contributed to his removal as the pick to lead NASA. Musk, the sources said, rubbed many people in the administration the wrong way. And with his official departure from government, Isaacman lost a strong ally in the White House. Isaacman worked alongside Musk at SpaceX to fund the company's first private spacewalk, and he was one of four astronauts aboard the Polaris Dawn flight last year. 'Now six months of hard work later, just days short of a confirmation vote, and it's all thrown away because he bought two flights to space from Elon Musk? Are you f—ing kidding me?' said one Republican space policy expert. 'It looks like the Waste, Fraud and Abuse Caucus was bigger than we thought.' Isaacman acknowledged the timing of the decision this week, telling the 'All In' podcast he received a phone call Friday informing him the president decided to 'go in a different direction.' Friday marked Musk's last day as a special government employee leading DOGE for the White House. 'It was a real bummer,' Isaacman said, adding, 'It was certainly disappointing. But the president needs to have his person that he counts on to fulfill the agenda.' 'I'm not…play[ing] dumb on this. I had a pretty good idea,' he added. 'I don't think the timing was much of a coincidence that there were other changes going on the same day and it was obviously a little bit of a disappointment.' Pressed on whether he was referring to Musk, Isaacman said, 'Obviously there was more than one departure that was covered on that day.' 'There were some people that had some axes to grind, I guess, and I was a good visible target,' he continued, adding, 'I just want to be overwhelmingly clear — I don't fault the president at all.' 'I don't blame an influential adviser coming in and saying, look, here's the facts, and I think we should kill this guy and the president's got to make a call and move on,' he said, 'I think that's exactly kind of how it went.' Isaacman sidestepped questions over whether his nomination withdrawal was a 'shot at Elon,' telling the 'All In' podcast that people 'can draw their own conclusions but I think the direction people are thinking on this seems to check out to me.' Isaacman has given to Democrats during recent campaign cycles, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired astronaut. But also donated to a few Republicans. A White House official pointed The Hill to Isaacman's donations in recent years to PACs linked to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), along with the hundreds of thousands of dollars he donated to other Democratic campaigns since 2010. But various space observers emphasized that reports of these donations first circulated in January. Six months later, they are frustrated the donations are abruptly being used against the tech entrepreneur. 'It was well-known that, like a lot of businessmen, he [Isaacman] donated to both parties and that came up in the vetting process…I'm sure that Trump knows about it or he should have known about,' Whittington told The Hill. 'All of a sudden, six months later, he says, 'I'm shocked, shocked' that Jared Isaacman gave money to Democrats,' he added. Isaacman echoed this, stating his donations were 'not a new development,' and described himself as a moderate who is 'right-leaning' and supportive of Trump's agenda. The space industry now anxiously awaits a new nominee; no name has emerged as a clear frontrunner. The need to pass the 'Trump loyalty test' could eliminate several good candidates, the first space policy executive suggested. 'I know you got to have partisan people in a lot of these agencies but for space, the community is generally bipartisan and more scientific or technical,' they told The Hill. The process to push a new nominee through the Senate could take months, stoking alarm among observers over the steep potential NASA budget cuts. Under Trump's proposed 2026 budget, NASA's funding would be cut by nearly 25 percent in what would be the largest single-year cut at the agency. Musk expressed concerns over proposed funding cuts to NASA in April but said he could not participate in those conversations as SpaceX is a major federal contractor. Space observers are concerned the cuts will pass through Congress with little opposition. 'When the budget needs to be mulled over and chewed over by Congress, they really need somebody at NASA to explain things to them,' Whittington explained. 'Otherwise, Congress is just going to do what it wants, and I think [it] really goes against the White House's interest if they want to control space policy. This is a major blunder, whatever way you look at it.' A spokesperson for NASA said the agency will 'continue to relentlessly pursue' Trump's America First agenda under acting administrator Janet Petro. 'The @NASA workforce is committed to serve and eagerly awaits President Trump's new nominee to head the agency, leading us toward our 'manifest destiny in the stars,'' NASA spokesperson Bethany Stevens wrote on X. It comes amid an already tumultuous time at NASA as it faces workforce and infrastructure challenges as a result of both DOGE cuts and years-long budget declines. 'NASA lost its mojo, they don't know how to solve complex, interdisciplinary problems efficiently, they don't know how to put together the right teams to solve those problems, they lost the ability to do that,' said Charles Camarda, a retired NASA astronaut. Camarda, who recently released a book on NASA's culture challenges, explained NASA has lost its 'research culture' over the years as funding continues to be cut for applied research. 'Right now, we are technically drained. We don't have the expertise, and we're not raising new researchers and engineering researchers,' he said. Brett Samuels contributed reporting.

11 million could lose insurance coverage: CBO
11 million could lose insurance coverage: CBO

The Hill

time24 minutes ago

  • The Hill

11 million could lose insurance coverage: CBO

The Big Story A new report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates up to 11 million people would lose their health insurance as part of President Trump's megabill. © Greg Nash, The Hill The CBO's latest report estimates that 10.9 million people would be uninsured over the next decade if the sprawling spending package, which includes much of Trump's legislative agenda, were enacted. CBO found that the legislation, combined with the number of people who would lose insurance if Congress fails to extend ACA subsidies that help people afford insurance coverage, would result in 16 million people losing insurance. If accurate, it would be the largest loss of health care coverage in U.S. history According to the report, roughly 8 million people would lose Medicaid coverage due to strict work requirements and the added eligibility checks. About 1.4 million people without verified citizenship, nationality or satisfactory immigration status would also be ejected from state-funded health programs as the bill would enact new restrictions on how states provide insurance for immigrants without permanent legal status. Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (N.J.), the top Democrat on the House Energy and Commerce Committee, called it 'shocking House Republicans rushed to vote on this bill without an accounting from CBO on the millions of people who will lose their health care or the trillions of dollars it would add to the national debt.' House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) downplayed the CBO's findings, saying Wednesday, 'When it comes time to make prognostications on economic growth, they've always been wrong.' While work requirements remain popular among GOP lawmakers, a handful of Senate Republicans are staunchly opposed to Medicaid cuts, a politically fraught endeavor. Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) fell into hot water last week defending those cuts, telling a crowd at a town hall, 'Well, we're all going to die.' She later doubled down amid criticism. Welcome to The Hill's Health Care newsletter, we're Nathaniel Weixel, Joseph Choi and Alejandra O'Connell-Domenech — every week we follow the latest moves on how Washington impacts your health. Did someone forward you this newsletter? Subscribe here. Essential Reads How policy will be impacting the health care sector this week and beyond: Collins opposed to PEPFAR, global health rescissions proposed by Trump Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said Wednesday that she is opposed to a Trump White House proposal that would claw back money Congress has already appropriated for global health programs, including the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). Top CDC COVID vaccine adviser resigns following RFK Jr. recommendation change A top coronavirus vaccine adviser to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) resigned from the agency, citing concerns that she would no longer be able to help the most vulnerable people following a change in the agency's recommendations for healthy children and pregnant women. In an email to colleagues, Lakshmi Panagiotakopoulos said the decision to leave was a 'personal' one. 'My career in public … Senate GOP talks cutting Medicare 'waste, fraud' to offset cost of Trump tax bill Senate Republicans on Wednesday discussed the need to cut out waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare to achieve more deficit reduction in President Trump's landmark bill to extend the 2017 tax cuts, provide new tax relief, secure the border and boost defense spending. The House-passed bill would cut more than $800 billion from Medicaid and the Children's Health Insurance Program, but some GOP lawmakers argue that other mandatory … Around the Nation Local and state headlines on health care: What We're Reading Health news we've flagged from other outlets: What Others are Reading Most read stories on The Hill right now: Trump calls for scrapping debt limit President Trump doubled down Wednesday on calls to scrap the nation's debt ceiling, pressing for bipartisan action to abolish it and finding common … Read more Haley on Trump call with Putin: 'A backhanded slap to all of our allies' Former United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley (R) sharply criticized President Trump on Wednesday for suggesting Russia could play a mediating role … Read more What People Think Opinion related to health submitted to The Hill: Thank you for signing up! Subscribe to more newsletters here

Opinion - Congress must pass the Safeguard Charity Act to save civil society
Opinion - Congress must pass the Safeguard Charity Act to save civil society

Yahoo

time37 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Opinion - Congress must pass the Safeguard Charity Act to save civil society

'Who killed civil society?' It's a good question, and it's the title of Howard Husock's book, in which he pointed to the problems of government influence on nonprofits. 'Government at all levels has now become the funder of social services, outsourcing to local nonprofits the job of distributing tax dollars, which influence the activities of those organizations,' wrote Husock, an occasional op-ed contributor to The Hill. When the book was published in 2019, just over half of nonprofit organizations received government funding. Sadly, that's grown to two-thirds today. That said, one third of us have resisted the lure of government bucks — and the question is, 'Why?' Well, we like to do our nonprofit work without any federal or state strings attached. We like the camaraderie that's formed with community donors who make a willful decision to support us. And many of us like the idea of the government doing less in the charity sector, leaving it in the more capable hands of compassionate volunteers who relationally engage in ways that deliver real solutions. Despite being a minority, our position signals that civil society, while no longer the dominant driver of charity work in this country, still has life. Indeed, I believe it's the key to a resurgence of charity work done the best way with the most lasting results. That said, the wolves are at the door. There are some judges whose recent decisions signal they'd like to deliver civil society its final death blow. In Buettner-Hartscoe v. Baltimore Lutheran High School and E.H. v. Valley Christian Academy, decisions were handed down asserting that privately funded organizations' tax exempt status represents a form of federal aid and therefore renders those organizations subject to federal rules and regulations. Before civil society dies, someone ought to ask a more pressing question: How do we safeguard privately funded charities? Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) and Rep. Greg Steube (R-Fla.) are answering it by co-sponsoring the Safeguarding Charity Act, a simple bill to guard the tax exempt status of private nonprofits. Understanding the history of tax exemption may encourage you to support it. It wasn't until the late 19th century that a permanent income tax was seriously considered. At the time, tariffs failed to adequately fund a growing federal government. To close the gap, in 1894 Rep. William Jennings Bryan (D-Neb.) spoke in support of an income tax, saying, 'It simply intends to put the burdens of government justly upon the backs of the people.' Somehow, such arguments held sway — and an income tax passed into law that year. Although the Supreme Court later struck that law down, its tax-exempt language for institutions of civil society was carried over to the Revenue Act of 1909. At the time, President William Howard Taft also voiced support for an income tax to fund the growing needs of the federal government, contending the power to tax incomes 'is undoubtedly a power the national government ought to have.' And so by congressional approval and ratification of the states, the 16th Amendment was adopted — demonstrating most Americans agreed personal profits should support the national government. Unfortunately, however, the exemption for charities is now construed as a form of help from the federal government. To illustrate the tragedy here, imagine that I met the need of a street beggar with a dollar, dispensed in ten dimes. He hands one back to me, saying he doesn't need it. Does that mean I am now the recipient of his charity — that he has a right over how I spend the rest of my day? That analogy would have pointed out the absurdity of today's thinking much more forcefully in the 19th century, before a restrained government of, by, and for the people grew into a slothful, entitled giant with a club in hand, demanding 90 cents from every passerby, then threatening to hold him ransom over the dimes he 'allows' them to keep. Clearly, that's misdirected thinking. To be exempt from such a hustle and hassle is not the government doing us a favor so it can leverage non-profits' compliance. To think so is to embrace a perversion of the founders' commitment to our inalienable rights to life, liberty and property. More pragmatically, as the economy sways in the winds of financial uncertainty, it's crucial we understand the vital institutions of civil society can do a better job of educating the next generation, solving issues of poverty, and enriching our cities. Indeed, they are far better equipped to engage their communities through the formation of vital social bridges, strengthening neighborhoods through direct involvement and accountability. Therefore, they should be given great freedom to operate. Conversely, involvement and accountability from a federal level is more than unnecessary. It is counterproductive interference. And if that interference takes the form of revoking tax-exempt status from nonprofits, it will certainly dissuade private contribution to do good. Without codifying the safeguard this bill offers, the federal government risks shackling itself with more to be done — and more debt — while the good works of civil society take a hit to the pocketbook. Or worse, they may be forced to close their doors, exacerbating both social ills and society's demands that an ill-equipped government do something about it. James Whitford is co-founder and executive director of Watered Gardens Ministries in Joplin, Mo. and True Charity, which exists to champion the resurgence of civil society in the fight against poverty. He is also the author of 'The Crisis of Dependency: How Our Efforts to Solve Poverty Are Trapping People in It and What We Can Do to Foster Freedom Instead.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store