logo
Incoming NGA Chair 'disappointed' in Dem governors 'playing politics' in bipartisan group

Incoming NGA Chair 'disappointed' in Dem governors 'playing politics' in bipartisan group

Fox News2 days ago
Colorado Springs, Colo. – Incoming chair of the National Governors Association (NGA), Gov. Kevin Stitt, R-Okla., is "disappointed" that some Democratic governors might stop paying their dues to the bipartisan group.
The Atlantic reported ahead of the NGA's summer meeting in Colorado Springs, Colo., that at least two Democrats, Govs. Tim Walz of Minnesota and Laura Kelly of Kansas, plan to stop paying their dues when asked to renew their membership this month over the NGA's response to President Donald Trump's second term.
"We shouldn't be playing politics like they do in Washington, D.C.," Stitt told Fox News Digital in an exclusive interview at the summer meeting. "But sometimes, if you're a governor running for president or a higher office, you make it political."
Kelly is chair of the Democratic Governors Association (DGA), the partisan gubernatorial arm that has been vocal in resisting the Trump administration. As Walz weighs a third gubernatorial run, the former vice presidential candidate has remained a leading critic of Trump's administration since losing the White House alongside Vice President Kamala Harris last year.
The Democratic discontent comes as Democratic Gov. Jared Polis of Colorado prepares to cede his chairmanship to Stitt, a Republican, at this weekend's summer meeting. Gov. Wes Moore, D-Md., is set to become vice chair.
"I would tell anybody, listen, do you want your leaders to take their ball and go home just because they get mad at something? That's not the way to solve problems," Stitt said, adding that he likes both Walz and Kelly.
"Listen, this isn't the time to take our ball and go home. Let's sit down and debate what the best policies [are] going forward," Stitt added.
The Oklahoma governor said it can be "frustrating" when Democrats are constantly targeting Trump, but as a business leader, he said there are plenty of instances in which governors can find common ground, including a reduction of the United States' more than $36 trillion in debt.
Ahead of the summer meeting, Eric Wohlschlegel, NGA communications director, emphasized the bipartisan nature of the NGA and told Fox News Digital the NGA's "mission hasn't changed."
According to The Atlantic report, Democratic members of the NGA complained the group "did not respond forcefully enough" when the Trump administration paused federal funding early this year, as Gov. Janet Mills of Maine clashed with Trump over biological men playing in women's sports and, more recently, when Trump authorized the National Guard to California to amid the anti-ICE protests.
"Every public statement NGA issues reflects bipartisan consensus. So far this year, all but one statement has had that consensus, and when governors don't agree, we simply don't issue one. That's how we preserve our role as a bipartisan convener, a principle we won't compromise," Wohlschlegel explained.
Thirteen Republican and seven Democratic leaders planned to attend the summer meeting, featuring discussions with Education Secretary Linda McMahon and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
A source familiar with the situation blamed the controversy on "Democratic infighting, unspoken campaign jockeying and a few anonymous voices looking to reshape a nonpartisan institution into a political one."
The source added that "no governors are on the record expressing discontent with the NGA. No allegations of misconduct, governance failure or mismanagement have been raised."
And without addressing the controversy directly, Conor Cahill, a spokesperson for Polis, told Fox News Digital the governor "has been honored" to lead the NGA and to "work across the aisle with governors on education, permitting reform, standing up to federal efforts to strip away gubernatorial authority around the National Guard and elevating the priorities of states."
He added that "during this polarizing time, bipartisan organizations are needed more than ever, and NGA must continue to demonstrate value to all governors and effectively communicate governors' opinions on various matters with the public and the federal government."
Abegail Cave, a spokesperson for Stitt, told Fox News Digital ahead of the NGA that "people seem to forget NGA is a bipartisan organization, not a political one."
Fox News Digital reached out to Walz and Kelly for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Dallas Has the Largest Hotel Construction Pipeline in the U.S
Dallas Has the Largest Hotel Construction Pipeline in the U.S

Skift

timea few seconds ago

  • Skift

Dallas Has the Largest Hotel Construction Pipeline in the U.S

Evercore ISI Group upped its price target on Host Hotels to $20 from $19, on Sunstone Hotels to $11 from $10, and on Pebblebrook Hotel Trust, to $12 from $11. They maintained their Outperform ratings on HST and SHO and their In-Line rating on PEB. Baird upped their price target on Hyatt to $150 from $148. They maintained their Neutral rating. According to the recent second quarter 2025 U.S. Hotel Construction Pipeline Trend Report from Lodging Econometrics, at the close of the quarter, the five markets with the largest hotel construction pipelines are led by Dallas with 199 projects/24,497 rooms, followed by Atlanta with 165 projects/19,027 rooms, Nashville with 128 projects/17,025 rooms, Austin with 125 projects/14,598 rooms and Phoenix with 123 projects/16,228 rooms. At the end of the second quarter, the five U.S. markets with the greatest number of projects currently under construction in the total pipeline are led by

5 Reasons You Should Build a Small Business, Not a Startup
5 Reasons You Should Build a Small Business, Not a Startup

Fast Company

timea few seconds ago

  • Fast Company

5 Reasons You Should Build a Small Business, Not a Startup

BY Listen to this Article More info 0:00 / 4:26 In Silicon Valley, it seems that everyone's aspiration is to 'Be A Founder.' I chatted with Jon Westenberg, who thinks that most people should focus on building a small business instead of chasing the startup dream. Why do you think Silicon Valley culture encourages startups over small businesses? JW: Silicon Valley lives and breathes on VC money, and no fund is able to justify investment without the promise of a 100x return. I don't have any real criticism of that process or system. The angle that I come from is that while every VC firm needs to be funding high growth companies, not every entrepreneur should be trying to build one. Do you think there are general differences entrepreneurs who aspire to be founders and those who want to be business owners? JW: I think founder is a title that people want because it has connotations, it has prestige and it has that 'cool' factor. We've reached a point in entrepreneurship where startups are mainstream now. It's like a reality TV singing contest. This is an example I use all the time. When you read about the wannabes who go on X Factor or Idol, they'll always say that their life long dream is to be a singer. They never say their dream is to sing. And this is because what they really want is the success and the lifestyle and the glamour of being a singer. That's why they're jumping in front of a camera. If what they really wanted was to sing – they'd be out there every night playing gigs and building an audience and doing what they love. Even though you'd advise most people to focus on building a small business, are there any situations when you believe that they should pursue a startup instead? JW: I think if you want to achieve success in certain verticals, you can't operate as a small business. Uber, for example, are a sticky growth company that needed huge levels of funding to build their user base among drivers and riders. Facebook, Twitter, Vine – platforms like that can't grow as small businesses. So, the first thing you'd consider is whether or not the business needs to scale in order to succeed. JW: Starting a big, huge, fancy, sweating tech company isn't the be-all and end-all, and choosing not to do that doesn't make anyone stupid. In fact, going in the opposite direction is likely to make you happier, healthier, wealthier and a [lot] wiser. I don't disagree that startups are the cause of a lot of heartbreak but you'll have to walk us through what you mean by 'it'll make you happier.' JW: You Can Focus On Simplicity:You're literally building something small, within clear limits and boundaries. There's no giant pressure to add features, meaning you have the freedom to focus on the smaller things that matter deeply to you and your users. People Matter More: When you stay small, you can spend more time with the people who really matter in your business. A small business is about people. Keeping Things Personal Is Easier: I love seeing a personal touch in every business and every product. You can take the time to ensure that your users and customers are given a little magic every time. Small Doesn't Mean Poor: Small means lower overheads, lower cash burn rate–and the chance to keep all profits within your own company and your own pocket. You Don't Have To Stay Small Forever: If you do want to grow, you'll have a much better chance of doing it from a position of power with a successful, profitable smaller company. If you're just talking about being profitable enough that you don't need investors, then that's called bootstrapping. JW: I don't think that necessarily captures it. To me, bootstrapping just means funding a company yourself. Starting a small business means funding a company, setting boundaries and limits, understanding your product or service and what you want it to accomplish and working to a plan of meeting your limits. If you do that, you're not going to be a billionaire. But you could be a very happy millionaire. And to me, that's a pretty good option. — By Cynthia Than Inc. is the voice of the American entrepreneur. We inspire, inform, and document the most fascinating people in business: the risk-takers, the innovators, and the ultra-driven go-getters that represent the most dynamic force in the American economy. The early-rate deadline for Fast Company's Most Innovative Companies Awards is Friday, September 5, at 11:59 p.m. PT. Apply today. ABOUT THE AUTHOR Inc. Magazine: Everything you need to start and grow your business. More

DAVID MARCUS: I've seen enough human suffering in homeless encampments to know Trump's new policy is right
DAVID MARCUS: I've seen enough human suffering in homeless encampments to know Trump's new policy is right

Fox News

timea minute ago

  • Fox News

DAVID MARCUS: I've seen enough human suffering in homeless encampments to know Trump's new policy is right

When the ambulance arrived in the Kensington neighborhood of Philadelphia two years ago, an angry EMT got out and barked at the crowd, "Who called this in?" Standing next to my cameraman and above the prone body of a shirtless soul bedecked in boils and not moving, I said, "I did." He didn't say a word, he looked at me, then down the street at the dozens of strung out bodies, then back at me as if to say, "Look at all this, what do you want me to do?" I had no PEOPLE CAN BE REMOVED FROM STREETS BY CITIES, STATES IN NEW TRUMP EXECUTIVE ORDER Last week, President Donald Trump did answer that question with a much-welcome executive order (EO) intended to bring back civil commitment, in other words, the ability to put people who are a danger to themselves or others in institutions, even against their will. Civil libertarians are in a tizzy over the EO. They insist this is an abuse of due process and harkens to the bad old days, when hundreds of thousands of Americans were committed to mental institutions, sometimes for dubious reasons. But in examining and judging Trump's proposed policy here, it is important to understand and accept what the status quo on the ground is right now, and it is nothing short of horrific. I've traveled to homeless encampments all over America, from tucked-away Manhattan underpasses to the sprawling chaos of San Francisco's Tenderloin, a place you literally smell a block before you enter. In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die. For decades now, Democrats have spent endless dollars on fruitless efforts to fix the homeless problem. In California alone, Gov. Gavin Newsom has spent $20 billion on failing to fix it, and only recently admitted the encampments have to go. In these encampments, your gag reflex is challenged by needles sticking out of necks and mountains of human detritus, but the real soul-crushing, existential sadness comes from knowing that these human beings are just being left to die. What the Trump administration realizes is that Democrats refuse to accept is that homelessness is, actually, two very distinct problems. One is financial, the other is a matter of addiction and mental health. Financial homelessness is fairly easy to address. The evicted mother living in her car can be given temporary housing and job assistance. She really does just need a hand up. Homelessness related to mental illness and addiction, however, isn't really a homelessness problem at all, it's an addiction and mental illness problem, and shockingly, just letting people in tents shoot up in what was once a thriving commercial district doesn't solve it. As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn't really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren't in a de facto open-air institution already. What does it matter if these places lack walls and locks? They are cages nonetheless, cruel prisons whether voluntary or not. As I have wandered the streets of these hellscapes in city after city, my question hasn't really been if these people would be better off in an institution, but rather, if they weren't in a de facto open-air institution already. Opponents of civil commitment insist you cannot take away people's freedom! But freedom to do what? Shoot fentanyl every day until they die on a curbside, pockets rifled by another desperate junkie? If it was your child on these broken and brutal streets of death, would you want them to be left in freedom to waste away, or would you want them taken somewhere where they could be protected and helped? Opponents will say that civil commitment can be abused. They will point to the 1950s when homosexuals were sent to institutions, but it's not 1950. We aren't going to institutionalize gay people, and we cannot be paralyzed by a bigoted past when trying to save lives today. Could there be abuses or mistakes made regarding civil commitment? Sure, but people are dying in the streets right now, and we must trust ourselves to actively help them, without stepping over the line. Annoyed with me, or not, that day in Kensington, the EMT revived the man at my feet, who, it turns out, wasn't dead, after all. Instead, he was angry, because the Narcan that woke him up also negated the high he had paid for. There are really only two sides to be on here: the side that says we are going to do everything we can to save that man's life, even against his will, or the side that condemns him to an open-air prison of his own making. President Trump has chosen wisely, and if local governments take heed, it is going to save a lot of lives across America.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store