In my first-ever podcast appearance, I discussed “the death of DEI” with the panel featured on this week’s episode of the Conversation 2B Had podcast, hosted by Chalo and Rashon.

Intellectual Dissatisfaction is proud to present interviews with all three US Senate candidates vying for Senator Mike Rounds seat.

Each interviewee was asked different questions tailored to their stated campaign goals, their personal and professional histories, and current events. We strive to bring our audience nonpartisan coverage of the local political scene in Sioux Falls and South Dakota broadly.

We want to thank the IBEW 426 for allowing us to conduct our in-person interviews in their conference room. And we’d like to thank our viewers and readers for all your support as we’ve grown over the past 3 years.

Hopefully, you find these interviews informative.

Julian Beaudion (D)

For this installment of Intellectual Dissatisfaction, I spoke with Julian Beaudion, a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in South Dakota. The conversation focused on his personal background, his campaign priorities, how he would approach bipartisan work in Washington, and what he believes South Dakota voters should expect from a senator.

(IND)

Brian Bengs, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, framed his campaign around structural political reform, opposition to corporate influence, and frustration with both major parties. In an interview with Intellectual Dissatisfaction, Bengs said he is running to give South Dakota voters an alternative to what he described as a “stupendously broken” political system.

Justin McNeal (R)

McNeal is challenging Senator Mike Rounds in the Republican primary. During the interview, we covered his personal background, the national debt, campaign finance, Social Security, health care, defense spending, energy policy, foreign policy, eminent domain, and the role of government in private industry.

I recently sat down with Justin McNeal, a Republican candidate for U.S. Senate in South Dakota, for a conversation about his campaign, his background, and where he stands on some of the major issues facing the country.

McNeal is challenging Senator Mike Rounds in the Republican primary. During the interview, we covered his personal background, the national debt, campaign finance, Social Security, health care, defense spending, energy policy, foreign policy, eminent domain, and the role of government in private industry.

Background

McNeal started by talking about his family’s South Dakota roots, his upbringing in Texas, and his time in the Navy.

After high school, he joined the military and trained as a nuclear engineer on submarines. He served aboard the USS Key West out of Pearl Harbor and spent several years at sea. After leaving the military, he went into financial services and helped build a company that grew into multiple offices across several states.

More recently, McNeal returned to South Dakota and started Dakota Biochar, a company focused on using waste wood from the Black Hills National Forest to generate power and produce biochar. He described biochar as a carbon-based product that can help soil retain water and nutrients, with the goal of improving farmland and addressing waste wood buildup in the forest.

Why He’s Running

McNeal said the main reason he is running is the federal debt.

He argued that the national debt is not a Democrat or Republican issue, but an American issue. His view is that Washington has avoided making hard decisions for too long, and that the country needs a serious plan to deal with spending, deficits, and long-term obligations.

He said the debt problem is “a simple math problem” in the sense that the government is spending more than it brings in. The hard part, in his view, is whether elected officials are willing to make the decisions needed to change course.

Campaign Finance and Transparency

We also discussed McNeal’s criticism of Washington, D.C., and what he has described as the influence of special interests, lobbyists, and career politicians.

McNeal argued that businesses and industries that depend heavily on government spending have an incentive to support politicians who can help direct federal money. He said this creates a system where incumbents and special interests benefit from keeping the same people in power.

He also talked about his own campaign spending and said he has been trying to run a very lean campaign. He contrasted that with the amount of money available to the incumbent campaign.

One of the specific commitments McNeal made was on transparency. He said that, if elected, he would publish explanations for his votes so constituents could see why he voted the way he did. He also said he would make his Senate office spending public.

The National Debt: Social Security, Health Care, and Defense

When asked what specific reforms he would support to address the national debt, McNeal identified three major areas: Social Security, health care, and defense spending.

On Social Security, he said the program’s formula is outdated and that the country needs an honest conversation about what changes may be necessary. He argued that doing nothing is still a decision, and that if the system is not addressed, benefit cuts or other consequences will come later.

On health care, McNeal focused on administrative costs and the role of insurance. He said that, in his experience, the cost of administering care has increased significantly, and that too much money is going into the system around health care rather than directly to the people providing and receiving care.

On defense spending, McNeal talked about his time in the military and described the “use it or lose it” budget culture that can happen near the end of the fiscal year. He said he supports making sure the military has the resources it needs, but wants a more efficient and accountable budgeting process.

Grants, Subsidies, and Dakota Biochar

We also talked about corporate welfare, subsidies, economic development, and McNeal’s own company.

McNeal described himself as a free-market person and criticized situations where government uses taxpayer money to pick winners and losers. He specifically discussed tax increment financing, development incentives, and subsidies for private companies.

I asked him whether Dakota Biochar had received, applied for, or benefited from any public grants, tax credits, or development incentives.

McNeal said Dakota Biochar had applied for a $25,000 proof-of-concept grant through South Dakota’s Governor’s Office of Economic Development. He also said the company had applied for a private grant and a USDA Wood Innovations grant.

When asked how he squares criticism of subsidies with applying for grants, McNeal said he sees a distinction between grants and subsidies. He described grants as programs tied to a specific public problem or proof of concept, while describing subsidies more as tax breaks or benefits given to specific companies.

Energy Policy

McNeal also talked about energy policy, including nuclear power, wind, solar, and biomass.

Because of his Navy nuclear background, nuclear energy was part of the conversation. McNeal said he supports using the best energy source for the specific need rather than letting subsidies drive the market.

He said the country does not really have a clear energy plan, and that much of the energy market is shaped by government incentives. He did not reject wind or solar, but described different energy sources as different tools in a toolbox.

His position was that energy policy should be based on what works for the situation, not just what receives the most favorable subsidy treatment.

Foreign Policy and Military Force

We discussed McNeal’s views on foreign policy, especially regarding Iran and the use of military force.

McNeal said his first question before supporting military action would be: what is the threat to the United States?

He said he does not currently see how Iran poses a direct threat to the American mainland, while also acknowledging that he no longer has a top-secret clearance and may not have access to all the information available to national security officials.

He said leaders should be willing to explain the threat and the objective before involving the United States in military action.

We also talked about the Strait of Hormuz and the argument that Iran can threaten global trade and energy markets. McNeal said that if the United States is going to talk about controlling that area militarily, it should be honest about what that could require.

Trump, Party Pressure, and the Constitution

I asked McNeal when he would break with President Trump or Senate Republicans.

McNeal said he would represent the people of South Dakota, not a party or a president. He said he wants the president to succeed, but also believes Congress has a role in checking the executive branch.

He argued that the executive branch has gained too much power over time because Congress has not done its job effectively. He said the federal government works best when the legislative, executive, and judicial branches each stay within their proper roles.

When asked for an example of where he might break with party leadership, he pointed again to questions around Iran and military action. More broadly, he said he would break with party leadership if he believed something went beyond the proper constitutional role of the federal government.

Eminent Domain and 45Q

The final major topic was eminent domain, carbon capture, and the 45Q tax credit.

McNeal said he supports eminent domain for public uses such as highways, airports, hospitals, schools, power lines, and other infrastructure that serves the public.

However, he said he does not support eminent domain for private corporate gain. He discussed carbon dioxide pipelines and said private companies should negotiate directly with landowners rather than using government power when they cannot get the easements they want.

He also criticized the 45Q carbon capture tax credit. His argument was that if carbon dioxide is being used for enhanced oil recovery, then companies and policymakers should be direct about that with the public.

Closing

Overall, the interview covered a lot of ground.

McNeal presented his campaign as focused heavily on the national debt, government transparency, constitutional limits, and reducing the influence of special interests in politics. He also discussed his background in the Navy, his business experience, and how those experiences shape the way he thinks about spending, energy, and government accountability.

The goal of the conversation was to give voters a better sense of where he stands and how he thinks through these issues.

You can watch the full interview for the complete conversation.

The South Dakota Democratic Party will welcome former President Joe Biden as the keynote speaker for its 2026 McGovern Day Dinner on Friday, June 5, in Sioux Falls.

The annual dinner will be held at the Best Western Plus Ramkota Exhibit Hall, located at 3200 W. Maple St. Doors open at 6:30 p.m., with dinner beginning at 7 p.m. A VIP reception is scheduled for 5:30 p.m., followed by a presidential meet-and-greet and photo opportunity at 6 p.m.

The evening’s speaker lineup also includes U.S. Senate candidate Julian Beaudion, U.S. House candidate Nikki Gronli, and gubernatorial candidate Dan Ahlers.

Individual tickets are $125, with a purchase deadline of May 25.

McGovern Day is named in honor of the late George McGovern, the longtime South Dakota senator and 1972 Democratic presidential nominee. The event remains one of the state party’s marquee annual gatherings, bringing together Democratic candidates, activists, donors, and supporters from across South Dakota.

This year’s dinner is likely to draw heightened attention with Biden’s appearance, as South Dakota Democrats look ahead to a major election cycle and seek to energize supporters across the state.

Watch the interview on YouTube!

Special thanks to the IBEW 426 for offering up their space for us to conduct this interview.

For this installment of Intellectual Dissatisfaction, I spoke with Julian Beaudion, a Democratic candidate for the United States Senate in South Dakota. The conversation focused on his personal background, his campaign priorities, how he would approach bipartisan work in Washington, and what he believes South Dakota voters should expect from a senator.

Beaudion introduced himself as a Louisiana native who has lived in South Dakota for nearly 20 years with his wife and their three daughters. He described service as a throughline in his life: his father was a teacher, his mother was a nurse, and Beaudion spent 13 and a half years in uniform as a South Dakota state trooper. He and his wife also own Swamp Daddy’s Cajun Kitchen in Sioux Falls. Beaudion emphasized family, neighbors, and community as central motivations for his campaign.

He also highlighted his wife’s community work, including her involvement with ACE Academy, a school he said focuses on students who may not be well-served in traditional public school settings. He also described their family’s annual Thanksgiving meal effort, saying they have helped feed hundreds of people each year.

Why his campaign website does not yet have a detailed issues page

One of the first questions focused on the lack of a detailed issues platform on Beaudion’s campaign website. Beaudion said that was intentional. According to him, the campaign has been holding town halls across South Dakota before finalizing its policy platform.

He said he does not want to build a platform based only on his own opinions, but on what he hears from voters. “Everything comes back to affordability,” he said, while identifying three major issue areas he said have emerged from those conversations: education, health care, and housing.

Education and the Department of Education

Beaudion said education is one of his top priorities. He criticized Senator Mike Rounds for supporting efforts to dismantle the federal Department of Education, arguing that South Dakota families are concerned about what that would mean for rural schools, special education programs, gifted programs, after-school care, and school funding more broadly.

When asked to name a bill he would introduce or co-sponsor, or a federal program he would protect, Beaudion pointed to protecting the Department of Education. He argued that federal education funding should not simply be moved into other departments and said the federal government should reinvest more directly in children and schools.

He also criticized block grants as a temporary solution, arguing that they may appear helpful in the short term but leave rural school districts vulnerable after the funding runs out.

Health care, rural hospitals, and universal coverage

Beaudion described himself as a supporter of universal health care and said access to care is especially urgent in rural South Dakota. He argued that rural hospitals are under pressure, that women in some rural and reservation communities must travel long distances for specialized care, and that health care policy should focus not only on coverage but also on sustaining rural health systems.

When asked whether his health care position would mainly expand coverage for patients or reduce costs for rural hospitals, Beaudion said both questions are connected. He argued that the role of insurance companies needs more scrutiny and said rural hospitals often rely on traveling nurses and physicians, which can increase costs.

He also pointed to workforce development as part of the solution. Beaudion said he supports programs that help students train in South Dakota and then remain in the state to work, including tuition-reimbursement-style incentives tied to service in South Dakota communities.

On insurance companies, Beaudion said he believes they are currently a major roadblock to universal health care because government has allowed them too much power. He said Congress should establish stronger limits on what insurers can and cannot do.

Housing and affordability

Beaudion repeatedly returned to affordability as the central issue in the race. On housing, he argued that South Dakota needs policies tailored to specific communities rather than a one-size-fits-all approach. He specifically said housing needs on or near reservations may look different from housing needs in Sioux Falls or other urban areas.

Asked what he would prioritize immediately in the Senate on affordability, Beaudion pointed to agriculture and the farm bill. He called agriculture South Dakota’s top economic driver and said a comprehensive farm bill should be a major focus for the state’s senators.

Tariffs, agriculture, and family farms

On tariffs, Beaudion said he believes they can be used strategically, but he criticized tariffs that he said are harming South Dakota farmers, especially tariffs involving Canada and agricultural equipment supply chains. He argued that tariffs affecting parts and machinery could raise costs for farmers and ranchers who depend on expensive equipment.

He said he could support a tariff on China at a reduced rate, framing it as part of a broader effort to protect family farms from foreign purchase or control. Beaudion claimed that agricultural bankers in South Dakota expect a significant number of family farms to face bankruptcy pressure and argued that policy should include stopgaps to prevent distressed farms from being sold off in ways that hurt South Dakota producers.

“Taking power back” and working across the aisle

At the No Kings protest, Beaudion had said his campaign was not only about opposing something, but about people taking power back. Asked what that means in Senate terms, he framed it less around a single reform issue and more around restoring relationships, representation, and practical problem-solving.

Beaudion said he would look forward to working with Senator John Thune if elected, arguing that South Dakota would benefit from having a Democrat and Republican working together in the Senate. He said bipartisan cooperation should focus on issues such as the farm bill, SNAP, Medicaid, health care affordability, housing, and lowering everyday costs.

He also said he is not interested in running a campaign centered solely on opposition to Donald Trump or Mike Rounds. Instead, he said he wants to campaign “for the people of South Dakota.”

Republican and independent voters

Asked which Republican or independent voters he believes are persuadable, Beaudion resisted labeling voters by ideology. He said the “average South Dakotan” is open to common-sense policies.

He connected that answer to his law enforcement background, saying that as a state trooper he interacted with people in moments of crisis and that no one asked whether he was a Democrat or Republican before accepting help. He argued that voters are now asking whether a policy will benefit them, not simply which party it comes from.

Criminal justice, reentry, and second chances

One community-submitted question asked whether reentry programs for formerly incarcerated South Dakotans would be a major focus of Beaudion’s Senate work. Beaudion noted that parole and probation are usually handled at the state and judicial levels rather than by Congress, but said rehabilitation should be taken seriously.

He said he supports second chances, but argued they must come with meaningful resources and public safety accountability. He called for stronger partnerships among nonprofits, law enforcement, formerly incarcerated people, community members, and policymakers.

Asked directly whether he would support more federal funding for job training, housing, addiction treatment, mental health care, and identification access before release, Beaudion said yes. He said he would be willing to introduce or co-sponsor federal legislation supporting those kinds of resources.

Native communities and tribal sovereignty

On Native communities in South Dakota, Beaudion said government must “move at the speed of trust.” He said there is deep distrust between Native communities and local, state, and federal governments, and argued that any serious policy approach must begin by respecting tribal sovereignty.

He also called for a recommitment to treaty obligations, saying that government should acknowledge and apologize for broken promises to tribes. He connected that issue to current disputes over mining and tribal land, saying the government’s responsibility is to take care of people rather than fight against them.

Why he believes Mike Rounds should be replaced

Asked to identify two or three decisions by Senator Mike Rounds that explain why Beaudion believes he should be replaced, Beaudion named two decisions and one broader pattern of “indecision.”

First, he criticized Rounds’ support for dismantling the Department of Education. Second, he criticized Rounds’ posture toward the United States Postal Service, saying South Dakotans rely heavily on the postal system and that weakening or privatizing it would be irresponsible.

On the broader point, Beaudion argued that Rounds has shown indecision throughout his career and suggested that he does not appear fully committed to continuing in the role.

Protest, organizing, and accountability

Beaudion also discussed his involvement in the George Floyd protests in Sioux Falls. He clarified that he was one of the organizers, but credited two young people as the original driving force behind the effort. He said the protest was peaceful and described his role as someone who, while serving in law enforcement, also believed in accountability for law enforcement.

He said that same day reflected two parts of his public life: standing with protesters calling for accountability, and later putting his uniform back on to help protect the city.

Asked where accountability needs improvement in policing, Beaudion was cautious about criticizing local agencies directly. He focused instead on federal law enforcement, especially ICE deployments in city streets. He said he supports secure borders, but argued that deploying ICE in cities such as Minneapolis, San Francisco, and Chicago puts communities and local law enforcement in difficult positions.

Voting rights and representation

The interview closed with a question about a recent Supreme Court decision involving Louisiana’s congressional map and racial discrimination in redistricting. Beaudion connected the issue back to South Dakota, arguing that even though the state has only one congressional district, Supreme Court precedent can still affect state legislative and local districting.

He said the issue is especially important for Native voters in South Dakota, who he said have had to fight for voting rights and representation. Beaudion argued that weakened voting-rights protections could affect whether Native communities are represented by people who understand their experiences and priorities.

Closing impression

Throughout the interview, Beaudion presented his campaign as rooted in service, affordability, and practical representation rather than national partisan messaging. His central argument was that South Dakota voters — including Democrats, independents, and Republicans — are looking for someone focused on education, health care, housing, agriculture, tribal sovereignty, and everyday costs.

He framed his candidacy as an effort to listen first, build policy from community input, and work across party lines while still drawing sharp contrasts with Senator Mike Rounds on education, postal service protections, and public investment.

Bengs described himself as a lifelong independent, aside from a roughly 13-month period when he registered as a Democrat in order to run against Sen. John Thune in 2022. He said he initially sought to run under the Democratic banner because the party did not have a candidate, but that state law required him to register with the party to become its nominee. After running from inside the party system, Bengs said his concerns about political dysfunction only deepened.

Bengs grew up in a small farming community in North Iowa in a blue-collar family. His father worked a union factory job, and Bengs said he delivered newspapers and worked in farm fields during the summers. After high school, he joined the Navy, later used the GI Bill to attend college, and then went to law school. He eventually entered the Air Force JAG Corps, expecting to serve four years, but remained for two decades after 9/11. During his military career, he earned advanced degrees in international law and history, taught at the Air Force Academy, and ran a legal education program at the NATO School in Germany. After retiring, he moved to Aberdeen, South Dakota, where he taught criminal justice, homeland security and government before later relocating to Hot Springs.

A central focus of Bengs’ campaign is campaign finance reform. He argued that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision opened the door to excessive corporate and dark money influence in elections. Bengs said the country needs a constitutional amendment to restore stronger limits on campaign spending and corporate influence, pointing to early 20th-century federal campaign finance laws as an example of stricter rules that once existed. He also said election spending has grown to the point where government reflects “the people with the biggest checkbooks” rather than regular voters.

Bengs said that if elected, he would not automatically caucus with either major party. He said doing so would defeat the purpose of running as an independent. Instead, he described a strategy in which a small group of independent senators could deny either party outright control of the Senate and force major legislation to go through an independent caucus. Bengs said he has been in contact with other independent Senate candidates and that their shared goal is to use that leverage to pursue structural reforms rather than simply negotiate over partisan policy priorities.

Asked what his non-negotiables would be in such a scenario, Bengs pointed to reforms such as campaign finance changes, anti-gerrymandering legislation and broader efforts to restore the value of individual votes. He also floated the idea of sending constitutional amendments directly to voters in the states rather than relying only on state legislatures, arguing that the people are the source of governmental power.

On taxes, Bengs said he supports returning to the tax code that existed in 1998, when the federal government was running budget surpluses and paying down debt. He argued that subsequent tax cuts helped create today’s debt problem and allowed extreme wealth to accumulate. Bengs also supports a wealth tax on billionaires, describing it as similar in principle to property taxes paid by homeowners. He said wealthy individuals often hold assets such as stock rather than traditional taxable income, and argued that those assets should be taxed directly once they exceed very high thresholds.

Bengs said his healthcare plan centers on allowing the government to use its buying power to lower costs. He argued that Medicare, or another government entity, should be allowed to negotiate drug prices in the same way large retailers use bulk purchasing power to demand lower prices. He also supports creating a public option on the Affordable Care Act marketplace. Bengs said a government-run plan would not need to build in a private profit margin and could pressure private insurers to lower their prices through competition.

On rural healthcare, Bengs said rural hospitals are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts because many rural residents rely on Medicaid coverage. He criticized Sen. Mike Rounds’ support for recent Medicaid cuts, saying those cuts would disproportionately hurt rural hospitals and could lead to closures or reduced services. Bengs said he views rural hospitals as a public good and believes the federal government has a role in helping keep them open.

Veterans’ issues were another major theme of the interview. Bengs, who receives his own healthcare through the VA, said he opposes privatizing the Department of Veterans Affairs. He argued that some private healthcare interests see VA patients as a reliable source of government-backed payments, but said his goal is a strong and well-functioning VA system. Bengs said the VA needs adequate funding, stable staffing and modern facilities. He cited the Hot Springs VA, where he said the facility lost its only doctor, as an example of the staffing problems facing veterans’ healthcare.

On veteran mental health and suicide prevention, Bengs said the VA should expand and support programs that already exist, including PTSD support programs, service dog programs and alternative therapeutic programs such as “Bees for Veterans,” which teaches veterans beekeeping as a way to focus their energy and attention.

Bengs also called for stronger antitrust enforcement in agriculture, especially against meatpacking consolidation. He said the Department of Justice has been “asleep at the wheel” for decades and argued that existing antitrust laws, including the Sherman Antitrust Act, should be used more aggressively. Bengs noted that four major meatpacking companies now control a large share of the market, which he said allows them to pay cattle producers less while charging consumers more. He also said Congress should strengthen the Packers and Stockyards Act to better protect farmers and ranchers.

On immigration, Bengs said the United States needs both border security and reform of the legal immigration system. He noted that the last comprehensive immigration reform was in 1986 and argued that both parties tend to emphasize only one side of the issue. Bengs said Republicans focus on border security while Democrats focus more on legal immigration pathways, but that a serious solution requires both. For border security, he said physical barriers make sense in densely populated urban border areas, but argued that remote areas would be better served by sensors, technology and roving Border Patrol response teams rather than expensive fencing in the middle of nowhere.

Bengs criticized both parties for using immigration as a campaign issue rather than solving it. He pointed to bipartisan immigration efforts in 2013 and 2024, saying the 2024 Senate bill included significant border security provisions but was ultimately derailed because immigration is politically useful during elections. He said lawmakers need to enter negotiations knowing their priorities, their non-negotiables and the areas where they can compromise.

The interview also addressed hyperpartisanship and social media. Bengs said the incentive structure in politics rewards politicians for refusing to work together and punishes compromise. He supports open primaries and ranked-choice or consensus-choice voting as ways to increase competition and reduce partisan extremes. He said all registered voters should be able to participate in primaries regardless of party affiliation, with the top candidates advancing to a general election where voters can rank their choices.

On social media regulation, Bengs said he does not support limiting speech as long as the First Amendment remains in place. Drawing on his experience teaching homeland security, he said harmful ideas cannot be defeated by suppression but must be defeated by better ideas. He also criticized modern political debates for emphasizing short soundbites rather than sustained exchanges on a few substantive topics.

On social issues, Bengs described himself as “50 percent libertarian,” saying people should generally be free to live as they choose unless their actions harm others. On abortion, he said he believes Roe v. Wade had the framework right: before viability, the decision should be between a woman and her physician; after viability, he said the state has a valid interest, with exceptions for the health and well-being of the woman. He said he does not believe the federal government should prohibit abortion.

On guns, Bengs said he grew up with firearms and owns guns himself. He said his concern is not with hunting rifles or shotguns, but with weapons that combine rapid fire and high ammunition capacity. Rather than calling for a ban, Bengs said he supports treating assault-style rifles more like cars: requiring registration, insurance and licensing. He also said owners should be held responsible if they fail to secure such weapons and those weapons are later used by someone else.

On LGBTQ+ rights, Bengs said the federal government should not interfere with people’s private lives if they are not harming others. He said opposition to LGBTQ+ rights is often justified through religious arguments, and criticized what he sees as selective religious enforcement.

Asked how voters should measure whether his independent campaign was more than a protest vote, Bengs said success would mean measurable progress on structural reforms. He specifically named campaign finance reform, anti-gerrymandering efforts and protecting the voting power of regular citizens from the influence of big money. For Bengs, the central goal of his campaign is making sure “your vote mattered.”

A new South Dakota coalition is preparing a referendum campaign against Senate Bill 245, one piece of the property tax relief package signed by Gov. Larry Rhoden earlier this year.

The group, South Dakotans for Fair Taxes, includes Bread for the World SD, the South Dakota AFL-CIO and Dakota Rural Action. Its leaders say SB 245 should be referred to voters because, in their view, it funds homeowner property tax relief through a sales-tax structure that will fall more heavily on working families, renters and others who may not receive direct property tax benefits.

SB 245 creates a “homeowner property tax reduction fund” administered by the Department of Revenue. Under the bill text, the fund is designed to provide relief for “owner-occupied single-family dwellings” by reducing the local effort for general education levies on those properties. The bill also directs a portion of future sales and use tax revenue into that fund beginning July 1st, 2027 and includes a $55.9 million transfer from the revenue replacement fund beginning July 1st, 2026.

The policy is connected to South Dakota’s temporary sales tax reduction passed in 2023, when lawmakers lowered the state sales tax rate from 4.5% to 4.2% for four years. That cut is scheduled to sunset, returning the rate to 4.5%. SB 245 would dedicate revenue tied to that three-tenths of a percent to homeowner property tax relief rather than allowing it to flow into the general fund.

Supporters of the broader package have framed it as a major response to rising property taxes. When signing SB 245 and SB 96, Gov. Rhoden’s office described the bills as delivering “the largest property tax cut in South Dakota history.”

But opponents argue the structure matters as much as the size of the cut.

In its announcement, South Dakotans for Fair Taxes said the bill excludes renters, agricultural land and multi-family housing from direct relief while relying on sales tax revenue paid by a much broader group of South Dakotans. Cathy Brechtelsbauer, a volunteer with Bread for the World’s South Dakota chapter, called the bill “a blatant transfer of wealth from the lower incomes to the higher incomes,” arguing that renters should not be asked to pay higher sales taxes to fund relief for homeowners.

Matt Edzards, an executive board member of the South Dakota Federation of Labor, AFL-CIO, and a National Association of Letter Carriers shop steward, made a similar argument in the coalition’s release, saying the same sales tax increase would be paid by workers regardless of whether they own property.

The coalition’s critique centers on a familiar tax-policy tension: property taxes are highly visible and can create pressure for homeowners, especially as valuations rise. Sales taxes, by contrast, are spread across everyday purchases and are generally considered more regressive because lower-income households tend to spend a larger share of their income on taxable goods.

That does not mean homeowners are the only people affected by property taxes. Renters can indirectly pay property taxes through rent, and landlords may pass costs along over time. But SB 245’s direct relief mechanism is limited to owner-occupied single-family dwellings, which gives opponents an opening to argue that the bill does not evenly match who pays with who benefits.

The campaign also arrives as polling suggests South Dakotans may be skeptical of trading higher sales taxes for lower property taxes. A South Dakota News Watch/Chiesman Center for Democracy poll of 500 registered voters, conducted April 7-9 by Mason-Dixon Polling and Strategy, found 49% opposed and 33% supported swapping lower property taxes for higher sales taxes, with 17% undecided. The margin of error was plus or minus 4.5 percentage points. That poll, however, was reported in the context of the broader property tax package, including SB 96, which allows counties to raise sales taxes in exchange for property tax reductions, so it should not be read as a poll solely on SB 245.

To place a referred law on the ballot, South Dakota petition sponsors must gather signatures from registered voters equal to 5% of the total vote for governor in the last gubernatorial election. For 2026, the Secretary of State lists that threshold as 17,508 signatures. Referred laws must be filed within 90 days of the Legislature’s adjournment.

For voters, the eventual question may be less about whether property taxes need attention and more about how that relief should be funded. SB 245’s supporters can argue the bill targets a pressing problem for homeowners and dedicates future revenue to a defined property tax purpose. Opponents can argue that the chosen funding mechanism asks the broader public, including renters and lower-income households, to subsidize relief that is not broadly available.

That debate is now moving from the Capitol to the petition table. If South Dakotans for Fair Taxes gathers enough valid signatures, voters could have the final say on whether this part of the state’s property tax plan stands.

When U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stopped in South Dakota recently, she brought with her a proposal that sounds reasonable on the surface: shift federal education funding to a block grant system, giving states more “flexibility” over how they spend federal dollars.

As a former grant writer who focused specifically on nonprofit childcare – including writing for the 21st Century Community Learning Center federal block grants – I know what Sec. McMahon’s idea would really mean in practice. Fewer guarantees, less accountability, and — historically — less money over time. Don’t be fooled: while education funding might be broken, this is not the way to fix it.

Block Grants Don’t Guarantee Money Reaches the Kids Who Need It Most

Block grants are lump sums of federal money given to states with minimal restrictions on how the money gets spent or the methods they use for distribution. Proponents frame this as empowering local decision-makers. In reality, it means there is no guarantee the money reaches the classrooms, kids, or districts that need it most.

Under the current system, programs like Title I are formula-based: funding is calculated based on actual student need — poverty levels, disability status, English learner populations — and flows directly to qualifying schools. That structure exists for a reason. As the Brookings Institution notes, Title I’s early years in the 1960s saw segregated districts invest the money in all-white schools, which is precisely what led Congress to attach more strings to ensure the law’s “compensatory spirit” was actually followed. Without those protections, a block grant could legally be invested in facilities upgrades or enrichment programs at a district’s wealthiest school — not the ones struggling to keep the lights on.

This is not a hypothetical concern for South Dakota, which is reliant on federal funding for education. According to USAFacts, South Dakota schools received approximately $438.8 million in federal funds during the 2021–22 school year, representing about 21.8% of total public school funding — well above the national average of 13.7%. Our rural and tribal schools are among the most dependent on that federal pipeline. The Oglala Lakota County School District received 71.3% of its funding from federal sources that same year. Block-granting that funding hands the state government enormous discretion over whether those dollars find their way to the communities that need them most — or get absorbed into the general budget, like the once-earmarked education video lottery money.

With block grants, states have discretion not only where the money is spent, but how. Funding might be distributed via a grant process, like the aforementioned 21st Century Learning Center funding. But what kind of districts will have the time and talent resources to apply for a grant, especially one with federal dollars attached (which always means more hurdles to jump through)?

It doesn’t take much to see that bigger, wealthier districts would win. Rural and low-income districts get whatever’s left.

Block Grant Funding – as a Rule – Goes Away

The word “flexibility” in grant policy has historically been a Trojan horse for defunding. We have receipts.

In 1982, the Reagan administration consolidated 28 education programs into a single block grant called Chapter 2, simultaneously cutting funding from $713.9 million to $418 million. That funding was steadily reduced until the program was eliminated entirely in 2008. More broadly, a 2017 study by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that since 2000, funding for the 13 major low-income block grants — covering health, housing, and social services — had fallen by 37% after adjusting for inflation and population growth.

This is not a bug in the design. It’s a feature. Block grants are structurally easier to cut because there is no named constituency standing behind them. There is no “IDEA parent” or “Title I school” to call their senator. There’s just a number in a budget.

Compare that to targeted programs like the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), from which South Dakota received over $18 million from in a recent grant cycle. IDEA comes with enforceable rights for students and parents. It mandates that children with disabilities receive a free and appropriate public education. Block-grant that funding away, and those rights don’t automatically follow. As the National Education Association has noted, states would no longer have to answer to anyone about whether or how they follow the law — and a child’s access to services would depend entirely on which state they happened to be born in.

We already have a preview of what instability looks like for South Dakota schools. In the summer of 2025, the Trump administration froze $25.8 million in federal education funds to the state. The South Dakota Education Association reported that districts were “scrambling” to figure out their budgets, with rural schools at risk of cutting staff, eliminating programs, and, in some cases, potentially closing. Block-granting federal education dollars doesn’t make our schools more stable — it makes them permanently vulnerable to that kind of uncertainty. Is that what we want for our teachers and students?

We Have a Moral and Constitutional Obligation to Educate Every Child Equally

This is not just a policy debate. It is a moral one.

Federal education funding exists precisely because states, left to their own devices, have historically failed to educate all children equally. Prior to federal intervention, students with disabilities were routinely excluded from public schools. Schools in low-income communities received a fraction of the resources of wealthier districts. The achievement gap between students of color and white students was treated as a fact of life rather than a policy failure. Federal programs were not designed to meddle with local control — they were designed to correct for the places where local control had produced injustice. Part of the reason why public school advocates such as myself don’t like spending public dollars on private schools is because private schools don’t have the same obligation to serve every child that public schools do.

The data makes clear that this problem hasn’t gone away. Before the pandemic, school districts serving the largest proportions of Black, Latino, and Native American students already received about $1,800 less per pupil than those serving fewer students of color — a gap driven largely by the United States’ heavy reliance on local property taxes to fund schools. Shifting to block grants, with minimal accountability for how money is spent, would almost certainly deepen that divide.

Former Republican Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, a George W. Bush appointee, has warned that sudden changes to how we fund public schools will be “costly, complicated, and lead to children falling through the cracks.”

This is not a partisan concern. It is a basic question of whether we believe every child — regardless of zip code, disability status, income level, or tribal affiliation — deserves a real shot at a quality education.

Block-granting federal education dollars away isn’t reform. It’s abandonment.

So What Should We Do Instead?

Criticizing a bad idea is easy. Here’s what good policy actually looks like.

We need to strengthen, not dissolve, accountability structures. Programs like Title I and IDEA work — imperfectly, but they work — because they come with meaningful requirements about who gets served and how. Reform should focus on reducing bureaucratic compliance burdens while keeping equity protections intact.

We should weight funding formulas for actual need. Other states have shown that it’s possible to build funding systems that direct dollars toward the students who need the most support without sacrificing local flexibility. California’s Local Control Funding Formula provides supplemental grants for English learners, foster youth, and low-income students, and concentration grants for districts with the highest need. South Dakota could advocate for federal formulas that similarly protect rural and tribal school districts.

We must invest more, not less. South Dakota teachers are among the lowest-paid in the nation. Our rural districts are stretched thin. Our tribal schools have faced chronic underfunding for generations. The answer to those problems is not block-granting away the federal dollars they currently depend on. It’s fighting for more investment and more stability, not less.

Secretary McMahon’s proposal offers states a shiny new word: flexibility. What it actually offers is a mechanism to quietly reduce funding for the students who have the fewest advocates and the most to lose. South Dakota’s children deserve better than that.

Amanda Potter is a candidate for South Dakota State House of Representatives, District 9. She previously worked as a grant writer for nonprofit childcare organizations. Learn more at potterforsd.com.

Sources

Brookings Institution — “Block granting federal education funds comes with trade-offs” (2025): https://www.brookings.edu/articles/block-granting-federal-education-funds-comes-with-trade-offs/

USAFacts — “What percentage of public school funding in South Dakota comes from the federal government?” (2025): https://usafacts.org/answers/what-percentage-of-public-school-funding-comes-from-the-federal-government/state/south-dakota/

Texas AFT — “‘What Are Block Grants?’: Flexibility at the Expense of Equity”: https://www.texasaft.org/government/tea/what-are-block-grants-flexibility-at-the-expense-of-equity/

Wikipedia — “Block grant” (citing CBPP 2017 study): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Block_grant

State Regs Today — “Federal Contributions to Education Funding in South Dakota”: https://www.stateregstoday.com/education-science-and-technology/education-funding/federal-contributions-to-education-funding-in-south-dakota

National Education Association — “Why Block Grants Are Bad News for Students” (2025): https://www.nea.org/nea-today/all-news-articles/why-block-grants-are-bad-news-students

South Dakota Searchlight — “South Dakota schools left ‘scrambling’ after feds withhold $25.8 million in funding” (July 2025): https://southdakotasearchlight.com/2025/07/16/south-dakota-schools-left-scrambling-after-feds-withhold-25-8-million-in-funding/

Learning Policy Institute — “Leverage More Adequate and Equitable School Funding”: https://restart-reinvent.learningpolicyinstitute.org/leverage-more-adequate-and-equitable-school-funding

This Isn’t Socialism

A more equitable and financially balanced society does not require socialism. Calls for greater fairness in wealth distribution, reduced poverty, and broader access to opportunity are often labeled as socialist demands, but that framing obscures important distinctions. Socialism is often defined—particularly in its classical form—as collective or state ownership of the means of production, centralized planning, and limits on private capital accumulation. Yet in modern political discourse, the term is used far more loosely, frequently applied to policies that leave the core structure of capitalism intact.

In reality, many efforts to create a more equitable society emerge not from socialism, but from reformed capitalist systems that preserve private property, competitive markets, and individual incentives. These systems do not seek to replace capitalism’s engine, but to tune it—ensuring that opportunity is broader and outcomes are not dictated solely by circumstance at birth.

The distinction matters because public debate is often framed as a stark choice between tolerating high inequality or expanding state control over the economy. This binary is misleading. A financially balanced society can raise the floor—through universal education, accessible healthcare, progressive taxation, and broader access to capital—without imposing a ceiling on achievement. Individuals remain free to build businesses, invest, innovate, and accumulate wealth. The core drivers of prosperity—competition, ambition, and the profit motive—are not eliminated but preserved.

Raising the Floor Without Capping the Ceiling

An egalitarian approach within capitalism does not eliminate personal wealth or the desire to strive for more. Critics often argue that redistribution undermines motivation, asking why individuals would work harder if gains are partially shared. This concern assumes a zero-sum tradeoff between supporting the bottom and rewarding the top. In practice, well-designed policies aim to reduce extreme deprivation while maintaining strong incentives for success. They seek to better equalize starting conditions—through education, healthcare, and opportunity—without guaranteeing equal outcomes. Those who innovate, take risks, or work longer hours can still achieve significant financial rewards; the difference is that fewer people are locked out of the race before it begins.

What the Real-World Evidence Shows

History offers real-world examples of this balance. Market-based welfare states demonstrate that high levels of economic security can coexist with strong incentives for growth. In several Northern European economies, billionaires and successful entrepreneurs exist alongside relatively low poverty rates and higher levels of social mobility than seen in more unequal systems. These outcomes are not without trade-offs, including higher overall tax burdens and ongoing debates about efficiency and sustainability. Still, they illustrate that capitalism can be structured to distribute opportunity more broadly without dismantling its foundational incentives.

Policies that expand ownership can reinforce this dynamic. Employee stock ownership plans, citizen investment funds, and inheritance-funded endowments give more people a direct stake in economic growth. Rather than dampening ambition, such approaches can deepen engagement with the market system itself. When individuals see a tangible connection between collective growth and personal benefit, participation often increases rather than declines.

Why Central Planning Falls Short

By contrast, centrally planned socialist economies in the 20th century frequently struggled with stagnant growth, resource misallocation, and persistent shortages. These systems often weakened the link between effort and reward, reducing incentives for innovation and productivity. At the same time, some achieved gains in literacy, industrialization, and basic healthcare, underscoring that outcomes depended heavily on political structure and implementation. Even so, the broader pattern suggests that removing market signals and private incentives at scale carries significant economic costs.

An egalitarian form of capitalism avoids these pitfalls by keeping markets and private incentives central while addressing clear market failures, particularly unequal access to education, healthcare, and capital. In this framework, equity does not replace capitalism—it stabilizes and strengthens it.

Why Americans Keep Calling It Socialism

In the United States, the reflexive labeling of such policies as “socialism” reflects a deeply rooted cultural and historical narrative. The country’s founding emphasized resistance to centralized authority and celebrated individual initiative. During the Cold War, political rhetoric further cemented the association between expanded government involvement and authoritarian communism. That legacy continues to shape public discourse today. At the same time, concerns about taxation, government overreach, and economic efficiency also play a significant role in shaping skepticism toward redistributive policy. Together, these forces create a political environment where nuanced reforms are often reduced to ideological slogans.

Capitalism After Automation

Looking ahead, the need for pragmatic, market-compatible reforms may become more urgent. Advances in artificial intelligence and automation are already reshaping the nature of work, and there is growing concern that large segments of the workforce could face long-term displacement. Entire categories of labor—from transportation to routine administrative work—may shrink or disappear, not as part of a temporary shift but as a structural change. If enough workers lose stable access to income, the consequences could extend beyond individual hardship to reduced consumer demand and broader economic instability.

In response, policymakers are increasingly exploring ways to preserve both economic dynamism and social stability. Proposals such as universal basic income, expanded earned-income tax credits, or citizen dividends funded through taxation or sovereign wealth funds aim to provide a baseline level of security while maintaining incentives for innovation. Economists continue to debate the long-term effects of these policies, particularly regarding cost and labor participation. Even so, they reflect a broader recognition that capitalism must adapt to structural change if it is to remain resilient.

Such measures do not eliminate ambition. Instead, they may redirect it. With a more stable foundation, individuals are better positioned to pursue education, entrepreneurship, caregiving, or new forms of work that emerge alongside technological change. The goal is not to guarantee identical outcomes, but to ensure that talent and effort are not wasted due to systemic barriers or economic displacement.

In that sense, the future debate may be less about choosing between capitalism and socialism, and more about whether capitalism can evolve quickly enough to meet the realities of a changing world. A system that raises the floor while preserving the ceiling is not a contradiction. It is, increasingly, a necessity.

In a time when American politics feels more divided than ever, it’s refreshing to imagine a “purple” approach—one that rejects the rigid red-vs-blue binary and instead borrows the strongest, most practical ideas from both Republican and Democratic platforms.

Purple politics isn’t about splitting the difference for its own sake; it’s about putting the best of both worlds to work for the benefit of everyday Americans, their families, and the long-term strength of the country. It prioritizes results over ideology, people over partisanship, and common-sense governance over endless culture-war shouting matches.

A recent video essay titled How Do You Share a Country With People Who Reject Reality? by Cy Canterel captures exactly why this purple mindset matters right now.

Using the tragic Renee Good case as a starting point, the video shows how the same piece of video evidence can produce two completely opposite “realities” for different groups of viewers.

It argues that the real fault line in America isn’t simply left versus right, but between people who can tolerate ambiguity and complexity versus those who crave simple hierarchies, clear rules, and us-versus-them certainty. The speaker invokes philosopher Karl Popper’s “paradox of tolerance”: a free society cannot tolerate movements that actively seek to destroy pluralism. At the same time, the video urges compassion and “exit ramps” for those trapped in authoritarian thinking—offering legal guardrails, better education in nuance, and non-humiliating ways to step back from extremism.

These ideas line up perfectly with purple politics: protect democratic norms and shared facts without demonizing fellow citizens, and design policies that actually bring people together instead of driving them further apart.

With that spirit in mind, here’s what a purple platform could look like—starting with foreign affairs, then turning to the domestic priorities that would actually rebuild the country. This of course is not an all-inclusive set of ideas, just some highlights to suggest a more moderate, middle, and “purple” path.

Foreign Policy Agenda

• End the post-World War II web of treaty commitments and alliances by accelerating real-world outcomes: either broker lasting peace with potential aggressors or render them incapable of hostile action. For example, bring U.S. forces home from Japan and South Korea, help those nations shift to fully professional militaries, and support them in applying intense diplomatic and economic pressure on North Korea until the regime collapses or is forced to negotiate.

• Stop sending billions in foreign aid to build infrastructure or “plant democratic values” in cultures where those ideas may simply not take root. Redirect every dollar to American roads, bridges, schools, and water systems instead.

• Bring all U.S. troops currently stationed abroad back home to defend our own borders and coastal waters. In the future, any American military operation outside the Western Hemisphere should only happen at the invitation of a host nation—and only if that nation pays its fair share.

• Withdraw from the current version of globalism, which has mostly enriched multinational corporations while flattening wages for American workers and offering little real benefit to people in developing nations. Replace it with a global economy that puts consumers and workers first.

• Reduce or cancel the portion of U.S. debt held by China; they lack the military power or global reach to force collection.

• Push for a Unified Western Hemisphere alliance that includes every nation from the Arctic to Antarctica, each keeping its own government but working together on defense, resource development, and economic growth—led by American military strength and know-how. Leave the United Nations and focus on this resource-rich Americas-first bloc instead.

• Restrict non-American traffic through the Panama Canal, charge high user fees, and impose taxes on goods routed around Tierra del Fuego. America and the Americas come first.

These foreign-policy shifts would free up enormous resources while reducing entanglement in distant conflicts that rarely serve ordinary Americans.

Domestic Policy Agenda

The money saved from smarter foreign spending would then flow straight into rebuilding America at home. Use the U.S. military’s construction and engineering units to clear abandoned, blighted sections of cities—giving troops valuable training while opening space for civilian contractors to rebuild infrastructure.

Congress should formally assign border security to the Department of Defense, removing any Posse Comitatus complications and treating the southern border as a national-defense priority rather than a law-enforcement afterthought.

To handle migration humanely and effectively, work with Mexico to create a U.S. “Embassy Annex” on Mexico’s southern border. All migrants would be screened there—on what is legally U.S. territory—so asylum claims and other applications could be processed safely, far from cartels and desert dangers. This single facility, staffed with judges, security, and support personnel, could dramatically slow the current uncontrolled flow until the entire hemisphere stabilizes.Additional domestic reforms would strengthen democracy and accountability:

• Create a national biometric ID card that securely holds multiple federal credentials (Social Security, passport data, veterans’ benefits, etc.).

• Reform the Electoral College so presidential candidates must win the popular vote in each congressional district within a state to earn those electoral votes—forcing candidates to campaign everywhere, not just swing states.

• Ban or severely restrict campaign donations; replace them with a publicly funded pool financed by candidate filing fees and a small payroll deduction from elected officials’ salaries. If private donations remain, limit them to donors or corporations physically based in the representative’s district or senator’s state.

• Pass a constitutional amendment setting one eight-year term for president, vice president, representatives, and senators—with no consecutive second terms. Anyone could run again after sitting out eight years.

• End the practice of using must-pass appropriations bills to strong-arm states into policy changes (the old “55 mph speed limit or lose highway funds” trick). Laws should be made through actual statutes, not budget riders.

• Set a 10-year maximum career limit in any single federal department or agency so bureaucrats can’t entrench themselves forever.

• Regulate lobbyists: require each to be formally sponsored by a member of Congress from their home district or state, and cap the total number at a reasonable multiple of the 535 members of Congress.

• Amend HIPAA to make it illegal for law enforcement, prosecutors, or courts to access anyone’s reproductive-health records—even with a warrant—protecting medical privacy across the board.

Taken together, these ideas form a coherent, people-first agenda. They draw fiscal conservatism and strong defense from the right, while embracing pragmatic humanitarianism and institutional reform from the left.

The video’s call for pluralism with guardrails reminds us that purple politics isn’t naïve compromise—it’s the realistic path to keeping a shared country intact when realities are diverging. It’s about building a nation where facts still matter, opportunity is real, and government works for the many rather than the few. In short, a purple platform that never was could still become the one that actually works.

Not being any type of medical professional myself, only having a masters degree in psychology (Addictions counseling)—I list, in retrospect, some of my wife's past medical history that may well have been “road signs” indicating the growth of her now-known glioblastoma.

My wife is 56 years old now, and over the last ten years she has experienced a series of seemingly unrelated medical issues that, when viewed together in the context of her current diagnosis, paint a clear picture of an emerging tumor in the left cerebral hemisphere. The pathology report confirms a classic primary IDH-wildtype glioblastoma with a full molecular profile that includes TERT promoter mutation C260T, EGFR mutations p.A269V and p.V774M, PTEN mutation p.F21Lfs*3, TP53 mutation p.R262W, CDK4 copy number amplification (13 copies), 7p/7q region copy number gain (3 copies), CDKN2A hemizygous copy number loss, and copy number losses in the 6q, 10q, and 14q regions. MGMT promoter methylation was negative by allele-specific PCR, meaning the tumor is unmethylated and therefore more resistant to temozolomide (Temodar), the chemotherapy commonly used to prevent cancer cells from repairing DNA damage after radiation.

I know, that's a lot of medi-speak, but I want to establish—short of posting all of my wife's info—that this is a real experience we are going through.

Backwards Gazing

The first noticeable signs appeared as general “arthritic pain” in her right shoulder and right knee, with no specific injury or trauma to explain it. Because the tumor sits in the left hemisphere—which controls the right side of the body—these right-sided complaints may have been early motor or sensory disruptions caused by the slowly expanding mass and surrounding edema. At the time, however, they were dismissed as ordinary age-related wear and tear.

Next came a total hysterectomy prompted by a non-malignant mass that had grown on her right ovary. Not long afterward, she required gallbladder removal—not because of stones, the usual culprit, but because the gallbladder was “working too fast,” a hyperkinetic state that may have reflected subtle autonomic imbalance from left-hemisphere irritation.

Her gait began to lose its smooth rhythm, and she noticed a very slight change in the strength of her left leg and foot. Although the left hemisphere primarily affects the right side, early mass effect and edema can sometimes produce subtler or compensatory symptoms. Doctors examined her and found nothing conclusive.

As an ESL speaker whose first language is Korean, she also developed a very slight stutter, especially noticeable when speaking English. Many patients with left-sided glioblastomas retain better fluency in their native language than in a second language they have spoken proficiently for years; the tumor’s location in language-dominant areas selectively taxed her English word recall and articulation while sparing Korean more effectively.

Mentally and emotionally, she has taken medication for mild general anxiety for many years—the effects of being a long time 'Army wife' and mother of 3 children. In the past few years, however, we observed a significant drop in the effectiveness of her anxiety meds along with worsening sleep problems. We now understand these as may having been classic manifestations of cerebral edema surrounding the glioblastoma, which increases intracranial pressure and disrupts normal neurotransmitter balance and sleep regulation. What looked like “just more anxiety” was, in reality, the tumor’s growing footprint inside her skull.

None of these issues, when they appeared one by one over a decade, would have prompted any physician—including a psychiatrist who is also a licensed neurologist—to order a head CT or MRI. Each symptom on its own was explainable by common, benign conditions. Only when viewed retrospectively, against the backdrop of the confirmed molecular diagnosis, do they line up like road signs pointing straight to the left-hemisphere mass.

I have not been able to find anything in medical journals or generally available information that “connects the dots” between a person’s past medical history, cognitive behavior, or mental-health changes and the eventual diagnosis of this specific type of glioblastoma. The tumor’s molecular drivers are considered sporadic, arising from random somatic mutations in neural stem cells rather than from any single environmental or inherited trigger.

Why tell all of you? Because glioblastoma is still widely considered a health issue of usually elderly persons, yet my wife is not elderly. At 56 she is over 50, but not as old as the typical patient. Medical information shows a growing group of people from their mid-30s to mid-60s being diagnosed with the same aggressive type of tumor as my wife’s—a non-methylated, IDH-wildtype glioblastoma. Its DNA profile makes it resistant to temozolomide, the drug used to help prevent cancer cells from repairing themselves after radiation. This makes the tumor much harder to treat. (It is important to keep in mind that no cancer is truly “curable” once you have it; you always live with the knowledge that it could return.)

It probably would not have mattered much if the tumor had been found earlier, other than possibly reducing the current severity of her symptoms. It may have been slightly more operable, but only a little. Operating on a left-sided tumor carries real risks of affecting speech and the ability to walk or move normally.

And maybe the scariest part is that it is not caused by anything known to science. No healthy habits would have prevented it. Whatever is driving this silent increase in cases among people in industrialized nations—particularly in the broad mid-30 to mid-60 age group—is neither clearly identified nor preventable at present. It is something common to both the United States and South Korea, where my wife and I grew up. One memory that comes to mind is us as kids chasing the “smoke truck” driving through our neighborhoods spraying for mosquitoes. They did that in Korea as well. But no one knows for sure, and medical research tends to focus far more on developing new treatments than on investigating possible sources.

I have looked into cell phone use, not that I ever thought it would be the cause—which has been extensively researched, and there is no established causation or correlation with glioblastoma. Besides, my wife never even used a cell phone until about 18 months ago, and even then she used it only for apps, never holding it to her head for calls.

I share our story in the hope that it helps other families and caregivers recognize that a constellation of otherwise ordinary complaints—right-sided pain, unexplained visceral surgeries, gait changes, language quirks in a bilingual speaker, and suddenly refractory anxiety—can occasionally be the quiet heralds of a left-hemisphere glioblastoma. In an era when we have advanced molecular profiling and adaptive platform trials at cancer research centers, earlier awareness might translate into earlier intervention and better symptom management, even if the disease itself remains sporadic and difficult to prevent. Much like early detection and intervention is done for children being found early on with learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorders.

Be willing to advocate for yourself with urgency. If something feels wrong and no one is connecting the dots, say so plainly, document the symptoms, and press for further testing or another opinion. It is better to risk sounding insistent than to let a serious problem go unexplored.

My wife’s journey is still unfolding. The unmethylated MGMT status and the DNA composition of her tumor mean standard chemoradiation offers more limited benefit, yet the precision of her tumor’s genetic map also opens doors to biomarker-driven trials targeting very specific pathways to the tumor that are known to neuro-oncologists. We remain grateful for the science that has given us this detailed roadmap and hopeful that sharing our experience contributes, in some small way, to greater understanding and support for others walking this same difficult path, even if only ONE READER comes away from this essay and gets a tumor detected and treated early, I will call it “victory”, with unrequited love, even if I never know you.

Editors note: Please consider donating to the GoFundMe Ted set up to help cover travel and other expenses they’ve accrued during this difficult time for their family.

Ted has also provided his Cashapp where direct donations can be sent: $TEDAGENS

In my interview with Amanda Potter, Democratic candidate for South Dakota House District 9, we talked not just about policy, but about the personal experiences that shaped why she’s running.

Potter moved to Sioux Falls from North Dakota in 2005 and has now spent more than 20 years building her life in South Dakota. She is raising a son, works in health care, and has experience as a nonprofit grant writer focused on child care and education. That background came through clearly in our conversation, especially as she spoke about the pressures facing working families and the need for government to be more responsive to everyday people.

A major focus of her campaign is affordability. Potter pointed to rising property taxes, grocery bills, gas prices and child care costs as some of the biggest burdens facing households in District 9. She argued that when the state has a surplus, residents should actually feel the benefit of it, especially in areas like education and child care that directly affect families and workforce stability.

Education was one of the clearest through-lines in our discussion. Drawing on her grant-writing experience, Potter criticized block grant-style funding approaches that can leave smaller communities at a disadvantage and create uncertainty for schools and child care providers. She also pushed back on what she sees as political overreach into curriculum, saying education policy should be shaped by teachers, experts and people with real experience in the field.

We also talked about her broader message of transparency, bipartisanship and public trust. Potter said she wants government to focus less on division and more on practical, win-win solutions. That included discussion of voting access, gun violence as a public health issue, and the need for accountability when it comes to hyper-scale data center development in South Dakota.

One of the more personal points she made is that she does not see politics as a lifelong career path. She said she wants to serve for a limited time, keep her day job, stay close to family life, and remain grounded in the same realities her constituents face.

At the center of her campaign is a simple idea: people in District 9 deserve to feel heard, respected and represented.

Special thanks to the IBEW 426 for allowing us to use their space.

On March 28, 2026, thousands of Sioux Falls residents gathered at Drake Springs Park for Indivisible 605’s third No Kings Day of Action protest.

The event took place from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and featured a range of speakers and performances. Speakers included city, state, and congressional-level Democratic candidates, while performances featured groups like Singing Resistance Sioux Falls, a newly formed group separate from Indivisible 605 whose mission is “to give music and purpose to protests,” according to organizers.

Protesters gathered around the stage located just west of the Drake Springs Skate Park, while many more lined the sidewalks along the west side of Cliff Avenue and the south side of 10th Street, stretching as far west as the viaduct leading into downtown Sioux Falls.

Event organizers said their official count showed between 3,000 and 3,500 attendees over the span of two hours. A rough visual estimate by reporters at the scene suggests that figure is likely close to accurate.

Groups such as the ACLU of South Dakota and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America were stationed at the park with stands where they spoke with protesters and handed out informational materials on behalf of their organizations.

Those in attendance ranged from the elderly to children whose parents brought them along to witness the peaceful event on the warm but windy Saturday afternoon.

There was no shortage of signs made by protestors expressing the various sentiments associated with the movement. One sign read “DEMOCRACY NOT DICTATORSHIP” with a caricature of Trump wearing a crown.

Others featured statements such as “Trump Let Iran Sell Billions in Oil!! Did They Buy Weapons to Kill Our Troops” and “Time 2 25th the Epstein President”.

A local protest tied to a national movement

Much like Indivisible 605’s second No Kings protest held in October 2025, the overarching theme of the event was to make it known that in America, there are no kings, and that the country is a democracy in which no one individual holds unchecked power. Organizers and protesters alike expressed concerns over what they described as abuses of power and disregard for constitutional rights by the Trump administration.

“As the regime continues to launch one atrocity after another, threats to democracy and civil rights increase and are beginning to impact all Americans,” said Indivisible 605 organizer Roni Wegner. “We are in a war where the Administration cannot agree on a reason why; while our military men and women sacrifice with their lives. The overreach of this Administration and abdication of Congress has resulted in the murder of numerous human beings and placed others, including children, in filthy, torturous detention centers. And now an assault on voting rights has begun. This is not who we are - in America our constitution rules, and under God, every human deserves dignity.”

At this event, Indivisible 605 promoted their Nationwide Red Line Campaign. The campaign asks Members of Congress “who have a red hat” to find their red line and take action to stop the reckless actions of this Administration. “Participants complete a Red Line letter to be delivered to their MOC; a red crayon is included to help them find their red line,” said Roni Wegner with Indivisible 605.

Common issues touched on throughout the event included the importance of organizing and voting in both local and federal elections, ICE deportations, the shootings of Minneapolis residents just months prior, the affordability crisis many Americans say they are experiencing, and how communities can come together to address those concerns.

Speakers call for organizing, voting, and collective action

Samantha Chapman

Samantha Chapman, advocacy manager for the ACLU of South Dakota, gave a speech focused on what she described as threats to constitutional rights and abuses of power posed by the Trump administration. Speaking on behalf of the ACLU’s mission to defend constitutional rights, Chapman said power belongs to the people, not to President Trump, Governor Kristi Noem, or any one administration. She also criticized South Dakota’s new voter law, S.B. 175, as a barrier to participation and urged attendees to check their registration, meet deadlines, and vote.

Amanda Potter

Amanda Potter, a candidate for South Dakota State House District 9, spoke less as a politician than as a neighbor urging people to see protest as part of a long American tradition. Drawing on examples from the Boston Tea Party, the Civil Rights Movement, and the Stonewall riots, Potter argued that progress is never immediate, but depends on ordinary people who are willing to keep showing up. She encouraged the crowd to turn that energy into action by voting in local and state elections, supporting community candidates, and strengthening the communities around them.

Everett Palmer

Everett Palmer urged attendees to stay rooted in history, community, and one another, arguing that lasting action begins with understanding where those struggles come from. He said people come from “a long lineage of freedom fighters” and pointed to efforts to erase Native American history as a reminder that knowledge itself holds power. Palmer encouraged the crowd not to leave feeling powerless, but to support local organizations, make and support art, volunteer, learn more about South Dakota’s communities, and stay engaged politically.

Nikki Gronli

Congressional candidate Nikki Gronli warned that democracy does not vanish all at once, but instead erodes gradually when people fail to defend it. Framing the upcoming election as a critical moment, Gronli urged voters to stay engaged, take action in November, and continue organizing beyond Election Day.

Amanda Kendall

Amanda Kendall, co-founder of Let Sioux Falls Vote, pointed to local examples such as the data center meeting and a petition drive to argue that voting remains one of the most important ways people can reclaim power. She urged people to register, confirm their voter status, and stay engaged over the long term so community voices are not pushed aside.

Julian Beaudion

Julian Beaudion, a U.S. Senate candidate seeking to unseat Sen. Mike Rounds, argued against what he called unchecked power and urged a return to a democracy where power belongs to the people. He framed the rally as both a protest against current leadership and a stand for accountability, representation, and a government that listens to ordinary people.

Jamie Smith

Sioux Falls mayoral candidate Jamie Smith closed his remarks by laying out a vision for the city centered on unity, inclusion, and collaborative leadership, while urging residents to vote on June 2. Emphasizing that “we are better when we work together,” Smith rejected divisive politics and said leaders should “bring us together” and “breach divides” by engaging with different viewpoints and building mutual understanding.

Music and poetry shaped the event’s tone

Performance also played a role in shaping the tone of the afternoon.

In her poem, KC Brauer moved from personal vulnerability to a message of collective strength, telling the crowd that their presence was itself an act of defending democracy. By connecting individual hardship to shared resilience and ending with a unifying chant, Brauer’s poem emphasized that resisting autocracy requires unity, participation, and a deep love for community.

Singing Resistance Sioux Falls took to the stage to provide political relevance to the protest via song in their first ever public appearance.

A visible show of political energy

As the event came to a close Saturday afternoon, attendees slowly filtered out of Drake Springs Park after two hours of speeches, music, and organizing. With thousands turning out, a visible presence along Cliff Avenue and 10th Street, and multiple advocacy groups participating, the gathering reflected a level of political energy that organizers say continues to grow in Sioux Falls.

For many there, the message was straightforward: democracy depends on participation, and local action remains one way to respond to national concerns.

Sioux Falls residents are expected to join a nationwide “No Kings” day of action on Saturday, March 28, with a local protest planned from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. at Drake Springs Park, organizers said.

The Sioux Falls event, organized by Indivisible 605, is part of protests planned in more than 2,800 cities across all 50 U.S. states and territories, according to the group. Organizers said they expect thousands of people to attend the local demonstration.

The protest is the third “No Kings” event held in Sioux Falls and follows two earlier demonstrations that drew increasing turnout, organizers said. They said this event will include some different speakers from the previous Sioux Falls protest we covered, along with music and other activities.

Planned programming includes Singing Resistance Sioux Falls, a separate group that performs at protests, and “Signs of Fascism,” an Indivisible 605 effort in which participants display signs highlighting what the group describes as authoritarian features of the Trump administration.

Organizers said the event will also feature booths from local organizations working with people affected by the administration’s policies, giving attendees a chance to connect with advocacy and community groups during the demonstration.

Indivisible 605 said it will also promote its “Nationwide Red Line Campaign,” which encourages participants to write letters to their members of Congress urging them to oppose administration actions. Organizers said attendees will be given red crayons to complete the letters.

They also said the local protest is intended to call attention to what the group sees as threats to democracy, civil rights and voting rights under the Trump administration.

According to organizers, the broader “No Kings” movement is meant to underscore that political power in the United States rests with voters, not individual leaders.

During the New Life Church’s Sunday service on March 15th, Pastor Alex Klimchuck gave more details on their potential acquisition of the properties currently housing Andy’s Top Hat and the old print shop next door.

Klimchuck began his “announcement” by thanking his congregation for “standing up” and “defending the church” following the public backlash they received after the owner of the Top Hat publicly announced the bar’s closure and relocation, and the church’s supposed intent to purchase the buildings to possibly demolish them to make room for a larger parking lot.

Pastor Klimchuck then went on to explain how they became aware of the option to purchase the properties, saying, “Well, a couple weeks ago we found out — because we have friends in the city and people talk — that the bar might not be renewing their lease, they might be going somewhere else. Last week, we found out the bar and print shop next door are going on sale.”

According to Klimchuck, they would need to make an $820k bid with a $20k deposit by March 31st to purchase both properties. He also stated that the church does not have those kinds of funds, but that him and other leaders of the church own their own businesses and make money separate from the church.

There are currently no public listings for these two properties, indicating that the church has been in direct contact with the owner about the potential sale of the properties.

Andy and her employees, who were having a team meeting on the 7th, informed us that members from the church had come down to the bar with cameras, looking to take pictures of “their new building.”

However, in replies made to community members on Facebook on March 11th, Pastor Klimchuck, when asked if the church was in talks with the owner to buy the buildings, said, “not yet, but we will be looking into it for sure!”

We reached out to the church for comment, but have not received a response as of the time of publication.

The Top Hat property itself is not just another downtown parcel. It has long functioned as a neighborhood gathering place and remains part of the older social and commercial fabric of Sioux Falls at a time when much of downtown has been transformed by large-scale development, institutional expansion, and surface parking. That does not decide the legal question of designation, but it does explain why the process deserves public attention.

Our publication has formally started the historic-designation process for the property at 508 S. First Ave. in Sioux Falls, filing materials with the City of Sioux Falls and separately forwarding documentation to the South Dakota Historical Society for review.

What happened next is the reason this story matters: the city’s initial response was that Sioux Falls does not do historic designations at the city level, that it only deals with alterations to properties already listed on the National Register, and that designation itself simply follows state action. That position is difficult to square with the plain language of Sioux Falls’ own ordinances.

This matters for more than one reason. The question here is not only whether 508 S. First Ave. qualifies for historic recognition, but whether Sioux Falls follows the preservation process it has already written into law. If the city has a local designation framework on paper, the public has a right to know whether that framework is being applied in practice.

Start with Sioux Falls Municipal Code Chapter 151, the city’s historic-preservation chapter. It does not describe a state-only system. It expressly creates a local register. Section 151.035 states that “the city hereby creates the Sioux Falls Register of Historic Landmarks,” also called the local register. The same chapter lays out local designation criteria in § 151.036, including whether a property is associated with significant events, important people, distinctive architecture, master craftsmanship, a significant historic entity, or the potential to yield important historical information. In other words, the code does not just regulate already-designated places; it establishes a city-run designation framework.

The ordinance is even more specific about who may start the process. Under § 151.037, nominations for inclusion on the local register are made to the Sioux Falls Board of Historic Preservation on a form prepared by the board, and they may be submitted not only by the owner or the City Council, but also by a board member or “any other person or organization.” That language matters. It means a local nomination is not limited to state officials, and it is not limited to property owners alone. The city code itself contemplates that outside organizations can initiate a local-register nomination.

The next steps are also local. Section 151.038 requires the board to notify owners of property nominated to the local register at least 14 days before the hearing and requires published notice in the city’s official newspaper. Section 151.039 says the board must adopt a resolution recommending whether the property does or does not meet the designation criteria, and § 151.040 requires that determination to be mailed to the owner and, if the board finds the criteria are met, forwarded to the City Council for official designation by ordinance. Finally, § 151.042 says the City Council shall either reject the recommendation or designate the property on the local register by ordinance within 60 days after receiving the board’s resolution or an owner appeal. That is a city-level designation process, spelled out step by step in the municipal code.

State law points in the same direction. South Dakota Codified Laws chapter 1-19B authorizes municipalities to create historic-preservation commissions and to act locally. SDCL 1-19B-2 says a municipality may establish a historic preservation commission. SDCL 1-19B-20 says a local governing body may adopt an ordinance designating one or more historic properties. SDCL 1-19B-53 says local governments may impose regulations or restrictions for the protection, enhancement, preservation, and use of historic properties. Those state statutes are enabling laws for local action, not barriers to it.

What the city appears to be referencing instead is a different legal authority: the review of work affecting properties already on the state or national register. SDCL 1-19B-62 allows a municipality to require review of undertakings that may encroach on, damage, or destroy property already included on the state or national register. That is important authority, but it is not the same thing as local designation. Sioux Falls’ own board application page reflects that alteration-review role, stating that certain structural projects on historic properties and in historic districts must be reviewed by the Board of Historic Preservation. But that project-review authority exists alongside — not in place of — the city’s separate local-register process in Chapter 151.

The city’s own records also show that a local register exists in practice, not just on paper. § 151.048 lists 18 properties, districts, parks, and sites that have been reviewed by the board, reported to the City Council, and placed on the register of historic places. Meanwhile, the South Dakota State Register of Historic Places master list, last updated in December 2024, shows a smaller set of Sioux Falls entries in Minnehaha County. That gap is exactly what you would expect if local designation and state designation are separate legal categories rather than one automatic, lockstep process. The National Park Service says the same thing plainly: National Register listing does not automatically invoke local landmark designation, which means local governments retain their own preservation systems.

Put simply, the contradiction is hard to ignore. The city code appears to establish a local designation process, yet the city’s initial response suggested that Sioux Falls does not do historic designations at the city level at all. That discrepancy is not a technical footnote. It is the central issue.

Our outreach to the state also fits the published process. The South Dakota Historical Society says its preservation office works on nominations to the State and National Register of Historic Places, and its National Register guidance says anyone can nominate a property by starting with the State Historic Preservation Office. The National Park Service likewise says nominations can come from property owners, historical societies, preservation organizations, governmental agencies, and other individuals or groups. At the same time, the National Park Service confirms that owners have an opportunity to object, and that if an individual owner objects, the property cannot be listed in the National Register, though it may still move forward for a determination of eligibility. So the state specialist’s comment that owner support is preferred was not unusual; it reflects a real part of the state and federal nomination landscape.

None of this means 508 S. First Ave. is guaranteed to be designated. Eligibility still has to be evaluated, the board still has to act, and the City Council still has to make a decision. But it does mean the public deserves an accurate description of the process. Sioux Falls’ own code says the city has a local register, says nominations may be filed by organizations like ours, and says the Board of Historic Preservation and City Council each have defined roles in deciding whether a property should be added. Our filing did not invent a process. It used one the city already wrote into law.

This is also only the beginning. In the next phase of our reporting, we will examine how city and state officials responded after the filing, what standards were cited to us, and whether those standards appear in the governing law at all. That question extends beyond a single building. If written preservation rules can be narrowed, expanded, or informally rewritten depending on the property in front of officials, then the issue is not just historic designation. It is whether the public can rely on the law as written.

“El Mencho” was the nickname of Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, a Mexican cartel boss best known as the founder and top leader of the Cártel Jalisco Nueva Generación (CJNG), one of Mexico’s most powerful and violent criminal organizations.

He was killed in an attempted capture by the Mexican Army, which has led to widespread retaliatory violence — largely “narco-blockades” and arson. Reporting indicates over 200 blockades nationwide in Mexico as of February 22nd, 2026, and numerous deaths of security personnel and cartel members.

What U.S. warnings actually tell us about the operation that reportedly killed El Mencho

On Feb 22, 2026, the language coming out of the U.S. Mission in Mexico was a straightforward, “Shelter in place.”

As Mexico’s security forces reportedly killed Nemesio Rubén Oseguera Cervantes, known as El Mencho, during an operation in Jalisco, the U.S. alerts spread outward across a surprising geography. The map was the story. Not because it proves who pulled the trigger, but because it shows how quickly officials believed instability could infect civilians areas.

What follows is a timeline tied to what can be verified, separated from what is still rumor dressed up as certainty.

What we can verify and what we cannot

The most important sourcing detail is also the most annoying one. The official U.S. Mission Mexico security alert page existed and was referenced widely, but the page itself was intermittently inaccessible during retrieval in the source gathering used for this write-up. That means the precise posted-at timestamps cannot be quoted directly here from the primary page.

What we can verify with high confidence is the scope and sequence of the warnings because multiple reputable outlets summarized the alert language and listed the affected locations, including the reporting that described a morning alert followed by an expanded afternoon update in the same day.

After speaking with someone I know personally — my Electric Forest camping neighbor from 2019 — I was told their mother-in-law is currently in Mexico. They said that roughly an hour heading out from Puerto Vallarta, in the town of La Manzanilla, roads are closed. She was told by a tour guide to stay in the hotel and not come out.

Timeline of the shelter in place alerts on Feb 22, 2026

Mexico uses local time, and the reporting generally describes the alerts as morning and afternoon rather than giving minute-by-minute timestamps.

A U.S. Embassy security alert summarized by the San Francisco Chronicle directed U.S. citizens in multiple states to shelter in place due to ongoing security operations and related road blockages and criminal activity.

Locations named in the morning scope, as described in that reporting, include: Puerto Vallarta, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Tamaulipas, Guerrero, Nuevo León, and Parts of Michoacán as of the afternoon of Feb 22.

The same day, the alert was expanded, according to the San Francisco Chronicle’s reporting on the afternoon update. The expansion matters because it reaches beyond the immediate footprint of Jalisco and into major tourist corridors.

Locations added or emphasized in the afternoon expansion include: Baja California, Quintana Roo, including Cancún, Cozumel, Playa del Carmen, and Tulum, Areas of Guanajuato, and Areas of Oaxaca.

U.S. government personnel guidance the same day reporting also notes that U.S. government personnel in impacted zones such as Tijuana were directed to shelter in place, a sign the posture wasn’t only about tourists but also about operational risk to U.S. staff. The clearest single summary of that posture in the source set comes from the same San Francisco Chronicle report.

How the alerts correlate with the reported Jalisco operation

The central event was the reported death of El Mencho during an operation in Tapalpa, Jalisco, described as a capture attempt that ended in lethal force. The Associated Press report on the operation and the death is one of the most straightforward, high-credibility accounts in the available reporting.

What happened next is the part that makes the U.S. alert map make sense. Multiple outlets describe a wave of retaliatory violence that included road blockages and vehicles set on fire, the sort of disruption that can leap from one state to another like sparks in dry grass. The Financial Times report on the nationwide violence after the reported killing captures that wider shockwave, and the Associated Press coverage aligns with the same pattern.

This is the core correlation
a high-profile strike in Jalisco, followed by multi-state instability consistent with the embassy’s stated reasons for warning people to shelter in place.

What the geographic spread suggests and what it does not

This is where people get sloppy, because humans love a thriller.

A shelter in place alert is not a fingerprint on a weapon. It is a risk bulletin. When the U.S. expands warnings into places like Quintana Roo, it does not automatically mean the triggering event happened there. It means officials believe conditions could deteriorate there, and that Americans there are exposed in a way that’s worth a public instruction.

The expansion to areas such as Cancún and Tulum can be read as a conservative protective move toward high-density U.S. traveler hubs, especially when uncertainty is high and rumors travel faster than confirmation. The People summary of the shelter in place warnings also frames the alerts through the lens of traveler safety rather than operational attribution.

Extent of U.S. involvement

The extent of U.S. involvement, per credible sources, suggests it amounted to intelligence support and coordination, not direct kinetic action.

The Associated Press reporting describes the operation as supported by U.S. intelligence, which is consistent with how bilateral security cooperation often appears in public record.

The Guardian’s account of the reported killing and its framing also describes U.S. involvement in terms of intelligence support.

So far, there is no credible information showing direct U.S. military action on Mexican soil.

None of the high-credibility sources referenced here substantiate claims that U.S. troops carried out the raid, that U.S. aircraft conducted a strike, or that the operation was executed as a direct U.S. military action.

If you see those claims circulating, treat them the way you treat a fireworks stand selling gourmet vegetables.

Why this day matters beyond the news cycle

Cartels do not evaporate when leaders die. They mutate, they fracture, they retaliate, and they recruit new myths. The CJNG has built a reputation for rapid, spectacular disruption, and the pattern of roadblocks and arson described in major reporting fits that institutional muscle memory.

The U.S. alerts matter because they show how quickly officials believed the ripple could spread. They also show something else, quietly. The border is not a line. It’s a shared weather system. When one pressure front slams into Jalisco, the barometer moves in Cancún, in Tijuana, in the routines of ordinary people trying to get home before dark.

That’s what the warnings tell us. Not who fired. Not who planned. Not what the internet wants to believe.

They tell us where the risk was expected to run.

In this footage, you can see Good’s wife filming and smack talking the agent, claiming she is a veteran. As the agent makes his way around the vehicle, seemingly trying to get a 360° view of the car for documentation purposes, another agent approaches the vehicle demanding she exit. Good’s wife then attempts to re-enter the vehicle, which is the moment Good put the vehicle in reverse.

Moments later, Good starts accelerating and seems to come into contact with the agent, who then fired the fatal rounds — one into her windshield, and two through the open driver side window — ultimately killing her.

By the time Jeffrey Epstein was arrested again in July 2019, the justice system had already failed its first test.

Palm Beach police had done their jobs. Federal agents had opened a trafficking case. Prosecutors had drafted an indictment. And then the Department of Justice cut a secret non‑prosecution agreement that let Epstein plead to minor state charges, kept his “potential co‑conspirators” off the books, and violated the Crime Victims’ Rights Act by hiding the deal from the girls who were supposed to be protected by it.

For more than a decade, that decision worked. Epstein did his 13 months of Florida “work release,” went back to his mansions and planes, and, according to multiple victim accounts and later lawsuits, kept abusing girls in other locations.

What finally broke the spell wasn’t some sudden moral awakening inside the DOJ. It was a combination of:

• Survivors and their lawyers refusing to go away

• The Miami Herald detonating the Florida cover‑up on A1

• A political climate that was finally punishing institutions for looking the other way on powerful men’s abuse

That’s how you get to Part 2. The 2019 SDNY indictment, Epstein’s death inside the Metropolitan Correctional Center (MCC), and a long, bipartisan pattern of talking big about accountability while doing very little to expose the full paper trail.

From “Perversion of Justice” to a new indictment

In late 2018, the Herald’s “Perversion of Justice” series did what internal oversight and congressional letters had failed to do. It made the Florida deal a national scandal.

By naming survivors, publishing documents, and walking through the non‑prosecution agreement in plain English, the series:

• Validated what victims and their lawyers had been saying for years about being cut out of the process

• Embarrassed the DOJ and the federal courts

• Put political pressure on everyone who had quietly accepted “that’s just how it worked” in 2008

Federal prosecutors outside Florida were paying attention.

SDNY steps in

On July 2, 2019, a federal grand jury in the Southern District of New York returned an indictment charging Epstein with:

• One count of sex trafficking of minors

• One count of conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors

The indictment alleged that:

• Beginning “in at least 2002” and continuing through 2005, Epstein enticed and recruited “dozens” of minor girls, some as young as 14, to engage in sex acts with him at his Manhattan townhouse and Palm Beach residence

• He paid them cash — typically hundreds of dollars — and in many cases asked them to recruit additional girls, creating a pyramid of “victim‑recruiters” that expanded his access to more minors

On July 8, 2019, SDNY unsealed the charges publicly and announced Epstein’s arrest. Their official case page is blunt. This was not a one‑off vice bust, it was a trafficking conspiracy.

At his bail hearing, prosecutors argued Epstein was an extreme flight risk with a history of manipulating processes and people, including law enforcement. The judge agreed. Epstein was ordered held pending trial at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in Manhattan.

The Florida slap‑on‑the‑wrist era was over.

Until MCC reminded everyone that the system can fail in more than one way.

Maxwell moves from the background to the dock

While this part of the series is about Epstein himself, you can’t understand the second case without Ghislaine Maxwell.

The 2019 indictment described a recruiting structure: girls bringing in other girls, cash payments, coordinated travel. It didn’t name Maxwell, but it set up the architecture of the later case against her.

In 2020, federal prosecutors in SDNY charged Maxwell with multiple counts related to:

• Recruiting, grooming, and transporting minors

• Conspiring with Epstein to entice and transport minors for illegal sex acts

• Perjury in earlier civil proceedings

In December 2021, a jury convicted Maxwell on five federal counts, including conspiracy to transport minors for criminal sexual activity, transportation of a minor with intent to engage in criminal sexual activity, and sex trafficking of a minor.

In June 2022, she was sentenced to 20 years in prison by Judge Alison Nathan. The Justice Department described her, accurately, as having “played a critical role in the sexual exploitation and abuse of multiple minor girls” by Epstein over the course of a decade.

Maxwell has appealed and lost at multiple levels. The Supreme Court recently declined to overturn her conviction. Barring extraordinarily unlikely relief, she is in for the long haul.

That conviction is important for two reasons:

1. It legally confirms a conspiracy, not just a lone predator

2. It gives the DOJ and the courts a second set of case files — grand jury transcripts, discovery, internal memos — that the Epstein Files Act now points directly at

But before we get to the paperwork, we have to look at what happened inside MCC.

Inside MCC: what we actually know about his death

On August 10, 2019, Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell in the Special Housing Unit at MCC. The New York City medical examiner ruled his death a suicide by hanging.

That’s the line most people know. The details underneath it are uglier.

Timeline in custody

According to the Justice Department’s Inspector General (OIG), which released a detailed report in 2023, the basic timeline from arrest to death looks like this:

• July 6–8, 2019: Epstein is arrested and brought into federal custody. He’s eventually assigned to the Special Housing Unit (SHU) at MCC because of his profile

• July 23, 2019: Epstein is found on the floor of his cell with marks on his neck. There is a dispute about whether this was a suicide attempt or an assault by a cellmate, but everyone agrees it was a red‑flag event

• Late July: Epstein is placed on suicide watch for several days, then downgraded back to the SHU after clinicians determine he no longer meets the criteria

• August 9–10, 2019: Epstein is left alone in his cell overnight, contrary to policy. The two officers assigned to his range fail to make required checks and later falsify logs saying they had. Cameras in parts of the unit are mis‑positioned or not working properly. Epstein is found dead in the early hours of August 10

This is the part of the story where the meme “Epstein didn’t kill himself” takes over. But if you actually read the OIG report — yes, it’s long. No, it’s not fun — you end up with something less cinematic and more infuriating:

A combination of negligence, misconduct, and basic job failures gave Epstein “the opportunity to take his own life,” in the Inspector General’s words.

The documented failures

OIG and press coverage document a list of failures that would get any warden fired even if their most notorious inmate weren’t dead.

Understaffing and overtime:

• Chronic staffing shortages left the unit undermanned

• Officers were working extensive overtime and sleeping on the job

Policy violations:

• Required 30‑minute rounds to check on SHU inmates simply did not happen

• Two officers on Epstein’s unit later admitted to falsifying log entries to make it look like they had done the rounds. They were charged and entered into deferred prosecution agreements

Cellmate and placement decisions:

• Epstein had been removed from suicide watch and returned to the SHU

• Policies calling for a cellmate for high‑risk inmates were not consistently followed. At the time of his death, he was alone

Security systems:

• Cameras in parts of the unit had problems — whether positioning, malfunction, or both

• Video coverage was incomplete or unreliable precisely where you would want it to be bulletproof

When you stack that up, the picture is less “perfect murder” and more “the Bureau of Prisons is a mess, and a uniquely high‑profile detainee happened to be inside that mess when he decided he’d rather die than stand trial.”

That doesn’t make it acceptable. It just makes the failure less mysterious and more structural.

Suicide, homicide, and the conspiracy gap

The fact‑pattern is bad enough that you don’t need a conspiracy to be outraged. But we’re living in a country where no one trusts institutions, especially not on anything involving power, sex, and blackmail.

So it’s worth being very clear about what the official investigations actually say, and what they don’t.

What the official findings say

• The New York City medical examiner ruled Epstein’s death a suicide by hanging

• The FBI investigated and “determined there was no criminality pertaining to how Epstein had died,” according to the OIG report

• The OIG concluded that “numerous and serious failures” by MCC staff — negligence, misconduct, policy violations — gave him the chance to kill himself, but did not find evidence that anyone murdered him

That’s the official record.

Why people don’t buy it

A few reasons, some rational, some not…

Epstein wasn’t a random fraudster. He was a man with deep ties to powerful people on both sides of the Atlantic. The idea that he conveniently died before trial is tailor‑made for suspicion.

Being taken off suicide watch, left alone, guards sleeping, cameras malfunctioning — if you were trying to write a plausible scenario for “if someone wanted him gone, this is how it would go,” it would look a lot like what actually happened.

The DOJ took years to release the full OIG report, dribbled out details through leaks and press conferences, and has historically fought broad disclosure in the case, which does nothing to build confidence.

Add to that the fact that Epstein’s brother hired a pathologist who publicly questioned the suicide ruling based on certain bone fractures, and you get a perfect cloud of “maybe” that never quite resolves into evidence. (That pathologist’s view has not been adopted by any official body.)

Where I land

Given that…

• The OIG’s documentation of serious systemic failures

• The medical examiner’s ruling

• The absence of any credible, evidence‑backed alternative explanation after years of scrutiny

the honest place to sit is:

• FACT: Official investigations conclude Epstein died by suicide, enabled by gross mismanagement and misconduct at MCC

• FACT: The conditions and decisions surrounding his death were so bad they naturally fuel distrust and conspiracy

• ALLEGATION/SPECULATION: Claims that he was murdered by or on behalf of specific people remain unproven. No evidence strong enough to survive serious scrutiny has surfaced yet

If the coming document releases change that, we update. But we don’t pretend we’re already in on the secret.

Trump’s Justice Department: outrage, an investigation, and a narrow lens

Epstein’s death happened under Donald Trump’s first term, with Attorney General Bill Barr overseeing the Justice Department.

The response was loud, but limited.

Trump’s reaction

Within days of Epstein’s death, Trump retweeted a post pushing a conspiracy theory that former President Bill Clinton was somehow involved in Epstein’s death, without evidence. When questioned, he defended the retweet and said he wanted a “full investigation” into what happened at MCC.

This is how Trump tends to use scandals: suggest your opponents might be guilty of something terrible, then position yourself as the guy who just wants answers.

Barr’s promises

Barr publicly called Epstein’s death a “perfect storm of screw‑ups” and vowed to get to the bottom of it. He:

• Ordered the OIG investigation that produced the 2023 report

• Had the DOJ pursue charges against the guards who falsified logs

• Repeatedly emphasized that there would be accountability for MCC’s failures

On that narrow question — what happened in the jail — Trump’s DOJ ultimately did what it said it would: it investigated, documented the failures, and disciplined some of the responsible staff.

What it didn’t do is just as important:

• There was no broad directive to declassify or release the federal investigative file on Epstein

• There was no push to unseal everything from the Florida NPA to the SDNY investigation and Maxwell‑related materials

• FOIA requests and congressional inquiries about Epstein’s broader network and the DOJ’s decision‑making were handled the way sensitive cases are usually handled. Slowly, narrowly, and with heavy redactions

Trump’s political use of Epstein — especially his attempts to pin the entire saga on Democrats and the Clintons — never turned into a structural transparency push while he actually controlled the Justice Department.

It stayed a talking point.

Biden’s Justice Department: a successful prosecution and a cautious shade of sunlight

If you listen to Trump and some Republican leadership now, you’d think Democrats spent the entire Biden term doing everything possible to bury the Epstein story.

Reality is more complicated (and less flattering to anyone).

What Democrats did before and after 2019

A PolitiFact review of Democrats’ record on Epstein transparency, backed by original documents, shows that:

• Before 2019, some Democrats in Congress pushed the DOJ to investigate the Florida plea deal, release records, and call Alex Acosta (then Trump’s Labor Secretary) to testify

• After the Herald series, they pressed for OPR findings, supported CVRA litigation, and asked a Florida judge to unseal more materials

• That pressure helped set the table for SDNY’s 2019 case and for Acosta’s eventual resignation

So it’s not true that Democrats “never cared” until 2025. They did act — imperfectly, unevenly, but measurably.

Biden DOJ: Maxwell conviction vs. file access

Under President Joe Biden, the Justice Department:

• Successfully prosecuted Ghislaine Maxwell, secured a conviction on five federal counts, and obtained a 20‑year sentence

• Continued to defend the Florida NPA in court, arguing about remedies long after Epstein’s death

• Often cited the ongoing Maxwell prosecution — and later, related investigations — as reasons not to release certain records or to delay oversight activity

Politifact and other fact‑checks note a pattern familiar to anyone who’s watched the DOJ for more than five minutes. When there is an active high‑profile case, the Department leans hard on “we can’t talk about that, it might prejudice the trial” as a shield against broader transparency.

That argument is not always wrong. You genuinely can’t dump certain discovery materials onto the internet while you’re trying to pick a jury.

But there’s a difference between protecting a specific prosecution and using that as a blanket excuse not to talk about your own past failure.

On that front, Biden’s DOJ:

• Did not move aggressively to declassify internal files about the 2008 plea deal

• Did not champion a dedicated Epstein records law

• Largely left the initiative on transparency to members of Congress like Ro Khanna, survivors, and outside watchdogs

In other words, they were better than the meme (“Democrats did nothing”), but nowhere near as aggressive as they could have been. Once Maxwell was convicted, you might have expected a louder push from a Democratic administration that likes to brand itself as pro‑victim and pro‑accountability.

Instead, most of the energy came from the legislative branch.

The long, slow walk to the Epstein Files Act

By the time we get to 2025, what you see is a bipartisan record that looks something like this…

Republicans:

• Used Epstein as a political cudgel (especially against the Clintons and other Democrats)

• Oversaw the jail where he died and produced a solid, if narrow, OIG report on that death

• But did not, under Trump’s first term, push for a comprehensive records release

Democrats:

• Pushed for investigations into the Florida plea

• Demanded Acosta’s testimony and DOJ internal reviews

• Prosecuted Maxwell successfully under Biden

• But mostly accepted DOJ’s cautious posture on releasing broader files

Neither side was eager to force the issue of exposing everyone in the wider network — elite donors, business leaders, academics, government officials — whose names and roles might show up in the investigative files.

That pressure had to come from somewhere else.

It came from:

• Survivors who spent years reliving trauma in depositions and interviews

• An online public that refused to let the story go, even when the discourse got messy and conspiratorial

• An unlikely partnership between Rep. Ro Khanna (a progressive Democrat) and Rep. Thomas Massie (a libertarian‑leaning Republican) who put an Epstein records bill on the table and refused to shut up about it

When House leadership — Republican and Democrat — dragged its feet, Khanna and Massie used a discharge petition to force a floor vote. The result was a 427-1 House vote and unanimous consent in the Senate for what became the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which Trump eventually signed after fighting it for months and calling the Epstein focus a “hoax” and a distraction.

That story — the law itself, what it actually requires the DOJ to publish, what exceptions it leaves, and how Attorney General Pam Bondi is already maneuvering — is Part 3.

For now, the key point is this…

It should not have taken two presidencies, a botched jail detention, a dead defendant, a convicted co‑conspirator, a $290 million bank settlement, an army of survivors, and an internet full of people screaming “release the files” to get Congress to say, “maybe we should see our own paperwork.”

But it did.

What we know now — and what we don’t

If you strip away the memes and the partisan spin, this is where the factual line sits at the end of Part 2:

• Epstein’s second indictment (SDNY, 2019) confirmed in formal charges what Palm Beach investigators had already seen: a trafficking operation that used underage girls as both victims and recruiters across New York and Florida from at least 2002 to 2005

• Ghislaine Maxwell’s conviction and 20‑year sentence legally established that Epstein didn’t do this alone, and that at least one member of his inner circle has now been held criminally responsible

• Epstein’s death in MCC was, according to every official investigation we have, a suicide enabled by gross negligence and misconduct by BOP staff and leadership — not a proven homicide

• Both Trump’s DOJ and Biden’s DOJ did pieces of the job — one investigated the death, the other prosecuted Maxwell — but neither was eager to open the full investigatory record to the public without being forced

• It took congressional hardball and public pressure to get a law on the books that finally says, in writing, that embarrassment and reputational harm are not valid reasons to hide public records in a case like this

What we still don’t know, even after the OIG report and the Maxwell trial:

• The full extent of who inside government and law enforcement knew what, and when, in the years between the Florida deal and the 2019 indictment

• How many people — especially in institutions like banks, universities, and foundations — had enough information to know something was deeply wrong and chose to look away anyway

• Whether the files will reveal any currently unknown crimes or just an uncomfortable level of proximity and complicity from people whose public brands depend on not being anywhere near any of this

That’s where the Epstein Files Transparency Act comes in. It’s not a magic wand. It’s a legal crowbar. And in Part 3, we’re going to pry.

We’ll walk through:

• What the law actually forces DOJ to release (and by when)

• What categories of information can still be withheld or blacked out

• What’s already starting to surface in the first wave of court fights and document dumps

• Who, if anyone, has faced real consequences since Congress finally decided to stop pretending this was just one man’s crime

Because if this system can bend itself around Jeffrey Epstein twice, the only real test of the new law is whether it can stand up, finally, to the people who helped him.

Together with the sources in Part 1, this set of documents and straight‑news reporting gives us enough to distinguish what’s fact, what’s allegation, and what’s still guesswork in the second half of Epstein’s story. Part 3 will lean heavily on the text of the Epstein Files Act, early release fights, and newly exposed correspondence to see who, if anyone, is finally losing the protection the system gave them for decades.

Citations

I’m focusing here on straight‑news and primary‑document sources for the second arrest, the MCC death, and the partisan transparency record.

1. SDNY 2019 indictment and case materials

   • U.S. Attorney’s Office, Southern District of New York, case page for United States v. Jeffrey Epstein, 19 Cr. 490 (RMB), summarizing the July 8, 2019 charges for sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy. Department of Justice

   • Federal court order summarizing the indictment and arrest timeline. U.S District Court

   • Fact checks and copies of the 2019 indictment describing charges, timeframe (2002–2005), and the “victim‑recruiter” structure in New York and Florida. Factually

2. Ghislaine Maxwell conviction and sentence

   • DOJ press release: “Ghislaine Maxwell Sentenced to 20 Years in Prison for Conspiring with Jeffrey Epstein to Sexually Abuse Minors,” U.S. Attorney’s Office, SDNY. Department of Justice

   • Fact checks summarizing her 2021 conviction on five counts and the 20‑year sentence imposed in June 2022. Factually

   • Coverage of her appeals and the Supreme Court’s refusal to overturn the conviction. Factually

3. Epstein’s death and the OIG report on MCC

   • DOJ Office of Inspector General report (2023) on Epstein’s custody and death at MCC, detailing staffing shortages, falsified logs, cellmate issues, and camera problems. DOJ OIG+2Factually

   • NPR reporting on the OIG findings and the conclusion that negligence and job failures contributed to Epstein’s suicide. NPR Illinois

   • New York City medical examiner’s suicide determination as referenced in coverage of the OIG report. NPR Illinois

4. Trump’s and Barr’s responses to Epstein’s death

   • Fact checks detailing Trump’s retweet of a Clinton‑focused conspiracy theory and his subsequent call for a “full investigation.” Factually

   • Reporting and commentary on Barr’s description of a “perfect storm of screw‑ups,” his ordering of the OIG investigation, and his deposition comments that Trump was shocked by Epstein’s suicide. DOJ OIG

5. Democrats, Biden DOJ, and transparency record

   • PolitiFact: “Have Democrats always been interested in Epstein case transparency? We looked back,” tracing Democratic letters and efforts to scrutinize the Florida plea and push DOJ for records. PolitiFact

   • Press release from Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz summarizing Democratic actions, including calls for Acosta to testify, DOJ investigations, and requests to Florida courts to release records. Debbie Wasserman Schultz

   • Fact checks and explainer pieces from outlets like Al Jazeera on whether Democrats acted during the Biden years on Epstein transparency or left most of the initiative to Congress members like Khanna and Massie. Al Jazeera

6. Epstein Files Transparency Act and bipartisan dynamics (for the setup to Part 3)

   • AP: Trump’s November 2025 signing of the Epstein Files Transparency Act, the 427–1 House vote, unanimous Senate consent, and the law’s requirement that DOJ release unclassified files within 30 days with limited redactions. AP News

   • Guardian and Politico coverage of Republicans warning AG Pam Bondi not to bury the files and DOJ’s renewed effort to unseal Epstein and Maxwell grand jury materials under the new law. The Guardian

7. Financial institutions, settlements, and broader context

   • Reporting on JPMorgan Chase’s roughly $290 million settlement with Epstein victims for allegedly enabling his abuse by ignoring red flags while profiting from his business. Mediaite

Despite a rough and unsuccessful attempt to get both and I added to the livestream, I streamed for just shy of two hours last night to go through the House Dem’s release of photos and video from Epstein’s Island.

House Dem’s also claimed to have bank records from JP Morgan and Deutsche Bank. They added that they’ve sent requests and are waiting for more records from 20 additional banks.

Earlier in the night, while doing some research to prep for the stream, I discovered that many of the photos included in the release weren’t as “new” as the media and House Dem’s were claiming.

O'Keefe Media Group (OMG) had published photos back in May, 2025, including many of the same rooms, areas, and personal belongings that were being touted as “never-before-seen”. OMG has requested a “full retraction” of the that claim.

I checked this morning to see if any outlets made corrections to state that James released them prior. As of 10:00 a.m., some did, and some did not.

Who did:

• CBS

• ABC

Who did not:

• USA Today

• The Independent

• The Guardian

• Axios

• PBS

• Time

Thank you , , and many others for tuning into my live video with ! Join me for my next live video in the app.

And here is a small collection of images from the Dropbox release for you to check out. I’ll put a link to the full collection at the bottom of the photos section.

Some photos released by House Democrats

You can click this LINK to access the Dropbox yourself, if you’d like to view all 200+ images/videos.

Get more from Jeremy Mercier in the Substack app

Available for iOS and Android

Get the app