SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Philanthropist Tom Steyer stands in front of one of the billboards he has funded in Times Square calling for the impeachment of President Donald Trump on November 20, 2017 in New York City. Steyer, an American hedge fund manager, environmentalist, progressive activist, and fundraiser announced Tuesday he is running for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination--the 25th person to officially do so. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
'The Answer to a Question No One Is Asking': Billionaire Philanthropist Tom Steyer Announces 2020 Presidential Bid
"Let's take our democracy back from corporations and special interests," says latest candidate to enter the crowded Democratic field, "and give it to the people—the way it was always intended."
Jul 09, 2019
Despite repeated assurances he would not do so, billionaire philanthropist and activist Tom Steyer--who has previously pledged his vast fortune to such causes as defeating the Keystone XL pipeline and mounting a national campaign demanding the impeachment of President Donald Trump--officially announced on Tuesday the launch of a 2020 campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
"It's true," Steyer said in a post on Twitter along with a kick-off campaign video. "I'm running for president."
Watch:
While Steyer's work as a hedge fund manager and financier has resulted in what Forbesestimates is a $1.6 billion fortune, the newly-announced candidate states in his launch video that, unlike Trump, he is acutely aware of the injustice of a society in which some are able to hold enormous riches while others struggle to put food on the table.
"We have a society that's very unequal and it's really important for people to understand this society is connected," says Steyer in the video. "If this is a banana republic with a few very, very rich people and everybody else living in misery--that's a failure."
Another Democratic candidate at this point in the primary race--especially one with Steyer's outward pedigree and despite whatever bona fides or unique skills he brings to the table--was quick to draw ridicule and derision from progressive critics who said that his resources and the political machine he has built in recent years could be put to better use than by engaging in what is perceived as vanity project by many.
\u201cWe need to stop the practice of billionaires trying to buy elections. @TomSteyer, think of all the good your $100 million could do for the environment, rather than trying to muscle your way into an already over-crowded and very promising presidential field.\u201d— Cynthia Nixon (@Cynthia Nixon) 1562688721
\u201cSteyer could be choosing to fund popular initiatives to implement automatic voter registration, restrict disenfranchisement, raise the minimum wage, counter right-to-work. But why do that when you could try to buy yourself the White House instead?\u201d— Taniel (@Taniel) 1562677716
The Greenlining Institute's Bruce Mirken, writing on his personal Twitter account, put it this way: "It's pretty clear @TomSteyer is the answer to a question no one is asking."
As writer Anand Giridharadas suggested, the very rich--whatever their intentions--cannot save us:
According to the New York Times:
Mr. Steyer may be a questionable vessel for a populist message, as a billionaire financier in a party increasingly defined by concern for economic inequality, and as a 62-year-old white man courting an audience of liberals in a Democratic Party preoccupied with racial diversity and gender equality.
Yet his candidacy instantly transformed the financial shape of the race; he vowed to spend an enormous sum of his personal fortune on his campaign.
"Tom has committed to spending at least $100 million on this campaign," said Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for Mr. Steyer.
That figure exceeds the total fund-raising over the last three months by Joseph R. Biden Jr., Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris -- combined. A $100 million budget would represent about half the cost of Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary campaign; most candidates who run for president spend a fraction of that sum.
While Steyer does not explicitly mention impeaching Trump in his campaign rollout, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye suggests his presidential bid could be enough to "shame" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats into taking more forceful action on the issue.
"Steyer's public case for impeachment stalled out after he initially bowed out of the presidential race six months ago," writes Tesfaye, "but his group, Need to Impeach, recently released a $1 million ad buy for national networks in New Hampshire and Iowa, criticizing Democratic Party leaders for doing nothing."
Over at Splinter, journalist and commentator Libby Watson was having none of it in her column titled, "Tom Steyer Thinks You're Stupid." Of course, Steyer has every right to run for president if he wants to, argues Watson, but that's not the point. She writes:
It's not that Tom Steyer is cheating. It's that his obscene wealth and the accordant ability to buy his way into the political system is exactly what's wrong with America. It's that the existence of Tom Steyer, billionaire, is cheating. And it's wrong.
Steyer's campaign launch video proved he does not understand this at all. Throughout, he railed against big money in politics and corporate interests swaying the political system in their favor--while running a campaign for president that's only made possible by the billions he amassed at his hedge fund. He doesn't understand that this isn't a good thing even if the billionaire with outsized influence happens to be a nice old California hippie type who just loves the environment and says the right things about the rest of the rich guys.
A quixotic billionaire campaign from the older brother from Succession might be better than, say, Exxon Mobil personified running (hey, corporations are people, right?). But Steyer doesn't realize that he does not have the moral authority to rail against the system that created him just because he is One of the Good Billionaires. The point of democracy is representation by the people, not representation by an uber-wealthy guy who promises real hard to figure out what real people need.
Steyer, however, made it clear he thinks he has a message worth sharing and--like other billionaire candidates before him--has the resources to fund his own campaign.
"Let's take our democracy back from corporations and special interests," Steyer added, "and give it to the people--the way it was always intended."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Despite repeated assurances he would not do so, billionaire philanthropist and activist Tom Steyer--who has previously pledged his vast fortune to such causes as defeating the Keystone XL pipeline and mounting a national campaign demanding the impeachment of President Donald Trump--officially announced on Tuesday the launch of a 2020 campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
"It's true," Steyer said in a post on Twitter along with a kick-off campaign video. "I'm running for president."
Watch:
While Steyer's work as a hedge fund manager and financier has resulted in what Forbesestimates is a $1.6 billion fortune, the newly-announced candidate states in his launch video that, unlike Trump, he is acutely aware of the injustice of a society in which some are able to hold enormous riches while others struggle to put food on the table.
"We have a society that's very unequal and it's really important for people to understand this society is connected," says Steyer in the video. "If this is a banana republic with a few very, very rich people and everybody else living in misery--that's a failure."
Another Democratic candidate at this point in the primary race--especially one with Steyer's outward pedigree and despite whatever bona fides or unique skills he brings to the table--was quick to draw ridicule and derision from progressive critics who said that his resources and the political machine he has built in recent years could be put to better use than by engaging in what is perceived as vanity project by many.
\u201cWe need to stop the practice of billionaires trying to buy elections. @TomSteyer, think of all the good your $100 million could do for the environment, rather than trying to muscle your way into an already over-crowded and very promising presidential field.\u201d— Cynthia Nixon (@Cynthia Nixon) 1562688721
\u201cSteyer could be choosing to fund popular initiatives to implement automatic voter registration, restrict disenfranchisement, raise the minimum wage, counter right-to-work. But why do that when you could try to buy yourself the White House instead?\u201d— Taniel (@Taniel) 1562677716
The Greenlining Institute's Bruce Mirken, writing on his personal Twitter account, put it this way: "It's pretty clear @TomSteyer is the answer to a question no one is asking."
As writer Anand Giridharadas suggested, the very rich--whatever their intentions--cannot save us:
According to the New York Times:
Mr. Steyer may be a questionable vessel for a populist message, as a billionaire financier in a party increasingly defined by concern for economic inequality, and as a 62-year-old white man courting an audience of liberals in a Democratic Party preoccupied with racial diversity and gender equality.
Yet his candidacy instantly transformed the financial shape of the race; he vowed to spend an enormous sum of his personal fortune on his campaign.
"Tom has committed to spending at least $100 million on this campaign," said Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for Mr. Steyer.
That figure exceeds the total fund-raising over the last three months by Joseph R. Biden Jr., Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris -- combined. A $100 million budget would represent about half the cost of Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary campaign; most candidates who run for president spend a fraction of that sum.
While Steyer does not explicitly mention impeaching Trump in his campaign rollout, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye suggests his presidential bid could be enough to "shame" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats into taking more forceful action on the issue.
"Steyer's public case for impeachment stalled out after he initially bowed out of the presidential race six months ago," writes Tesfaye, "but his group, Need to Impeach, recently released a $1 million ad buy for national networks in New Hampshire and Iowa, criticizing Democratic Party leaders for doing nothing."
Over at Splinter, journalist and commentator Libby Watson was having none of it in her column titled, "Tom Steyer Thinks You're Stupid." Of course, Steyer has every right to run for president if he wants to, argues Watson, but that's not the point. She writes:
It's not that Tom Steyer is cheating. It's that his obscene wealth and the accordant ability to buy his way into the political system is exactly what's wrong with America. It's that the existence of Tom Steyer, billionaire, is cheating. And it's wrong.
Steyer's campaign launch video proved he does not understand this at all. Throughout, he railed against big money in politics and corporate interests swaying the political system in their favor--while running a campaign for president that's only made possible by the billions he amassed at his hedge fund. He doesn't understand that this isn't a good thing even if the billionaire with outsized influence happens to be a nice old California hippie type who just loves the environment and says the right things about the rest of the rich guys.
A quixotic billionaire campaign from the older brother from Succession might be better than, say, Exxon Mobil personified running (hey, corporations are people, right?). But Steyer doesn't realize that he does not have the moral authority to rail against the system that created him just because he is One of the Good Billionaires. The point of democracy is representation by the people, not representation by an uber-wealthy guy who promises real hard to figure out what real people need.
Steyer, however, made it clear he thinks he has a message worth sharing and--like other billionaire candidates before him--has the resources to fund his own campaign.
"Let's take our democracy back from corporations and special interests," Steyer added, "and give it to the people--the way it was always intended."
Despite repeated assurances he would not do so, billionaire philanthropist and activist Tom Steyer--who has previously pledged his vast fortune to such causes as defeating the Keystone XL pipeline and mounting a national campaign demanding the impeachment of President Donald Trump--officially announced on Tuesday the launch of a 2020 campaign for the Democratic Party presidential nomination.
"It's true," Steyer said in a post on Twitter along with a kick-off campaign video. "I'm running for president."
Watch:
While Steyer's work as a hedge fund manager and financier has resulted in what Forbesestimates is a $1.6 billion fortune, the newly-announced candidate states in his launch video that, unlike Trump, he is acutely aware of the injustice of a society in which some are able to hold enormous riches while others struggle to put food on the table.
"We have a society that's very unequal and it's really important for people to understand this society is connected," says Steyer in the video. "If this is a banana republic with a few very, very rich people and everybody else living in misery--that's a failure."
Another Democratic candidate at this point in the primary race--especially one with Steyer's outward pedigree and despite whatever bona fides or unique skills he brings to the table--was quick to draw ridicule and derision from progressive critics who said that his resources and the political machine he has built in recent years could be put to better use than by engaging in what is perceived as vanity project by many.
\u201cWe need to stop the practice of billionaires trying to buy elections. @TomSteyer, think of all the good your $100 million could do for the environment, rather than trying to muscle your way into an already over-crowded and very promising presidential field.\u201d— Cynthia Nixon (@Cynthia Nixon) 1562688721
\u201cSteyer could be choosing to fund popular initiatives to implement automatic voter registration, restrict disenfranchisement, raise the minimum wage, counter right-to-work. But why do that when you could try to buy yourself the White House instead?\u201d— Taniel (@Taniel) 1562677716
The Greenlining Institute's Bruce Mirken, writing on his personal Twitter account, put it this way: "It's pretty clear @TomSteyer is the answer to a question no one is asking."
As writer Anand Giridharadas suggested, the very rich--whatever their intentions--cannot save us:
According to the New York Times:
Mr. Steyer may be a questionable vessel for a populist message, as a billionaire financier in a party increasingly defined by concern for economic inequality, and as a 62-year-old white man courting an audience of liberals in a Democratic Party preoccupied with racial diversity and gender equality.
Yet his candidacy instantly transformed the financial shape of the race; he vowed to spend an enormous sum of his personal fortune on his campaign.
"Tom has committed to spending at least $100 million on this campaign," said Alberto Lammers, a spokesman for Mr. Steyer.
That figure exceeds the total fund-raising over the last three months by Joseph R. Biden Jr., Pete Buttigieg, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris -- combined. A $100 million budget would represent about half the cost of Hillary Clinton's 2016 primary campaign; most candidates who run for president spend a fraction of that sum.
While Steyer does not explicitly mention impeaching Trump in his campaign rollout, Salon's Sophia Tesfaye suggests his presidential bid could be enough to "shame" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other top Democrats into taking more forceful action on the issue.
"Steyer's public case for impeachment stalled out after he initially bowed out of the presidential race six months ago," writes Tesfaye, "but his group, Need to Impeach, recently released a $1 million ad buy for national networks in New Hampshire and Iowa, criticizing Democratic Party leaders for doing nothing."
Over at Splinter, journalist and commentator Libby Watson was having none of it in her column titled, "Tom Steyer Thinks You're Stupid." Of course, Steyer has every right to run for president if he wants to, argues Watson, but that's not the point. She writes:
It's not that Tom Steyer is cheating. It's that his obscene wealth and the accordant ability to buy his way into the political system is exactly what's wrong with America. It's that the existence of Tom Steyer, billionaire, is cheating. And it's wrong.
Steyer's campaign launch video proved he does not understand this at all. Throughout, he railed against big money in politics and corporate interests swaying the political system in their favor--while running a campaign for president that's only made possible by the billions he amassed at his hedge fund. He doesn't understand that this isn't a good thing even if the billionaire with outsized influence happens to be a nice old California hippie type who just loves the environment and says the right things about the rest of the rich guys.
A quixotic billionaire campaign from the older brother from Succession might be better than, say, Exxon Mobil personified running (hey, corporations are people, right?). But Steyer doesn't realize that he does not have the moral authority to rail against the system that created him just because he is One of the Good Billionaires. The point of democracy is representation by the people, not representation by an uber-wealthy guy who promises real hard to figure out what real people need.
Steyer, however, made it clear he thinks he has a message worth sharing and--like other billionaire candidates before him--has the resources to fund his own campaign.
"Let's take our democracy back from corporations and special interests," Steyer added, "and give it to the people--the way it was always intended."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
Columbia Yanks Degrees From Pro-Palestine Protesters Amid Outrage Over Khalil Arrest
The impacted students and graduates are accused of participating in the occupation of a university building that protesters renamed in honor of a child killed by Israeli forces in Gaza.
Mar 13, 2025
As the Trump administration's effort to deport Mahmoud Khalil sparks legal battles and demonstrations, Columbia University announced Thursday that it has revoked degrees from some other pro-Palestinian campus protesters.
A campuswide email reported by The Associated Press and shared on social media by Drop Site News says that "the Columbia University Judicial Board determined findings and issued sanctions to students ranging from multiyear suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions related to the occupation of Hamilton Hall last spring."
According to both news outlets, the university's email did not say how many students and graduates were impacted by each action.
As part of nationwide protests over the U.S. government and educational institutions' complicity in Israel's assault on the Gaza Strip, Columbia students took over the building last April and renamed it Hind's Hall, in honor of a young Palestinian girl killed by Israeli forces. With support from the university's leadership, New York Police Department officers stormed the campus.
Columbia's new sanctions against protesters were widely condemned on social media. Iowa-based writer Gavin Aronsen quipped, "This is a great PR strategy, come to Columbia where you'll get a solid education as long as you never speak your mind."
News of the university's latest action on Thursday came after over 100 people were arrested outside Trump Tower in New York City during a Jewish-led protest over the government's attempt to deport Khalil, a green-card holder who finished his studies at Columbia in December.
"The Trump administration's outrageous detention of Mahmoud Khalil is designed to sow terror and stop people of conscience from calling for Palestinian freedom," said Ros Petchesky, an 82-year-old MacArthur fellow and Columbia alumna. "We are Jewish New Yorkers and we remain steadfast in our commitment to Palestinian freedom, to protecting free speech and the right to protest, and to defending immigrants and all under attack by the Trump regime."
Meanwhile, during a Thursday interview with NPR about Khalil's detention, Troy Edgar, deputy homeland security secretary, equated protesting and terrorism.
Judge Orders Trump Administration to Reverse 'Sham' Mass Firing of Federal Workers
"It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie."
Mar 13, 2025
A U.S. judge on Thursday ruled that the Trump administration must reinstate thousands of government workers fired from half a dozen federal agencies based on the "lie" that their performance warranted termination.
U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of California William Alsup—an appointee of former President Bill Clinton—granted a preliminary injunction supporting a temporary restraining order against the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and acting Director Charles Ezell on the grounds that the mass firing of probationary federal employees is "unlawful" because the agency lacked the authority for the move.
Alsup—who last month also found the OPM firings illegal—ordered the Trump administration to immediately reinstate all probationary employees terminated from the departments of Agriculture, Defense, Energy, Interior, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.
"The reason that OPM wanted to put this based on performance was at least in part in my judgment a gimmick to avoid the Reductions in Force (RIF) Act, because the law always allows you to fire somebody for performance," Alsup said, referring the process used by federal agencies reduce the size of their workforce during reorganizations or budget cuts.
Last month, Trump signed an executive order directing Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency to institute RIFs across federal agencies as part of a so-called "workforce optimization initiative."
"It is a sad day when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that's a lie," Alsup wrote. "That should not have been done in our country. It was a sham in order to try to avoid statutory requirements."
While the White House blasted Alsup's ruling as "absurd and unconstitutional" and lodged an appeal, advocates for government workers cheered the decision.
Everett Kelley, national president of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said in a statement that the union "is pleased with Judge Alsup's order to immediately reinstate tens of thousands of probationary federal employees who were illegally fired from their jobs by an administration hellbent on crippling federal agencies and their work on behalf of the American public."
"We are grateful for these employees and the critical work they do, and AFGE will keep fighting until all federal employees who were unjustly and illegally fired are given their jobs back," Kelley added.
Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), said: "Public service workers are the backbone of our communities in every way. Today, we are proud to celebrate the court's decision which orders that fired federal employees must be reinstated and reinforces they cannot be fired without reason."
"This is a big win for all workers, especially AFSCME members of the United Nurses Associations of California and Council 20, who will be able to continue their essential work at the Department of Agriculture, Veterans Affairs Department, and other agencies," Saunders added.
Violet Wulf-Saena, founder and executive director of Climate Resilient Communities—a California-based nonprofit that "brings people together to create local solutions for a healthy planet"—also welcomed Thursday's ruling.
"The mass firing of public service employees is a direct assault on the environmental justice movement and will harm people living in heavily polluted communities," she said. "Today's decision represents a key win for our movement because our lifesaving work cannot proceed without the vital infrastructure and support of our federal employees."
Congressman Raúl Grijalva, Defender of Working People and Planet, Dead at 77
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle," his staff said. "He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments."
Mar 13, 2025
Condolences and remembrances swiftly mounted on Thursday after the staff of U.S. Congressman Raúl Grijalva announced that the Arizona Democrat died at the age of 77, following a fight with lung cancer.
"Rep. Grijalva fought a long and brave battle. He passed away this morning due to complications of his cancer treatments," according to the office of the late congressman, who announced his diagnosis last April.
Grijalva, who represented Arizona's 7th District, was first elected to Congress in 2002. While on Capitol Hill, he rose to leadership roles, including co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and chair of the House Natural Resources Committee.
"From permanently protecting the Grand Canyon for future generations to strengthening the Affordable Care Act, his proudest moments in Congress have always been guided by community voices," Grijalva's staff said. "He led the charge for historic investments in climate action, port of entry modernization, permanent funding for land and water conservation programs, access to healthcare for tribal communities and the uninsured, fairness for immigrant families and Dreamers, student loan forgiveness, stronger protections for farmers and workers exposed to extreme heat, early childhood education expansion, higher standards for tribal consultation, and so much more."
"From Tucson to Nogales and beyond, he worked tirelessly for transformational improvements. Rep. Grijalva pushed for new public parks, childcare centers, healthcare clinics, local businesses, and affordable housing [that] breathed new life into neighborhoods across Southern Arizona. Improvements to our roads, bridges, and streetcar system have improved our daily lives and attracted new businesses and industries to the area," the office added. "Rep. Grijalva's passion was not only for his community, but for preservation of the planet."
Grijalva's colleagues also highlighted key parts of his legacy. Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), a former House member, said that "I am heartbroken by the news of Congressman Raúl Grijalva's passing. For climate justice, economic justice, health justice—Raúl fought fearlessly for change. We served a decade together on the Natural Resources Committee, and I will forever be grateful for his leadership and partnership."
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who also previously served in the lower chamber, said that "I mourn the death of Rep. Raúl Grijalva, a former colleague of mine and one of the most progressive members of the U.S. House. Raúl was a fighter for working families throughout his entire life. He will be sorely missed."
Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) called his death "a genuinely devastating loss," adding: "Raúl Grijalva stood as one of the biggest champions for working people in all of Congress. His leadership was singular. He mentored generously and was an incredible friend. I will always be grateful for his lifelong courage and commitment."
Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) said that "today we lost a dedicated progressive leader in Raúl Grijalva. The son of a bracero, Rep. Grijalva's 12-term commitment to our environment, to immigrant communities, and to his constituents in Tucson enriched this country. His passing is a monumental loss for our caucus and communities."
Congressman Maxwell Alejandro Frost (D-Fla.) wrote: "Wow. This is such a loss for Arizona and our country. Chair Raúl Grijalva has been a champion for progressive change his entire life. From the school board to Congress, his leadership and voice inspired so many. Myself included. Rest in power, Chairman Grijalva."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), elected to Congress in November, said that "I'm devastated to hear of the passing of my colleague Raúl Grijalva. He was a fighter for Arizonans and a champion for Indigenous communities and our planet. We will all miss him dearly. My thoughts are with his family, friends, loved ones, and constituents."
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), who switched chambers after the last election, said that "Congressman Grijalva was not just my colleague, but my friend. As another Latino working in public service, I can say from experience that he served as a role model to many young people across the Grand Canyon State. He spent his life as a voice for equality."
"In Congress, I was proud to see firsthand his leadership as chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee as he stood up for Arizona's water rights, natural beauty, and tribes," Gallego added. "I am praying for his family during this time of grief, and I hope that they find comfort knowing his legacy is one that will stand tall for generations."
Advocacy group leaders also weighed in, with Kierán Suckling, executive director and founder of the Center for Biological Diversity, calling his death "a heartbreaking, devastating loss for the people of Southern Arizona and everyone around this nation who loves the natural world."
"Raúl was a great friend and partner in our fight for clean air and water, our beautiful public lands, and wildlife great and small," Suckling said. "We can all look to him as the model of what every member of Congress and every person of dignity and hope should aspire to be."
"From Mexican wolves to spotted owls to the New Mexico meadow jumping mouse, every creature in this country had a friend in Raúl," Suckling added. "He was as fierce as a jaguar, and that's why we called him our Macho G. I'll miss him dearly."
According to KVOA, the NBC affiliate in Tucson, Grijalva's office "will continue providing constituent services during the special election" to fill his seat.
Grijalva's death follows that of Congressman Sylvester Turner (D-Texas), who died on March 5. His seat will also need to be filled by a special election.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.