Minority – 1man1vote

The Modern Town Hall

Access, Engagement, and the Modern Town Hall: A Reflection on Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Forum. This is how we roll.

On April 2, 2026.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters hosted a telephone town hall for residents of California’s 43rd Congressional District. The event followed a familiar and increasingly important format in modern civic life: structured, accessible, and designed to reach a broad audience across a large and diverse community.

For many constituents, especially those who may not attend in-person events, this format offers something valuable—a practical entry point into civic participation. And that is worth recognizing at the outset.

A Gateway to Participation

Telephone town halls are not meant to replicate the intensity or spontaneity of live, in-person gatherings. Instead, they serve a different purpose: scale and accessibility.

In a district as expansive and complex as the 43rd—encompassing Inglewood, South Los Angeles, and surrounding areas—bringing thousands of voices into even a shared listening space is no small achievement. The ability to dial in, hear directly from a sitting member of Congress, and potentially ask a question lowers the barrier to engagement.

For many residents, especially seniors or those balancing work and family responsibilities, this may be the most realistic way to connect with their representative.

Structure as Stability

The April 2 event was carefully moderated, with a facilitator guiding the flow of the conversation. Callers were introduced, questions were time-limited, and transitions were smooth. While this structure can feel formal, it also ensures that the event remains focused and respectful of participants’ time.

Roughly 15 to 20 constituents were able to speak—sharing concerns about housing affordability, economic opportunity, healthcare access, and public safety. These are not new issues in the district, but they remain urgent, and the town hall provided a platform for them to be voiced directly.

Importantly, the tone of the event appeared measured and constructive. Participants were able to express concerns without the disruptions that sometimes characterize large public meetings. In that sense, the format created a safe and orderly environment for dialogue, even if it was necessarily brief.

Waters’ Approach: Detailed and Direct

Congresswoman Waters brought her characteristic command of policy to the discussion. Her responses reflected decades of legislative experience, particularly in areas tied to economic justice, financial systems, and community development.

She addressed questions with specificity—referencing federal programs, ongoing initiatives, and the broader legislative landscape. For constituents seeking clarity on what is being done at the federal level, this level of detail matters.

At the same time, she encouraged continued civic engagement. Her messaging emphasized that participation does not end with a phone call—it extends into voting, organizing, and staying informed. References to broader civic themes, including calls for vigilance and public involvement, underscored her long-standing belief in active citizenship.

The Sanctuary City Context

The 43rd District operates within the broader framework of Los Angeles County, a region often described as aligned with sanctuary policies. This context shapes many of the conversations around public safety, immigration, and community trust.

In a telephone town hall setting, these issues tend to be approached in a measured way. The format naturally encourages concise questions and equally concise responses, which can make it difficult to fully explore complex or sensitive topics.

However, the value of the forum lies in introducing these issues to a wide audience. Even brief exchanges can raise awareness, clarify positions, and encourage further discussion beyond the call itself.

Rather than serving as the final word on such matters, the town hall functions as a starting point—a place where concerns are surfaced and where constituents can begin to engage more deeply in the issues that affect their communities.

Complementing, Not Replacing, In-Person Dialogue

It is important to view telephone town halls as one piece of a larger civic ecosystem. They are not designed to replace in-person meetings, where longer exchanges, follow-up questions, and more dynamic interaction can take place.

It should be noted that I, as the writer of this article, have attended several of Congresswoman Waters’ live town halls, and that perspective is important. Those settings often allow for a different kind of energy—sometimes more assertive, sometimes more interactive, but always more immediate.

The telephone format, by contrast, offers reach over depth. And in a district of this size, both are necessary.

A Broader Tradition of Engagement

There is also value in remembering that civic participation takes many forms. The legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. reminds us that engagement can be quiet as well as vocal—structured as well as spontaneous.

Nonviolent protest, silent marches, and sit-ins were not just acts of resistance; they were also acts of presence. They created space for voices to be seen and felt, even without extended dialogue.

In a different way, telephone town halls also create space—less visible, perhaps, but still meaningful. They allow people to listen, reflect, and begin to form their own responses.

Finding the Balance

The April 2 town hall illustrates a balance that many public officials are still working to refine:

Accessibility vs. depth

Structure vs. spontaneity

Efficiency vs. extended dialogue

No single format can fully satisfy all of these needs. But when used thoughtfully, each can contribute to a more engaged and informed public.

In this case, the event appears to have succeeded in its core objective: connecting a large number of constituents with their representative in a way that was organized, informative, and approachable.

Conclusion: A Useful Starting Point

Telephone town halls may not capture the full energy of in-person civic life, but they serve an important role. They open the door to participation, especially for those who might otherwise remain on the sidelines.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ April 2 forum fits squarely within that purpose. It provided information, invited questions, and encouraged continued engagement—without requiring constituents to leave their homes.

And perhaps that is the most practical way to view it:

Not as the final destination for civic dialogue, but as a welcoming front porch—a place where people can gather, listen, and take the first step toward deeper involvement.

From there, the conversation can—and should—continue.

As a teenager, growing up in, southwestern Ohio, during the late 1960s, civic engagement often turned necessarily or perhaps unnecessarily ugly. We were there, because we were there. Now, we are here, because we are here, again.

Honoring National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day

Congresswoman Maxine Waters Introduces Resolution Honoring National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Financial Services Committee, has introduced a House resolution recognizing National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day, observed annually on February 7. The resolution, H.Res. 1039, underscores the continued disproportionate impact of HIV/AIDS on Black Americans and calls for renewed national commitment to prevention, testing, treatment, and the elimination of health disparities.

National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day was established to focus attention on the toll HIV/AIDS has taken on African American communities and to promote education, early diagnosis, and access to care. According to the data cited in the resolution, Black Americans represent approximately 12 percent of the U.S. population but account for 39 percent of new HIV diagnoses, 40 percent of people living with HIV, and 43 percent of HIV-related deaths. The rate of new HIV diagnoses among Black Americans is roughly eight times that of white Americans. Black women account for about half of new HIV diagnoses among women, and Black youth ages 13 to 24 similarly account for about half of new diagnoses within their age group.

Waters has been a central figure in congressional HIV/AIDS advocacy for more than four decades. In the late 1990s, she worked with the Clinton administration to establish the Minority AIDS Initiative, a federal program designed to expand prevention and treatment efforts in communities of color. Funding for the initiative has grown from an initial $156 million appropriation in Fiscal Year 1999 to more than $400 million annually today, reflecting its expanded scope and continued relevance.

In recent years, Waters has introduced legislation aimed at strengthening HIV prevention infrastructure nationwide. These efforts include the HIV Prevention Now Act (H.R. 5126), which seeks to bolster federal prevention funding, and the PrEP and PEP are Prevention Act (H.R. 5127), which would require health insurance plans to cover Pre-Exposure Prophylaxis (PrEP) and Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP) as preventive services without cost-sharing.

In a statement accompanying the resolution, Waters emphasized that National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day serves both as a commemoration and a call to action. She highlighted the need to reduce new infections, eliminate disparities in access to care, and support individuals and families affected by HIV/AIDS. The resolution urges continued federal, state, and local engagement to ensure equitable prevention and treatment outcomes.

H.Res. 1039 is cosponsored by 29 members of Congress, reflecting broad Democratic caucus support. The resolution is also endorsed by national and local advocacy organizations, including AIDS United, NMAC, the AIDS Foundation Chicago, the AMAAD Institute, LA Pride, NAESM Inc., and PFLAG National. These organizations have long played key roles in education, policy advocacy, and service delivery related to HIV/AIDS.

By introducing this resolution, Waters situates National Black HIV/AIDS Awareness Day within a broader legislative and public health framework, reinforcing the message that ending the HIV/AIDS epidemic requires sustained political will, targeted resources, and continued attention to the communities most affected.

In response, the Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget proposed cutting over $1.5 billion in HIV-related funding and eliminating various domestic prevention programs. However, in early February 2026, President Trump signed a bipartisan spending package that largely rejected those cuts, maintaining funding for domestic HIV programs while shifting some global health priorities under an “America First” strategy

You Is What You Eat

Years ago, I worked with a young man from the Arab world. I never asked which country he was from, but he once explained something that stayed with me. He said that in his country, if a government commits harm against its own people or others, and citizens openly support that government’s actions, then those citizens share responsibility. In his view, there was no meaningful separation between “civilian” and “state actor” when civilians actively endorsed injustice. Supporting wrongdoing made you complicit in it.
I think about that conversation often, especially now. Because what we are seeing today should concern everyone. This current administration is taking actions against people who do not fit the stereotypes many expect. These are not only people of color. They are not only immigrants or foreigners. In many cases, they are ordinary citizens — people who look like you, live like you, and work like you — but who simply do not agree or fall in line politically.
That is why awareness matters. Silence matters. Support matters. When harmful policies are normalized or excused, history shows that the impact rarely stops with the original targets. It expands. So as we move forward, it is important to consider not only what is happening, but who we choose to stand with, and what our support — or lack of resistance — ultimately represents.

Believe what you want to believe but. You Is What You Eat.

Venezuela: Domestic and International Backlash

U.S. Military Strike in Venezuela and Maduro’s Detention Sparks Domestic and International Backlash

On January 3, 2026, the United States conducted a large-scale military operation in Venezuela that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, and their transfer to the United States to face criminal charges. President Donald Trump publicly announced the success of the operation, which involved coordinated strikes in and around Caracas and culminated in Maduro’s removal from power. U.S. officials characterized the mission as necessary to enforce federal indictments against Maduro related to narcotics trafficking and terrorism-linked allegations. Maduro and Flores were subsequently arraigned in a federal courthouse in Manhattan, entering not guilty pleas to the charges they face.

The operation has provoked a profound political crisis in Washington, across the Western Hemisphere, and within social media networks. The Trump administration did not notify Congress in advance of the military action, citing concerns that prior notice could jeopardize the mission. This decision has intensified an ongoing debate over executive war powers and congressional authority under the U.S. Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution. According to multiple sources, lawmakers from both parties have expressed significant concern about the unilateral nature of the strike.

Democratic leaders, including long-serving California Representative Maxine Waters, have strongly condemned the strike as an unlawful use of military force without congressional authorization. Waters and other critics likened the operation to previous controversial U.S. interventions and argued that bypassing Congress undermines constitutional checks and balances. Discussions of possible legislative or impeachment responses have gained traction among congressional Democrats, reflecting profound unease within the party over executive overreach.

According to Congresswoman Waters,

“Just last month, Congress repealed two separate authorizations of military force in Iraq, but Donald Trump once again chose to unilaterally attack, and ignore Congress’ Constitutional role. It is Congress that authorizes such force, and Trump’s abuse of power demands a serious and immediate response from Congressional members of both parties. Donald Trump has now gone so far as to publicly boast about his detention of Nicolás Maduro and his wife and to suggest that he can unilaterally determine who governs Venezuela or even claim authority to run the country himself. That is not strength. It is reckless, delusional, and extremely dangerous.”

“During Donald Trump’s first term, I called for his impeachment under then Speaker Nancy Pelosi. He was impeached twice, yet escaped accountability due to a lack of Republican support. Today, many Democrats have understandably questioned whether impeachment is possible again under the current political reality. I am reconsidering that view. Even if Republicans refuse to act, Democrats cannot remain silent or passive in the face of actions this extreme from this Administration.”

Several Republican lawmakers have also voiced reservations, though fewer in number. Some expressed discomfort with the lack of prior consultation, even as others hailed the operation as decisive action against a regime accused of human rights abuses and criminal conduct. A bipartisan war powers resolution intended to restrict further military action in Venezuela was brought before the Senate but was ultimately blocked, underscoring the narrow and contentious nature of congressional responses.

International reactions have mirrored this polarization. Many governments, especially in Latin America, Africa, and Asia, condemned the intervention as a violation of international law and of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Observers highlighted that capturing a sitting head of state through military force sets a contentious precedent and could undermine longstanding principles of non-intervention enshrined in the United Nations Charter. A U.N. emergency session underscored these concerns, with representatives from major world powers sharply divided over the legality and implications of the U.S. action.

Public discourse on social media has amplified these debates. Posts widely circulated on platforms such as Reddit described conflicting narratives about the operation’s motives, legality, and aftermath. Some users reiterated the official U.S. government position that Maduro’s capture was a lawful enforcement action tied to criminal indictments, while others emphasized that independent verification of details has been limited and contested by Venezuelan officials. There is also content reflecting concerns about a broader expansion of U.S. military interventions in the region, including speculation about additional strikes if foreign governments fail to cooperate.

Domestically, the operation has sharpened the longstanding debate over presidential war powers. Legal analysis indicates that while presidents have broad authority as commander in chief, longstanding legal frameworks—such as the War Powers Resolution—require consultation or reporting to Congress within specified time frames when hostilities occur. The absence of prior notification in this case has drawn pointed criticism from lawmakers who argue that the constitutional balance of power has been sidelined.

The Venezuelan political landscape remains unstable in the operation’s aftermath. Venezuelan leaders loyal to Maduro’s government have challenged the U.S. narrative of his capture and legitimacy, resulting in competing assertions of authority within the country. This persistent ambiguity has fueled ongoing international concern about the risk of further conflict and humanitarian consequences for Venezuelan civilians.

In summary, the January 3 military operation and Maduro’s detention mark a critical juncture in U.S. foreign policy, intensifying domestic constitutional debates and triggering widespread international criticism. The long-term legal, diplomatic, and geopolitical ramifications of this unprecedented intervention in Venezuela are likely to unfold over the coming months.

Fair Competition for Small Business

Congresswoman Maxine Waters and Senator Cory Booker Introduce Fair Competition for Small Business Act to Bolster Antitrust Enforcement and Protect Independent Retailers

WASHINGTON, D.C. — On December 19, 2025, Representative Maxine Waters of California and Senator Cory Booker of New Jersey formally introduced the Fair Competition for Small Business Act of 2025, bicameral legislation aimed at strengthening antitrust enforcement and addressing long-standing disparities that disadvantage small and independent businesses. The House and Senate bills focus on reviving and reinforcing enforcement of the Robinson-Patman Act, a federal law intended to prevent price discrimination that harms competition.

Independent grocers and other small retailers occupy a critical role in the U.S. economy. They provide employment, sustain local tax bases, and ensure access to essential goods in communities that large chains may overlook. Industry data frequently cited in policy discussions show that independent grocers alone support more than one million jobs nationwide and generate tens of billions of dollars in wages annually. Despite their economic and social importance, these businesses continue to face structural disadvantages when competing against national and multinational retail chains.

At the center of the problem addressed by the legislation is the imbalance of market power between large retailers and smaller buyers. Large chains are often able to leverage their scale to obtain lower wholesale prices, rebates, and more favorable payment terms from suppliers. Smaller retailers, lacking comparable bargaining power, frequently pay higher prices for identical products. These higher costs are either absorbed, narrowing already-thin margins, or passed on to consumers, making small businesses appear less competitive on price.

The Robinson-Patman Act was enacted to curb precisely this type of discriminatory pricing. However, enforcement of the statute has been limited for decades. While federal agencies retain primary authority, enforcement actions have been rare, and the burden of pursuing cases has often fallen on private litigants with limited resources. State attorneys general are permitted to enforce the law, but under current statutes their remedies are largely confined to injunctive relief, preventing future conduct without addressing past financial harm.

The Fair Competition for Small Business Act seeks to close this enforcement gap by amending the Clayton Act to explicitly authorize state attorneys general to bring civil actions for monetary damages when violations of the Robinson-Patman Act occur. This change would place Robinson-Patman enforcement on similar footing with other federal antitrust laws, giving states the ability not only to stop unlawful practices but also to recover damages on behalf of affected businesses.

Supporters argue that this expanded authority would have both remedial and deterrent effects. Allowing states to pursue damages could help small businesses recover losses linked to discriminatory pricing, while also discouraging suppliers and dominant retailers from engaging in practices that undermine fair competition. Proponents emphasize that the legislation does not create new antitrust standards but instead strengthens enforcement of existing law.

Public reaction reflected in local, national, and industry-focused social media discussions has highlighted several recurring themes. Small business owners and advocacy groups have shared firsthand accounts of struggling to compete with larger rivals due to unequal pricing and contractual terms. Community organizations have emphasized the connection between independent retailers and neighborhood stability, noting that store closures can exacerbate food access challenges and economic decline, particularly in underserved areas. At the same time, policy analysts and legal commentators have pointed to recent regulatory actions and court filings as signs of renewed attention to antitrust enforcement more broadly, framing the legislation as part of a larger shift in competition policy.

The bill has drawn support from a wide range of stakeholders, including grocers’ associations, farm advocates, antitrust researchers, and small business coalitions. Advocates for agricultural producers have noted that discriminatory pricing practices can affect not only retailers but also farmers, who may find themselves squeezed by powerful buyers in concentrated markets. Research organizations focused on local economies have argued that under-enforcement of antitrust laws has contributed to consolidation, higher consumer prices, and reduced choice.

Critics and skeptics, as reflected in some policy discussions, have raised questions about litigation burdens and the potential for inconsistent enforcement across states. However, supporters counter that state attorneys general already play a central role in enforcing federal antitrust laws and that expanding their authority under the Robinson-Patman Act would enhance coordination rather than create fragmentation.

Representative Waters and Senator Booker have framed the legislation as a practical step toward restoring fairness in the marketplace. They argue that meaningful competition depends not only on innovation and efficiency but also on rules that prevent dominant firms from using their size to exclude smaller rivals. By equipping state enforcers with stronger tools, the Fair Competition for Small Business Act aims to rebalance competitive conditions without imposing new regulatory frameworks.

As Congress considers the proposal, attention is likely to remain focused on the broader implications for antitrust policy, market concentration, and the survival of Main Street businesses. For independent retailers and the communities they serve, the legislation represents a potential shift toward more robust enforcement of long-standing protections designed to ensure that size and scale do not become insurmountable barriers to fair competition.

The Fair Competition for Small Business Act of 2025 is cosponsored by U.S. Representatives Jerry Nadler (NY-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-2), Jake Auchincloss (MA-4), Pramila Jayapal (WA-7), Cleo Fields (LA-6), Hank Johnson (GA-4), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (NY-14), Rebecca Balint (VT), Andre Carson (IN-7), Dwight Evans (PA-3).

To read the full text of the bill, click here.

1man1vote: The resident, Donald Trump appears open to the concept of utilizing tax legislation to create a more equitable competitive environment. Given that churches benefit from 501(c)(3) charitable tax-exempt status, small businesses that struggle to compete with large corporations could potentially benefit from receiving a 501(c)(4) social welfare status.

Community Engagement Weekend

Community Engagement Weekend: Congresswoman Maxine Waters’ Multi-Event Outreach Across the South Bay

Over the course of a packed two-day schedule, Congresswoman Maxine Waters engaged with thousands of residents across Los Angeles County’s 43rd District, participating in seven major community events centered on public health, small business development, food security, veterans’ support, LGBTQ+ history, and youth-focused service initiatives. Across social media platforms, attendees documented an active weekend marked by large turnouts, community partnerships, and—in several cases—high levels of volunteer engagement.

What follows is an event-by-event account of Congresswoman Waters’ activities, organized chronologically.

**Saturday, November 22

Walk to End Alzheimer’s – Los Angeles**

Congresswoman Waters began her weekend at the Los Angeles Walk to End Alzheimer’s, joining more than 1,000 participants. As Co-Chair of the Congressional Task Force on Alzheimer’s Disease, she addressed the crowd with an emphasis on federal investment and caregiver support. She noted her longstanding collaboration with national Alzheimer’s organizations and highlighted the substantial growth in federal research funding achieved over the past decade.

Social media posts from volunteers and participants throughout the morning emphasized the walk’s high turnout and the significance of having a senior federal representative present, especially one closely aligned with national Alzheimer’s policy efforts.

**Saturday, November 22

Sports Basement South Bay/Hawthorne Grand Opening & SnowFest**

Immediately after the walk, the Congresswoman traveled to Hawthorne for the grand opening of Sports Basement’s newest South Bay location and its accompanying SnowFest celebration. The event drew families, outdoor recreation groups, and local officials.

Congresswoman Waters’ remarks centered on the store’s investment in local hiring, recreational accessibility, and community partnerships. Online posts from attendees highlighted the festive atmosphere—particularly the outdoor activity demonstrations—and the novelty of the cooperative’s expansion into the region.

**Saturday, November 22

“Wobble Before You Gobble” Zumba Community Event, Gardena**

Later that morning, the Congresswoman joined the City of Gardena and the Inka Lions for a community Zumba event focused on fitness and seasonal giving. In addition to taking part in the physical activities, she assisted volunteers handing out canned goods to families.

Crowd-sourced media from participants showed a notably high level of resident engagement, including multigenerational families and youth groups. Commenters cited the event as an example of Gardena’s coordinated health-and-wellness outreach leading into the holiday season. In her remarks, Congresswoman Waters emphasized that shared moments of joy, exercise, and fellowship reinforce the resilience and unity of South Bay communities.

**Saturday, November 22

Morris Kight Memorial Ceremony – Hollywood Forever Cemetery**

In the afternoon, Congresswoman Waters participated in a memorial ceremony honoring the interment of LGBTQ+ civil rights leader Morris Kight’s ashes atop the Chapel of the Gower Mausoleum. Kight, a pioneering activist whose influence shaped both Los Angeles and the national movement, was commemorated by advocates, historians, and community partners.

Congresswoman Waters delivered reflections recognizing Kight’s lifelong pursuit of dignity and equity, underscoring the continuing relevance of his advocacy. Observers who shared the ceremony online noted the deeply respectful nature of the gathering and the broad representation of community organizations present.

**Sunday, November 23

Kinecta’s 52nd Annual Food Drive – Jesse Owens Park**

Congresswoman Waters began her second day at the longstanding Kinecta holiday food distribution, one of the region’s most enduring charitable traditions. Volunteers, nonprofit partners, and local families participated in the drive-up operation, which provided support to households facing economic strain.

In her remarks, Congresswoman Waters pointed to rising costs of living and recognized the role of local institutions in meeting essential needs. Posts circulating on social media showed long lines of vehicles and a robust volunteer corps operating an efficient distribution process. Many commenters highlighted the food drive’s decades-long reputation for reliability and community focus.

**Sunday, November 23

Hawthorne VFW Post 2075 – 52nd Annual Thanksgiving Dinner for Veterans**

From Jesse Owens Park, the Congresswoman moved to Hawthorne VFW Post 2075 to assist with its annual Thanksgiving dinner for veterans. Established in 1943, the post is one of the oldest in the South Bay and continues to serve as a center of support, connection, and service.

Congresswoman Waters helped prepare and serve meals and took time to greet veterans and their families individually. Attendees shared images online of the Congresswoman working alongside volunteers, with many expressing appreciation for the visibility of federal leadership at a local veterans’ event. In her remarks, she recognized the enduring sacrifices of military families and praised the post for its consistency in upholding traditions of honor and service.

**Sunday, November 23

Jr. Dixon Annual Gospel Musical Fundraiser & Toy Drive**

The Congresswoman concluded her weekend at the Jr. Dixon Annual Gospel Musical Fundraiser and Toy Drive at the Church of the Living God on Western Avenue. The event—now more than three and a half decades strong—combined musical performances with charitable giving for families facing hardship during the holiday season.

She honored Jr. Dixon’s long record of community service affirmed the importance of faith-based initiatives in expanding youth opportunities. Social media reports from attendees highlighted strong musical performances, a warm communal atmosphere, and generous toy donations filling collection areas throughout the event space.

A Weekend Defined by Presence, Partnership, and Public Service

Over two days, Congresswoman Waters participated in seven major public events—each reflecting a different dimension of community need. Her schedule ranged from health advocacy to LGBTQ+ historical recognition, and from family assistance efforts to fitness-based community gatherings.

Across social media, local observers consistently noted the breadth of her presence throughout the district. Many described the weekend as emblematic of her longstanding practice of remaining physically present and publicly accountable within CA-43, even while maintaining a demanding legislative role in Washington.

In closing remarks delivered at the final event of the weekend, Congresswoman Waters reflected that this work remains deeply meaningful to her. Framed in third-person narrative, she emphasized that whether she is advancing federal initiatives in Washington or assisting residents in neighborhood-level efforts at home, she remains committed to showing up, listening, and working directly alongside the people she serves.

One of the mantras that we often hear parroted up and down the right side of the political spectrum, focuses “on promises made – promises kept.” Once spewed, those words take on little meaning beyond the self-serving significance of a pretentious mandate. The words provide cover for the entire team. When questioned, they mention their constituents, but only to use them as the cover story that dwells beside their failed policies . Usually when they take or re-affirm their oath, they might mumble a promise to be the leader of all the people – even the ones that did not vote for them. But it is unlikely that those words are meant to include the idea of “service”.

Congresswoman Maxine Waters also took the oath and ever so often, when she is not away, fighting the war of words in DC, she is here in the south bay area of Los Angeles’s 43rd district, meeting and greeting the constituents that she serves. It is that idea of “service” that is so sorely lacking in the authoritarian push for enforced, single minded subordination, over and above the idea of community, brotherhood, and society that Congresswoman Waters fights to serve.

The Fight For Food

Congresswoman Maxine Waters, on Friday sharply condemned the federal government’s handling of food-assistance payments as part of the ongoing funding standoff, and directed families in her district to local relief resources while the legal fight over SNAP continues.

Ms. Waters — the ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee — issued a statement in early November criticizing the administration’s move to withhold or limit November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits during the partial government shutdown and urging residents to seek immediate help from community programs. Her office emphasized that people who rely on SNAP should also look to local food banks, school districts, and municipal services for emergency assistance.

The dispute over November SNAP funding has been resolved only temporarily by the courts, leaving many households uncertain. The U.S. Supreme Court issued an emergency order earlier this month that briefly paused a lower-court mandate requiring full SNAP disbursements; the administration has continued to press the matter in the appeals courts. At the same time, appeals judges and lower courts have issued competing rulings and injunctions, meaning distribution practices have varied by state and some jurisdictions moved quickly to process full payments while others provided partial benefits or used state funds to fill gaps. These legal developments have affected roughly tens of millions of recipients nationwide.

Waters’ statement pointed constituents to concrete, actionable resources in Los Angeles County and in the cities that fall within California’s 43rd Congressional District — including Inglewood, Hawthorne, Gardena, Lawndale, Compton and Torrance — where municipal and nonprofit networks are expanding emergency assistance while the federal picture remains unsettled. Her office listed phone and web contacts for food help and programs that serve seniors, families and young children.

Practical options for Angelenos in need right now include dialing 2-1-1 (the county’s social-services directory) or visiting the Los Angeles Regional Food Bank’s online pantry finder to locate nearby partner agencies and pop-up distributions; the food bank’s locator lets users search by ZIP code for up-to-date pantry hours and contact details. City residents can also call 3-1-1 to learn about FamilySource Centers and weekly food distributions for qualifying low-income families.

Families with infants or young children are reminded that WIC — the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children — continues to operate separately from SNAP and may provide immediate nutrition support, breastfeeding assistance and referrals. California’s WIC program maintains a toll-free line (1-800-852-5770) and local WIC clinics where eligibility can be confirmed and enrollment expedited.

Congresswoman Waters’ release and multiple community partners underscored a final, practical point: while courts and officials litigate funding questions, many relief systems remain active at the county and city level. Residents in need are advised to contact 2-1-1, the LA Regional Food Bank’s pantry finder, their school district or local FamilySource Center, and WIC if they qualify — and to call municipal aging or social-service lines for senior-specific referrals. Waters’ office also encouraged community members to share information about local distributions, so neighbors know where to find food now.

UPDATE
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson has given the Trump administration until 4 p.m. ET on Monday to submit an additional brief to support its request for a stay on a lower court’s ruling that it must pay the November Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in full by using funds from other Child Nutrition Programs during the federal government shutdown.

Ms. Waters written Statement

Prepare To Be Primaried

EDITORIAL

The Democratic senators who voted to advance the funding bill, handing the MAGA Republicans an opportunity to end ACA were Dick Durbin (IL), John Fetterman (PA), Maggie Hassan (NH), Tim Kaine (VA), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Jacky Rosen (NV), and Jeanne Shaheen (NH). Independent Senator Angus King (ME), who caucuses with the Democrats, also voted in favor.

The Senate has advanced the funding bill (by procedural vote) but it has not yet passed Congress or been signed into law. It still needs a final vote in the Senate and then must be approved by the House of Representatives.

President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, and next to Roe –v- Wade, the ACA has been on the resident’s seek and destroy list every since President Obama “clowned” Donald Trump was at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner, where he heavily mocked trumplethinskin over the “birther” conspiracy theory.

Catherine Cortez Masto, Jacky Rosen, Maggie Hassan, Tim Kaine, and Angus King (I)—are up for re-election in 2026, and could face formidable primary challenges. Dick Durbin and Jeanne Shaheen are retiring and not seeking re-election in 2026. Unless John Fetterman switches to the MAGA party, he will not face his primary challenge until 2028.

Thank you all for your service, albeit a service to which no snitch will be rewarded.

The MESSAGE to America

If you live within the boundaries of Los Angeles’ 43rd congressional district that encompasses a significant portion of the South Bay and South Los Angeles.

Your district includes:

The entire cities of Hawthorne, Inglewood, Lawndale, Gardena, and Lomita.

Portions of the cities of Los Angeles (including LAX and the neighborhood of Watts) and Torrance.

Census-designated places like Lennox, Del Aire, Alondra Park, West Athens, and Westmont.

In light of the longest and most destructive government shutdown in United States history, your United States Congressional representative, Maxine Waters addresses the nation with a message for you.

The Message

Click Here

https://iqconnect.house.gov/iqextranet/view_newsletter.aspx?id=107266&c=CA43MW

Government Shutdown -V- Childhood Education

On the seventeenth day of the government shutdown, Maxine Waters introduced the Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 (H.R. 5790) in the House of Representatives. The proposed legislation seeks to shield the nation’s early-childhood education programs from disruption when federal funding lapses.

The bill addresses a pressing concern: without federal allocations during a shutdown, local providers of the Head Start program face an immediate loss of access to critical support—placing children, families and staff in jeopardy. According to Waters’s office, these setbacks “grow worse over time.”

Under the act, state and local governments—as well as school districts—would be reimbursed for funds they expend to maintain Head Start or Early Head Start operations during a shutdown. The mechanism requires entities to front the cost and seek federal reimbursement after funding is restored.

Congresswoman Waters, a former assistant teacher and volunteer coordinator for the Head Start program in Watts, starting in 1966, emphasized the human dimension. She noted that vulnerable children, their families, and the dedicated teachers and staff who serve them should not suffer because of a funding impasse beyond their control. The intent, she said, is to ensure that grant-recipients remain open and can continue to serve.

While the bill responds to a specific shutdown scenario, its implications reach further: it underscores how early-childhood education programs operate at the intersection of federal, state and local systems—and how a lapse in one link can ripple across the system. For example, even temporary disruptions in Head Start programs can affect developmental milestones, parent-education supports, nutrition services and readiness for kindergarten.

Social-media and crowd-sourced reports from local programs during the shutdown underscore the urgency: some Head Start centers report mounting unpaid bills, staff uncertainty, and concern about continuity of service. These snapshots mirror what Waters’s office described—programs losing access to funding and facing mounting challenges as the shutdown extends.

From a policy-perspective, the bill raises questions about the role of federal contingency mechanisms in essential services. If local entities bear the upfront cost of continuity, states and districts with fewer resources may be disadvantaged—raising equity concerns. And while reimbursement after the fact provides relief, it does not necessarily mitigate the risk of short-term service interruption or cash-flow stress.

Legislatively, securing co-sponsors and passage in the current political environment will be challenging. The bill’s fate depends on the broader shutdown resolution, appropriations discussions and negotiations over federal priorities. However, its introduction signals a push to protect early-education infrastructure from future funding volatility.

The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act of 2025 positions itself as a safeguard for one of the nation’s most vulnerable populations—young children and families reliant on federally-supported early learning programs. With the shutdown now well into its fourth week, the legislation highlights how early-childhood education can become collateral damage in budget impasses—and offers one pathway to shielding these services from the effects of federal gridlock.

The Head Start Shutdown Protection Act is also cosponsored by:
Representatives Gabe Amo (RI-01), Yassamin Ansari (AZ-03), Joyce Beatty (OH-03), Wesley Bell (MO-01), Sanford D. Bishop, Jr. (GA-02), Nikki Budzinski (IL-13), Andre’ Carson (IN-07), Emanuel Cleaver, II (MO-05), Angie Craig (MN-02), Jasmine Crockett (TX-30), Danny K. Davis (IL-07), Debbie Dingell (MI-06), Dwight Evans (PA-03), Cleo Fields (LA-06), Shomari Figures (AL-02), John Garamendi (CA-08), Jesús “Chuy” García (IL-04), Sylvia R. Garcia (TX-29), Dan Goldman (NY-10), Vicente Gonzalez (TX-34), Steven Horsford (NV-04), Glenn Ivey (MD-04), Jonathan Jackson (IL-01), Hank Johnson (GA-04), Greg Landsman (OH-01), Summer Lee (PA-12), April McClain Delaney (MD-06), LaMonica McIver (NJ-10), Seth Moulton (MA-06), Kevin Mullin (CA-15), Joe Neguse (CO-02), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC-00), Jimmy Panetta (CA-19), Emily Randall (WA-06), Jan Schakowsky (IL-09), Terri Sewell (AL-07), Bennie G. Thompson (MS-02), Dina Titus (NV-01), Rashida Tlaib (MI-12), Ritchie Torres (NY-15), Juan Vargas (CA-52), Nydia M. Velázquez (NY-07), and Frederica S. Wilson (FL-24).

https://share.google/CzwLlg6O7mqdfd4v2