#

The University of New Hampshire may be facing tens of millions of dollars in cuts in state funding, but it’s still spending money on controversial Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) programs and employees. Not only are DEI policies unpopular with Republicans in the New Hampshire House, but President Donald Trump has also signed an executive order seeking to end government support for them.

An appeals court upheld the Trump administration’s ability to execute the order while legal challenges work their way through the court.

On Tuesday, the House Finance Committee passed an amendment to the state budget banning government contracts with DEI mandates.

But if UNH is shying away from the race-based DEI policies in question, it isn’t showing. The school has made no announcements about shutting down any of its many DEI operations, and has previously indicated it does not see any changes coming.

“We believe diversity, equity, accessibility, and inclusion are foundational values inextricably linked to achieving our core educational mission and embrace the many characteristics of our community members that make them uniquely themselves,” the school’s Diversity Statement reads on its DEI page.

When Trump started signing anti-DEI executive orders hours into his second term, UNH told NHJournal it had no plans to change its programs or courses.

“Nothing to report at the moment, but I can let you know if that changes,” UNH Executive Director of Media Relations Tania deLuzuriaga responded in January.

Since that initial inquiry, UNH has not scaled back any of its public DEI offerings. deLuzuriaga did not respond to NHJournal on Tuesday.

The school continues to offer a full slate of classes that examine race, like “Race, Ethnicity, Class & Classics,” “Gender, Race, and Class in the Media,” and “Gender, Race and Technology.”

UNH has a Civil Rights & Equity Office, an Office of Community, Equity and Diversity, and the Aulbani J. Beauregard Center for Equity, Justice and Freedom. There is also the Faculty and Staff of Color Affinity Group and the LGBTQIA+ Faculty and Staff Affinity Group.

It’s difficult to gauge how much UNH spends on all of its DEI initiatives, as they are spread throughout different sections of the school budget. Some costs are easier to find, like the $195,000 annual salary for Nadine Petty, UNH’s Chief Diversity Officer.

A review conducted by NHJournal last year estimated funding for the various DEI programs in New Hampshire’s higher education institutions at between $6 and $9 million. An estimated $2 million was UNH funding.

“Members have long been asking for a breakdown of DEI funding for the University Systems and have yet to receive an adequate answer. Hearing that UNH alone spends roughly $2 million on DEI, clearly intervention is required,” House Majority Leader Jason Osborne said at the time.

Before Trump, DEI initiatives made business sense for many colleges. UNH is facing a demographic crisis that is impacting all higher education institutions in New England. Small colleges throughout the region have been closing or merging as there are not enough students to go around. Without the students and the federal loans they get to pay tuition, many more schools will be forced to shut their doors.

But the DEI initiatives meant to bolster attendance could cost UNH serious money. Trump has threatened to pull federal funding from schools that continue offering DEI programs, and that could endanger student loan funding and the ability of the ever-decreasing pool of students to pay UNH’s tuition. 

UNH already went through painful budget cuts last year, slashing $14 million caused by declining enrollment and lower-than-anticipated tuition revenue. The university eliminated its journalism major, closed an art museum, and laid off 75 people in 2024 to address the shortfall.

But the DEI programs remained.

State Rep. Sam Farrington (R-Rochester) is a UNH student, and he says it’s time for the university to end its DEI policies.

“UNH has the potential to be an economic asset for the state in terms of job growth, but is unfortunately turning into a clown show,” Farrington told NHJournal.

“Why should the state continue to invest taxpayer resources when they are being dumped on exorbitant administrative salaries and foolish DEI agendas?”

Hundreds of Granite State progressives gathered at the State House in Concord on Saturday to express their anger at President Donald Trump, DOGE advisor Elon Musk, and a myriad of policy positions from abortion restrictions to the patriarchy in general — with a shoutout to Black Lives Matter along the way.

The event was promoted as part of International Women’s Day, and New Hampshire Democratic Party chair Ray Buckley boosted it online. “Defend our democracy! Stand up for human rights!” the poster read.

Protester Erin Marlow showed up to support women and oppose Trump.

The Women’s Day protest in Concord, N.H. on March 8, 2025.

“The most important thing to me is protecting our democracy and making sure (Trump) doesn’t take over and try to become authoritarian,” Marlow said. “I think they already are acting in an authoritarian manner and that to me is the most important thing to resist.”

Resistance took many forms on Saturday, whether it was an elderly woman beating a drum decorated with a peace sign, the Bon Jovi sing-along, or the pink “pussy hats” sported by a few protestors.

The protest is part of the 50501 Movement slate of national protests targeting the Trump administration. 50501 bills itself as a grassroots organization and is aligned with The Political Revolution PAC, a small off-shoot organization that came out of Sen. Bernie Sanders’ (I-Vt.) 2016 presidential campaign.

Protest organizers took up position in front of the State House with a PA system and a table to sign up new volunteers. While organizers brought signs for the crowd, many brought their own. Messages ran the gamut with “This Is Not Normal,” “Hex The Patriarchy,” “Stop The Coup,” “Resist Fascism,” “Abortion Is Healthcare,” “Black Lives Matter,” “Stop The Bro-ligarchy,” and “Fire The Liar,” among others.

There were even a few messages with religious themes: “For Lent, let’s give up fascism.”

Notably missing from the event were any prominent elected New Hampshire Democrats.

The boisterous crowd cheered when passing drivers honked their car horns in approval, danced along to music, and came up with multiple variations of the ubiquitous protest chant “Hey hey/ho ho.” Sometimes Donald Trump had to go, other times, it was Musk.

Marlow hopes Saturday’s protest, and others like it across the country, can help build a movement that can win at the ballot box. 

“This shows the rest of the country that people are not happy with the way that it’s going, and it shows the rest of the world that Americans are not happy with the way things are going. It gives people the confidence to keep going, keep resisting, and be really active in the next election,” Marlow said.

A major focus of the protests was opposition to laws limiting women’s sports and spaces to biological females. That inspired a small group of supporters of girls-only sports to show up as well.

“We have a small group but we have a dedicated group,” said Bronwyn Sims.

Sims said she and her compatriots hoped to engage with the other protestors and educate them about their support for biological women.

“Some people seem to be confused about our position on this. We are not against transgender rights, we are not against anyone who chooses to be transgender,” Sims said. “We also believe that women and girls have rights, and we do have the right to our own spaces and our own sports, our own bathrooms and our own prisons. It really doesn’t have to do with being against anybody.”

New Hampshire’s largest teacher’s union supports so-called “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies so much that it’s going to court to defend them.

The New Hampshire chapters of the National Educators Association and the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court in Concord on Wednesday in response to the Trump administration’s DEI order.

The lawsuit claims the Trump administration is violating the Constitution by seeking to ban DEI practices and instruction. The complaint pinpoints the Feb. 14 letter that then-nominee for Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent to schools across the nation threatening a loss of funding if those institutions continue DEI programs as part of their educational offerings.

The letter defines DEI as programs that “teach students that certain racial groups bear unique moral burdens that others do not” and/or “stigmatize students who belong to racial groups.”

It’s part of the Trump administration’s attempt to end the practices promoted by President Joe Biden and his administration. Trump’s order instructs agencies to “terminate all discriminatory and illegal preferences, mandates, policies, programs, activities, guidance, regulations, enforcement actions, consent orders, and requirements.”

The national NEA and ACLU are backing the New Hampshire lawsuit to block the Trump policy.

“Across the country, educators do everything in their power to support every student — no matter where they live, how much their family earns, or the color of their skin — ensuring each feels safe, seen, and prepared for the future. Now, the Trump administration is threatening to punish students, parents and educators in public schools for doing just that: fostering inclusive classrooms where diversity is valued, history is taught honestly, and every child can grow into their full brilliance,” said Becky Pringle, president of the National Education Association. 

Gilles Bissonnette, legal director of the ACLU of New Hampshire, said in a statement Wednesday’s lawsuit is similar to one he successfully brought against New Hampshire’s Department of Education in the wake of the state passing its education anti-discrimination law. That law banned teaching that one group of people is inherently superior or inferior to another and that people are inherently racist, sexist, etc., based on the group they are in, among other concepts.

“Like New Hampshire’s classroom censorship law that we successfully challenged in court, this unconstitutionally vague letter is an attack on educators who are simply doing their job,” Bissonnette said. “Teachers are already reporting being afraid to teach for fear of having their teaching deemed unlawful, and that deprives Granite State students of the complete education that they deserve.”

The lawsuit claims McMahon and Trump have no legal authority to dictate what gets taught in New Hampshire classrooms. New Hampshire teachers frequently use DEI programming as they see fit, the lawsuit states.

“They have incorporated issues of race, diversity, equity, and inclusion in the content and approach to their teaching, in their broader educational practices, and in training and support for educators, all in accordance with sound pedagogical practice,” according to the lawsuit.

“We’re urging the court to block the Department of Education from enforcing this harmful and vague directive and protect students from politically motivated attacks that stifle speech and erase critical lessons. Teaching should be guided by what’s best for students, not by threat of illegal restrictions and punishment.”

Two Granite State high school girls are so frustrated at having to compete against biological males in all-girls sports competitions that they want to join the ongoing federal lawsuit to defend New Hampshire’s women’s sports law, as well as the two executive orders issued by the Trump administration that protect women’s sports.

“Because I work so hard, it is frustrating and disheartening when it feels like the rights of female athletes are being sidelined or ignored,” one girl said in her court motion. 

Two New Hampshire girls, K.D., and B.W., filed motions along with other female athletes and the organization, Female Athletes United, this week to join the lawsuit brought by biological males Parker Tirrell and Iris Turmelle. The latter two are suing the State of New Hampshire and President Donald Trump for the right to compete in girls-only sports competitions.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Female Athletes United, an association of female athletes, filed a motion Friday with the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire to intervene in the Tirrell v. Edelblut lawsuit.

The lawsuit was first filed in response to New Hampshire’s law, signed by then-Gov. Chris Sununu. But the lawsuit was expanded to include Trump after he signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports.”

“With this executive order, the war on women’s sports is over,” Trump said at the time.

Schools are required to comply with Title IX, which prohibits discrimination based on sex for programs receiving federal funding. The Biden administration issued a rule change declaring an athlete’s sex as “gender identity,” reversing decades of precedent.

The Trump order returned to the recognized biological definition of sex as determined by biology.

Jonathan Scruggs, an attorney with the legal non-profit Alliance Defending Freedom, said the case boils down to whether there’s a physical, biological difference between men and women. For Scruggs and the female athletes, it’s clear men and boys are different from women and girls.

“Biological difference is the obvious matter, and that’s why we’ll win,” Scruggs said.

However, the presiding judge in this case, United States District Court Judge Landya McCafferty, previously wrote in an initial ruling that neither Tirrell nor Turmelle have any physical advantage as biological males.

“Neither Parker nor Iris have undergone male puberty. Neither of them will undergo male puberty. Both have received hormone therapy to induce female puberty, and both have developed physiological changes associated with female puberty. It is uncontested that there is no medical justification to preclude Parker and Iris from playing girls’ sports,” McCafferty wrote.

But K.D., who is from Bow, says in her motion that Tirrell had a definite advantage when she played against him, and he knocked her to the ground several times during game play. She described Tirrell as being larger and more muscular than the girls who were competing. The two played against each other during games in an indoor soccer league 

“In this league, I played against Parker on multiple occasions. Because I was scoring a lot, Parker was assigned to defend me, so we often came into physical contact with one another while playing. On several occasions, Parker knocked me down. It felt noticeably different than when I have run into a female when playing. Parker is sturdier, more muscular, and overall just built differently than a female,” K.D. said in her motion. “I was angry and upset that a male was playing against me and knocking me down. It felt inappropriate and unfair that something like this was happening and that no one in charge seemed to recognize what I and the other girls were going through in having to play against a male.”

Scruggs said K.D.’s experience shows that the popular talking point among activists — that ‘transgender’ players do not have any size or strength advantage over women and girls, is just wrong.

“We’ve seen this kind of false narrative on this subject for some time,” Scruggs said. “The fact is someone’s gender identification is not relevant to athletic performance, biology is.”

B.W., a Gilmanton girl, wrote in her motion that she was apprehensive when her team played against a high school team that included a large biological male as goalie. B.W.’s motion does not name the athlete, but stated she considered the male player’s presence a concern.

“Although we won, it still felt like a violation of the rights of female athletes to have a sports team designated for girls. Especially, because as the male student is the starting goalie, that student was taking a place on the field that would otherwise have gone to a female athlete. If a male student joined my team, I would strongly consider no longer playing for my school. I think it is unsafe and unfair for a male to take a girl’s spot on the girls’ team,” B.W. stated.

Both K.D. and B.W. illustrate the core problems with transgender athletes in girls sports, Scruggs said. 

“It’s a matter of fairness and safety,” Scruggs said. “These have real-world consequences.”

Scruggs said if actual biology is taken into consideration, then Tirrell and Turmelle’s lawsuit ought to be dismissed. 

President Donald Trump’s executive orders ending so-called Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) regulations at the federal level made big headlines this week. But in New Hampshire, they appear to be old news.

For example, newly-elected Gov. Kelly Ayotte has already taken down the webpage for the Governor’s Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion.

When asked by NHJournal how many state employees are DEI managers or diversity officers, New Hampshire Commissioner of Administrative Services Charlie Arlinghaus said the answer appears to be “none.”

The webpage for the Governor’s Advisory Council on Diversity and Inclusion was not available on Wednesday.

“The state does not employ diversity officers, DEI officers, or any similar type positions, nor am I aware of any position whose duties, regardless of title, are managed in such a way,” said Arlinghaus, whose agency is in charge of procurement for New Hampshire’s government.

“There is, in fact, not a position in the classification for such a thing. Nonetheless, the state and every agency does ensure that all of its policies and programs are implemented in all ways to avoid discrimination and bias as is befitting of those of us working on behalf of the people of the state,” Arlinghaus said.

There are around 5,000 federal employees in New Hampshire, not including military personnel, and their agencies are dealing with a large number of executive orders from Trump, some of which are sweeping in nature. Local federal offices are trying to sort out the details.

“It’s like trying to take a drink from a firehose,” one federal official told NHJournal.

Under Trump’s order, signed Tuesday, agencies had until 5 p.m. Wednesday to place all DEI staffers on paid leave and remove all DEI information from federal agency web pages. All DEI training sessions are to be canceled, as are all contracts with outside DEI consultants.

Federal employees were also instructed to report anyone suspected of still engaging in DEI work inside their agency. Employees were told they could face “adverse consequences” if they did not report suspected DEI colleagues. 

NHJournal asked newly-elected Republican Gov. Kelly Ayotte’s office if there will be a move to push state government agencies to follow Trump’s lead. It declined to respond.

Trump’s actions only apply to federal agencies, not state and local. And while the Ayotte administration may not have any DEI officers, many local towns and school boards have hired DEI employees.

As of last April, for example, Oyster River School District in Durham and SAU 16 in Exeter were each paying six-figure salaries to at least one DEI staffer.

The city of Concord just approved a $40,000 contract with DEI consultant James Bird Guess as part of a $140,000 diversity spending initiative.

“He really is a Horacio Alger type of story,” Concord Mayor Byron Champlin said of Guess. “He’s a self-made man.”

Guess is the man behind the “Cash Cow Consultant” seminar which taught people how to get rich as an expert consultant without the need for specialized subject matter training, degrees, or qualifications. Now, Guess works for municipal government and businesses spreading the word on DEI.

“Now, don’t get me wrong, speaking with passion and helping people is a blessing. I love helping people, but that’s only a small part of the equation of making six to seven figures!” Guess wrote on the Cash Cow website. (Emphasis in original.)

The Cash Cow website, which was still up and running before the Concord city council vote, has been shut down.

Failed “Never Trump” Republican presidential candidate John Anthony Castro may not have forced President-elect Donald Trump off the New Hampshire primary ballot, but he did beat the GOP nominee at something: Castro is the first to go to prison.

Castro was sentenced on Halloween to 188 months in federal prison (more than 15 years) on 33 felony counts of filing false tax returns. That works out to about one year for every million dollars he reportedly collected in his tax scam, according to court records.

Castro, 33, sued the state of New Hampshire twice during his idiosyncratic 2024 presidential bid, an effort to boot Trump from the ballot. The campaign mostly consisted of federal lawsuits Castro filed to get Trump off the ballot in 32 states. Castro used the legal actions to generate publicity for his quixotic campaign.

He also used some computer-generated graphics to project a campaign that doesn’t appear to have existed.

Publicity seems to have been his currency of choice, as the Castro For President campaign only reported about $800 in total donations just weeks before he was indicted in Texas on the tax fraud charges. Castro’s New Hampshire campaign had no offices, no paid staff, no in-state volunteers, and no identifiable supporters. He still did manage a few votes in the First in the Nation presidential primary, however.

In an effort to prove to the courts he had a viable political operation, Castro sent his brother-in-law and cousin to New Hampshire to put up campaign signs. The pair later testified they spent time in the city of “Noshua” and only talked to about a dozen people. 

Castro started his presidential campaign in order to get Trump off the ballot ahead of the primaries. Partly inspired by the 14th Amendment clause that prohibits insurrectionists from holding office, Castro based his lawsuits on the legal theory that if he was a presidential candidate himself, he could argue Trump was illegally taking his votes. That theory was charitably considered “novel” by the courts. 

Castro, who is not a licensed attorney, operated a tax law firm in Texas where he reportedly made up deductions for his clients, without their knowledge, in order to obtain larger than allowed tax refunds. Castro’s firm then took a percentage of the refund instead of a flat fee from the clients.

In a letter to United States District Court Judge for the Northern District of Texas Terry Means, Castro explained he did not so much make up deductions that did not exist as he estimated, incorrectly, deductions he thought should exist.

“Estimations and fabrications both involve arriving at final figures that a taxpayer did not expressly provide,” Castro wrote. 

Castro’s outside-the-box legal strategy led him to ask for a bench trial decided by Means, and not a jury, during which he took the stand and testified in his own defense. Even after his conviction, Castro maintains this plan was, maybe, divinely inspired. 

“I vividly recall the dream I had that instructed me I could trust your Honor’s judgment,” Castro wrote to Means. “This is what led me to pursue a bench trial and take the stand in my own defense. Others may call my decision foolish, especially in light of the verdict. But I knew and still know that, as a brother in Christ, your love of and faithfulness to justice, fairness, and transparency will validate my decision.”

Castro has a long and strained history with the truth, according to court records. Though he did graduate law school, Castro never passed a bar exam in any state. That did not stop him from presenting himself as a licensed attorney until 2016, when the Florida State Bar sent him a cease and desist letter for his unlicensed practice of law. 

Prosecutors say Castro also lists himself as a military veteran on his Texas driver’s license, though he has never served in the military. Castro did attend a military academy prep school as a teen, though he did not graduate and did not go on to attend any military academy.

Along with the prison sentence, Castro must pay $277,000 in restitution to the IRS. If there’s a plus side, the federal convictions do allow Castro to apply for a pardon from Trump. 

Kamala Harris isn’t savvy. She does well when she’s been prepped within inches of her life, as she was before the recent presidential debate; and she comes across as sharp and relevant if you put her side by side with Donald “Those Dirty Haitians Stole My Pants” Trump.

But on her own, she’s about as brilliant as the emergency understudy who gets called in to play Evita 10 minutes before the curtains open. She gets points for showing up and trying, but the actual performance is pretty feeble.

But she is hitting one point directly on the nose: She’s identified the power of Catholic self-loathing.

Catholics are swing voters, and swing voters are powerful and unpredictable. A slim majority of Catholics favor Trump, but it’s close enough to reveal a massive division in the ranks. So you’d think Harris would be treading carefully so as not to alienate that precious margin of undecided Catholics, and trying to bolster the 47 percent who do like her.

Instead, she’s breaking tradition and snubbing the Al Smith Dinner, an annual historical event, named for the first Catholic to run for president, that raises thousands of dollars for charity.

This isn’t an aberration. She’s unabashedly pro-abortion, recklessly spreading misinformation about who really caused the death of Amber Thurman (who died because of unsafe abortion pills and criminally incompetent healthcare, not from any abortion ban). Even Catholic leftists would be hard-pressed to find anything compatible with Catholic social teaching in her campaign. She and Biden were just as hard on migrants as Trump was; and her party recently quit opposing capital punishment. And she certainly hasn’t done anything to walk back her recent history of lashing out against Catholics. In 2019, then-Sen. Harris called out judicial nominee Brian Buescher for the high crime of having joined the Knight of Columbus as a teen, implying that simply to be a Christian in public makes one unfit for public office.

But at the debate with Trump, she tried talking directly to Catholics like me.  She said:

“[O]ne does not have to abandon their faith or deeply held beliefs to agree the government, and Donald Trump certainly, should not be telling a woman what to do with her body.”

At first, I was so irritated. Who is this woman telling me how to manage my conscience?

But there’s a kind of brilliance to her arrogance. Even if her campaign doesn’t understand why a person of faith would recoil from unrestricted abortion, it sure can tell we see through Trump. We know he was never pro-life and never will be. They see how we loathe the way he and his party treat women and the vulnerable. And they know there’s a very fine line between disgust for someone else and disgust for oneself. Both can be powerful motivators.

I’m a registered Republican, an ardently pro-life, faithful Catholic never-Trumper who keeps walking into the voting booth with one firm idea: Trump is the most dangerous candidate, because of his words and his behavior, and because of his awful power to encourage Americans to debase themselves. So I held my nose and voted for Hillary, and then for Biden, because I wanted to stop Trump, period. I don’t know how I’ll vote this year, but it won’t be for Trump.

But I can still recall my growing horror as more and more of my fellow Catholics did fall in with him, and started professing real love for him and his appalling ideas. I was baffled, angry, and ashamed. We should know better. I still feel I should have somehow done more to stop him and make at least my fellow Catholics see who he really is.

So when Kamala does stuff like skipping the Al Smith Dinner, maybe she’s doing it because she’s anti-Catholic. But more likely, she’s doing it because she knows burnt-out Catholics don’t care about stuff like that anymore. They don’t see themselves as part of the old guard American Catholic voting bloc. They can’t even go in the church basement and eat donuts after Mass anymore, because fellowship hour is just a bunch of dudes yuking it up over BBQ cat memes and Willie Brown jokes.

If Trump invites Americans to debase themselves, Kamala invites Catholics to lean into their self-loathing. Be ashamed to stand up for what their faith teaches, be ashamed of their fellow Catholics who threw in with Trump, and most of all, be ashamed of yourselves. Here, crawl in under the dubious shelter of this vote for Kamala, you poor sap.

She smells that misery in the air, and she knows that people are desperate for some relief. She doesn’t have to appeal to Catholics. She doesn’t even have to stop disliking Catholics. All she has to do is not be Trump. She’s counting on people being too exhausted to hope for more.

It didn’t take long for the two Republican candidates for governor to make it clear they came to the first debate of the primary ready to rumble.

Both former U.S. Sen. Kelly Ayotte and former state Senate President Chuck Morse are running ads attacking their opponents, and they brought those attacks on stage for the NHJournal debate at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics.

Morse, who’s trailing badly in public polls, was the first to go on offense, using his opening statement to lay out his attack against Ayotte.

Former state Senate President Chuck Morse answers a question at the NHJournal GOP gubernatorial debate on August 26, 2024.
(CREDIT: Jeffrey Hastings)

“Kelly Ayotte went to Washington and voted with the Democrats over 260 times,” Morse said. “She voted to grant amnesty to 11 million illegal immigrants, and she voted against school choice for low-income families. And in 2016, she couldn’t support our nominee for president, Donald Trump. I’m going to run on my conservative values in my record.”

Ayotte fired back, pointing out her support from across the GOP spectrum and noting, “I’m the only person on this stage who was ever asked to help the Trump administration,” a reference to her work helping sherpa Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch’s nomination through the Senate confirmation process.

Morse attacked her for serving on the board of directors of Blackstone, one of the largest corporate owners of rental property in the U.S., accusing it of “destroying” the housing market.

Ayotte shot back, “You know what, Chuck? It’s pretty ironic, because you sound like a Democrat. It really surprises me to see you denigrating the private sector. That’s what I expect to hear from the left, and that’s not the attitude I’m going to bring to the Corner Office.”

The ugliest attack came, however, when Morse tried to link Ayotte to the sex abuse scandal at the Youth Development Center. Some of the alleged assaults occurred during the years she served as attorney general, though none of the cases were brought forward during that time.

“She was the chief law enforcement person in our state when these kids were being raped and brutalized in the Sununu Center in 2005, 6 and 7. That’s when she was there. So if she wants to talk about failures, about what she hasn’t accomplished, let’s talk about that,” Morse said.

“This is what’s so sad about Chuck Morris in this campaign, that he’ll say or do anything,” Ayotte responded.

She added that her record at the Attorney General’s Office included investigating the Roman Catholic Diocese of Manchester for child abuse.

The debate also included some light moments. Asked what movie or TV show she would recommend for anyone thinking of getting into politics, Ayotte said “Game of Thrones.” Morse’s pick? “Rocky. I’m always backing the underdog.”

Other topics covered during the debate included addressing the state’s housing crisis, defending Education Freedom Accounts, and addressing Democratic attacks on the New Hampshire GOP over the abortion issue.

While the debate was live-streamed at NHJournal and broadcast by Manchester Public Television, there was also an audience of about 50 invited guests of the two candidates on hand at the NHIOP.

Ayotte supporter state Rep. Jennifer Rhodes (R-Winchester) told NHJournal afterward she believes her candidate is ready to bring the Republican Party together for the general election, while Morse’s attacks are helping Democrats.

“She responded when he actually went on the attack,” Rhodes said. “I actually think he’s done the job for the Democrats … it’s actually quite shameful, I think.”

Chuck Morse supporters outside the NHIOP during the NHJournal GOP gubernatorial primary debate.
(CREDIT: Jeffrey Hastings)

Morse supporter Ginny Busby of Atkinson wasn’t thrilled by Morse’s strategy either, because she believes he has the record to run on as an effective public servant.

“I wasn’t pleased [with the attacks] but it’s politics,” Busby said. “He’s better than that, he doesn’t need to do that.”

But former House Speaker and Republican National Committeeman Bill O’Brien said the back and forth is part of the process, and he doesn’t believe it’s going to have an impact on the November election.

“I don’t think that’s going to be terribly important … I’ve seen a lot worse than that, too,” O’Brien said.

“They are competent candidates, both of them, candidates that the party can get behind,” O’Brien said. “They each have their strengths,” O’Brien said. 

The net result, GOP insiders told NHJournal, is that Morse needed a major shift in the race. He didn’t get it.

“Ayotte won on points tonight by smartly reminding the GOP she’s fighting against Massachusetts and national Democrats simultaneously,” said one veteran GOP campaign insider. “Morse was solid, but he needed a moment to go viral and break through. It didn’t happen.”

After the debate, both candidates declared victory.

“Granite State voters deserve to know what’s at stake on the ballot this fall, and tonight was just the beginning of making sure the distinction between my record and that of my opponent is crystal clear,” Morse said in a statement touting his “dominating performance.”

“I have always stood by our party and President Donald Trump, and I am committed to uniting Republicans to secure victory this fall.”

Spokesman John Corbett said Ayotte “showed why Granite Staters are rallying around her campaign. Kelly is the conservative leader ready to defeat Joyce Craig and keep our state safe, prosperous, and free.

“These sad, desperate attacks from Phony Chuck Morse won’t change the fact that he is losing bigly, and his negative campaign is being soundly rejected by the few voters across the state who have ever heard of him.”

Democratic candidates are scrambling for support in the growing crypto currency sphere, and many want their party’s leadership to change the perception that Democrats are hostile to the emerging financial technology.

But New Hampshire’s Rep. Chris Pappas (D-Manchester) isn’t one of them.

A group of congressional Democrats and candidates, including Maggie Goodlander and Colin Van Ostern, recently wrote to Democratic National Committee chair Jamie Harrison asking for changes to the party’s platform to make it more friendly to Bitcoin and other forms of cryptocurrency. Crypto support could be vital in key swing states, they said in the letter.

“From an electoral standpoint, crypto and blockchain technologies have an outsized impact in ensuring victories up and down the ballot. Crypto is at the top of voters’ minds in swing states, and a balanced approach to crypto that spurs innovation while protecting consumers is a net positive for policymakers and candidates,” they wrote.

Pappas was the only major New Hampshire Democrat running for Congress this cycle who declined to sign.

Instead of embracing crypto, Pappas has amassed a record of supporting bills that would hurt the crypto industry. 

Pappas voted against Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act which proposed protections for crypto buyers. Pappas also voted against the CBDC Anti-Surveillance State Act, which would block the Federal Reserve from creating its own digital currency, giving the powerful bank the ability to run surveillance on crypto users.

Pappas sponsored a bill targeting the use of crypto to purchase drugs on the so-called dark web, linking the use of crypto to criminal activity. His bill would create a task force to study the use of crypto in online crimes.

President Joe Biden’s administration, especially the Securities and Exchange Commission, has been aggressive toward the crypto industry, alienating many potential supporters and donors. With Vice President Kamala Harris leading the ticket, Democrats like Goodlander and Van Ostern hope to see change in the party’s stance. 

“We believe this previous hostility does not reflect our Party’s progressive, forward-looking, and inclusive values. A refreshed leader of the ticket represents an opportunity to change that perception,” their letter states. 

According to the Financial Times, Harris’ team is already working on a “reset” with crypto industry leaders, stressing that under her leadership the party will be “pro-business, responsible business.”

Harris needs to play catch up with former President Donald Trump. A one-time crypto skeptic who once called it a “disaster waiting to happen,” Trump is now firmly behind the industry. He gave a keynote speech over the weekend at a Bitcoin conference in Nashville, Tenn., embracing the technology and calling for establishing a national Bitcoin stockpile before ending his speech in typically Trumpian manner.

“Have a good time with your Bitcoin and your crypto and everything else that you’re playing with,” Trump said.

Trump has also pledged to fire Biden’s anti-crypto Securities and Exchange Commission Chairman Gary Gensler.

Crypto is popular among New Hampshire Libertarians, and libertarian-leaning Republicans. Nationally, key voters who are political independents are more engaged in crypto currency than either Republicans or Democrats. According to Goodlander and Van Ostern, the technology is gaining ground among those traditionally part of the Democratic coalition.

“Data shows that digital assets are being adopted at higher rates among Gen Z, Black, and Latino Americans, and immigrant communities–key constituencies of the Democratic party–compared to traditional financial products. These technologies are revolutionizing opportunities for these communities, reflecting their transformative potential,” their letter states.

Crypto support comes with potential drawbacks, as Pappas can attest. Last year he was dogged by the campaign money he took from disgraced fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried’s FTX crypto exchange. 

Bankman-Fried was convicted of fraud, money laundering, and conspiracy and ordered to repay $11 billion stolen from investors. During the investigation, it was uncovered that Bankman-Fried and his cohorts made 300 illegal political donations, including thousands to New Hampshire Democrats.

Pappas eventually gave his $2,900 FTX donation to a charity, while Democratic Sen. Maggie Hassan gave up $30,000. 

The four GOP candidates in the First Congressional District primary showed Tuesday night they are up for a fight, whether it’s incumbent Democratic Rep. Chris Pappas, President Joe Biden, or occasionally each other.

Two business owners and veterans, Chris Bright and Hollie Noveletsky, joined Manchester Alderman Joe Kelly Levasseur and former Executive Councilor Russell Prescott at the New Hampshire Institute of Politics at St. Anselm College for the NHJournal GOP primary debate.

The number one question: Which candidate has the best chance to defeat Pappas?

“We have a perfect example: Manchester, New Hampshire,” said Levasseur when asked to make his case.

“For the first time since 1998, the board is red. We have seven Republican aldermen and a Republican mayor. And for the first time since 1998. We have a Republican chairman: Joseph Kelly Levasseur.

“There’s no one Chris Pappas, the Invisible Man, fears more,” Levasseur added. “I have won seven straight elections in a blue city as a Republican — and not a milquetoast Republican, a Republican that is Trump tough.”

Bright pointed to demographic changes, as well as the GOP’s struggles with the abortion issue.

“We have to get somebody [to D.C] just back at the table,” Bright said. “When I moved here in 2005 this was a red state. Then it became a purple state, now it’s a blue state. We need to engage with independent voters, and the abortion issue hurts us. We have to get our act together on abortion.”

Prescott, who ran unsuccessfully in the GOP primary for this seat in 2022, said his strategy of staying positive is the winner, pointing to his victories over Maggie Hassan in state Senate contests in 2002 and 2010.

“I look back at my races against Maggie Hassan, and it was a positive message that gets the independent voter to take a second look at a Republican,” Prescott said. “A Republican with a positive message, that’s what I have been doing for many, many years.” Prescott also mentioned his time working with Pappas on the Executive Council.

“We don’t need more of the same. We don’t need people who worked with him and caused this problem,” Noveletsky retorted. “We need something different.”

She also blamed an influx of voters from blue states.

“As people have moved to New Hampshire because it is such a favorable state to live in, because of our taxes and because of our quality of life, they bring with them their politics,” Noveletsky said. “We need to educate them about the values here in New Hampshire, and about why we’re different. And teach them to leave their politics at  home.”

Pappas was the main target Tuesday night, as Republicans accused him of failing to stand up for New Hampshire and instead acting as a rubber stamp for Biden.

Asked what one question they would ask Pappas on a debate stage, Noveletsky answered, “How do you sleep at night?”

All four candidates said Biden is too infirm to serve another four years, and they noted that Pappas has met with the president several times and must have seen the deterioration — not to mention the steady supply of stumbles and bumbles in Biden’s public appearances.

“We’ve been lied to for the last two years,” Bright said.

Noveletsky, a nurse who worked with the elderly and dementia patients, said Biden is clearly infirm and cannot do the job. Levasseur likened Biden’s situation to the movie Weekend at Bernie’s, and Prescott noted Biden’s infirmities are a national security danger. 

Asked to name their priority if elected to Congress, Prescott, Bright and Noveletsky identified out of control spending, skyrocketing inflation, and illegal immigration as top concerns. The more discursive Levasseur simply offered to follow the lead of former president and current GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

“Elect me and send me to Washington and I will be Trump’s main guy working on an America First agenda,” Levvasuer said.

Trump’s “America First” political philosophy influenced the public policy proposals from the candidates on stage. Noeveltsky wants to close both southern and northern borders to stop illegal immigration and build Trump’s oft-promised but never-completed wall at the southern border. All four candidates also said they support Trump’s call for stepped-up deportations of illegal immigrants.

“I do believe we need to deport them, I don’t believe we’re going to go door to door,” Noveletsky said.

Bright acknowledged he supported former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley in the primary after voting Trump in 2016 and 2020. He said Haley offered most of the policies of Trump, but with a younger candidates and far less “baggage.”

“We need a younger generation coming in,” Bright said. 

Prescott declined to say who he backed in the First in the Nation primary, calling the issue “old news.”

On abortion, all of the candidates are following Trump’s lead again. No one on stage supports a federal abortion ban, a major plank in past GOP platforms. Instead, like Trump, they all say with the Dobbs decision sending the question back to states, there is no longer a need to push for a federal ban.

Pappas has handily won every general election since taking office in 2018, and the Cook Political Report currently rates the district as “likely Democrat.” But a weakened Biden candidacy could hurt Democratic turnout and give a strong Republican candidate the chance to pull an upset.

Tuesday’s debate also generated its fair share of laughs, with some of the audience’s loudest prompted by a lightning round question session asking candidates to name a local restaurant where they’d pick up the tab for lunch or dinner with the debate’s moderator.