Evans brought in more than $1.2 million during the first three months of 2026, according to federal campaign finance reports due Wednesday. He ended March with more than $3.4 million in the bank. That’s an eye-watering sum, easily surpassing the roughly $2 million that Evans’ Democratic predecessor, then-U.S. Rep. Yadira Caraveo, had gathered at the same point in early 2024.

Evans has no primary challenger, meaning he won’t need to start seriously spending his cash until after his Democratic opponent emerges from the June 30 primary.

In other federal races, U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper significantly outraised a state senator challenging him in the Democratic primary, while another incumbent — Republican U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert — was outraised by an even greater factor by her only remaining Democratic challenger in the state’s most conservative-leaning district.

The race for Evans’ 8th Congressional District seat, which sits in a rural-suburban area north of Denver, will be among the most closely watched contests in the country this fall. Two of the Democrats hoping to topple Evans have started marshalling their own financial resources.

State Rep. Manny Rutinel posted a strong quarter, hauling in more than $952,000 to bring his cash-on-hand total to more than $1.76 million. He raised more — and has banked more — than his former state House colleague, Shannon Bird, who joined the race a few months after Rutinel last year.

Bird raised nearly $567,000 in early 2026, and she ended the quarter with just over $1 million to play with as the primary season entered its final three-month stretch.

The third Democrat in the race, Marine veteran Evan Munsing, has outlasted several more established candidates — including Caraveo, who mounted a brief comeback campaign last year. But his fundraising has slipped farther behind Rutinel’s and Bird’s: Munsing raked in $115,000 last quarter, and he spent almost double that.

As a consequence, his cash pile has been halved, from the $213,000 at the end of 2025 to $108,000 at the end of March.

Between the three Democrats and Evans, the CD8 candidates raised more than $2.8 million over the last three months. Between them, the four candidates have nearly $6.4 million on hand.

More than half of that pile lies, waiting, in Evans’ coffers.

“I’m grateful for the outpouring of support from Coloradans who are ready to keep fighting for safer communities, a stronger economy and a more secure future,” Evans said in a statement Wednesday.

Here’s what else was revealed by the latest federal campaign finance reports, which came out just after the major parties’ primary ballots were finalized through assembly votes and petitioning.

Hickenlooper’s haul grows for primary challenge

In his Senate reelection race, Hickenlooper raised nearly $1.4 million last quarter, the first full reporting period since his primary challenger, state Sen. Julie Gonzales, entered the race. That’s more than he raised in the prior quarter.

Though he spent more than $1.2 million in the early part of 2026, the incumbent Democrat will still enter primary season with a hefty $4 million in the bank.

Gonzales, meanwhile, has reported more anemic fundraising. She raised more than $264,000 this past quarter, compared with the nearly $180,000 she posted in her first month in late 2025, showing a slowing pace. Her most recent total in the bank sat at just over $114,000.

In a blog post Wednesday, Gonzales acknowledged that her campaign was “living paycheck to paycheck.” But she appeared undaunted and said she raised $130,000 in the first week of April, after the reporting period’s end.

DeGette’s balance grows as challenger picks up pace

A different primary challenge is brewing in Denver’s 1st Congressional District.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Democrat who’s been in Congress for nearly 30 years, is facing two Democratic opponents: University of Colorado Regent Wanda James and Melat Kiros, a lawyer and doctoral student who last month beat DeGette in an assembly nominating vote.

Whether that victory translates to an incumbent-toppling result in June remains to be seen. DeGette raised more than $263,000 last quarter, a bit more than she’d raised at the end of 2025. Her cash-on-hand total ticked up, too, and now sits at $636,000.

Kiros also saw a boost, bringing in more than $174,000, double her prior quarter’s total. With $118,000 in the bank, she trailed DeGette’s total entering primary season.

James’ fundraising went the opposite way. The regent raised more than $72,000 last quarter, below her fourth-quarter total last year. Her spending also ticked up, bringing her cash on hand down to just more than $54,000.

Boebert challenger keeps raking in cash. Will it matter?

Among Colorado’s incumbents in Congress, Boebert has long been a fundraising lightning rod. That remains true, even as she settles into the comfortably conservative 4th Congressional District, which covers Colorado’s Eastern Plains as well as Douglas County, after a district switch in the last election.

Eileen Laubacher, a retired rear admiral in the U.S. Navy, raised more than $2 million for the second consecutive quarter. After a big spend of $1.5 million, she still ended the quarter with more than $3 million in her campaign’s pocket. Another Democratic candidate, Trisha Calvarese, also had raised big money in her second run against Boebert before she dropped out two weeks ago.

Boebert, in contrast, raised just under $90,000 in the last three months, and she reported $160,000 on hand in late March.

It’s important to remember that Boebert now represents a district where, in a 2021 analysis, by more than 26 percentage points. In 2024, Boebert’s win wasn’t even half that — and .

Hurd amasses cash to defend Western Slope seat

In Boebert’s old 3rd Congressional District, her erstwhile Republican opponent, U.S. Rep. Jeff Hurd, is looking to defend a seat that’s reliably, if not comfortably, red. Hurd raised more than $609,000 last quarter, bringing his war chest to just under $2 million.

He also picked up a primary opponent at the Colorado Republican Party assembly last week — former state Rep. Ron Hanks — but his fundraising advantage is hefty.

Two Democrats are jockeying to take on Hurd in November. Alex Kelloff, a Snowmass businessman, has been in the race longer. He raised $192,000 last quarter, adding a bit to his cash-on-hand total of $458,000.

Kelloff’s newcomer primary opponent, fellow businessman Dwayne Romero, raised more than $505,000 in his first month in the race, and, after expenses, had slighty more on hand than Kelloff.

Democrat brings in cash to flip Colorado Springs district

Colorado’s other Jeff among Republican congressmen — Hurd’s fellow freshman, U.S. Rep. Jeff Crank —  raised $345,000 last quarter as he looks to defend the conservative 5th Congressional District. Crank’s war chest now tops $1.1 million.

His likely opponent, Democrat Jessica Killin, brought in nearly $670,000, bringing her on-hand total to more than $1.5 million. Army veteran Joe Reagan, who is challenging Killin for the Democratic nomination, raised $86,000 and ended the first quarter with $33,000 in the bank.

Democrats have been targeting the district, which — after Boebert’s current seat — is the most conservative in the state.

Incumbents’ cash hauls

While DeGette looks to ward off her primary opponents, Colorado’s three other Democratic members of Congress are without well-known Republican challengers. But they’re still slowly building up their campaign bank accounts.

U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse, of the Boulder-based 2nd Congressional District, brought his cash on hand to just under $3 million last quarter. U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, of Aurora’s 6th Congressional District, raked in nearly $940,000 to start 2026 (which, his campaign said, was his largest single-quarter haul), and he had more than $2.5 million under his campaign mattress.

U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, whose 7th Congressional District covers the center of the state up through parts of metro Denver, had more than $915,000 on hand.

Those sums will allow the Democrats to support not only their own campaigns but others’ races and causes, too. Crow’s latest campaign finance report listed a nearly $60,000 contribution to the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network, for instance, while Neguse gave $35,000 to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

They’ll be part of a contingent of local Democratic heavy-hitters — also including Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib — visiting the Crescent City to bolster Denver’s bid as it competes against four other cities.

Crow said the fact that Denver has done it before means it’s more than prepared to do it again. Denver hosted the Democratic convention in 2008, when a fresh-faced U.S. senator from Illinois named Barack Obama accepted the party’s presidential nomination.

“We know we can do this and do this well,” the congressman from Aurora told The Denver Post in an interview on Thursday. “We have the capacity. We have the infrastructure.”

And Colorado, he said, has the blue credentials to excite the base and put them to work making sure the next occupant of the White House is a Democrat.

“At a time when the Democratic Party is facing a crisis of confidence in so many places, and in so many ways, Colorado is a beacon of how to do it right,” Crow said.

Early last month, the national party announced that Denver to host the Democratic National Convention — joining Atlanta, Boston, Chicago and Philadelphia. The nominating convention for the party’s presidential ticket is set for Aug. 7-10, 2028.

The party and potential host cities are working out site visit plans for each in the coming weeks. A decision on which city wins the bid will likely be made this summer.

Johnston and other city representatives have lobbied for the event both formally and informally in recent months. The mayor’s spokesman, Jon Ewing, confirmed Johnston’s appearance in New Orleans this weekend and said the mayor recognizes the manifold benefits of steering the event to the Mile High City.

“Landing the DNC would be an enormous economic boon for Denver, bringing tens of thousands of visitors to Colorado and generating hundreds of millions of dollars in activity for the city and local businesses,” Ewing said.

Murib spoke to The Post by phone from New Orleans, where he’s been since Monday. He will join Crow and Johnston in speaking to the delegates at the spring meeting on Friday evening.

“We’re hoping to show them why Denver is the best place for the 2028 convention,” he said. “We want to emphasize the seamless experience they will have in Denver — from the airport to the hotels to the convention.”

Each of the finalist cities has hosted at least one past Democratic convention — Philadelphia in 2016, Boston in 2004 and Atlanta in 1988. Chicago hosted in 2024, the most recent of its dozen times playing the role.

“We want to show how the convention could be one for the history books again,” Murib said, alluding to the nomination of America’s first Black president 18 years ago.

Murib said three Denver City Council members — President Amanda Sandoval, Chris Hinds and Darrell Watson — will be at the national Democrats’ meeting as well.

Crow, an Army veteran who represents a Colorado district that takes in the eastern and southern suburbs of Denver, is serving as battleground co-chair for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for the 2026 election cycle.

Colorado was among the top states in the nation for Democratic performance in the 2024 election, bucking what was otherwise a red wave that handed control of the White House and Congress to Republicans. Democratic presidential contender Kamala Harris beat now-President Donald Trump in Colorado by a margin of 11 percentage points.

“We’re a model for the country,” Crow said.

He said this week’s gathering of party leaders is a critical moment in the push to get Denver back on the national stage two years from now.

“This is the biggest gathering between now and when the (convention) decision is made,” Crow said.

Murib said the meeting in New Orleans won’t be all serious business, though.

“It’s a little bit of a party — and a pitch,” he said.

Someone dressed in a big blue bear costume — an homage to the 40-foot ursine behemoth who peers into the Colorado Convention Center along 14th Street in downtown Denver — has already been getting a lot of attention from attendees, the party chair said.

“Everyone is getting a picture with the big blue bear wearing Mardi Gras beads,” he said.

On Saturday, at least, you call them Democrats. Then, in two weeks, you call them Republicans.

The Democratic Party faithful are gathering this weekend in the southern Colorado city for their first in-person statewide assembly since 2018 — and the party’s most consequential assembly since then, to boot. A slew of candidates are vying for the party’s nominations to the state’s top offices, nearly all of which are open because of term-limited incumbents.

The Colorado Democratic Party’s state assembly on Saturday at Memorial Hall marks the first major winnowing of those candidates. It’s also a chance for the victors to rally the base — and, they hope, ride a wave of victory headlines to the June primary election, where voters will have the final say on nominations.

In two weeks, on April 11, the Colorado Republican Party will follow suit with their state assembly, at Massari Arena on the Colorado State University Pueblo campus.

The stakes are similar in each case. Party members, picked among neighbors at precinct and county caucuses across the state in the weeks before, will name their preferences for a slew of elected offices, from U.S. senator and governor to members of the state House of Representatives. 

The assemblies aren’t the end of the nomination process — indeed, some of the highest-profile names in Democratic politics are foregoing it. But the event will exclude from June 30 primary ballots those candidates who rely on the assembly and fail to clear its 30% threshold of support. The assembly vote winners will land on the ballot’s top line.

“The most exciting thing about (the assembly) is how it levels the playing field for grassroots competitors to have a shot at sharing a message that, in some cases, resonates broadly,” Colorado Democratic Party Chair Shad Murib said.

The assembly puts candidates in front of swaths of some of the most dedicated Democrats in the state to make their case, one five-minute speech at a time.

The candidates also get the chance to rub elbows in hallways and have one-on-one conversations with voters about why they should hold the office they’re seeking — making potentially invaluable inroads, particularly for lesser-known candidates looking to knock off longtime officeholders.

Already, the caucus and assembly process revealed an organizing gap for one longtime politician. Candidate for Congress Melat Kiros walloped U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette at the Denver County assembly in mid-March, winning nearly two votes for every one the 15-term congresswoman pulled in. On Friday night, Kiros easily cruised to a place on the June primary ballot, earning 67% of the party’s nominating vote to DeGette’s 33%. Though she lost, DeGette avoided the unthinkable — falling below 30% and falling off the ballot.

Former Gov. Roy Romer, a Democrat who led the state from 1987 to 1999, praised the caucus and assembly process as a way for regular people to steer the party, rather than letting someone just throw tens of millions of dollars into an election. He’ll be introducing Attorney General Phil Weiser, a candidate for governor, at Saturday’s assembly.

“This way is a movement,” Romer said in an interview. “When you’re petitioning, you’re a little more distant from people. This is working with people, community by community. This is a way to come together and say this is our nominee.”

Alternatively, candidates can qualify for the ballot by collecting petition signatures. U.S. Sens. Michael Bennet and John Hickenlooper both pursued that option. Bennet is running for governor against Weiser, while Hickenlooper is seeking reelection.

They each collected nearly 15,000 signatures, or some 10 times the number of people who will be at the assembly, and were the first candidates to qualify for the June primary.

On the Republican side, state Sen. Barbara Kirkmeyer and pastor Victor Marx have both submitted more than 20,000 signatures to the secretary of state’s office to qualify for their party’s gubernatorial primary. More than a dozen other GOP candidates have also filed for the office. The GOP assembly next month is expected to pare down that field substantially.

Seth Masket, a University of Denver political science professor, cautioned against making assumptions about the routes the candidates take to the ballot.

Further-left and further-right candidates tend to benefit from the caucus and assembly process because they tend to attract a more passionate followings, he said. That doesn’t mean they necessarily do or don’t have a broad base of support, but they do have supporters who care enough to spend a weeknight at a caucus or a spring Saturday in a convention hall.

Candidates who are more mainstream in their party — and especially those with money — generally find it easier to petition onto the ballot. They can also avoid the risk of being kept off the ballot by an organized, enthusiastic base of opposition that only needs a few hundred people to potentially keep them below the 30% threshold necessary for ballot qualification. (The threshold drops to 10%, however, if the candidate goes a hybrid route of pursuing both petitions and the assembly vote.)

“(A successful assembly candidate is) not necessarily the candidate that’s going to win the primary, but it is a candidate that has a passionate following,” Masket said. “Not every candidate has that and, to be honest, more mainstream candidates don’t tend to have that kind of following. What they do have is more general name recognition and support from party members.” 

Recent electoral history in Colorado has shown that assembly victories rarely translate into overall victory in the primary.

In 2010, Bennet, who had been appointed to the Senate but not yet won an election, . In 2018, then-U.S. Rep. Jared Polis lost the caucus vote in his bid for governor. In 2020, Hickenlooper likewise lost the caucus in his first bid for the U.S. Senate.

All three went on to win the party nomination in the primary, and then they won the general election. 

So far this cycle, public polls show Bennet and with wide leads over their competitors, even as they cede the assembly to their rivals.

“Both methods require any candidate to earn the backing of voters from every single corner of this state,” Jordan Fuja, a spokesperson for Bennet����ap campaign, said in a statement. “… Colorado voters are looking for a governor with the experience, vision, and commitment to delivering the results we need. Michael has held a commanding lead since he first entered this race because Coloradans know he is the right candidate to protect Colorado from (President Donald) Trump’s chaos and build an economy that works for working people.”

Hickenlooper, meanwhile, had initially intended to go through the caucus and assembly process before putting his efforts into the petition process. 

In a statement, his campaign acknowledged the switch, saying the intent was voter outreach.

“Our focus in participating in the caucus process at the beginning was to help energize the base, meet with voters, and support the work of our county parties,” spokesperson Jess Cohen said. “The senator appreciates everyone who has participated in the process and really enjoyed having conversations with folks across the state.”

Hickenlooper’s decision to pull back, meanwhile, left openings for his rivals — and a chance to rally a fired-up Democratic base that has shown it����ap open to change.

“It����ap clear to me that the base of the Democratic Party is interested in evaluating who talks a good game and who walks the walk,” said state Sen. Julie Gonzales, a Denver progressive who’s running against Hickenlooper. “Who’s actually done the work and put in the muscle to listen to people and to translate those frustrations, those hopes, those anxieties, into concrete and durable policy. That����ap the work.”

Candidates seeking state and federal office through the state Democratic assembly

Besides state legislative races, here are the candidates seeking placement on the Democratic primary ballot at the state assembly in Pueblo. The party has been organizing multicounty assemblies separately for congressional candidates.

U.S. Senate: Karen Breslin, state Sen. Julie Gonzales and Jessica Williams

Governor: Antonio Martinez, William Moses, Erik Underwood and Attorney General Phil Weiser

Attorney General: Boulder County District Attorney Michael Dougherty, Secretary of State Jena Griswold and David Seligman

Secretary of State: State Sen. Jessie Danielson and Jefferson County Clerk Amanda Gonzalez

State Treasurer: State Sen. Jeff Bridges, John Mikos and state Rep. Brianna Titone

Source: Colorado Democratic Party

Re: “Colorado Democrats’ opposition to Iran attacks sound like Vietnam Syndrome,” and “War can’t be left to one man – especially Trump,” March 8 commentaries

I congratulate The Post for presenting two sides of the argument for Operation Epic Fury.

Ken Toltz, a dual U.S.-Israeli citizen with a personal stake in bringing America to Israel’s side, blames the massive government deception behind the epic failure of the Vietnam War for Democratic opposition to President Trump’s unilateral, unconstitutional institution of a war against Iran. David French emphasizes the wisdom of the constitutional separation of powers that gives Congress the sole power to declare war.

The opinion by Mr. French carries the day legally and morally. War wastes innocent lives, trillions of dollars and time better spent on, for example, global climate change and the necessary global cooperation needed to address it.

I recommend an opinion piece in the Aspen Daily News by , which posits that this war is not about American national security.

The war is about Israeli influence on the Trump administration, driven by the existential threat that Iran poses to that nation, but not to the U.S. It is about the desires of major Gulf petrostates that are worried about Iranian proxies and their control of the Strait of Hormuz. They have curried favor with Trump through a gaudy gift of a private jet, lucrative real estate deals and cryptocurrency purchases, and a $2 billion “investment” in Jared Kushner’s personal fund.

It is also about distraction from the Epstein files and the failures of the Trump administration in just its first year: inflation up; loss of medical coverage for millions of Americans; DHS thugs unaccountable for unwarranted arrests and violence to include the kiloing of American citizens; tariff policies likely to push us into stagflation; and wasting of military assets more likely needed in relation to the Chinese threat to Taiwan.

David Schroeder, Golden

David French has tried to simplify our defense attack on Iran to a simple “yes” or “no” from Congress. The information privy to President Trump and our military created several double-edged swords in dealing with Iran.

Were they really that close to a nuclear weapon? (Probably — they had the time and technology.) And if they were, would their ideology have caused them to bomb Israel? Yes, they would have used the weapon is the answer, based on their past actions.

Threats of “death to America” should not be taken lightly. Past acts of reason and kindness netted us nothing but further threats and acts of aggression. They have been supported by technology transfers from Russia and possibly China.

This aggression was not only against Israel and others but also against its own people. If they would kill over 30,000 of their own, certainly they would not hesitate to do the same to us “infidels.” Telegraphing our intentions by running the options through Congress would have only caused further acts of aggression by Iran and created an even worse situation. In view of this, President Trump made the correct decision. We can only hope that our actions will create the changes in Iran that will benefit its own people and the rest of the free world.

William F. Hineser, Arvada

Ken Toltz reaches back half a century to label criticism of the reckless attack on Iran as evidence of a lingering “Vietnam Syndrome.” For Toltz, tepid criticism by Colorado Democrats that points out the constitutional requirement that only Congress bears the power to declare war is a “deflection of American strength.” It seems that to him, the Constitution is merely a pesky intrusion of process.

More accurately, the Constitution rests the grave decision to commit the country’s people and resources to a deliberative body that weighs the purposes of military action and the potential harms of that action. Instead, we have a president who committed the country to a war because he had a feeling that Iran was going to attack. It����ap a war that causes the president, his Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Secretary of Homeland Security nominee, and press secretary to flail when asked to define its purpose, or even whether it is a war. Toltz asks for moral clarity when the administration is unable to state a strategy coherently.

Randy Livingston, Denver

I think that Ken Toltz was right on in his commentary, except for the cause behind our senators and Rep. Jason Crow wrapping themselves around the Constitution.

They are all smart people and have correctly avoided the vacuous positions held by former Vice President Kamala Harris. But their party has no platform now except anti-Trumpism. Not much with which to work!

Don Tocher, Boulder

Ken Toltz called for “moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack. He need look no further than Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to find sustained civilian attacks. When will Netanyahu’s regime finally face meaningful consequences for the civilian deaths and destruction it has caused in Gaza and now in Iran?

Carol Bryant, Centennial

Gov. Polis must uphold justice for the law-abiding residents

Re: “Polis’ urge to bow to Trump’s demands and pardon Peters must be Stockholm Syndrome,” March 8 commentary

Columnist Krista Kafer got it right. How can Gov. Polis ever think to let convicted felon Tina Peters out of prison? Prison is where the former Mesa County Clerk belongs to serve the full sentence she was given for her multiple crimes to subvert our elections. Colorado citizens, and especially residents of Mesa County who live their normal lives raising their families, voting, and who follow our laws, deserve better.

The criminal actions of Peters, who was placed in a position of trust by voters, were heinous. Letting her go insults Coloradans who do not break the law and take their responsibilities to vote as something we must and need to do. We thought Gov. Polis would not kowtow to President Trump, but apparently that is not the case. It is called the backbone, and let us hope Gov. Polis can find his.

Media reporting indicated the governor would just want an apology and that would be enough to let her go. He must be kidding. She apologizes on Day One, so the governor will let her off, and on Day Two onward, she will deny she ever really wanted to apologize. She will then re-engage in her harmful rants and actions to subvert our elections and spread the bile she did years ago. Coloradans and Mesa County citizens deserve much better from the governor in upholding justice for us — not a convicted lawbreaker.

Ed Talbot, Grand Junction

Former state senator deserved harsher punishment

Re: “Tina Peters’ sentence was drastically harsher than these Democrats charged with the same crime,” March 8 commentary

Doug Friednash was allowed to write a column, making a statement, “I have yet to hear a single person opposed to leniency for Peters argue that Lewis’ sentence was too lenient or inappropriate.”

This statement cannot be believed. Former Mesa County Clerk Tina Peters’ sentence is absolutely appropriate, and former Democratic Colorado State Senator Sonya Jacquez Lewis’s sentence is terribly lenient. Both have caused significant doubt in the validity of the election process. They may have been charged with the same crime (but not counts), the difference in their actions is public vs. private, but with the same egregious result — that being distrust in elections.

Actions that tamper with the trust of the most fundamental rights of citizens should not be tolerated in the United States by any person, from the president down to a local school board member. Peters’ sentence is appropriate, and Lewis’ sentence should involve prison time as well, not just community service hours — that is much too lenient.

So, Mr. Friednash, here’s one person you can hear from who thinks Peters’ sentence is appropriate for the magnitude of the effects on public opinion and who thinks that Lewis’ sentence is ridiculously lenient.

Scott Lake, Colorado Springs

Cartels cash in on American demand for illegal drugs

Re: “Trump encourages military action to fight drug cartels,” March 8 commentary

In Sunday’s article, President Donald Trump is quoted as saying, “The only way to defeat these enemies is by unleashing the power of our militaries.”

As long as Americans’ demand for illegal drugs remains strong, some cartel or cartel-like organization will exist to cash in on the hundreds of millions of dollars willingly paid by Americans to satisfy their illicit needs. It����ap basic supply/demand economic theory.

Maureen Wirth, Aurora

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Vietnam Syndrome — the deep reluctance to project American power abroad after the trauma of the Vietnam War — was first widely recognized as a driving ideology within Democratic circles just as I arrived in Washington, D.C., to begin my career. The mood of the city then was shaped by the revelations of the Vietnam War, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, and the findings of the Church Committee, chaired by Frank Church, on which Colorado’s freshman senator, Gary Hart, served. Americans learned of CIA overreach, covert interventions, and hard truths about government deception. The national psyche shifted.

By the time the Iran hostage crisis unfolded under President Jimmy Carter, the Democratic Party was deeply wary of military force. Carter chose negotiation and restraint as 52 American diplomats were held for 444 days by the new Islamic Revolutionary regime. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his approach, it reflected a broader hesitancy shaped by Vietnam’s shadow.

That hesitancy has never fully disappeared.

Today, as the United States and Israel act together to degrade the military capabilities of the Iranian regime — a regime that has funded and armed proxy militias across the region for decades — I am struck by the cautious, almost antiseptic language coming from many Democratic leaders.

For example, Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet said this week: “Any use of military force must be consistent with our constitutional framework and avoid drawing the United States into another open-ended conflict in the Middle East.” That concern is understandable.

No American wants another Iraq or Afghanistan. But when constitutional process becomes the primary lens and the strategic objective becomes secondary, it echoes the old reflex: avoid strength for fear of entanglement.

Rep. Jason Crow, a former Army Ranger, emphasized that “Congress must be consulted before further escalation,” underscoring the need for oversight and warning against “another prolonged regional war.”

Rep. Joe Neguse similarly stressed that, “First and foremost, our constitution is crystal-clear: the decision to take our nation to war rests with Congress.”

Process, process, process. Deflection from the embrace of American strength to rid the world of the worst of the worst.

I write this not as a detached observer. I spent formative years in Washington working in pro-Israel politics, engaging both Democrats and Republicans, and watching firsthand how internal party debates over strength and restraint played out. In the year 2000, I ran as the Democratic nominee in Congressional District 6 now held by Jason Crow. Yet today, I view these events from the front row.

Six years ago, I became a dual U.S.–Israeli citizen and now spend most of my time in Herzliya, just north of Tel Aviv. Since Saturday morning, much of our community life has shifted underground. We move between home and reinforced shelters as Iranian ballistic missiles — fired from roughly 2,000 miles away — target civilian neighborhoods. These are not symbolic gestures; they are designed for mass casualties. The families in these shelters are not abstractions in a policy debate. They are neighbors.

From this vantage point, the debate in Washington feels tone-deaf.

When Iran’s leadership vows Israel’s destruction and arms groups who are committed to that goal, deterrence is not theoretical. It is existential. The current joint operation — undertaken by President Donald Trump in coordination with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu — may be politically controversial, and both leaders are undeniably flawed. But the strategic objective of preventing a violent theocratic regime from expanding its destructive reach is neither reckless nor novel. It is long overdue.

This is where Vietnam Syndrome still lingers — not as a slogan, but as a mindset. The instinct to lead with caution rather than clarity. To emphasize process before principle. To worry first about overreach rather than about the consequences of inaction.

I do not expect unanimity. I do not expect cheerleading. But I do expect moral clarity when civilians are under sustained attack and when a regime that has destabilized a region for nearly half a century is finally facing meaningful consequences.

From Washington, these questions are strategic. From Herzliya, they are personal. The Democratic Party once prided itself on combining moral leadership with pragmatic strength. The challenge now is whether it can rediscover that balance — not abandoning caution, but refusing paralysis. History shows the costs of both overreach and retreat. The test of leadership is knowing the difference.

Ken Toltz is a 3rd-generation Denverite, long-time political activist, and a former Democratic nominee for Colorado’s 6th Congressional District. He now lives in Herzliya, Israel.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

Updated March 6, 2026 at 8:19 a.m. Due to a columnist’s error, the original version of this opinion column misquoted Rep. Joe Neguse.

Trump called on the Iranian people to “seize control of your destiny” as , who Trump and Israeli officials said was killed in the attack. Iran did not immediately confirm Khamenei’s death.

Democratic U.S. Reps. Jason Crow, , and and Sen. Michael Bennet all released statements calling for Congress to vote on a

“Trump is plunging us into another . He’s learned nothing from decades of failed conflicts,” Crow said. “It����ap a war of choice with no clear end game, no authorization from Congress and little support from Americans.”

, who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said he has seen no new information to suggest Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear weapon is more imminent.

, also a Democrat, criticized Trump for bypassing his congressional duty to seek Congress’ approval for operations in Iran, describing it as a “calculated distraction” from the economy, immigration issues and unreleased files regarding convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

“While we would certainly welcome the fall of Iran’s terror-sponsoring and repressive regime, the president’s reckless approach leaves us facing profound, unanswered questions about the new dangers he has unleashed,” Hickenlooper said.

Republican U.S. Reps. Gabe Evans, and all shared statements supporting combat operations and highlighting Iran’s attacks on Americans, links to terrorism and pursuit of nuclear weapons.

“ is a necessary step to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon capabilities, eliminate imminent threats to the United States and our allies and defend our core national security interests,” Evans said.

Evans also called on Hickenlooper and Bennet to pass a Department of Homeland Security funding bill, which both senators opposed in the wake of federal agents fatally shooting Alex Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis.

Crank, who sits on the House Armed Services Committee, said Khamenei’s reported death will avoid “a prolonged conflict that would have killed many Americans.”

“What comes next is just as important. The Iranian people must have a voice in deciding their next leader, and the surviving members of the dictatorship must be hunted down and brought to justice,” he said.

Republican did not explicitly acknowledge the attack, posting on X that she is “praying for safety for our service members and wisdom for our leaders.”

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Senators and members of Congress often bring guests to the president’s annual address. This year, the roster from Colorado includes guests who are on the front lines of President Donald Trump’s immigration agenda.

Among them is Caroline Dias Goncalves, a University of Utah student who was arrested by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Mesa County last spring after a sheriff’s deputy who pulled her over in a traffic stop alerted federal authorities. Goncalves, who was released from detention in late June, will be a guest of U.S. Sen. John Hickenlooper, a Democrat.

“Immigrants like me — we’re not asking for anything special. Just a fair chance to feel safe and to keep building the lives we’ve worked so hard for in the country we call home,” . “I hope no one else has to go through what I did, and I hope my story and presence can help inspire change for a better future.”

In a similar vein, U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet, also a Democrat, will bring Andrea Loya, the executive director of Casa De Paz. The nonprofit group works with people who are or were recently detained in Aurora’s ICE facility, as well as their families.

Caroline Dias Goncalves is our guest for tonight����ap State of the Union. Dreamers like Caroline have grown up here since they were young kids. They should not have to live in fear of violence from ICE.

— Senator John Hickenlooper (@SenatorHick)

Here are other Coloradans set to attend Tuesday’s speech in the nation’s Capitol. Trump’s address is set to begin shortly after 7 p.m. MST.

U.S. Rep. Brittany Pettersen, a Democrat from Lakewood, will bring Tyler Guyton, a survivor of the Evergreen High School shooting and the school’s student council president. Pettersen’s district includes the school.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, a Republican from Windsor, will bring state Sen. Byron Pelton, her office said. Pelton, who serves as the minority caucus chair in the state Senate, represents Sterling and northeastern Colorado, a district that overlaps with Boebert’s congressional district.

U.S. Rep. Jason Crow, a Democrat from Aurora, will host Jay Park, who owns bb.q Chicken, a restaurant franchise that has a location in Aurora.

U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, a Denver Democrat, will bring … no one, including herself. Spokesman Jack Stelzner said the congresswoman wasn’t planning to attend the speech and “won’t force a constituent to sit through (President Donald Trump’s) lies and misstatements.”

U.S. Rep. Gabe Evans, a Fort Lupton Republican, will bring his wife, Anne, as his guest.

Messages sent to Republican U.S. Reps. Jeff Crank and Jeff Hurd and to Democratic U.S. Rep. Joe Neguse were not immediately returned Tuesday.

Re: “Epstein files: Bondi clashes with Democrats,” Feb. 12 news story

Attorney General Pam Bondi does middle-school mean girl really well. The insults she hurls at members of Congress — the people’s representatives — are choice and juvenile. The deranged demeanor accompanying her rude responses under oath deserves an Oscar nomination in the cringe and horror categories.

Sadly, none of these theater performances is in her job description.

We, the people of the United States, who have hired her (bad decision, Republican Senate!) and are paying her salary and benefits, and to whom she has sworn an oath to serve, require a grown professional who understands their job to be the attorney for the people and not the bodyguard of the Fuhrer. The people require an AG who performs the duties of the office, like, for example, prosecuting pedophiles, and to do so in a dignified manner that honors, not insults, the people they serve.

Bondi is not doing any of that. This leaves but one solution. Congress is to impeach, convict, and remove her from office.

Floy Jeffares, Lakewood

Crow’s accusers are the ‘ones following illegal orders’

Re: “Crow says ‘there will be costs’ after failed indictment attempt,” Feb. 12 news story

You go, Jason Crow. The malicious failed prosecution of those in Congress who urged military members not to follow illegal orders demands a response to hold Trump administration officials accountable.

The irony is that the prosecutors in the Justice Department should have been paying attention because they were the ones following illegal orders when they clownishly filed a criminal case when no crime had been committed. They had to use the grand jury route because, in a regular federal court proceeding, the case would have been immediately dismissed out of hand.

What is the over-under bet for how many Trump pardons ultimately will be issued to these spineless creatures? A lot of people will have to be pardoned, but many who need a pardon won’t get one. Yes, keep track of who is being naughty or nice.

Barry Noreen, Denver

Follow officers’ orders and stay alive

Ever wonder what the paper would be like if Donald Trump weren’t president? On most days, the front section is dominated by articles critical of the president, his programs or his party. It has been said that it’s foolish to take on folks who buy ink by the barrel. That is not my intention here.

I believe it’s past time we all just took a big breath, group hug, and think about all the freedoms and good things we have here in these United States. As a Marine Veteran who has seen more of this world, I can say from experience that what we have here ain’t so bad.

I’m sorry people had to lose their lives in the riots in Minnesota; however, I will say what no reporter or editor will say. They would be alive had they only obeyed the officers’ orders.

Ralph McClure, Greeley

Rittenhouse defenders condemn Pretti

In 2020, Kyle Rittenhouse crossed state borders to attend a protest in Wisconsin. Even though he was only 17, he brought an AR-15-style rifle. Rittenhouse fatally shot two men and non-fatally injured another. He was lauded and called a patriot by some.

Alex Pretti attended a protest in his hometown of Minneapolis carrying a holstered gun, which he had a permit to carry. He was called an “assassin” and “terrorist” by many of the same people who endorsed Rittenhouse’s actions.

Rittenhouse was acquitted of homicide charges and is alive and well. Pretti was killed.

What am I missing?

Karen Snyder, Aurora

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

This came days after two members of Congress — Rep. Jason Crow and Sen. John Hickenlooper — announced they will donate tens of thousands of dollars to immigrant rights organizations to and employees.

More members of Congress are likely to follow suit and return their donations as the company and its political contributions come under more public scrutiny. These donations, while welcome, raise a deeper and more troubling question: Why is a company that powers mass surveillance and immigrant enforcement so deeply embedded in our political system in the first place?

Even before ICE agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, the Department of Homeland Security’s enforcement arm racked up a long history of racism, violence, and anticonstitutional activity. What����ap really changed since its founding in 2003 is the speed and the scale of that violence — in the last four months, e.

Now armed with unchecked power from this administration and a growing suite of surveillance tech tools, ICE has a blank check to terrorize all of us. But what few are talking about is how these two pieces of the puzzle are connected: ICE is a financial conduit between the federal government and the tech industry, namely the data-mining firm Palantir. Silicon Valley executives and Capitol Hill suits are getting rich and doing each other favors while a band of thugs threatens our communities and our democracy.

Tech has been a big part of ICE’s deportation pipeline for a while now. In 2018, through my work at Mijente with the #NoTechForICE campaign, we put out detailed documents to track those connections. But as the DHS’s budget has grown under the Trump administration, so have the lucrative tech and data contracts that extend ICE’s reach.

�ʲ������Գپ������ԴǷ��� for software and services. Last year, the federal government paid Palantir $30 million to build its new AI-driven surveillance platform, now foundational to ICE’s functioning. When agents charge into neighborhoods and workplaces, they are relying on Palantir’s custom software to run their operations and using data brokers to get their information.

When the mood in Silicon Valley was decidedly more liberal, Palantir leadership — which includes co-founder Peter Thiel and CEO Alex Karp — mainly stayed under the public radar. But in this new political era where retaliation from the president and abuse of force are seen as “high testosterone” behavior, they are now saying the quiet part out loud — very loud.

In a 2025 earnings call, Palantir CEO Alex Karp said that “when you have an open border, it means that the average poor American earns less” and that he believes “this country is right to stop that.”

He went on to say that he was proud of the efforts Palantir is involved in around immigration, and most Palantirians are proud too. He may be right: co-founder Joe Lonsdale has posted on X about his support for the government’s actions in Venezuela, and

When some Palantir employees asked questions internally about how their software was supporting ICE’s recent killing of ICU nurse Alex Pretti, the “global director of privacy and civil liberties engineering” simply sent out a link to information about existing government contracts.

And it����ap more than just talk. Karp and other Palantirians are showing pride in the administration’s work through their wallets. As they pocket billion dollar government tech contracts, they’re giving away million dollar political donations.

And the largest recipient of donations from Palantir employees and the company’s PAC are , according to OpenSecrets. All you have to do to is follow the money.

That����ap why last month, we released: a deeply-researched list of the political donations from Palantir’s corporate PAC, and individual Palantir employees and executives. The data was compiled from public filings with the Federal Elections Commission, looking at Palantir’s employees and executives donations to politicians’ principal campaign committees, their leadership committees, and the super PACs that support them. Scroll through the spreadsheet and see just how far and wide the money flows — and whether your representatives are accepting money from the company that ICE depends on.

Palantir uses public money to build private control — and private money to try and buy public control. Now that the company’s technologies are threatening the liberties of everyone, we all must ask ourselves: What are we going to do about it?

Fortunately, there’s one simple thing you can do today to make a difference. Don’t vote for any politician who takes money from Palantir and therefore supports ICE. If a leader you like has already accepted a donation from the company, demand that they return the funds. Spread the word among your friends and family, coworkers and neighbors.

No tech for ICE and no political donations from Palantir

Jacinta Gonzalez is the head of programs at MediaJustice, a national organization that fights corporate and government control of media and technology in Black, brown, and working class communities. She previously served as the policy director at Mijente, where she helped lead the #NoTechForICE campaign exposing tech companies contracts with immigration enforcement.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, Rep. Joe Neguse and Rep. Jason Crow fought back against corruption, overreach and abuse of power.

For Boebert, Neguse and Crow, the fight is against a U.S. Department of Justice that has gone rogue under Attorney General Pam Bondi and U.S. attorneys across the nation who are not ashamed to do President Donald Trump’s political bidding with the justice system.

During these trying times, Colorado needs bipartisan agreement that abuse of power in a nation that stands for “justice for all”  will not be tolerated.

Rep. Jason Crow

Nothing from this administration has disturbed us more than Trump’s assertion that members of Congress, including Colorado’s Jason Crow, should be tried for treason – noting that it was “punishable by death” — because they urged members of the U.S. military not to obey illegal orders.

But the fact that Trump found a U.S. attorney willing to do his bidding and seat a grand jury to pursue those charges is baffling. Fortunately, the jurors saw through the U.S. government����ap efforts to railroad six American patriots, all of whom first served in the military before becoming politicians. A grand jury refused to indict Crow and the other five Democrats who participated in the video.

Crow has not been silent despite the threats from the president of the United States, saying emphatically that he and others are standing up to a corrupt Justice Department.

“But that is the moment that we are in,” Crow told The Denver Post. “And I think every American is starting to see that, and the tide is turning.”

The tide is indeed turning.

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Boebert was one of four Republicans who signed a discharge petition in the U.S. House to force a vote on legislation requiring the Justice Department to release a trove of documents related to the Jeffrey Epstein child sex abuse.

The Epstein Files Transparency Act passed by the U.S. House and Senate and signed into law by Trump specifically prohibited redacting the documents to protect people “on the basis of embarrassment, reputational harm, or political sensitivity, including to any government official, public figure or foreign dignitary.”

This week, after viewing unredacted versions of the Epstein files, Boebert doubled down on her criticism of those in positions of power who are covering up for those suspected of abuse. In a brief video interview immediately after viewing the documents, she said there were names redacted who were discussing rape who were clearly not victims. If that is true, then the U.S. Justice Department has failed to comply with the clear language of the transparency act. Making matters worse, the Justice Department failed to protect victims, some of whom were named or pictured in the files, missing key redactions that would protect survivors of prostitution, sexual abuse and rape.

Boebert simply told Newsweek that she didn’t think

Who is the DOJ protecting?

Rep. Joe Neguse

Neguse also went after the Justice Department last week, helping a bipartisan group of lawmakers highlight the agency’s corruption during a five-hour hearing with Bondi.

Lawmakers mostly focused on the botched release of the Epstein files and the failure of the Justice Department over decades and multiple administrations to bring criminal charges in the case. If it were not for the work of a Miami Herald reporter exposing sweetheart deals in a series called Epstein would have gotten away with his crimes. Now Americans are demanding that those who joined Epstein in raping children and abusing women must face justice.

Neguse took a different tack, highlighting other ways the Bondi has spurned justice.

First, he quoted Bondi, “If you come for law enforcement, the Trump administration will come for you.”

Then he played a video clip of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. A man in the video can clearly be heard yelling at Capitol police and accusing them of selling out for a pension, and calling them the Nazi and the Gestapo. Then the man then yells “(Expletive) them. Kill them!”

“Attorney General Bondi, that man works for you now, right?” Neguse asks, running through the criminal charges the man faced stemming from his involvement in the Jan. 6 effort to prevent Biden from being seated as president.

“He does work for me,” Bondi said. “I believe he was pardoned by President Donald Trump.”

Then Neguse asked Bondi about the gutting of the Public Integrity Section within the Department of Justice, an agency tasked with the “investigation and prosecution of all federal crimes affecting government integrity, including bribery of public officials, election crimes, and other related offenses.”

Neguse said the agency went from 35 employees to two under Bondi. Bondi fired back that prior administrations had weaponized the agency, but Neguse cut her off, instead turning to her gutting of the Justice Department����ap unit tasked with investigating cryptocurrency.

“She eliminated the team. Why? Because her boss, the president of the United States, is making money hand over fist. $1.4 billion over the last year through cryptocurrency holdings. I think what is happening at the Department of Justice is a disgrace.”

It is a disgrace.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.