Listen to the article
Congressional Candidate Under Fire for Past Statements on Police Funding
Democratic congressional candidate JoAnna Mendoza faces criticism over comments she made in 2020 regarding the reallocation of police funding, as she campaigns in one of the nation’s most competitive House races in Arizona’s 6th Congressional District.
During a 2020 town hall event hosted by the Arizona Clean Elections Commission and Arizona Capitol Times, Mendoza, a Marine veteran, stated: “I support the reallocation of funding to programs that would allow people to live their best lives, such as social service programs. Such as housing, public education, healthcare, ensuring that we are addressing economic stability and environmental safety.”
These comments have resurfaced as Mendoza challenges Republican incumbent Juan Ciscomani in a district that the Cook Political Report has designated as one of just 18 “toss-up” races nationwide for the 2026 election cycle.
Mendoza’s campaign has strongly denied that she ever supported defunding the police, calling such assertions “categorically false, a lie and a political smear from D.C. hacks hoping to save Juan Ciscomani from an early retirement.” Her campaign pointed to other statements she made that same year, where she explicitly said, “I do not support defunding the police. Police officers are being asked to do too much. They’re being asked to address issues because of the lack of resources in our communities.”
The Republican National Committee, however, has seized on Mendoza’s earlier comments. Nick Poche, an RNC spokesperson, told Fox News Digital: “There’s no way for JoAnna Mendoza to spin her extreme anti-police views, and Arizonans will know that she sides with dangerous criminals over them.”
The “defund the police” movement gained traction in 2020 following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, which sparked nationwide protests against racial injustice and police brutality. Several progressive Democrats initially championed the movement, which called for redirecting police department funds toward social services and community programs.
In the years since, however, the slogan has become widely viewed as a political liability among Democrats. Several cities that initially reduced their police budgets, including Minneapolis and Austin, Texas, have since faced challenges with rising crime rates and public safety concerns.
Prominent Democratic figures have distanced themselves from the phrase. Rep. Jim Clyburn, who served as House Majority Whip under Nancy Pelosi, said in 2021 that the slogan was “cutting the throats of the party.” Veteran Democratic strategist James Carville recently called it “the three stupidest words in the English language” and suggested it contributed to Vice President Kamala Harris’s defeat in the 2024 presidential election, stating, “We could never wash off the stench of it.”
Arizona’s 6th District presents a significant battleground for both parties. Ciscomani won the seat in 2024 by a narrow margin of 50% to 47.5% against Democrat Kirsten Engel, making it a prime target for Democrats seeking to flip House seats in 2026.
The controversy highlights the ongoing tension within the Democratic Party between its progressive wing and more moderate members concerned about electoral viability in competitive districts. As public safety remains a top concern for voters nationwide, candidates’ positions on policing and criminal justice continue to face intense scrutiny on the campaign trail.
Poche believes Mendoza’s previous statements have complicated her path to victory, saying, “If the Democrats think a defund-the-police radical can beat him, they’re just plain stupid.”
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
Shifting police funds to social services is a controversial proposal that deserves a thoughtful, nuanced discussion. We should strive for effective solutions that balance public safety, social equity, and fiscal responsibility.
This is a complex and sensitive issue. While reallocating some police funding to social services has merit, it needs to be done carefully to maintain public safety. We should focus on evidence-based solutions that improve outcomes for all.
The candidate’s past comments on this issue have certainly stirred up controversy. I hope the debate can move beyond partisan rhetoric and focus on evidence-based policies that genuinely improve community wellbeing.
This is a politically charged issue that elicits strong opinions. I think it’s important to avoid knee-jerk reactions and instead carefully evaluate the potential pros and cons of different approaches to public safety and social services funding.
Shifting police funding to social services is a bold proposal that warrants careful consideration. I’m curious to learn more about the potential impacts, both positive and negative, and how the candidate envisions implementing such changes.
Interesting perspective from the candidate. I can see valid arguments on both sides of this debate. Ultimately, it will come down to how any policy changes are implemented and whether they truly improve community wellbeing.
This is a sensitive and divisive topic that deserves a thoughtful, nuanced discussion. I’d be interested to hear more about the candidate’s specific plans and how they would balance public safety with social service needs.
Reallocating police funding is a complex topic with reasonable arguments on both sides. I’m curious to learn more about the candidate’s specific proposals and how they would be implemented to achieve the desired outcomes.