On My Disassociation from the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and the Launch of Stone Soup for Justice
After an extensive period of prayer, reflection, and careful consideration, I must make a difficult and deeply serious announcement.
With a heavy heart, I am formally and fully ending my association—of any capacity—with the Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA) and its founder, Francesca Amato.
I do not make this decision lightly. I have worked too hard, for too long, to elevate the voices of my family, Iowa families, and families across this country; to build constructive relationships with lawmakers; and to earn trust through careful, honest advocacy. I cannot allow my name, reputation, or work to be tied to conduct and representations that I believe are dishonest, exploitative, and fundamentally misaligned with the kind of reform our children deserve.
Ethical and Policy Concerns
My decision is rooted in both policy and ethics.
I have personally witnessed parents paying thousands of dollars for “services” that delivered little meaningful support or tangible outcomes. I have also observed what I consider to be cult-like dynamics within the organization—expectations of unquestioning loyalty to leadership, pressure to accept narratives that conflicted with facts, and hostility toward legitimate professional accountability.
In my view, this environment harms vulnerable families who are seeking help, not control.
Misrepresentation to Lawmakers
I am especially troubled by a pattern of mistruths and overstatements directed at legislators and the public.
I was informed that Senator Chuck Grassley’s office and other U.S. Senate offices “100% stand behind” the FJAA bill. I know firsthand that this is not accurate. I have worked directly with Senator Grassley’s staff and other congressional offices and have earned their respect by being precise, honest, and careful in what I represent.
While Senator Grassley stands firmly for accountability and transparency—and remains fully supportive of his constituents—his office does not support the FJAA bill. He has expressed concern that it blurs state and federal authority and creates confusion rather than clarity.
I cannot and will not attach my name to claims of congressional support that I know are untrue, nor to a 94-page bill that, in my judgment, overreaches, confuses jurisdictional boundaries, and risks undermining broader reform efforts.
Retaliation and Unprofessional Conduct
I have observed a troubling pattern of unprofessional and retaliatory behavior from Francesca Amato that I find incompatible with serious policy work.
This has included:
Speaking negatively about advocates behind their backs while presenting warmth to their faces
Creating unnecessary conflict between advocacy groups
Encouraging supporters to attack other advocates in her defense
Demanding public gratitude or deference
Responding to substantive policy concerns with personal attacks
When I raised legitimate concerns about state–federal boundaries and Title IV-E compliance, the response was not honest policy discussion but attacks on my character.
Most concerning, my private medical information and lawful medical treatment were weaponized in an attempt to discredit me. Given that Francesca Amato presents herself as an ADA advocate, I view this as a serious violation of medical privacy and disability rights.
I have also observed a broader lack of personal responsibility in routine matters, which further eroded my trust. These are not the hallmarks of accountable leadership.
Implausible Claims and False Hope
I was repeatedly presented with grandiose and implausible claims, including assertions of imminent executive orders, high-level meetings, promises to personally take me to meet President Trump because he was “about to sign” the FJAA, and statements that Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was reviewing the bill.
When such claims are made without evidence—and used to build loyalty, financial commitment, or hope from traumatized families—that crosses a line.
Survivors of system harm deserve transparency, realism, and integrity. Not fantasies.
For all of these reasons, I am formally and completely disassociating myself from:
The Family Justice and Accountability Act (FJAA)
Its current bill
Any claim that I support or endorse Francesca Amato’s strategies, representations, or leadership
Moving Forward: Stone Soup for Justice
I remain deeply committed to child welfare reform, sibling preservation, and enforcement of federal law—particularly Title IV-E—in a way that is honest, targeted, and workable.
Going forward, I will be focusing my efforts on Stone Soup for Justice, a new collaborative team and legislative vehicle grounded in truth, accountability, and cooperation. Stone Soup for Justice reflects our belief that real reform is built collectively—through transparency, shared responsibility, and rigorous policy work—not through control or misinformation.
I am honored to move forward with the advisement and support of Kathleen Arthur, a long-respected and credible voice in Congress on child welfare and federal funding. Together with Stone Soup for Justice, we are developing legislation tightly focused on Title IV-E requirements and enforcement.
Our work will center on:
Misuse of Title IV-E funds
Federal compliance standards states must meet to receive and retain funding
Wrongful removals and wrongful terminations of parental rights
Removals and terminations that resulted in injury or death
Family-court-forced separations
Failures to prioritize kinship placement and sibling preservation
Violations of reasonable-efforts requirements
Systemic practices that bypass federally mandated protections for parents and children
At the end of the day, my goal is to deliver the results and meaningful change families deserve—especially those who placed their trust elsewhere—through honest advocacy, precise lawmaking, and steadfast accountability.
My loyalty is, and always will be, to the children and families of Iowa and to families across this country seeking real, sustainable change.
I will not compromise that mission to remain aligned with conduct I cannot defend.
— Kristin Mitchell
Supporting Statements
Kathleen Arthur (Left)
“Children must come first. I have been working on fixing the Families First Act since it was passed. It simply did not have enough protections or oversight. It did not solve the funding problems. Change is slow; however, we are on the edge of making major change in child welfare. This team has clicked with members of Congress better than any I have ever seen. Congress is ready. The ground is fertile. The time to plant the seeds is now.”
Tasha Ulshafer (Left)
“I’m excited to start this new journey with the amazing new group I’m with. Moving forward with people who stand for truth and real action feels empowering. I was misled before by Francesca Amato, but that chapter is closed.”
Melissa Owens (Left)
“I am withdrawing my support and any association with the Family Justice and Accountability Act 2025 and its organizer after discovering serious constitutional issues with the bill and witnessing harmful, cult-like organizational behavior. My commitment to families navigating the family court and CPS systems remains unchanged. I will now be working with a new group, including Kristin Mitchell, Kathleen Arthur, and others at Stone Soup for Justice, to develop federal legislation that truly protects children and keeps them in loving homes. While this change may come as a surprise to many people I deeply care about, this new path reflects my dedication to finding real, ethical, and effective solutions for those who are suffering and seeking true resolution.”
In the summer of 2020, Iowa’s 4th Congressional District witnessed one of the most brazen establishment takeovers in recent Republican politics. Nine-term Congressman Steve King—the fiery, unapologetic voice of rural conservatism, border security, and Western civilization—was unceremoniously dumped by his own party. In his place? State Senator Randy Feenstra, a polished, establishment-backed challenger who cruised to victory in the June 2 primary with 45.5% of the vote to King’s 35.8%.
This wasn’t a grassroots revolt. It was a calculated betrayal orchestrated by the very insiders King had helped elevate—including Governor Kim Reynolds, whom he had proudly endorsed and supported just years earlier.
The Endorsement: King Lifts Reynolds When She Needed Him Most
Flash back to 2017-2018. Kim Reynolds was running for a full term as governor after ascending from lieutenant governor. Steve King didn’t just back her—he went all-in. Reynolds named King a statewide campaign co-chair and proudly touted his endorsement. In a November 2017 press release, she gushed: “Congressman Steve King is a strong defender of freedom and our conservative values. He’s independent, principled, and is fighting the good fight in Washington, D.C. You never have to question where he stands.”
King delivered for Reynolds in the heavily conservative 4th District. She rode that support to victory in 2018. Their alliance was public, mutual, and mutually beneficial—classic Republican teamwork, or so it seemed.
The Betrayal: Reynolds Stabs King in the Back
Fast forward to January 2019. After years of King being smeared by the media for his blunt defense of immigration enforcement and cultural issues, House Republican leadership stripped him of his committee assignments over remarks questioning why “white nationalist” had become a slur. King’s enemies pounced. Enter Randy Feenstra, who announced his primary challenge against the incumbent.
Governor Kim Reynolds? She didn’t lift a finger to defend the man who had co-chaired her campaign. Instead, she publicly washed her hands of him. In an interview with WHO-TV, Reynolds declared she would “stay out of the primary” but pointedly noted King’s surprisingly close 2018 re-election as a “wakeup call.” Translation: She wasn’t backing King over Feenstra.
Prominent Iowa Republicans like Sens. Chuck Grassley and Joni Ernst followed suit and stayed neutral—abandoning the pattern of past support for King. Meanwhile, Feenstra raked in cash from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, National Right to Life, the Republican Jewish Coalition, and other establishment heavyweights. He painted King as “caustic” and ineffective, precisely the line the D.C. and Des Moines insiders wanted to hear.
Steve King, the guy who had carried water for the party through thick and thin, was left twisting in the wind. The same Reynolds who once called him a “strong defender of conservative values” now stood aside while the machine dismantled him.
Feenstra: The Artificial Candidate
Randy Feenstra didn’t storm onto the scene as a populist firebrand with grassroots rage behind him. He was the safe, scripted alternative. A state senator from Hull whose district overlapped King’s, Feenstra resigned a powerful Ways & Means committee chairmanship to run full-time—signaling deep establishment buy-in. He outraised King dramatically and dominated his home turf, but the broader narrative was clear: this was the party clearing out the “problematic” incumbent for someone who wouldn’t rock the boat or make national headlines for the wrong reasons.
Feenstra’s campaign pitch boiled down to “effectiveness” over principle. He criticized King’s rhetoric while promising results—code for “we’ll keep the seat Republican without the drama.” National GOP groups poured in to protect the safe red district from any general-election risk. King, stripped of power in Washington, was portrayed as the reason the district lacked a “seat at the table.”
The voters in the primary bought it. Feenstra won. King was out. The establishment had its man.
Why This Still Matters: The Pattern of Artificial Republicans
This wasn’t about ideology—Feenstra and King both cast conservative votes. It was about control. Steve King represented the raw, unfiltered voice of the heartland that made the Republican Party a fighting force. The insiders—Reynolds, the Chamber, the national PACs—wanted someone more manageable. Someone who wouldn’t embarrass them on cable news. Someone “artificial”: manufactured by money, party machinery, and calculated neutrality from the very people King had once helped.
Fast-forward to today, and the irony is thick. Feenstra is now running for governor in 2026, positioning himself as the heir to the Reynolds legacy. Meanwhile, Steve King—still influential in conservative circles—has thrown his support behind a challenger attacking Feenstra as the ultimate establishment candidate.
The 2020 primary wasn’t a rejection of conservatism. It was the establishment’s successful coup against one of its own most outspoken warriors. Randy Feenstra didn’t earn that seat through pure populist fire—he was handed it after the party betrayed the man who had helped build their machine.
Iowa conservatives should never forget: when the insiders decide you’re too loud, too principled, or too effective at exposing the real threats facing America, they’ll find a “cleaner” replacement. Steve King learned that the hard way. The rest of us should learn from it before the same machine installs more artificial candidates across the country.
While Cedar Rapids families worry about toxic lead leaching into their kids’ drinking water from old service lines, city leaders have been laser-focused on fast-tracking a flashy new casino project. The city identified roughly 8,500 potential lead service lines, yet the rush to break ground on the $275 million Cedar Crossing Casino and Entertainment Center screams misplaced priorities from an America Last local government more interested in gambling revenue than protecting working families from a known neurotoxin.
The timeline tells the real story. Cities had to submit their initial lead service line inventories to the Iowa DNR by October 16, 2024, under EPA rules. Cedar Rapids published its interactive map and identified thousands of at-risk lines right around that deadline. Just weeks later, in December 2024, the city council approved the development agreement for the casino. Ground was broken in February 2025 after the Iowa Racing and Gaming Commission gave the green light, with construction kicking off full steam toward a planned New Year’s Eve 2026 opening.
EPA’s Lead and Copper Rule Improvements (LCRI), finalized in October 2024, demands full replacement of lead pipes within 10 years starting around late 2027, with aggressive targets for communities like Cedar Rapids. The city is talking about aiming for near-complete inventory resolution by 2037 and prioritizing replacements on the public side—but that slow-walk timeline coincides perfectly with pouring concrete and chasing tourist dollars for the casino instead of treating this as the public health emergency it is.
This isn’t coincidence; it’s elite capture in action. Globalist-style priorities and big development interests always seem to trump the basics like safe water for American workers and children. Lead exposure hits kids hardest—lowering IQs, causing behavioral issues, and hammering working-class neighborhoods in older parts of town where these pipes linger. Cedar Rapids banned new lead lines back in 1971, but legacy pipes remain, and the city’s corrosion control only goes so far. While officials pat themselves on the back for adding chemicals to coat pipes, families are left wondering why the same urgency applied to casino approvals isn’t slamming into a full-court press on pipe replacements.
The consequences are clear for everyday Cedar Rapids residents. Delayed action means continued risk of lead in tap water for pregnant moms, infants, and schoolkids in affected homes. Homeowners bear the brunt on private-side replacements, which get expensive fast, while city resources and staff bandwidth shift toward making sure the casino’s shell goes up on schedule. This is the same pattern we see nationwide: out-of-touch local bureaucrats and developers chase economic “wins” that benefit connected insiders and tourism, while ignoring the quiet betrayal of middle-class families dealing with aging infrastructure.
It’s time for real accountability in Cedar Rapids. City leaders should redirect every available dollar and crew toward accelerating full lead service line replacements—public and private sides—using EPA and state revolving funds before the 10-year clock runs out. Put American families and public health first, not casino developers chasing New Year’s Eve 2026 ribbon-cuttings. Secure borders start at home with secure, safe basics like clean water. Patriots in Linn County need to demand their officials stop the surrender to flashy projects and deliver on core responsibilities: safe drinking water, law and order, and policies that actually protect working Americans instead of selling out to the next big spectacle. The lead pipes must go—now—not after the slot machines start ringing.
Water infrastructure rarely becomes headline news until something goes wrong. But across Iowa, a series of developments over the past year has raised growing questions about aging infrastructure, regulatory compliance, and public transparency.
Populist Wire began examining these issues through several reports focused on Cedar Rapids and Linn County. Those articles explored a series of events involving water quality awards, lead pipe inventories, and disputes tied to public records and housing enforcement.
This article provides a 2026 investigation update, connecting previous reporting with new statewide coverage of water issues affecting Iowa communities.
1. The Award and the Lead Risk
The first article in the series examined a striking contradiction.
Cedar Rapids received national recognition for water quality after its municipal water system won the “Best Tasting Water” competition from the American Water Works Association (AWWA).
At the same time, federal regulatory changes required cities to identify potential lead service lines. In Cedar Rapids’ case, municipal inventory data indicated that thousands of water service lines were classified as either lead or “unknown.”
Under updated federal guidance tied to the EPA Lead and Copper Rule Improvements, many “unknown” service lines must be treated as potential lead until verified.
The result created a paradox that triggered the initial investigation:
A national water quality award
Simultaneous identification of potential lead risk affecting thousands of service lines
The situation raised questions about how cities communicate water quality and infrastructure risk to residents.
2. The Lead Service Line Map
The second Populist Wire article examined Cedar Rapids’ publicly released service line inventory map.
Municipal water systems across the United States have been required to catalog every service line connection under federal drinking water regulations.
In Cedar Rapids, the map categorized pipes into several classifications:
confirmed non-lead
confirmed lead
galvanized lines
unknown material
Federal guidance states that unknown materials must be treated as potential lead until confirmed otherwise, because historical installation records are often incomplete.
The investigation focused on whether the classification and public presentation of these lines matched federal regulatory expectations.
The issue matters because infrastructure inventories directly influence:
public health risk assessments
pipe replacement priorities
federal infrastructure funding eligibility
Cities nationwide are now racing to complete these inventories before federal replacement deadlines take effect.
The third Populist Wire report expanded the story beyond water infrastructure.
That article documented a housing dispute connected to residents who had raised questions about local governance and infrastructure transparency.
The situation involved:
housing enforcement actions
eviction proceedings
allegations that administrative pressure followed public scrutiny
While the housing issue is legally separate from water infrastructure, it raised broader questions about how institutions respond when infrastructure concerns are raised publicly.
Since the original articles were published, water infrastructure has continued to receive attention across Iowa.
Local reporting throughout 2026 has focused on several statewide challenges.
Cities across Iowa are now working to comply with federal regulations requiring the identification and replacement of lead service lines.
Communities including Cedar Rapids and others must develop replacement plans that may take years and hundreds of millions of dollars statewide.
Federal infrastructure funding through recent legislation is expected to help cover some of these costs, but municipalities still face significant financial and logistical hurdles.
Local reporting examining these challenges includes:
The report highlighted that many cities are still working to determine how many service lines contain lead or unknown materials and how replacement costs will be distributed between municipalities and homeowners.
Infrastructure replacement could take years or even decades depending on funding availability.
5. Agricultural Runoff and Nitrate Concerns
Another major water issue affecting Iowa involves nitrate contamination caused by agricultural runoff.
Cities such as Des Moines have reported elevated nitrate levels in river water used for municipal supply, which can increase water treatment costs and trigger federal monitoring thresholds.
Environmental groups have long argued that fertilizer runoff contributes significantly to these contamination issues, while agricultural organizations emphasize the importance of voluntary conservation practices.
Coverage of this issue has appeared in statewide reporting such as:
Democratic lawmakers have generally emphasized stronger environmental protections and federal infrastructure investments.
Republican leaders have often raised concerns about regulatory burdens on farmers and municipalities while supporting targeted infrastructure funding.
These policy debates reflect the growing importance of water issues across Iowa.
7. Why Infrastructure Transparency Matters
Water systems are among the most critical pieces of infrastructure in any community.
Yet they are also among the least visible.
Most residents never see the pipes beneath their streets, the treatment processes at municipal plants, or the regulatory frameworks that govern drinking water safety.
When issues do emerge—whether related to lead pipes, nitrate pollution, or infrastructure inventories—they often reveal how complex these systems are.
Coverage across Iowa media has increasingly emphasized transparency and public access to infrastructure data, including reporting such as:
The purpose of the Watch the Water series is not to make conclusions prematurely, but to document developments as they occur and examine how public infrastructure is managed.
