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 early June 2026, a sixth-generation Iowa farmer and political newcomer named Zach Lahn did something most consultants said was impossible. He defeated a sitting congressman, Randy Feenstra, who carried President Trump’s endorsement, in the Republican primary for governor. Lahn won a narrow but decisive victory in a crowded five-candidate field, capturing roughly 38% of the vote to Feenstra’s 37%. The establishment was outspent in key ways, outworked on the ground, and ultimately rejected by voters who wanted something different.
Lahn ran explicitly as an “Iowa First” candidate. That slogan is not marketing fluff. It is the state-level application of the same principle that animates the national America First movement: the people who live in a place, work its land, raise its families, and bear the consequences of policy should come before corporate cartels, out-of-state investors, foreign interests, and the permanent political class.
The populist core of the campaign
Lahn’s platform centered on concrete grievances that ordinary Iowans feel every day. Iowa has some of the world’s best farmland, yet family farms have been disappearing by the thousands. More than a quarter of Iowa land is controlled by out-of-state and foreign owners. A handful of companies dominate inputs. Cancer rates in the state rank among the highest and fastest-rising in the nation, a crisis Lahn and many farmers attribute in part to the chemical and industrial agricultural system. Young people continue to leave. Communities hollow out.
Lahn’s response was blunt: break up the monopolies, keep Iowa land in Iowa hands, prioritize family farms over Big Ag, demand accountability from corporations that treat farmers and families as numbers rather than neighbors, and make the state healthy again through cleaner food, water, and medicine. He accepted the first endorsement from RFK Jr.’s MAHA Action PAC and framed the fight as one against a rigged system that benefits special interests over the people who actually live there.
In his victory speech he drove the point home: nobody thought it could be done. They were outspent, opposed by the establishment, told to wait their turn. The people of Iowa answered that the state does not belong to the lobbyists, special interests, and corporate giants. It belongs to them.
This is textbook populism. It is not left-wing redistribution or right-wing nostalgia. It is the insistence that concentrated power—whether corporate, bureaucratic, or globalist—has extracted too much value from the productive majority, and that the remedy is to restore sovereignty to the people who actually inhabit the place.
America First is the governing principle
“Iowa First” is simply America First applied to a state. The same logic scales. A nation that refuses to put its own citizens, workers, borders, industries, and cultural inheritance first will eventually cease to function as a coherent nation. The alternative—treating the country as an open platform for capital, labor, and ideology from anywhere—has produced precisely the hollowed-out communities, eroded trust, and elite detachment that voters are rejecting.
Lahn’s win shows the political potency of this approach even inside a party that already claims the Trump mantle. Trump’s endorsement of Feenstra was not enough to overcome a candidate who spoke more directly to local economic pain, health concerns, and cultural continuity. Voters rewarded the candidate who treated the soil, the water, the family farm, and the next generation as inheritance rather than commodities. That is the same instinct that fuels resistance to open borders, endless foreign wars that drain American blood and treasure, trade policies that gut domestic industry, and institutional capture by interests that view Americans as interchangeable units.
The uniparty dynamic Lahn criticized—career politicians on both sides who protect the same corporate and institutional arrangements—exists nationally. When voters sense that the system is designed to extract from them rather than serve them, they look for candidates willing to say the system itself is the problem. Lahn did that on the issues that matter most to rural and working people in his state. The same dynamic operates everywhere elites have insulated themselves from the consequences of their own policies.
Why this is the way forward
America First is not a slogan. It is a recognition of political reality. Nations that refuse to prioritize their own people eventually lose the capacity to provide security, prosperity, or continuity. Local versions of the same principle—Iowa First, Texas First, whatever the place—are how the larger project becomes durable. They rebuild the habits of stewardship and mutual obligation that abstract globalism dissolves.
Lahn’s narrow upset will not decide the November general election by itself. But it already demonstrated something important: when a candidate speaks clearly about protecting the productive base of a community from concentrated power, and does so without apology, voters respond. The political class can be beaten. Special interests can be named. The people who actually live in a place can still assert that the place belongs to them.
That is populism at its best. And it is why America First is not a temporary mood. It is the only coherent response to a system that has spent decades treating the American people as an afterthought. Iowa just offered another data point. The pattern is becoming hard to miss.
Gov. Kim Reynolds defended Iowa’s water-quality efforts and the stewardship of farmers during a May 1 press conference. In the weeks that followed, the state and federal governments committed approximately $148.3 million in clearly identifiable new water funding and financing.
During a May 1, 2026, press conference announcing Iowa’s “Farm to Faucet” proposal, Gov. Kim Reynolds pushed back when reporters questioned the condition of Iowa’s water.
“Despite what you all think,” Reynolds told the group of reporters before defending Iowa’s investments and arguing that farmers care about protecting their land because they intend to pass it down to their children.
The governor’s defense came as Iowa continued confronting concerns involving nitrates, lead pipes, PFAS contamination, aging treatment facilities and rural water infrastructure. Reynolds announced what her administration promoted as a nearly $320 million water-quality package spanning 12 years. The proposal was signed into law on June 1 and took effect July 1.
How Much of the $320 Million Is Actually New?
The nearly $320 million headline does not represent $320 million in entirely new state spending.
The Iowa Department of Agriculture’s own announcement states that the legislation works partly by “re-directing existing dollars.” Approximately $76 million can be clearly identified as new or additional state funding:
$52 million over 12 years for conservation practices in the Greater Des Moines watershed.
$6 million over 12 years for additional water-quality monitoring, based on an additional $500,000 annually.
$8 million as a one-time investment in drinking-water and wastewater treatment grants.
$10 million to establish the Rural Iowa Infrastructure Bank, which will provide low-interest loans for smaller communities.
That equals approximately $76 million in clearly new state commitments—about 24% of the administration’s advertised $320 million package.
Another $25 million is designated for Central Iowa Water Works to expand nitrate-removal capacity. However, the state says that money will come from the existing balance of an underused program, meaning it is redirected funding rather than an entirely new appropriation. Other portions of the $320 million package similarly involve restructuring existing water-excise-tax revenue and moving money between programs.
More Than $72 Million in Federal Support Followed
Separate from Reynolds’ state package, federal agencies announced approximately $72.3 million in water-related funding and financing for Iowa after her May 1 comments.
The documented federal commitments include:
$46.116 million announced by the Environmental Protection Agency on May 20 for identifying and replacing lead service lines.
$9.457 million announced by the EPA on May 19 for PFAS testing, planning and treatment projects in small or disadvantaged Iowa communities.
$344,000 announced on June 26 for small and rural drinking-water systems.
$16.373 million announced by the U.S. Department of Agriculture for rural Iowa water infrastructure, including new wells, a treatment plant, a water tower and pipelines. Of that amount, approximately $15.5 million consists of loans and $874,000 consists of grants.
The federal money addresses several different problems, including lead exposure, PFAS, insufficient rural water supplies and aging infrastructure. It should not be presented as though every dollar directly addresses agricultural nitrate runoff.
The Combined Total
Since Reynolds’ May 1 remarks, the clearly identifiable commitments are:
New state funding: approximately $76 million
Federal funding and financing: approximately $72.3 million
Combined total: approximately $148.3 million
These numbers represent appropriations, allotments, grants, loan funds and financing commitments. They do not mean that all $148.3 million has already been spent or that the projects have been completed.
The state portion is also spread across as many as 12 years, while several federal awards will flow through state or local programs before construction begins.
Still, the scale and timing of the investments matter. Reynolds told reporters, “Despite what you all think,” while defending Iowa’s water record. Yet within weeks, her administration signed a major water package and federal agencies committed tens of millions more to Iowa’s lead pipes, PFAS contamination, nitrate-treatment capacity and struggling rural water systems.
Investment is welcome, but the funding itself demonstrates that Iowa faces real and costly water challenges. The final measure of success will not be the size of a press-release headline. It will be whether nitrate levels decline, unsafe pipes are removed, rural systems become reliable and Iowa residents can trust the water flowing from their faucets.
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.
