Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: executive order

Arizona governor issues executive order to ensure COVID-19 vaccine access

Key Points:
  • Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order to ensure COVID vaccines remain available
  • Federal guidelines now require prescription for COVID vaccine, limiting access
  • Unvaccinated individuals face higher hospitalization and death risks from COVID

Gov. Katie Hobbs issued an executive order late Sept. 11 to ensure that COVID-19 vaccines remain available for Arizonans — regardless of new directives from the federal government.

But it won’t necessarily mean that insurance companies will pay for them.

Her action allows the state Department of Health Services to issue a “standing order” that can serve as a prescription for the vaccine.

That comes after the Food and Drug Administration scrapped existing guidelines, which allowed virtually anyone to get the vaccine without a prescription. 

Now the federal guidance allows only those 65 and older or those younger who have at least one high-risk health condition to be immunized without a prescription.

All that resulted in Banner Health, the state’s largest hospital network, deciding it would stop administering the latest COVID vaccine. And its doctors would no longer write prescriptions.

With Thursday’s action, that is no longer relevant.

The governor’s order allows the health department to issue blanket prescriptions for pharmacists and health care providers to administer the vaccine “in accordance with nationally recognized professional clinical guidance that ensures the broadest possible access.”

“We are taking action to protect the health care freedom of Arizonans,” the governor said in a prepared statement.

“Vaccines are critical tools that safeguard public health and prevent serious illness,” she continued. “Arizonans and their doctors deserve the freedom to access the COVID vaccine if it is right for them.”

And Hobbs said that, with her order, “we are following the science and ensuring that Arizonans have access to vaccines to keep themselves and their families safe.”

Hobbs is making it clear that she believes that the changes in federal guidance about who can and cannot get vaccinated started after vaccine critic Robert F. Kennedy Jr. became the secretary of Health and Human Services.

“This limited approval is in conflict with both scientific, peer-reviewed evidence and the evidence-based recommendations of trusted healthcare professional organizations,” she wrote in her executive order. “All available scientific, trusted, and peer-reviewed evidence indicates that the currently available COVID-19 vaccines are safe, and are the most effective way of preventing serious illness, hospitalization, and death.”

In the press release, the Governor’s Office specifically said the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends COVID vaccines for people 18 and younger. The release also cites a recommendation from the American Academy of Family Physicians that adults 18 and older get vaccinated.

And then there’s the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which believes that pregnant women should be inoculated.

The order could result in a change in availability at some pharmacies.

CVS had previously announced it would offer the vaccine only in certain states based on what the chain says is required. Arizona is currently not one of them.

That, however, still leaves the question of cost.

The new federal guidelines say that, for most people, the vaccines are no longer recommended. And insurance companies generally do not cover vaccines that are not considered medically necessary.

Some states, like Connecticut, have laws and regulations that require insurance policies to cover such vaccinations, regardless of the actions of the FDA or the Centers for Disease Control.

Gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater said Hobbs is issuing no such directive.

Instead, she is telling the Department of Insurance and Financial Institutions to “coordinate with and encourage all health plans under its regulatory authority to continue to cover COVID-19 vaccines.”

Press aide Christian Slater said Hobbs, unlike other governors, has no such authority.

“But it’s still important to ensure that people have access to the vaccine … and have the freedom to make the choice,” he said.

The state health department reports that unvaccinated individuals age 5 and older were seven times more likely to need to be hospitalized than those who were vaccinated with an updated booster. And their risk of dying was 8.8 times as high.

Other states have made moves similar to what Hobbs is doing.

The California Department of Public Health said on Sept. 10 that it is endorsing the recommendations of the same organizations that Hobbs is now citing. That includes specific recommendations to vaccinate children between 6 months and 2 years old, as well as people who are pregnant and lactating.

Crypto in your 401(k)? Lawmakers are looking to make it happen

Key Points:
  • Cryptocurrency advocates urge Congress to set national regulatory standards
  • DeFi Education Fund says state laws hinder innovation and create legal uncertainty
  • Senate is currently mulling a crypto market structure legislation

President Donald Trump’s executive order last month making it easier for employees to invest their retirement plans in “alternative assets” came as state lawmakers across the country have advocated for cryptocurrency to be an option for state-run retirement and pension plans.

There aren’t federal laws on the books that bar these types of alternative investments for retirement plans — such as cryptocurrency, private equity and real estate. But fiduciaries have been hesitant to include them for various reasons: high risk, questions over transparency, regulatory uncertainty and, for some assets like private equity, higher associated fees.

Trump’s order is the latest example of the change in tide. The Department of Labor in May rescinded a guidance issued under the Biden administration in 2022 warning plan managers to exercise “extreme care” when considering including cryptocurrency in investment plans.

Lawmakers in at least 20 states introduced legislation that would allow state treasurers, pension boards or other fiduciaries to invest public dollars in digital assets this year. The proposals typically cap the percentage that can be invested at 5% to 10% due to the volatility of digital assets.

State pension funds can purchase digital assets such as bitcoin directly — often with set guidelines for market capitalization thresholds, preventing meme coins from being included — or through indirect means such as exchange-traded products or equity in crypto companies.

Some states already have investments in cryptocurrency on their balance sheet. The State of Michigan Retirement Systems in August reported $11.4 million in ARK 21Shares Bitcoin ETF. Though it tripled its holdings in the most recent filing, the number still represents only about 0.03% of the state’s $79 billion in assets under management.

The State of Wisconsin Investment Board, which manages the Wisconsin Retirement System, invested in spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds (BlackRock’s iShares Bitcoin Trust and Grayscale’s Bitcoin Trust) last year, but by the first quarter of 2025 reported having sold its holdings.

North Carolina Rep. Stephen Ross, R-Alamance, said he hopes his state is next. Ross was an early supporter of long-term investing in cryptocurrency. In 2015 he introduced a bill, later signed by the governor, that updated the state’s Money Transmitters Act to include virtual currency — one of the first digital asset-focused pieces of legislation in the country.

Ross this year introduced House Bill 92, the North Carolina Digital Assets Investments Act. The bill would allow the state treasurer to allocate up to 5% of the state’s $127 billion retirement fund into digital assets. Digital assets would have to be in the form of exchange-traded funds with a minimum average market cap of $750 billion over the last 12 months, weeding out riskier cryptocurrencies such as meme coins.

Ross said the state employees association was skeptical of the proposal. He explained that any investment has some level of risk, and that the bill wouldn’t lead to the entire pension plan being invested in crypto — it’s simply an acknowledgement that crypto “has a place now in a balanced portfolio.”

Resistance to digital asset legislation is not new to him. Ross, who has worked in finance for four decades, said the initial hesitations to cryptocurrency is similar to concerns about exchange-traded funds when they first debuted.

“Crypto is no different,” Ross said. “It’s becoming more mainstream. More people are investing in it, and I think it has its place in pretty much just about every portfolio for balance. It’s not the end all and save all for everything, but it definitely has its place.”

The North Carolina House passed HB 92 in May, sending it to the state Senate. Ross told State Affairs he feels confident that when the legislature reconvenes for their short session next May it will make its way to the governor’s desk. Ross said the governor has indicated interest in signing it.

Advocates for cryptocurrency investments have pushed for certain cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin to be treated as a strategic and valuable asset, much like gold and oil, and want to create state-level reserves. Trump in March established the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and the U.S. Digital Asset Stockpile. States soon followed: Arizona (House Bill 2749) and New Hampshire (House Bill 302) in May and Texas (Senate Bill 21) in June.

Many of the same advocates also say doing so is an important step to hedge against the diminishing purchasing power of the dollar since the United States officially abandoned the gold standard in 1971. In 2025, $100 buys what $12.56 did in 1971, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.

Kentucky Rep. T.J. Roberts, R-Burlington, is among those concerned. The freshman legislator told State Affairs his “flagship piece of legislation” this session was House Bill 2, which removed taxes on gold and silver.

“I can’t get rid of the Federal Reserve and bring us back to a gold standard or a crypto standard as a state [legislator],” Roberts said. “But what I can do is I can create an economic environment in Kentucky that says it’s okay to explore alternative currencies.”

Roberts introduced a bill this year (House Bill 376) that, among other things, would allow state retirement funds and state deferred compensation fund participants to invest in exchange traded funds of digital assets. HB 376 failed, but Roberts said he plans to introduce or support similar legislation in the next session. While some consider cryptocurrency too risky to invest state funds into, Roberts said the real issue is not opting to.

“The true risk in Kentucky is keeping it the way that it currently is,” Roberts said, adding that the state has struggled to maintain funding for its retirement and pension system. “Right now there’s no guarantee that money is going to be there, whereas bitcoin, gold, silver — they not only retain their value, they’ve exploded in value, especially now where we have President Trump’s administration.”

The rising value of digital assets is a common refrain from supporters. Oklahoma Rep. Cody Maynard, R-Durant, introduced House Bill 1203 this session, which, in addition to enacting a state-level strategic bitcoin reserve, allows state retirement funds to be invested in digital assets. Maynard told State Affairs in the five months since the bill failed in committee, the price of bitcoin has risen roughly 34% from over $83,000 to around $112,000. He said if the state had allocated just 5% of its $2.2 billion pension fund, it would have generated nearly $750 million in gains.

“That’s money that could have strengthened pensions and reduced long-term liabilities, all without costing taxpayers a dime,” he said.

Maynard said his state does not have any guidelines on whether or how state pension funds can invest in digital assets, let alone ones that establish “prudent” and “responsible” practices.

“This is not about chasing speculation. It’s about fiscal responsibility and ensuring Oklahoma’s pension systems aren’t left behind while other states and institutional investors move forward,” Maynard said. “Digital assets are becoming a permanent fixture in the global economy. If we want to protect our retirees and strengthen our fiscal foundation, Oklahoma must be proactive rather than reactive.”

Oklahoma Sen. Brian Guthrie, R-Bixby, co-authored HB 1203 alongside Maynard. Though that bill failed to pass this session, Guthrie told State Affairs the pair plans to reintroduce a similar bill that will be more narrowly focused on digital assets in pensions.

David Ramirez, CEO at For Us All, a 401(k) investment platform that gives employees the option of including digital assets in their retirement portfolios, said offering the asset class is one way to even the playing field and close the wealth gap among retirees — as they will be able to invest in the same products as high net worth individuals. The company has found that younger employees are more interested in contributing to their retirement accounts if cryptocurrency is offered.

“Digital assets is one asset class that has clearly gained a ton of traction in the institutional investing community,” Ramirez said. “Pension plans have been investing in them, both here and internationally, in prudent fashion, in small allocations — not YOLOing the pension plan into digital assets.”

Not everyone is sold on the idea. Alicia Munnell, founder of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College, wrote in a June column responding to the Department of Labor’s guidance rescission that “bitcoin in 401(k)s is a terrible idea.”

“Participants don’t understand the product, it’s a speculative and volatile investment, straying from traditional investments is unlikely to enhance returns, and it’s probably not a prudent option for 401(k)s,” Munnell wrote.

Vermont Rep. Will Greer, D-Bennington, said he understands why some states would look to cryptocurrency to shore up pension funds, given the potential high return rate. But he said it is still too young to be viewed as reliable.

Greer introduced House Bill 370, the Cryptocurrency Public Protection Act, which bans public pension plans from investing in cryptocurrency and outlines other cryptocurrency guidelines. The bill directs the Vermont Pension Investment Commission and state treasurer to divest from digital assets if there are any on the current portfolio. It did not advance in this year’s session.

“This is such a new and dynamic topic that no one wants to tackle it head on and try to contain it where it can still be contained,” Greer said. “Most people don’t see crypto as a safe and reliable financial income stream.”

“I look at that as potentially being harmful actually to bringing down our pension liability because if we then start investing in this and try to run the rat’s race and climb our way out of this mountain we’ve built that way, we’re actually just going to create a whole other crisis if this bubble blows up.”

Greer said he would be open to amending the bill in the next session to allow for investments into stablecoins, which are a type of digital asset stored on blockchains and pegged to real-world fiat assets. Because of this, stablecoins are considered a less risky and less volatile investment. Under the recently signed GENIUS Act, stablecoins must be backed entirely by liquid assets such as U.S. dollars or short-term Treasury bills 1-to-1, meaning holders can, in theory, trade their digital assets at any point for that amount.

Regardless, Greer said it is important lawmakers address the burgeoning market.

“This technology is here with us. Cryptocurrency is going to be here. It exists. The question is how are we going to make sure that it’s ethically consumed and that it’s not creating more problems than ways it could be potentially useful,” Greer said. “Right now we have no idea what a 15-, 20 -year return rate on a stable, modest cryptocurrency will be.”

Analysis: High court’s decision creates two-tiered nation

The Supreme Court’s decision Friday to limit the use of nationwide injunctions could split U.S. states in two.

People living in the 21 states and Washington, D.C. represented by Democratic attorneys general who have aggressively — and successfully — sued to block the Trump administration’s actions will continue to be shielded from Trump’s attempts to freeze federal funding, redefine citizenship and more. 

But it could become more difficult for Democratic Attorneys General to convince judges to extend relief to red states while their legal challenges play out in court. 

Most immediately, the 6-3 Supreme Court ruling calls into question how birthright citizenship is applied nationwide. 

The ruling did not address whether President Trump’s January executive order ending birthright citizenship is constitutional. But by limiting the use of nationwide injunctions, it opens the door to a scenario in which the citizenship of babies born to immigrant parents depends partly on whether they are born in a state with an attorney general willing to contest Trump’s order in court.

Five Democratic Attorneys General stressed in a virtual press conference Friday that birthright citizenship remains the law of the land for the next 30 days under the Supreme Court ruling. They expressed confidence they can convince a lower court judge that a nationwide injunction is needed in this instance. 

“In order for states to receive the protections we need from the harms inflicted by this order, we need nationwide relief,” New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin (D) said. “Because if you think about — very obviously — people born in states that are not part of our coalition might move into our state.”

“The federal government has not shown, in any way, how we could possibly administer a system of citizenship and the benefits that flow from it, without having one standard of citizenship under birthright citizenship in every state,” he added. 

The attorneys general said they did not expect the Supreme Court decision to affect other nationwide injunctions they have previously won, such as rulings that stop the Trump administration from freezing federal grants. 

“The court said very clearly that when states can show they need nationwide relief in order to remedy harms to those states, then nationwide relief is appropriate,” Platkin said. 

Trump hailed the Supreme Court ruling as a tremendous victory. Some Republican attorneys general joined him. 

“Democratically enacted laws cannot be put on hold by judges who think they are kings,” Ohio Attorney General Dave Yost (R) said in a statement.

Trump in January issued an executive order that reinterpreted the Fourteenth Amendment, stating that the United States will not recognize children born in the country as citizens if they are born to a mother who is not a legal permanent resident or citizen and a father who is not a legal permanent resident or citizen. 

Lower courts have repeatedly ruled that the order violates the U.S. Constitution.

At a Denver event in April, Democratic attorneys general told reporters they had mixed feelings about the nationwide injunctions they have won, because the rulings shield red states from the consequences of Trump’s presidency.

“I think we all feel conflicted about that,” said Hawaii Attorney General Anne Lopez (D).

Lopez noted that Democratic attorneys general in February successfully won a court ruling that blocked cuts to National Institutes of Health grants awarded to recipients in their states.

“I want to be clear that I also feel a little satisfaction that we’re winning that fight, and the red states that are not joining us are going to feel the consequences of the election,” she said. 

Hobbs orders creation of heat safety task force for workers

Key Points:
  • The governor issued an executive order to form a task force dedicated to workplace safety in the heat
  • Guidelines could be beneficial to workers and companies 
  • Many cities already have workplace safety standards for extreme heat

Arizona is taking its first tentative steps toward adopting meaningful and measurable standards to ensure employers keep their workers safe in the heat.

In a new order on May 22, Gov. Katie Hobbs formed a task force to come up with a proposal by the end of the year detailing what changes are needed in standards that govern worker safety.

Strictly speaking, companies already are supposed to protect employees from being injured or made ill from the heat.

But that exists only within the general — and non-specific — duty to provide a safe workplace. While there are guidelines, nothing in the rules tells employers exactly what steps are expected, including providing shade, water, rest periods and even training and acclimatization of new workers.

Dennis Kavanaugh, who chairs the Industrial Commission of Arizona, said the lack of specifics can make it harder to go after errant companies.

“The ‘general duty’ clause is sometimes difficult to define,” said Kavanaugh. “Or you had to be very good at collecting your evidence to support it.”

He should know: He used to head the agency’s legal department — the folks who had to make the case that an employer was creating an unsafe environment.

More definitive rules, Kavanaugh said, will help not only the commission, but also companies that want to know exactly what they are required to do in order to avoid trouble with the commission.

“I think employers appreciate having specificity and certainty in terms of what they need to do in certain conditions,” he said.

In some ways, the state is late to the table in all of this.

Tucson adopted its own requirement last year that companies doing business with the city must have specific heat safety plans, detailing everything from the availability of water and access to shaded areas or air conditioning to the ability to take regular and necessary breaks as needed.

Phoenix has similar rules.

And Tempe is moving ahead with its own specific safety plan for anyone who works outdoors, with requirements that water and shade be available within a quarter mile of work areas and a mandate for 10-minute breaks every two hours during heat advisories.

What exists now at the state level are more general guidelines, including the availability of the commission’s Division of Occupational Safety and Health to offer “free and voluntary consultations for employers.”

All this — if it occurs — could be a big change.

Arizona’s oversight is based on a state law that requires employers to provide a workplace that is “free from recognized hazards that are likely to cause death or serious physical harm.” But there is nothing that spells out at exactly what point, when it comes to working in the heat, the actions or inactions of a company cross the line.

Commission Director Gaetano Testini said one reason the state does not now have anything more specific is that his agency has been “collecting data.” He said that process has become more formalized with the formation of the task force which includes health and safety experts and a fair number of representatives of both industry and labor.

That task force is supposed to report back by the end of the year, with the recommendations going to the full commission.

But it remains unclear what eventually will result. Testini sidestepped questions about how specific those recommendations will be, like whether there will be actual numeric standards about what a company has to do to protect its workers when the heat reaches a certain point.

“Let’s see what the task force comes up with,” he said.

“Then it will get presented to the commissioners,” Testini said. “The commissioners will vote on it.”

But even the governor’s executive order provides a bit of leeway — and the possibility that, even after all this, there will not be hard-and-fast standards.

Hobbs is calling what the task force is being asked to produce to be heat “guidelines” for employers. And Kavanaugh said the five-member commission might conclude that, rather than enacting a formal rule with standards, it might be preferable to approve guidance that employers can use to determine what will keep them out of trouble.

In fact, the only mandate in the governor’s order is for the commission to create a “recognition program” for employers that “go above and beyond basic safety requirements … with regard to heat safety.”

Kavanaugh said that, even with only the current general requirement to keep workers safe, Arizona employers seem to be doing a good job protecting their workers.

“We haven’t had very many heat-related injuries and fatalities, really, over the last two years,” he said. “Many of the construction companies, they get it and make the investments.”

Hobbs declares heat state of emergency

Weather, 15 August Philomath Weather +92 High: +96° Low: +65° Humidity: 36% Wind: WSW – 8 MPH Maricopa Weather +101 High: +106° Low: +86° Humidity: 26% Wind: E – 16...

Get 24/7 political news coverage and access to events honoring top political professionals

You don't have credit card details available. You will be redirected to update payment method page. Click OK to continue.