Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Tag: president trump

Appeals court rejects GOP bid to overturn Biden national monument order

Key Points:
  • Federal appeals court says Republican leaders have no standing to sue
  • Lawsuit claims national monument designation will hurt state economically
  • GOP could ask President Trump to intervene

A federal appeals court has tossed out a bid by Republican state lawmakers to overturn the designation of nearly a million acres of federal land near the Grand Canyon that the Biden administration had dedicated as a national monument.

In a new ruling April 1, the three judge panel concluded GOP legislative leaders lack the legal standing to even bring a claim in federal court over creation in 2023 of the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument. Ditto, they said, of Republican state Treasurer Kimberly Yee.

That’s right, they said, it belongs to Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes.

She – along with Gov. Katie Hobbs, also a Democrat – actually intervened in the case against the challengers and in support of then-President Joe Biden’s designation. That, said the court, leaves no one with the right to sue.

“Neither the legislature nor the treasurer points to any law designating them as agents to represent the state, so neither has standing to assert the state’s injury,” they wrote in the unsigned opinion.

And even if they had the right to sue, the judges wrote, their claims would fail, with any claims about damages to legislative interests being speculative at best.

This case stems from a 2024 lawsuit filed by the Republicans last year who called Biden’s actions an illegal “land grab.”

In their lawsuit, the challenges acknowledged that the 1906 federal Antiquities Act does allow a president to set aside parcels of federal land – which is solely what is involved here – for protection.

But they say such a proclamation has to be limited to historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures and other objects of historic or scientific interest. More to the point, they argue that such designations must be confined to the “smallest area compatible” with the care and management of the items to be protected.

And they contend the Baaj Nwaavjo I’tah Kukveni Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument – the formal name for 1,462 square miles of the site which the White House says translates in part in the Havasupai language to “where indigenous peoples roam” and in Hopi to “our ancestral footprints” – meets neither requirement.

“Congress passed the Antiquities Act to protect just that: antiquities,” the lawsuit says. “It did not pass the law to allow the Biden administration to declare every inch of federal land a federal forest, cut off from all but those it selects.”

They also argued that there is damage to the state from everything from the inability to manage adjacent state trust lands to the loss of jobs and revenue because the monument designation would reduce the value of nearby state lands, depriving the state of tax revenues it could collect from companies that would develop those properties.

The appellate judges were unimpressed.

“Contrary to the legislature’s assertion, the proclamation does not strip the legislature of any of its powers,” they wrote. “The legislature may continue to manage and dispose of state land as it sees fit.”

The court also rejected parallel arguments made by Mohave County, Colorado City and the town of Fredonia.

The local governments did not dispute that no new uranium mining has been allowed in the area since at least 2012 when the secretary of interior withdrew pretty much the same federal lands from mining through 2032 – if not beyond – a decision that a different federal judge upheld.

But they argued that designating the monument takes future mining off the table, something they claim would result in lost revenues.

“Their alleged loss of future tax revenues depends on uranium prices being sufficiently high in 2032 (or whenever the 2012 withdrawal lapses) such that third-party companies would choose to begin mining,” the appellate judges wrote.

“But it is speculative whether the right economic conditions and incentives for uranium mining will exist so far into the future,” they said. And that, the judges said, makes the allegations only a “possible future injury” which does not provide standing for the communities to sue.

The court also rejected a separate argument by Colorado City that the monument’s designation threatens its water supply because some of its water comes from an aquifer under the monument, a claim the city said could lead federal officials to restrict its water supply in the future.

“The proclamation by its plain terms does not ‘alter the valid existing water rights of any party, including the United States,’ ” the court noted. “And there is no other reason to speculate that the federal government will reduce Colorado City’s water supply.”

“The House is currently reviewing the ruling,” said House GOP spokesman Andrew Wilder.

There is potentially another avenue for GOP lawmakers and others to pursue: seek intervention by President Trump.

The president, in his first term in office, announced he was cutting the size of the Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monument in Utah in half. And he also trimmed the Bears Ears National Monument by 85%.

Those cuts were restored when Biden took office in 2021.

The state of Utah and others challenged that move, saying the Biden administration exceeded its authority by creating a vast, multi-million-acre reserve rather than limiting it to the smallest compatible area. But that lawsuit was dismissed by a federal judge there, though the case remains on appeal.

Less clear – and yet to be fully litigated – is whether Trump or any other subsequent president has the power to modify or revoke the decision of a predecessor to designate a specific area as a national monument.

Arizona’s small business community needs relief from rising credit card fees

Cindy Dach

During her State of the State address in January, Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs urged lawmakers to prioritize legislation that makes life more affordable for everyday consumers. The focus is welcome. Now more than ever, Arizonans — including the state’s 1.2 million small business employees — are stretching every dollar to get by.

One proposal before the legislature — HB 2768 — offers a meaningful step toward relief. The bill would pare back bloated credit card interchange fees, a hidden tax on businesses that drives up prices across the board. Passing the measure would deliver the kind of financial breathing room Arizona’s communities urgently need.

Every time a customer buys a book at my store and pays with a credit card, a slice of that sale — typically 2-4% — goes straight to the credit card company and issuing bank. 

Called a “swipe fee,” they might not look like much on paper. But on top of other hurdles like rising labor costs, seasonal demand and consumer chargebacks, “swipe fees” are adding to the weight that’s crushing Main Street businesses. 

What makes “swipe fees” particularly burdensome is that they’re applied to the entire transaction total — which more broadly includes taxes, or dollars that pass straight through a business to the government. In 2023, Arizona merchants paid $217 million in “swipe fees” on sales tax alone. When calculated across total transaction amounts, those fees add up to nearly $150 billion siphoned from merchants nationwide. 

Those staggering sums aren’t just abstract figures on a balance sheet — they translate directly into lost revenue for local businesses. Because of “swipe fees,” credit card companies can take in more profit from a small business’s sales than the business earns. That’s not the result of innovation or competition — it’s the product of extreme consolidation in the payments market. 

So, who’s behind this scheme? Visa and Mastercard control over 80% of the credit cards in circulation. This gives them near-total authority to raise “swipe fees” with little fear of losing business. While merchants could resort to cash payments, nearly three in four Americans own a credit card. This means businesses have no choice but to accept Visa and Mastercard’s terms.

Small businesses aren’t the only ones paying the price, either. Studies show credit card “swipe fees” contribute to higher prices across the board, costing the average family roughly $1,200 a year. While recent legal settlements have suggested change, Visa and Mastercard continue to jack up “swipe fees” while Arizona businesses and consumers foot the bill. 

Fortunately, practical solutions are within reach. HB 2768 would prohibit major credit card networks from charging “swipe fees” on the tax portion of a transaction — money that never belongs to merchants in the first place. While it wouldn’t eliminate “swipe fees” altogether, the measure would return meaningful dollars to Arizona’s entrepreneurs, allowing us to reinvest in our operations, support our employees, or strengthen the communities we serve.

Congress also has a role to play. The bipartisan Credit Card Competition Act — which recently earned an endorsement from President Trump — would require the largest banks to offer at least one processing network besides Visa or Mastercard on the credit cards they issue. That single change would inject real competition into the payments system, giving merchants the option to choose the processing network with the lowest “swipe fee.”

Credit card companies claim that more competition would mean fewer points and rewards for consumers. But that argument is nothing more than smoke and mirrors. With Visa and Mastercard posting profit margins north of 50%, there’s ample room to provide merchants some financial breathing room.

As lawmakers in Phoenix laser their focus on the state’s affordability push, leaders should also take a hard look at excessive credit card “swipe fees.” Reining them in would deliver immediate relief to Main Street, reduce hidden costs for consumers and help ensure Arizona remains a state where independent businesses can thrive.

Cindy Dach is the President and CEO of Changing Hands Bookstores with locations in Tempe and Phoenix. 

Arizona bill to cap corporate home ownership sidelined without committee hearing

Key Points: 
  • Arizona won’t cap corporate ownership of homes this year
  • Rep. Jeff Weninger declines to give bill a hearing
  • Rep. Nick Kupper plans to reintroduce the proposal in 2027

There won’t be any cap on corporate ownership of homes in Arizona, at least this year.

The one bill with the best chance of approval — based on its Republican sponsorship — has been sidelined after it did not get a hearing.

Rep. Jeff Weninger, chair of the House Commerce Committee, told Capitol Media Services that there should be a discussion about whether the state needs to take action to ensure that private individuals have a reasonable chance to buy a home. But the Chandler Republican who made the decision not to give it a hearing, said he’s not convinced that what’s in HB 2325 is the way to go.

And without a committee hearing, the measure never got a chance to be debated by the full House, much less make it to the Senate — or the governor.

Rep. Nick Kupper, who crafted the proposal, said he remains convinced that there is a need for some guardrails to keep institutional investors from snapping up single-family homes before Arizonans have a reasonable chance of making a purchase. 

And while the Surprise Republican himself believes corporations should be limited to 50 single-family residences, he acknowledged that there isn’t enough time in this session to craft something that will meet his goals and retain enough support to become law. So Kupper is now focusing his attention on bringing back the plan in 2027.

Still, he acknowledged there is likely to always be opposition by some Republicans to any legislation that restricts the right of people to buy and sell what they want. And Kupper said that likely will continue to exist — even with President Trump publicly supportive of such limits on the national level.

At the heart of the issue is the concern that institutional investors — corporations, partnerships, investment trusts and other legal entities — have been buying up homes as they go on the market. They generally have an advantage over families because they can make all-cash offers.

Many of these homes are turned into rental-only properties which, in turn, reduces the number of homes available for purchase, further driving up prices.

To that, Kupper proposed a two-pronged approach.

One would give other would-be homebuyers first crack, prohibiting institutional investors from making any bids for the first 60 days a property goes on the market.

The other would bar any such investor from owning more than 50 single-family homes in Arizona.

“If all the housing gets bought up over time by investment firms and they turn them into rentals, because it’s more profitable for them long term, you won’t have anything to buy,” Kupper said. And he said the four largest firms that are doing this are buying up a combined 1,000 homes a year in Arizona.

“The more that happens, the smaller your available market is to sell homes because your prices get jacked up,” Kupper said. “And the people who maybe could have afforded them are forced into rentals now.”

His bill was assigned to the House Commerce Committee — the one headed by Weninger. And that was the end of it.

“I commend Rep. Kupper for introducing HB 2325 and sparking discussion on prioritizing family homebuyers,” Weninger said. But he said it was not suitable for approval.

“The 50-home cap seemed premature without more data on effects like supply and investment,” Weninger said.

As it turns out, though, Kupper isn’t the only one who thinks 50 is a good limit.

Even before he introduced his bill, Kupper had a conversation with House Minority Leader Oscar De Los Santos who was thinking along the same lines. And the Laveen Democrat introduced his own version, HB 2705, which uses that same figure, but with a difference: He would limit institutional investors to buying no more than 50 in any calendar year, with no absolute cap.

De Los Santos, however, had no better luck getting a hearing on his measure in the House Government Committee.

That is not a surprise, given it is difficult for Democratic lawmakers to get their proposals advanced in the Republican-controlled Legislature. Still, Kupper figured that, as a member of the GOP, he had a better chance.

That did not prove the case.

“His bill is a great first step in starting the dialogue about corporate ownership of homes in Arizona,” Weninger said. “I look forward to further discussions.”

Kupper said he has talked with Weninger about what it would take to make his proposal acceptable.

“And I don’t think we were able to get where we both wanted yet,” he said.

Part of the problem, Kupper said, appears to be concern among some Republicans to do anything that would seem to interfere with private property rights.

“That’s a difficult thing,” he said. “And that’s where, when we work on it, we need to use a scalpel rather than a meat cleaver.”

But Kupper said he has a somewhat different attitude than some other members of the GOP caucus.

“Yes, conservatives, we tend to be free enterprise,” he said. “But it doesn’t mean we don’t put in certain guardrails.”

Consider, he said, the fact that there are various laws designed to regulate monopolies to prevent them from controlling a market and being able to use their size and influence to make their own rules. The key, said Kupper, is crafting something with minimal interference.

“So I think there’s a way forward,” he said.

“I’m not sure exactly what that looks like at this point,” Kupper continued. “But I think we can get to a strong bipartisan solution on it.”

All this is occurring against the backdrop of Trump’s executive order directing federal agencies to take steps to limit the purchase of single-family homes by “large institutional investors.”

That, however, has only a limited effect as it deals with actions by federal agencies exclusively under his purview who can approve and guarantee loans. And, similarly to Kupper’s bill, it directs those federal programs to promote sales to individuals by giving owner-occupants and nonprofits a 30-day window to bid on foreclosed properties.

Trump, in his State of the Union speech this past week, asked Congress to put the concept into federal law, with the administration circulating a memo asking for a statute that prohibits investors who now own more than 100 homes from purchasing more.

“We want homes for people, not for corporations,” the president said. “Corporations are doing just fine.”

Kupper said he doesn’t believe that what Trump is proposing — even if it gains congressional approval — negates the need for state legislation.

“Maybe they’re both complementary,” he said. “Maybe his needs to reach one aspect and, if I can get my bill going for Arizona, it reaches a different aspect of this concern.”

Arizona First policies are delivering results

Kimmie Dillon

When President Trump delivers his State of the Union address, he will highlight measurable shifts in public opinion on the issues voters say matter most.   

In the last thirteen months, 372 miles of the Arizona border have been secured. Daily encounters with illegal aliens have plunged by more than 95% and migrant crossings are down by 99%. On the Arizona ballot this November, Arizona voters will decide whether violent drug cartels operating across the southern border should be officially designated as terrorist organizations. This measure is part of a larger effort to combat the threat of human trafficking, fentanyl, and violence in our Arizona neighborhoods. And let’s not forget the financial burden illegal immigrants impose on each Arizona taxpayer — about $1000 a year.  

The new Arizona Secure Elections Act reaffirms that only U.S. citizens may register and vote in Arizona elections and prohibits foreign contributions, spells out specific voting times and preserves in-person voting options. It will appear on the November ballot, bypassing Gov. Katie Hobbs’ veto stamp. 

Arizona’s newest election law passed this month with bipartisan support. It moves the state’s primary election up two weeks to comply with federal deadlines. The law also allows registered observers from each political party at polling locations and strengthens protections for military and overseas voters by shortening the ballot signature cure period to five days. 

Education reform is also advancing. Arizona’s Education Freedom Tax Credit allows a dollar-for-dollar credit of $1,700 for donations to scholarship organizations supporting K–12 students beginning in 2027. The November poll shows 71% support Education Tax Credit Scholarships, and 50% support dismantling the U.S. Department of Education to return authority to states and local communities. In Arizona, more than 100,000 students now participate in Empowerment Scholarship Accounts. 

Health and nutrition policy is also evolving. Through initiatives aligned with “Make America Healthy Again,” Arizona public schools will eliminate ultra-processed foods and artificial dyes this fall, reinforcing a commitment to healthier outcomes for the next generation. 

For Arizona, that means policy changes are not just happening in Washington. They are visible at the border, in our schools, at the ballot box and in our neighborhoods. 

Kimmie Dillon is an Arizona native and Chair of the America First Policy Institute’s Arizona Chapter.   

New law could criminalize alerting others about ICE presence

Key Points: 
  • Sen. John Kavanagh proposes legislation to criminalize warning others about police presence
  • The bill aims to plug a loophole in existing laws that only punish physical obstruction of police
  • Critics argue the law could lead to excessive prosecution for protected speech activities

Blowing a whistle to alert others when you see an Immigration and Customs Enforcement van in the area could land you in jail.

Ditto bells, gestures, written messages or even electronic communications.

It’s all part of legislation by Sen. John Kavanagh to keep people from preventing the arrest of someone wanted by law enforcement.

But less clear is exactly which acts would become crimes under the proposal by the Fountain Hills Republican.

Kavanagh tells Capitol Media Services the aim is to plug a loophole in the law.

“I saw there were people warning people about ICE coming,” he said. But Kavanagh said none of that is illegal under existing laws which make it illegal to “obstruct” police, something he said requires someone to physically intercede.

“It didn’t deal with warning,” he said.

His SB 1635 is designed to fill that gap.

The senator said nothing in his measure, scheduled for a hearing this week, is designed to interfere with anyone’s First Amendment rights. He said it’s meant to apply only when someone alerts one or more individuals who the person doing the signaling is known to be sought by the police.

By contrast, Kavanagh said, it wouldn’t apply to those who blew a whistle or gave any other warning simply because they saw ICE come down the street.

“Free speech protects that behavior,” he said.

But Sen. Analise Ortiz said she has a hard time believing that what Kavanagh wants the Senate Judiciary Committee to enact is as limited as he claims. The Phoenix Democrat said it leaves too much discretion to prosecutors who she said are too quick to do things like label people who are simply watching ICE as “domestic terrorists.”

“It would absolutely lead to people who simply were sharing information on social media or blowing a whistle in their neighborhood being hit with a Class 1 misdemeanor,” Ortiz said, which carries up to six months in county jail and a $2,500 fine.

And there’s something else that Ortiz told Capitol Media Services makes her question what is the real intent of the legislation: Kavanagh actually singled her out for special mention in a press release when he introduced the measure.

“As President Trump works to remove criminal illegal aliens from our communities, radical Democrat lawmakers, including Sen. Analise Ortiz, have chosen to interfere and help criminals evade arrest,” Kavanagh wrote. “Arizona is not a state of anarchy, and we will not tolerate elected officials undermining active law enforcement operations.”

All that stems from an incident last August where Ortiz shared a social media post from someone else alerting people that ICE agents were outside an elementary school on the southwest side of Phoenix. Ortiz said this is no different than her resharing other posts about things affecting her community, citing another one about a Maryvale Resource Fair.

But what happened this time, Ortiz said, is that LibsOfTikTok, a site that posts conservative viewpoints, posted that Ortiz “is actively impeding and doxxing ICE by posting their live locations on Instagram.”

Things escalated from there.

“Yes,” Ortiz responded online. “When ICE is around, I will alert my community to stay out of the area and I’m not f****** scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons.”

Republican Sen. Jake Hoffman of Queen Creek interjected himself into the dispute, filing a complaint accusing Ortiz of violating Senate rules against “disorderly behavior.” And Sen. Shawnna Bolick, a Republican from Phoenix who chairs the Ethics Committee is now asking for a federal investigation to determine if what Ortiz is doing amounts to “interference with federal law enforcement operations.”

Neither inquiry has gone anywhere. And Bolick, after filing her request with federal prosecutors, never responded to questions about how publishing the location of something occurring in public violates the law.

And that leads back to Kavanagh resurrecting the incident as a reason to push for a new state law.

“Sen. Kavanagh knows it’s unconstitutional,” Ortiz said of the new legislation. “He’s only doing this to make a splash in the headlines and, more importantly, to try to scare people from speaking out when they see masked, armed, violent men in their neighborhood.”

All that goes to the question of whether warning people about the presence of ICE — or any other law enforcement — is constitutionally protected and beyond the reach of state lawmakers.

“People have a right to blow a whistle anywhere they want,” Ortiz said.

True, Kavanagh conceded — but only up to a point.

For example, he said, consider someone who works at a grocery store and knows that people working in the back are not here legally. If that person then warned those people that ICE was out front with a warrant, they would be breaking the law under his legislation.

So why would Kavanagh cite what Ortiz did — which he seems to concede is protected by the First Amendment — as a reason he cited for why the law should be changed?

Kavanagh said it was her actions that “motivated me” to introduce the legislation.

“I think her behavior should be illegal,” he said. “But the Constitution said that’s too general and, therefore, free speech.”

Public safety over politics – why our county partnered with ICE

Brad Miller

We’ve heard from a lot of Pinal County residents who are confused by the board’s public claims about our 287(g) agreement with ICE and what the law actually allows. You deserve clarity — not spin. This partnership isn’t politics. It’s public safety. The Pinal County Attorney’s Office is using every lawful tool in the toolbox to protect our residents.

It also aligns with President Trump’s public-safety priorities: Remove repeat and violent offenders, dismantle trafficking networks and restore the rule of law.

Let’s be clear. We target specific offenders based on documented criminal behavior, with warrants, already known by law enforcement. We are not patrolling communities.

Here’s where the narrative is misleading:

Myth #1: “The sheriff already does this.”

Yes — the sheriff has long cooperated with ICE, and that continues. When criminals land in jail after committing new crimes, ICE is notified and can act. That matters. But jail processing is only one tool. 

287(g) has three models: Jail Enforcement (in-custody screening), Warrant Service (serving ICE warrants in jail), and Task Force (ICE-supervised operations targeting specific offenders). 

The sheriff uses the jail model. PCAO signed the Task Force model — because Pinal County needs more than one tool.  

The Task Force model allows all those who participate to receive information about known criminals in our community that should be arrested and held accountable.  We shouldn’t wait for new victims to arrest known violent criminals.

Myth #2: “PCAO has no law enforcement.”

Wrong. Arizona law allows county attorneys to employ AZPOST-certified, sworn peace officers as investigators. This is standard across Arizona and has been for decades. 

They gather intelligence, support investigations, and help prevent additional crimes — working with the sheriff, task forces and now ICE.  

Myth #3: “This was signed in secret.”

False. In July, we asked to address it in an open meeting — not for permission, but to notify the Board of Supervisors of our intent. The purpose was to provide the board and the public with much needed information about the program and give an opportunity to ask questions.  We do not need board approval to carry out our constitutional duties.

Myth #4: “Outside counsel said it’s void, so it’s void.”

A legal opinion is not a court ruling. Reasonable lawyers can disagree. But the board declared the issue “settled” and presented only one side to the public.  That’s not transparency. That’s narrative control.

The bottom line? This is about lawful authority, proper process and protecting the people of Pinal County. Public safety isn’t just a talking point on this one. It’s our job.

Brad Miller is the Pinal County attorney and a career prosecutor. 

Hobbs and lawmakers push for early special session on tax conformity

Key points:
  • Arizona lawmakers consider special session for federal tax code conformity
  • Governor Katie Hobbs and House Republicans support the special session
  • Arizona’s budget stabilization fund may be tapped to cover the shortfall

A special session could be on the horizon immediately after the state Legislature’s opening day as lawmakers are considering conforming to the federal government’s tax code. 

Republican legislators and Gov. Katie Hobbs have said they’d be willing to call a special session at the beginning of the regular legislative session to address the tax issue as Arizona faces uncertain budget implications over the next few years.

“The Arizona House stands ready to act and we are prepared to end the confusion on day one,” House Republicans said in a November joint statement. “To give taxpayers certainty heading into the upcoming filing season, we urge the Governor to call a special session on tax conformity on the first day of the legislative session beginning January 12th.”

Hobbs, a Democrat, signaled she also wants the state to conform to the federal tax code quickly with a Nov. 20 executive order that updates tax forms for the upcoming year to include the higher standard deduction passed into law by the federal House Resolution 1 — “The One Big Beautiful Bill.”

In a Nov. 20 statement, Hobbs said: “Arizona must provide relief for families who are seeing the cost of living increasing and struggling just to get by. While I’ve taken this important step to cut taxes for the middle class, there’s still more work to be done. I encourage the Legislature to join with me to immediately codify my Middle Class Tax Cuts Package to increase the standard deduction, support our seniors and allow everyday Arizonans to benefit from tax deductions on tips, overtime and car loan interest when paying their state taxes.”

Staff on the Joint Legislative Budget Committee estimated in December that conforming to the reconciliation bill could reduce the state’s general fund revenue by $1.15 billion over three years through fiscal year 2028. 

During a Finance Advisory Committee meeting on Oct.9, JLBC Director Richard Stavneak said the state’s cash balance is expected to be positive through the next three years, with a lowest ending balance projection of $67 million available in the general fund through 2028, which would be insufficient to continue many one-time projects that are being funded in this year’s budget and grossly insufficient to cover conforming to H.R. 1.

Currently, the state is spending $580 million in one-time projects, and some spending items are anticipated to continue for more than one year. The state is paying $195 million to subsidize health insurance for state employees. That line item is considered one-time, but budget analysts also call it “ongoing one-time” because it’s funded every year. 

“Relative to our $67 million balance, we’ve already outlined what I believe to be a lot of stress points about what’s going to be competing for that $67 million, like the $1.7 (billion) stress points in the form of H.R. 1, of tax and spending issues, as well as ongoing one-time spending,” Stavneak said. 

Arizona has $1.6 billion in its Budget Stabilization Fund, also known as its “rainy day fund.” The House Minority Appropriations Committee Chairwoman, Rep. Stephanie Stahl Hamilton, D-Tucson, told the Arizona Capitol Times that lawmakers have discussed tapping into the rainy day fund, even if it’s not enough to cover the $1.7 billion the state may need. 

“I’m a little more troubled than I normally am,” Stahl Hamilton said. “We’re going to have to work hard this session,” she said. “This budget’s going to be a lot more challenging and problematic than what we’ve seen in years past.”

Senate Majority Leader John Kavanagh, R-Fountain Hills, said he thinks the budget will be easy to pass since there won’t be much room to spend. 

“The revenue forecast foresees a lean but speedy budget,” said Kavanagh.

Despite wanting Arizona to conform early, Hobbs has made it clear she will negotiate further tax conformity provisions in the budget that affect high earners and corporations, which is standard practice for lawmakers every year.

The Senate Finance Committee Chairman Sen. J.D. Mesnard, R-Chandler, said in a November statement that Hobbs shouldn’t receive credit for something that was enacted by Republicans in the federal government with her executive order since it conforms to middle-class tax cuts under H.R. 1.

“Let’s be clear. Gov. Hobbs didn’t create these tax cuts — she’s trying to take a victory lap on the GOP’s work,” Mesnard said. “The Legislature remains committed to formalizing the tax relief enacted by President Trump and Congress. I am looking forward to putting together a more comprehensive proposal that aligns and builds upon those reforms in ways that fully benefit Arizona’s hard-working families and small businesses in the upcoming session.”

Rural hospitals get lifeline from $50 billion fund

Key Points:
  • Trump administration announces $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund for all 50 states
  • Funds aim to stabilize rural hospitals and bolster health care workforce in rural communities
  • States will submit regular updates to track progress and demonstrate results

The Trump administration on Monday announced that all 50 states will receive a portion of a new $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund, a one-time grant program billed by federal officials as the largest investment in rural health care in decades.

The awards are intended to help states stabilize rural hospitals, bolster the health care workforce and test new ways of coordinating care across rural communities, according to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services press release. The funding will begin flowing in fiscal year 2026.

“This historic investment puts local hospitals, clinics, and health workers in control of their communities’ healthcare,” Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a statement. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership, rural Americans will now have affordable healthcare close to home, free from bureaucratic obstacles.”

Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican, called his state’s $205.9 million award for fiscal year 2026 “a big win for Mississippi,” saying his administration was ready to deploy the funds on behalf of the state’s more than 3 million residents.

Mississippi’s proposal outlines six initiatives focused on assessing rural health needs, coordinating regional care systems, expanding the workforce, modernizing health technology, scaling telehealth and strengthening rural health care infrastructure.

Congress created the Rural Health Transformation Program in the One Big Beautiful Bill, which Trump signed into law in July amid bipartisan concern over a wave of rural hospital closures and mounting financial pressure on safety-net providers.

Read more: States look to overhaul how rural health care is paid for

Under the law, half of the fund was to be distributed evenly among approved states, raising early questions about whether some states could be excluded for technical reasons, even though all 50 states submitted applications before a November deadline.

Those concerns were put to rest Monday. First-year awards average about $200 million per state, ranging from roughly $147 million for New Jersey to $281 million for Texas.

However, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services did not disclose how much each state could receive in future years or release state-by-state application scores. The program includes an additional $10 billion per year from fiscal years 2026 through 2030.

“The below line detail is what is particularly interesting,” said Kody Kinsley, the former North Carolina secretary of Health and Human Services, who said he was interested in whether any portions of state applications were rejected and how the awards corresponded to a Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services scoring process laid out in guidance the Trump administration issued in September.

Asked for more information, a spokesperson for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services pointed to the press release, which said that applications were evaluated through a “rigorous merit review process” and that the agency’s September guidance ensured “a fair and consistent process across all 50 states.”

That guidance specified that 25% of the funding would be awarded based on rural population and hospital data. Another 7.5% — $3.75 billion — would be allocated based on states’ commitments to legislative and regulatory priorities backed by the Trump administration. Critics have argued that those criteria have little connection to rural health outcomes and could favor conservative-led states.

Some health policy advocates have also said the temporary funding falls far short of offsetting the estimated $911 billion in Medicaid cuts projected over the next decade under the law.

“These short-term funds fail to make up for the massive cuts to Medicaid, Marketplace and SNAP enacted elsewhere in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which are changes that are intended to permanently shift costs away from the federal government and onto states, providers and patients,” Geraldine Doetzer, an attorney for the National Health Law Program, said Monday.

North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein, a Democrat, echoed those concerns in a statement Monday, even as he welcomed the new funding. North Carolina has the nation’s second-largest rural population, after Texas, and will receive $213 million in fiscal year 2026.

In its application, North Carolina outlined a six-part strategy for using its $213 million award that includes launching locally governed care networks, called “NC ROOTS” hubs, to knit together medical, behavioral health and social services; expanding prevention and chronic disease programs; increasing access to mental health and substance use services; investing in workforce development; supporting rural providers’ transition to value-based care; and upgrading broadband and digital health technology.

The state is “eager to maximize” the award, the press release said, but faces “significant funding losses,” including nearly $50 billion in projected federal Medicaid cuts over the next decade.

“North Carolina has long been a leader in advancing rural health care solutions,” Stein said. “This grant will connect more people to more high-quality health care.”

Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, a Republican, said the state’s initial $207 million award was $7 million more than requested. The state’s five-prong initiative focuses on preventive care and chronic disease prevention; helping rural providers coordinate their operations through regional primary, specialty and emergency care systems; workforce retention and recruitment; promoting innovative care and payment models; and expanding the use of technology to improve care delivery and data sharing.

“Indiana’s rural communities are the backbone of our state, and this investment will help ensure that every Hoosier, regardless of where they live, has access to high-quality, sustainable healthcare,” Braun said in a statement.

Kinsley, the former North Carolina official, said states still have a lot of work ahead of them.

“As tough as it was for states and CMS to pull this together so quickly, now the rubber meets the road — finalizing budgets, contracting, building teams to execute the work, and most of all, testing if the transformational strategies in the plans actually work and work at the pace required,” he said. “All this while people are losing their coverage and hospitals are losing other supplemental payments. Which will only further complicate the process. States need to continue to be transparent, and CMS needs to continue to shine a bright light on their goals and what they’re holding the states accountable for.”

Now that the awards have been announced, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services will convene program kickoff meetings in every state and provide ongoing guidance and technical assistance. States will be required to submit regular updates so the agency can track their progress, identify successful programs and ensure strong program oversight, according to the agency.

States will also convene annually at the agency’s Rural Health Summit to share their experiences. States that don’t demonstrate progress toward goals outlined in their application risk having their awards clawed back.

Arizona to hire temporary workers to address food stamp and unemployment delays

Key Points:

  • Gov. Katie Hobbs allocates $7.5 million to fix food stamp and unemployment benefit delays
  • Funds will address staffing constraints at the state Department of Economic Security
  • Arizona’s food stamp error rate is 8.84%, which could lead to increased costs under new federal guidelines

Gov. Katie Hobbs is tapping into federal funds leftover from the COVID-19 pandemic to address ongoing delays in the distribution of food stamps and unemployment benefits in Arizona.

In a press release, Hobbs said the $7.5 million will address “staffing constraints” at the state Department of Economic Security. That includes everything from hiring temporary workers to expanding the agency’s capacity to verify applicants’ income.

The governor blamed at least part of the problem on federal budget cuts.

Those dollars are important because the federal government not only pays for benefits — which are untouched — but also picks up part of the cost of running the food stamp program, formally known as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program.

DES said earlier this month that the number of workers who review food stamp eligibility dropped from 1,370 in July 2024 to 880 this past July.

And an agency spokesman said it was processing an estimated 54,000 new and renewal applications, of which 18,000 were taking more than 30 days.

As of November — when food stamp payments were delayed in a dispute with the Trump administration — DES estimated that about 855,000 Arizonans were getting benefits, roughly one out of every eight people in the state. That includes about 347,000 children.

The average benefit is about $359 per household.

But there’s another issue that hasn’t yet hit Arizona.

Beginning in 2028, President Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill will require states with error rates above 6% to pay a greater share of the program’s administrative costs and fines. The most recent figure for Arizona puts the error rate here at 8.84%.

Hobbs called that part of “the partisan Washington budget.”

The governor said the additional staffing and improved payment accuracy will reduce that rate which represents underpayments or overpayments, something she attributed to “miscalculation, typically due to fluctuations in the recipient’s income.” And while Hobbs said she hopes for improvement, she also noted the national error rate is higher, at 10.93%.

Issues with unemployment benefits are related to — but not directly tied — to the cut in federal dollars affecting food stamp benefits.

Data for the most recent week from DES shows new claims for benefits at more than 2,600, with another nearly 20,000 in ongoing claims.

But it also shows the agency went from answering more than 7,000 calls per week in September to fewer than 500 this month.

Gubernatorial press aide Christian Slater said the additional $7.5 million will also help with that.

Overall, he said that money would allow the agency to hire temporary employees to aid both programs, though he had no immediate answer to how long those staffers would be available.

DES launched a new online platform, CACTUS, or the Comprehensive Arizona Claims Tracking Unemployment Insurance System, in September, where individuals can file first-time claims for jobless benefits and submit their weekly updates, including certifying that they have been looking for work.

In a prepared statement, the governor said she understands “the frustration Arizonans feel with these delays.”

“Families deserve stability, and I’m committed to ensuring they can access the support they need when they need it while protecting critical programs from further federal cuts,” her statement reads.

Arizona families squeezed as drug costs rise

TJ Shope

Arizona families are getting squeezed by the rising cost of prescription drugs, which have increased three times faster than the rate of inflation during my lifetime. 

The impact is especially felt in rural communities, where access to care can already be a challenge for many residents. Too often, simple economics force families to make impossible choices between purchasing the medicines they need or paying for food and rent.

What makes the situation more infuriating is knowing that the cost of new drugs has doubled over the past four years alone, and that U.S. patients often pay more than three times as much for the same medications available in other developed countries. As President Trump said, “in case after case, our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill.”

Fortunately, President Trump is dealing directly with Big Pharma to tackle this crisis. New agreements with drugmakers require them to reduce American drug prices in line with the lowest price paid by consumers in other developed nations. I hope Big Pharma holds up its end of the bargain and reduces prices for U.S. patients, and that these announcements are the first of many steps taken by the pharmaceutical industry to bring relief to the American people.

We live in deeply polarizing times, but frustration with prescription drug costs is a rare issue of bipartisan agreement. A recent survey finds 85% of voters agree their medications have gotten more expensive, and virtually the same percentage of respondents say pharmaceutical companies are mostly to blame. 

Likewise, the vast majority of voters across the political spectrum say they support President Trump in his efforts to work with Big Pharma to rein in costs.

This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents. Life expectancy among Americans lags behind that of the rest of the developed world. The problem is worse in rural communities like mine, where — according to a new study — the typical adult male will die two years earlier than if he lived in the city. A host of factors are to blame for this discrepancy, including less access to necessary health care in rural areas. But the cost of health care is also to blame, and prescription drug prices play an outsized part in driving those costs up year after year.

If we’re going to reverse this trend, we all have a role to play. Individual responsibility is critical, beginning with people embracing better health habits. State policymakers are making strides to ensure there are enough doctors and nurses in every community across Arizona. And the federal government can and should continue pressing the pharmaceutical industry to ensure Americans get a fair deal when it comes to purchasing the prescription medications they need.

Sen. T.J. Shope, a Republican, is president pro tempore of the Arizona Senate and vice chairman of the Senate Health & Human Services Committee. He lives in Coolidge.

Rep. Alexander Kolodin announces bid for chief elections officer; refuses to comment on Trump’s election stance

A state lawmaker who wants to be the state’s chief elections officer refused to say Monday whether he believes President Trump is acting illegally in telling states they have to demand proof of citizenship from all voters.

In a press conference to announce his candidacy, Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, promised transparency if he is elected secretary of state in 2026. And he accused incumbent Democrat Adrian Fontes of ignoring election laws.

But he would not address whether a federal law created by Congress, which allows for voting in federal elections without such proof, precludes what the president has ordered. Instead, he turned the issue into a criticism of Fontes for problems that resulted in the last election when questions were raised about who had and had not provided such proof.

Kolodin, who said in his speech his campaign was about “rebuilding trust” in the election system, also sidestepped a question about whether Republicans, who raised claims of election fraud in several past elections, were responsible for that lack of trust. Yet Kolodin, an attorney, was placed on probation by the State Bar of Arizona for filing a series of lawsuits challenging the 2020 election, after a federal judge in one of those cases tossed the case saying that “gossip and innuendo cannot substitute for earnest pleadings and procedure.”

He had filed another unrelated lawsuit in connection with that election alleging that the use of Sharpie permanent markers on ballots was causing machines to cancel votes on Election Day. He dropped that case after Attorney General Mark Brnovich concluded that everyone’s vote was being counted.

On Monday, Kolodin also refused to answer questions about whether he believes Biden won the vote in Arizona in 2020, despite the official tally showing the Democrat outpolled Trump by more than 10,000 votes.

Kolodin said Fontes is unfit to be the state’s chief elections officer, citing a series of lawsuits over the practices of the secretary of state’s office. That includes a recent ruling that Fontes did not provide the public enough time to provide input into the Elections Procedures Manual which serves as a guidebook for election officials.

But Kolodin, an attorney, made no mention of his own 18-month probation.

Strictly speaking, each county runs its own elections. However, the post of secretary of state is significant because it provides guidance to ensure that the counties comply with the laws.

Potentially more significant, the office becomes the focal point in conversations regarding the legality of election practices, as well as whether laws approved by the Legislature are valid.

One of those cases involves who must provide “documented proof of citizenship” before being able to register.

Arizona voters enacted such a law in 2004. But the National Voter Registration Act says that those who register with a form provided by the federal government can sign up to vote in federal races — president and members of Congress — by instead only avowing they are citizens.

Various challenges to that ability by Arizona lawmakers have been rejected by the courts, saying that Congress created that law and states are unable to override it in federal elections.

Trump last week signed a sweeping executive order declaring that citizenship proof is required. He directed the federal Election Assistance Commission, which created the federal form, to recraft it to now include a requirement to show certain government identification to register.

Fontes threw himself into the fray, calling the president’s order “a power grab.”

That led to Monday’s question to Kolodin about whether he believes Trump can do that unilaterally.

Kolodin responded that Arizona law already requires proof of citizenship — which is true for state and local elections. But rather than answer it, he launched into a criticism of Fontes over the fact that it was discovered shortly before the 2024 election that there was no record of more than 200,000 Arizonans who had already registered to vote in state and local elections who had provided such proof.

He said if Fontes had been doing his job, none of that would have happened.

But that issue proved more complex, with at least some of the blame being shared with the state Motor Vehicle Division which had provided records of who had provided it with such proof, something that has been required to get a license in Arizona since 1996.

Kolodin’s response to the inquiry of the president’s power?

“Next question,” he said.

Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs, by contrast, said there is plenty of reason to question what Trump is attempting to do

“The president has certain executive authority,” she said at a separate, unrelated news conference.

“Other times he’s showing that he thinks he can change the law by saying it’s so,” the governor said. “And that’s not the case.”

Then there’s Kolodin saying he is running to restore public trust in the system.

“When people stop believing that their voice matters or that the process is fair, when they see our election laws being broken and manipulated at will, participation drops, division rises and democracy stops working the way it’s supposed to,” Kolodin said.

But he would not say whether he and other Republicans have played a role in that eroded public confidence.

That included his role in the so-called Kraken lawsuit, a name given to it by Trump attorney Sidney Powell. She said she was going to “release the Kraken,” a mythical sea monster, with her claims that were so enormous that they would overturn the 2020 election.

Filed less than a month after the general election, the lawsuit alleged “massive election fraud” that was done “for the purpose of illegally and fraudulently manipulating the vote count to manufacture an election of Joe Biden … and down-ballot Democratic candidates.”

The case was tossed by U.S. District Court Judge Diane Humetewa who said challengers were asking for her to disenfranchise millions of Arizonans and that what was presented was “sorely wanting of relevant or reliable evidence.”

That was one of the cases that led to his discipline by the State Bar.

Kolodin said at the time he was a victim.

“It has been well documented that the people who file these complaints (against lawyers) are political activists,” he said. “It is unfortunate that the bar’s effort to keep lawyers honest is being gamed by political operatives.”

Petersen says Trump victory means AZ won’t need to enforce Prop 314 provision

The election of President Trump and a Republican Congress means Arizona won’t be needing to enforce the major provision of the just-approved Proposition 314 according to Senate President Warren Petersen.

The Gilbert Republican said Wednesday the whole purpose behind the ballot measure was to allow state and local police to do the job that he said the federal government was not doing: enforcing federal laws that make entering the country at other than a port of entry a crime.

“We literally mirrored federal law,” he told Capitol Media Services.

“The difference is Biden was not enforcing the law,” Petersen said. “Trump is going to enforce the law.

But figures from Customs and Border Protection say there were more than 1.5 million arrests logged of those who entered the country at other than a port of entry in the last fiscal year.

Anyway, the Senate president said there are plenty of other crimes to keep the Department of Public Safety and local law enforcement busy. Plus, if local police are not arresting migrants, there’s no need for Arizonans to pick up the costs of incarcerating them.

Overall, the Grand Canyon Institute pegged the annual cost at about $325 million.

And there’s something else.

Even with voters approving the measure on a 3-2 margin, it could not be immediately enforced.

It was modeled after SB 4 in Texas where a federal appeals court has blocked implementation after agreeing with the Biden administration that it illegally infringes on the exclusive right of the federal government to regulate immigration.

And rather than Arizona picking its own fights with the feds, Prop 314 was crafted so that it can take effect no sooner than six months after there is a final court ruling upholding SB 4. Now, said Petersen, all that remains academic.

Still, he said, there are other provisions in the measure that still have value.

One requires state agencies to check the immigration status of those who apply for public benefits. Another makes it a crime to submit false documents or information to an employer to evade discovery of their status of being in the country without documentation.

There also is language that increases the prison terms for the “sale of lethal fentanyl” based on the claim that much of the supply of the drug or its precursor chemicals has come across the border.

“You’ve got stronger fentanyl penalties now,” Petersen said. “That’s a state crime and this is where it should be handled.”

But the measure was sold largely on the basis of ensuring the state can play a role in dealing with what has been an increasing number of people crossing the border.

“What it means is we don’t have to do the federal government’s job,” Petersen said. “This obviously frees up law enforcement so they can shift their priorities.”

The approval of Prop 314 was not a fluke in the 2024 election.

Immigration was one of the top issues on the federal level. And Trump gained traction on the national level — and here in Arizona where he picked up more than 53% of the vote — with promises to not just seal the border but to deport the approximately 11 million who have entered the country without authorization.

Biden himself put immigration on the public agenda when, in his first days as president, he rescinded the “Remain in Mexico” policy that Trump had instituted during his first term.

That related to the 2018 Migrant Protection Protocols. The intent was to force Homeland Security to either lock up asylum seeking from countries other than Mexico or Canada, as the law stated, or send them to Mexico as the law allowed.

Trump got the Mexican government to agree to accept these non-Mexican citizens. And by the end of 2020, the agency had enrolled more than 68,000 in the program.

But the day Biden was sworn into office, the agency suspended the program. It was terminated five months later.

That led to the TV images of flows of migrants finding the gaps and holes in the border wall and then surrendering to Border Patrol to seek asylum. Given limits on places to incarcerate them, most were simply released and given court dates to reappear.

The issue of border crossers was so strong in public sentiment that Biden this past summer backtracked a bit.

He issue a number of executive orders, including barring migrants from seeking asylum when encounters are high. That cut the flow. But it still left the whole issue on the political front burner. And it became a talking point for Republicans — and a political wedge issue.

GOP lawmakers first approved the plan to allow state and local police arrest those who enter the country at other than a port of entry as legislation and sent it to Hobbs. She vetoed it.

“I absolutely understand Arizonans’ frustration,” she said.

“Put me on the top of that list of the federal government’s failure to secure our southern border and the feeling of wanting to take it into your own hands,” Hobbs said. But the governor said this bill “is not the answer to that problem.”

So GOP lawmakers turned around and put it on the ballot, beyond her power to veto it, adding in the provisions on public benefits, employment documentation and fentanyl.

Petersen said while Trump won, that doesn’t mean Arizonans made a mistake in approving the measure.

“The way I see 314 now is, it’s a resource for us to have if we ever get a president again that won’t enforce federal law,” he said. “But, right now, Trump is going to enforce the law that’s in place.”

He also took a swat at the outgoing president, who had argued at times that his ability to deal with the number of migrants crossing the border was limited by federal law.

“Biden didn’t need a new bill,” Petersen said. “What they needed was to enforce existing laws.”

That, however, raises another question: Are there actually enough Border Patrol officers to do the job.

A 2023 audit by the Department of Homeland Security found that 88% of border stations reported they were understaffed. That situation was complicated by many agents being reassigned to deal with migrants who were crossing the border and seeking asylum.

Petersen, however, said he is not worried that cost will be a factor based on the promises that Trump made.

“He said there’s no price tag on it,” the Senate president said of Trump.

“If they need local authorities’ help, we can help with that,” Petersen said. “But everything we’re hearing and seeing from them (the Trump administration) is they’re going to enforce the law.”

And just the election of Trump, he said, is making a difference.

“We’re hearing of people self-deporting,” Petersen said. And he said there is evidence that some of the groups that were headed to the United States are “breaking up.”

“Now that they know that Trump’s going to be the president, they’re heading out,” he continued. “So just knowing that the laws are going to be enforced, it’s already become a huge deterrent.”

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