Arizona has officially become the first state in the nation to ban ultra-processed foods in public schools. Governor Katie Hobbs signed HB 2164, also known as the Arizona Healthy Schools Act, into law this week after it passed both chambers of the legislature with overwhelming bipartisan support.
The law will take effect in the 2026–2027 school year and applies to all schools that participate in federally funded or assisted meal programs. It prohibits schools from serving, selling, or allowing third-party vendors to offer ultra-processed foods during the normal school day.
Ultra-processed foods are defined under the law as any food or beverage containing one or more of 11 specific additives, including potassium bromate, titanium dioxide, propylparaben, brominated vegetable oil, and synthetic dyes such as red dye 40, yellow dye 5, and blue dye 1. These ingredients have faced mounting scrutiny due to potential links to behavioral issues, allergic reactions, and even cancer risks.
Importantly, the law does not restrict what parents or guardians may provide for their own children. However, it places full responsibility on schools to eliminate the sale or provision of these additives through lunches, vending machines, snack bars, and school stores during the school day.
State Representative Leo Biasiucci (R-LD30), a leading sponsor of the bill, celebrated the signing in a post on X: “My bill, HB2164: banning of ultra processed foods in school meals, was just signed into law in Arizona!”
Breaking News! My bill, HB2164: banning of ultra processed foods in school meals, was just signed into law in Arizona! #MAHApic.twitter.com/s2kVcMCUGc
Under the new law, the Arizona Department of Education (ADE) is tasked with implementing a compliance system. This includes publishing a standardized form for schools to certify adherence and posting a public list of compliant schools on the ADE website.
Arizona schools are already required to meet federal guidelines on school meals through the National School Lunch and School Breakfast Programs. These standards limit calories, sodium, unhealthy fats, and mandate the inclusion of fruits, vegetables, and whole grains. HB 2164 builds on those efforts by targeting a set of food additives that are not currently prohibited by federal rules.
The Joint Legislative Budget Committee noted that the administrative impact of the law on ADE would be minimal and can be handled by existing staff. With the law now on the books, Arizona is poised to become a national leader in school nutrition policy—placing children’s health and safety at the center of its education system.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
U.S. Border Patrol agents from the Tucson Sector conducted two separate rescue operations over the weekend, saving the lives of two U.S. citizens who became stranded in remote desert terrain in southern Arizona.
The rescues, which took place on Saturday and Sunday, highlight the role of Border Patrol agents not only in enforcing immigration laws, but also in providing critical life-saving assistance in dangerous and often isolated parts of the state.
On Saturday, agents from the Border Patrol’s elite Search, Trauma, and Rescue (BORSTAR) team were called to assist the Pinal County Sheriff’s Office after a hiker was reported injured and stranded near the Superstition Mountains, east of Phoenix.
The hiker, who reported a possible broken ankle and was unable to walk, was located by air aboard Pinal County’s rescue helicopter, Pinal Air 1. Given the rugged mountainside terrain, a BORSTAR agent was lowered by hoist to reach and stabilize the hiker, who was then airlifted to a safe area for further medical evaluation.
The following day, Border Patrol agents assigned to the Sonoita Station responded to a call from the Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office involving a lost hiker on the Arizona Trail near Pauline Ridge. The hiker, who had been missing for two days, was spotted by a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Air and Marine Operations helicopter. However, thick vegetation and challenging terrain made a helicopter landing impossible.
Instead, ground-based agents hiked into the remote area, reached the hiker, administered immediate medical care, and transported him to the Sonoita-Elgin Fire Department for further treatment.
“These rescues are a testament to [our agents’] training, teamwork, and unwavering commitment to public safety,” said Tucson Sector Chief Patrol Agent Sean L. McGoffin. “Our agents and teams continuously demonstrate their dedication to saving people’s lives.”
While U.S. Border Patrol is primarily known for its immigration enforcement mission, especially in southern border states like Arizona, its agents—particularly those assigned to specialized units like BORSTAR—frequently respond to emergencies involving lost, injured, or distressed individuals in remote regions.
Established in the late 1990s, BORSTAR was created in response to a rising number of migrant deaths in the desert but has since expanded its mission to include public safety rescues involving U.S. citizens and migrants alike. Arizona’s vast and often unforgiving terrain, particularly during extreme weather, can pose life-threatening risks to hikers, outdoor enthusiasts, and undocumented migrants attempting to cross the desert.
Border Patrol agents in the Tucson Sector conduct many rescues each year, often working in partnership with local law enforcement and fire departments to locate and evacuate individuals from areas where traditional emergency services may be unable to reach quickly.
CBP and Border Patrol officials continue to encourage outdoor recreationists to be prepared and exercise caution when entering remote areas of the Arizona desert. Basic recommendations include carrying sufficient water, a charged cell phone or GPS device, and informing others of planned travel routes and return times.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
Maricopa County leadership is asking U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi to drop a lawsuit against Phoenix police and limit consent decrees.
In a letter sent to Bondi on Tuesday, Maricopa County Board of Supervisors Chairman Thomas Galvin made the case to drop the ongoing Department of Justice (DOJ) lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Department and further restrict consent decree usage in order to improve law enforcement capabilities.
“My colleagues and I share a commitment to effective policing,” said Galvin. “Federal oversight is an affront to federalism.”
Chairman Galvin Letter to Attorney General Bondi on Priority of Public Safety in Maricopa County: My colleagues and I share a commitment to effective policing. Federal oversight is an affront to federalism. Please see below for my letter to @AGPamBondihttps://t.co/cJX2EQ6zni
— Thomas Galvin: Chairman, Maricopa County BOS (@ThomasGalvin) April 15, 2025
Galvin said the controls exercised by the judicial branch over policing in recent decades amounted to “an assault on federalism and a quiet tyranny” perpetrated by activists. The chairman reminded Bondi that no instances of racial profiling in traffic stops emerged in Maricopa County following the 2013 ruling in Ortega Melendres, et al. v. Arpaio, et al. In that case, the ACLU, ACLU of Arizona, Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and law firm Covington & Burling sued on behalf of Latino residents alleging Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office committed racial profiling in traffic stops when inquiring after immigration status.
“Tragically, one of the largest obstacles to protecting our citizens is legal: judicial takeovers of law enforcement through consent decrees, court-appointed monitors, and judgments that mutate over time to prevent local governments from ever satisfying their requirements and regaining local control,” wrote Galvin.
Galvin reported Maricopa County spent over $300 million on the consent decree and independent monitoring to comply with the 2013 federal court ruling. Galvin asked Bondi to restore limitations on consent decrees in order to lift the fiscal and administrative burdens on Maricopa County law enforcement.
Galvin also asked Bondi to drop the lawsuit against the Phoenix Police Department (PPD). Last June, the Biden administration’s DOJ accused PPD and the city of Phoenix of committing civil rights violations: excessive force and unjustified deadly force; unlawful detainment, citations, and arrests of homeless individuals; unlawful disposal of homeless belongings; discrimination against Black, Hispanic, and Native American individuals; free speech punishments; and discrimination against mentally ill individuals.
The DOJ’s accusations were a result of their investigation opened in August 2021. The DOJ sought to enter into a consent decree and independent monitoring, but the city refused.
“It simply sets the stage for a judgment that allows a federal judge to take over law enforcement in America’s fifth-largest city — exactly the nightmare that Maricopa County is living already,” wrote Galvin. “I am certain you will agree that our communities will only be safer and stronger if they were able to commit every resource to fighting the flow of drugs, violence, and human smuggling rather than chasing the whims of a federal judge.”
The county does have some support for an end to the lawsuit at the federal level.
Last month, Congressman Abe Hamadeh submitted a similar request letter to FBI Director Kash Patel requesting a rescission of the DOJ’s “desperate witch hunt” report on PPD.
“It is nothing more than an attempt to undercut valid police work, leaving my constituents — both officers and civilians — at risk,” wrote Hamadeh. “Despite the Biden DOJ’s baseless claims, our officers did everything right, voluntarily cooperating in good faith, opening their records, and participating in lengthy interviews. They were met with stonewalling, mischaracterized testimony, and a final report riddled with glaring inaccuracies.”
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Donald Trump has promised to create millions of new high-paying jobs.
One easy first step to doing that is to repeal Biden-regulations on America’s 4 million business partnerships (sometimes known as S-corporations) that are prolific job creators. The latest estimates find 10 million Americans employed by these business partnerships, with $800 billion paid in worker salaries and benefits.
For example, “95 percent of Microsoft’s commercial revenue flows directly through” its “partner ecosystem.” The profits from these enterprises are passed through to the 4 million partners, who make tax payments based on their share of those earnings.
These have been the tax rules governing partnerships for many decades. The Biden administration didn’t like the tax rules, so instead of asking Congress to change them, Biden’s Treasury Department worked through the back door to unilaterally modify the rules, as part of its “fairness” agenda.
The precise tax target is a technique used by partnerships to lower their tax liability called “basis shifting.” While technically complex (because everything with the U.S. tax code is complicated), it is also entirely legal and has been used by partnerships for decades to adjust the value of their assets during a transaction or transfer. Whatever one thinks of basis shifting, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) doesn’t have the unilateral authority to change the tax laws — only Congress does.
The Biden crackdown treated business partners as tax cheats. When they hired 87,000 agents to harass companies and individuals, nearly 4,000 of these IRS tax collectors were hired to among other things, “expand enforcement focusing on complex partnerships.”
The more than four million business partnerships became an overnight suspect class, as did the tax returns of millions of partners.
To pry money out of these partnerships, the Biden team wanted to create a retroactive tax (which should be illegal) by changing the rules and apply them going back six years in time. So a tax structure that may have been perfectly legal in the past could now trigger investigations, fines, and litigation.
Biden Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen also created a new investigative office to oversee and harass partnerships. That should be shutdown.
So a tax structure that may have been perfectly legal in the past could now trigger investigations, fines, and litigation.
More than 90% of partnerships are small businesses, according to an Ernst and Young study prepared for the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBE Council) last year. The business partnership arrangement allows these firms to have ready access to needed capital to expand their operations. In all these companies generated $1.3 trillion to our GDP.
These partnership arrangements allow promising small companies to grow into large ones. This uniquely American business structure is a hallmark of U.S. entrepreneurial success — a path for businesses to go from good to great.
It isn’t broken. The system works. That’s why the Trump Treasury Department needs to immediately command the IRS to cease and desist the Biden witch hunt against these partnerships.
It’s a war on wealth. A war on U.S. businesses. And it’s a direct assault on the Trump promise to “make America great again.”
Stephen Moore is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, and a co-founder of Unleash Prosperity. His latest book co-authored with Arthur Laffer is “The Trump Economic Miracle.”
Arizona State Senator Mark Finchem (R-LD1) has announced the formation of a Joint Legislative Ad Hoc Committee on Family Court Orders. The committee is aimed at evaluating the state’s family court system and potential reforms. The first hearing took place on Monday, April 14.
The committee, which will include both lawmakers and subject matter experts, is inviting parents and advocates to share personal stories and concerns about their experiences with family court proceedings. According to Finchem, the hearings were prompted by a growing number of complaints from families alleging that court-ordered interventions and custody decisions are inconsistent or harmful.
“I am urging those who have been impacted by the family court system to come to the Senate and make their voices heard,” said Chairman Finchem. “We want to evaluate potential legislative solutions to safeguard families and hold government and non-government agencies accountable for potentially unreasonable practices.”
The ad hoc committee will focus on a range of issues related to family court, including but not limited to custody arrangements and their long-term impact on children; the use and oversight of court-ordered therapeutic interventions; transparency and accountability of family court judges and court-appointed professionals; and the influence of external agencies and third-party service providers in custody and visitation decisions.
Finchem’s office confirmed that this will be the first in a series of five public hearings intended to gather testimony and explore whether legislative reforms are needed.
Arizona’s family court system, like those in many other states, has faced scrutiny in recent years over concerns ranging from judicial discretion in custody rulings to allegations of bias and lack of oversight for court-appointed evaluators. Critics have raised questions about the role of court-ordered therapists, parenting coordinators, and other third-party providers—especially when their involvement results in costly or extended legal battles.
Some people have also suggested that existing processes fail to properly address issues of domestic abuse, parental alienation, and financial inequities. While many of these claims are complex and deeply personal, they have prompted a broader discussion about balancing judicial discretion with accountability and protecting the well-being of children caught in contentious disputes.
Additional hearings are expected to be scheduled over the coming months as the committee works to develop findings and potential legislative recommendations.
Arizona joins a number of states nationwide that are reconsidering how family courts operate in light of evolving societal and legal expectations. Whether this effort leads to concrete policy change remains to be seen, but it represents a significant moment of public engagement with the legal system’s handling of family matters.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
