As news reports from various sources and DHS officials such as Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Czar Tom Homan publicly extol the effectiveness of the Border Patrol in shutting down human smuggling, Border Patrol is sharing more reports and video of their apprehensions than ever before for greater transparency. On top of that, they also appear to be actively mocking or ‘trolling’ the criminals online.
In one such post to X, Chief Patrol Agent (CPA) of the U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector Sean McGoffin shared a side-splittingly humorous take on an apprehension of a U.S. citizen with two prior alien smuggling arrests.
McGoffin posted, “Camo clothes don’t blend well with upholstery,” addressing the five desert camouflage-clad illegal immigrants captured with their smuggler, who were shown in images crammed into the trunk of a sedan.
Camo clothes don’t blend well with upholstery. 4/2: A U.S. citizen with two prior alien smuggling arrests was again arrested trying to smuggle 5 illegal aliens through the State Route 86 immigration checkpoint. She now faces a slew of smuggling, harboring, concealment, and… pic.twitter.com/6v3q9UBVmA
The USBP Chief said in a statement, “A U.S. citizen with two prior alien smuggling arrests was again arrested trying to smuggle 5 illegal aliens through the State Route 86 immigration checkpoint. She now faces a slew of smuggling, harboring, concealment, and transportation charges under 8 USC 1324. The illegal aliens, despite 3 being dressed in camouflage, were easily spotted attempting to hide in the back seat. All 5 aliens face Inadmissibility charges, with one earning a Re-entry charge under 8 USC 1326.”
A previous post on April 9th struck a similarly jocular tone with what reads like a standard joke set up, “What happens when a cartel foot guide, a cartel affiliate, and a gang member all climb over some metal bars and into the country illegally? They get arrested because we don’t play!”
What happens when a cartel foot guide, a cartel affiliate, and a gang member all climb over some metal bars and into the country illegally? They get arrested because we don’t play! pic.twitter.com/MEKWlIObjc
In another post on April 8th, the USBP Chief openly mocked a captured cartel smuggler for who was caught carrying “devout artifacts associated with cartel culture and displayed matching tattoos.”
The post read, “Bad Spirits will not triumph over our Nation’s Guardians! 3/29: Three Points Border Patrol Station agents arrested a human smuggler who illegally entered the U.S. through the desert on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. This smuggler, who has numerous immigration violations, was identified as a faction member of the Cártel de Jalisco Nueva Generación. He carried devout artifacts associated with cartel culture and displayed matching tattoos. Jail will afford him plenty of time to think about his direction in life, as he will be charged with re-entry of a removed alien under 8 USC 1326.“
Caption: Bad Spirits will not triumph over our Nation’s Guardians! 3/29: Three Points Border Patrol Station agents arrested a human smuggler who illegally entered the U.S. through the desert on the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation. This smuggler, who has numerous immigration… pic.twitter.com/vX0JLBc4iq
An April Fools’ Day post definitely set the tone for the more entertaining updates as well, showing a likely AI-generated image depicting McGoffin mounted upon a “Premier Patrol Llama” citing “the rising costs of maintaining horses.”
The new direction in social media may owe to the appointment of Sean McGoffin, who replaced the previous Chief John Modlin, upon his promotion to acting Deputy Commissioner. Or as a musical post to X from the White House on Thursday may illustrate, the shift in tone could be from the top-down.
The Trump administration will no longer continue its legal challenge to Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship (DPOC) laws.
The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a brief on Tuesday motioning to drop the case.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon filed the brief the very day after she was sworn into her position within the Civil Rights Division, alongside the controversial Interim Attorney for the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Arizona, Timothy Courchaine.
Senate President Warren Petersen called the development “a major win for election integrity and the rule of law” in a statement Wednesday. Petersen previously submitted a letter to the DOJ requesting they drop the case.
“The @azsenategop and @azhousegop will continue to defend this law against the special interest groups challenging it,” said Petersen.
🚨BREAKING: A MAJOR WIN FOR ELECTION INTEGRITY AND THE RULE OF LAW!!!
The DOJ, under @realdonaldtrump, just filed a brief announcing they are REVERSING the Biden challenge and are no longer seeking to overturn Arizona’s documentary proof of citizenship laws!!
Petersen submitted his request letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi in mid-February.
The case, Mi Familia Vota v. Fontes, is before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Arizona’s DPOC laws required automatic rejection of Arizona state form registration submissions lacking DPOC, prohibited individuals who hadn’t provided DPOC from voting for a president or returning a ballot by mail, and added mandatory fields to the state registration form for a registrant’s birthplace and a checkbox confirmation of the applicant’s U.S. citizenship.
Last August, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Arizona would have to accept state voter registration forms without DPOC.
Tuesday’s motion by the DOJ was the latest in the Trump administration’s efforts to cease legal action against states’ election laws.
Last month, the DOJ dropped multiple election-related lawsuits in Texas, Georgia, and Louisiana initiated under the Biden administration. Those lawsuits opposed voting maps and election integrity initiatives, respectively.
President Donald Trump and his administration have also taken steps to require proof of citizenship in elections, prompting resistance from the state’s top Democratic leaders.
Arizona Secretary of State Adrian Fontes, alongside Attorney General Kris Mayes, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over President Donald Trump’s recent executive order requiring DPOC to register to vote in federal elections as well as requiring all ballots to be received by Election Day.
Last week, Mayes and Fontes held a joint press conference announcing their lawsuit and accusing Trump of “unconstitutional intrusion” on states’ rights and congressional authority regarding elections. The pair want Trump to go through — not around — Congress for any election law changes.
“If President Trump wanted to make laws then he should have run for congress where the U.S. Constitution says that work is done,” said Fontes. “If the President wants to reshape our elections, he must propose realistic bipartisan legislation in Congress instead of forcing states into unfunded mandates through unlawful executive orders.”
“Clearly, Trump only supports state’s rights when it suits him,” said Mayes.
Last month in another case pertaining to DPOC, the Arizona Court of Appeals ruled against the Elections Procedure Manual (EPM) produced by Secretary of State Adrian Fontes. Fontes’ EPM would have allowed voters who failed to submit or couldn’t achieve verification of their DPOC.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen has joined a coalition of states and energy companies in filing a federal lawsuit aimed at reducing regulatory barriers to deploying small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs), a next-generation nuclear energy technology touted for its safety, efficiency, and potential role in transitioning to clean energy.
Filed in a U.S. District Court late Monday, the lawsuit challenges a longstanding Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) rule that subjects SMRs to the same licensing standards as large-scale nuclear reactors. Arizona joins Florida, Texas, Louisiana, Utah, and three nuclear energy firms in asking the court to set aside the rule.
“Arizona’s utility companies want to pursue SMRs, but their hands are tied with red tape,” Petersen said in a statement. “It could take decades and an unreasonable amount of money to establish plants under the current rule.”
The plaintiffs argue that the NRC’s approach contradicts the original intent of Congress, which in the 1950s envisioned a more flexible regulatory framework for smaller reactors. They contend the uniform standards are outdated and unnecessarily hinder the adoption of SMRs, which can be factory-built and installed on-site, even in rural areas.
Small modular reactors are advanced nuclear energy systems that produce significantly less power than traditional reactors—typically under 300 megawatts—but offer key advantages. They can be constructed more quickly, pose fewer safety risks, and emit nearly zero greenhouse gases. Because of their modular design, SMRs can be scaled to meet specific energy demands and are considered ideal for hard-to-reach communities or states looking to diversify their energy portfolios.
Proponents say SMRs could be a critical tool in meeting emissions targets while maintaining grid reliability and reducing dependency on fossil fuels.
The push to modernize nuclear regulation has gained traction as several states and energy companies look to expand nuclear energy options. Advocates of the lawsuit argue that reforming the licensing process could unlock billions in clean energy investment and accelerate the path toward energy independence.
Arizona’s involvement in the case reflects a broader interest among state leaders in expanding energy choices amid rising demand. Petersen’s office noted that the lawsuit aligns with broader national efforts to reduce reliance on foreign energy. For now, Arizona joins a growing list of states pushing for a regulatory framework they say better reflects technological innovation and evolving energy needs.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
A bill designed to direct more tax revenue toward Arizona’s K-12 classrooms has been vetoed by Governor Katie Hobbs, prompting criticism from Republican lawmakers who say the measure would have strengthened public education funding.
SB 1050, sponsored by Senator Vince Leach (R-LD17), sought to amend the Government Property Lease Excise Tax (GPLET) program by prohibiting the abatement of school district-designated tax revenues. Under current law, cities and towns can lease government-owned property to private developers with reduced tax obligations, an incentive intended to promote commercial development.
The bill would have excluded school-related tax revenues from such incentives, allowing those funds to flow directly to local school districts instead of being waived under development agreements.
“This was a missed opportunity by the Governor,” said Leach. “She says she supports education funding, but her veto suggests otherwise.”
In her veto letter, Governor Hobbs explained that SB 1050 could “stunt Arizona’s economic development” by weakening a tool used by local governments to attract private investment. The GPLET program, though controversial, has been credited with revitalizing parts of urban Arizona by lowering upfront development costs in exchange for long-term gains.
Arizona schools continue to face funding pressures despite recent increases to the state’s education budget. Republican lawmakers have often pushed for reallocating existing tax revenues, while Democrats have generally sought new funding sources or changes to the state’s tax structure.
SB 1050 passed both legislative chambers before being vetoed, signaling at least some bipartisan concern about the balance between development incentives and education funding.
Senator Leach and other supporters of the bill may pursue similar legislation in future sessions or attempt a veto override, although success would require significant bipartisan support. Meanwhile, the broader debate over how to equitably fund Arizona’s public schools is likely to continue.
“This is about priorities,” Leach said. “We should be making sure our tax dollars are going to classrooms, not corporate subsidies.”
The Governor’s office has not indicated whether alternative proposals to increase school funding through tax reforms are in the works.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
It was just about 2 years ago that a fury ran through the Mesa Public Schools community over a controversial document that had gone largely unnoticed. That document is titled “Support Plan for Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students” (also called “Guidelines for Support of Transgender and Gender Nonconforming Students.”) This plan allows a student who “consistently asserts at school a gender identity that is different from the student’s sex assigned at birth” to “participate in such activities and access such facilities consistent with their gender identity.” (Notice there’s no mention of a parental consent requirement.) This means restrooms, locker rooms, and showers.
There were multiple concerns raised to district leadership regarding the plan. How would non-transgender students be protected and affirmed when someone of the opposite biological sex is now allowed to enter their private spaces such as bathrooms, locker rooms, and showers?
Numerous stories surfaced reporting females were not eating or drinking during the day to avoid having to use the restrooms, which they were now compelled to share with biological boys. Why was their “safe space” suddenly being violated? Why were they suddenly denied any expectation of privacy that matched their values? Why is there allowance in the document for the district to conceal a student’s transgender ideation and the district’s course of action affirming that ideation from their parents? Does this concealment violate ARS 1-601, Parents Rights Protected? Does this plan amount to providing behavioral health services as defined by the Arizona Behavioral Health Board? District leadership has successfully danced around providing clear, unambiguous answers to these questions. Why? What are they trying to hide from parents?
Even though Superintendent Dr. Andi Fourlis issued carefully worded, yet vague assurances to the contrary, there still remains within the plan/guidelines, allowances to NOT notify parents of their child’s transgender ideations as the district personnel provide “gender affirming care” for the child. A Public Records Request in early 2023 exposed a school counselor who was maintaining a spreadsheet of trans students along with notation as to whether parents knew.
This counselor was informing other staff how to avoid “outing” students to parents when speaking with them. The plan originally included a checkbox for the student to indicate if their parents were to be told.
Additionally, the plan expressly states that although changes to the student’s “preferred name/pronouns” may be made in district records, “parental consent is not required.”
At the governing board meeting on May 9, 2023, (begin at 3:35:25), board member Rachel Walden asked leadership, “What is the criteria for a student to be put on this Transgender Support Plan?”
District general counsel, Kasey King, responded “…there’s not specific criteria. It’s a student who’s requesting to use the restroom of their choice or to designate the pronouns or names of their choice. Also, as a tool to help the student and the school process how that information is going to be shared, IF AT ALL!”
It is student-initiated, primarily. Notice the complete absence of any parental involvement or even notification here.
Mrs. King continued, “I’m thinking at the younger grades, it might be a situation where the student simply starts asking for some accommodations. And as a way to make sure everybody is on the same page, their teacher or counselor might suggest they put it into writing.”
Are you following this? A student at the “younger grades” might ask for transgender accommodations from the school, and the teacher or counselor will suggest putting that student on a Transgender Support Plan! No parental consent or notification required. Mrs. Walden continued to press for transparency into what is occurring: “There’s nothing in these guidelines about notifying the parents. Isn’t there an opportunity for parental notification process in this?”
Mrs. King: “Parents always have the right under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act) to inspect and review their child’s education records.”
Mrs. Walden responded, “How would they know to ask that?”
Then-board President Marcie Hutchinson chimed in, “I guess they would ‘check in’ with the school.”
So, moms and dads, the only way to know for sure if your child has been placed on a Transgender Support Plan at Mesa Public Schools is for you to “check in with the school.” Since you don’t know the day that this might happen, I suggest you “check in” every day. Don’t expect to be notified otherwise. This is akin to child abuse in many people’s minds, yet the district refuses to make suitable provisions for parental notification, even to this day.
There is, in the old version of the plan/guidelines, a provision for parental notification “if changes are made in Synergy.” But apparently otherwise, mum’s the word.
OLD VERSION
The district has since revised the wording to make sure staff inform students “…that IF they request to change information in Synergy, parent(s) will be notified.”
When I see this, I read “SHHHH! Nobody has to know. Just don’t request a change in Synergy, and it’ll be our secret.”
The other concerning change explicitly states that parental/legal guardian consent “is not required” for a student to request district personnel provide gender affirming care to them.
These changes occurred in July 2024.
NEW VERSION
In a further assault on parental rights, the district has modified the guidelines from the verbiage previously, which stated, “Disclosing confidential student information to others may violate privacy laws” to a more intimidating and yet ambiguous, “Disclosing confidential student information to…parents…may violate privacy laws.”
Are teachers or counselors more likely or less likely to notify parents with this threat of violating privacy laws looming over their heads? I say less likely.
OLD VERSION
NEW VERSION
Then, as if that is not sufficient means for the district to usurp parental authority, Dr. Fourlis and Kacey King have now decided that the transgender plan/guidelines, which have for years resided on the Legal Services webpage on the district website, should be moved to a private internal location, away from public/parent access. When I asked the Governing Board President, Courtney Davis, why the district would make such a move as to lessen transparency, her answer allayed no concerns. “It was moved because it is a tool for school personnel to use to work with transgender students.”
It was always that Mrs. Davis! The only difference is, the public, and more importantly parents, no longer have access to documents describing what could potentially be happening to their child at Mesa Public Schools without their knowledge or consent.
After calling them out on this, Dr. Fourlis and Mrs. King have restored the document to the website, with an interesting change in title. They went from “Guidelines” to “Guidance.” Why that subtle change? For the record, contrary to the wording of Dr. Fourlis’ email, I did not request anything. I simply noted that hiding the document from public view was a “terrible decision.” Apparently, she agreed.
Interesting to note, since this document is considered a “guideline,” or now “guidance” and not a policy, it has not gone before the governing board for approval.
In an attempt to restore parental rights as defined under ARS 1-601, board member Sharon Benson proposed a policy at the April 8, 2025 board meeting which would require parental notification anytime a student indicated to a district employee any transgender ideations. During public comment (starts at 1:59:30), dozens of trans activists showed up in protest. Their overarching message was along the lines of, “If you ‘out’ students, they will be victims of abuse from their parents,” and “School personnel are much better equipped to deal with these issues than parents,” and “It’s not necessary for parents to know about their child’s mental distress.” All patently false statements.
Now, self-proclaimed members of the Communist and Socialist parties weighed in, trying to advance the narrative that children belong to the state, not parents (i.e. parents have no need to know about their child’s mental or emotional distress because the school is taking care of it). This is happening in Mesa folks! Are you paying attention?
It’s time to get involved. Attend district governing board meetings and make your voice heard. It’s critical that we stand for students and for parents.
Ed Steele is a husband, father, grandfather, and Mesa resident with a passion for helping the younger generation succeed in education.
