by Ethan Faverino | Jul 20, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Arizona Governor’s Office along with Arizona Department of Public Safety (AZDPS) are addressing the issue of growing concern nationwide of individuals impersonating law enforcement officers.
These deceptive acts not only undermine public trust with law enforcement officials, but they also jeopardize the safety of the community.
Under the Arizona Revised Statutes §13-2411, impersonating a police officer with the intent to deceive or induce compliance is a class 6 felony.
If committed during another felony, such as assault or theft, the offense escalates to a class 4 felony.
Director of AZDPS, Colonel Jeffrey Glover, said, “Impersonating a law enforcement officer is a serious crime that undermines public trust and threatens community safety. Our agency is committed to rigorously investigating and prosecuting anyone who falsely presents themselves as a peace officer. We will not tolerate individuals who exploit the authority and image of law enforcement for criminal or deceptive purposes.”
Governor Katie Hobbs also affirmed this same belief by saying, “Our local and state law enforcement have a tough job to do. Impersonating them makes that job even tougher. It puts our officers in harm’s way, undermines public trust, and makes our communities less safe. Impersonating a law enforcement officer is a felony in Arizona, and anybody caught doing so will be charged to the fullest extent of the law.”
The Governor’s office and AZDPS urge the public to remain vigilant and offer the following tips to identify and respond to potential impersonators:
- If driving, pull over in a well-lit, populated area.
- Request identification because legitimate officers carry authorized credentials identifying themselves and their agency.
- Call 911 to verify the encounter.
- Note details like vehicle type, license plate number, or badge number.
- Stay calm to ensure clear thinking and safe decision making.
Anybody who believes they have encountered a law enforcement impersonator is urged to report the incident to the local authorities immediately providing as much information as possible.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Jonathan Eberle | Jul 19, 2025 | News
By Jonathan Eberle |
The Goldwater Institute has filed a federal lawsuit against the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), demanding answers about an ongoing government case targeting a California-based moving company with a $15 million fine for alleged age discrimination.
At the center of the dispute is Meathead Movers, a family-owned business founded in 1997. The company has grown into California’s largest independently owned moving company, employing more than 300 workers. Its business model emphasizes physical endurance and customer service, with employees jogging to and from trucks when not carrying furniture.
The EEOC launched an investigation into Meathead Movers in 2017, accusing the company of discriminating against older applicants and using marketing materials that allegedly promote age bias. The case is unusual because it is an “agency-initiated” lawsuit—meaning the EEOC filed it without an official complaint from an alleged victim. The EEOC only pursues a small number of such cases each year.
According to the Goldwater Institute, that lack of a public complaint is precisely why the group is now suing the federal government. In March, the Institute submitted a public records request asking the EEOC to disclose whether any individuals had actually filed complaints against Meathead Movers and whether similar actions had been taken against other companies. The EEOC denied the request, citing privacy concerns.
The Goldwater Institute argues that the refusal to disclose this information violates federal transparency laws. “Privacy is for individuals, not government agencies,” the Goldwater said in a statement. “Transparency is a legal requirement, especially when taxpayer-funded agencies wield their power against private businesses.”
Critics of the EEOC’s case say the lawsuit defies common sense. Moving companies, by nature, require employees capable of lifting heavy furniture and working long hours in physically demanding conditions. The Goldwater Institute points out that Meathead Movers has employed workers of all ages and argues there is no evidence of systemic discrimination.
“This isn’t just about one company,” said a spokesperson for the Goldwater Institute. “If the government can pick a successful business, launch a multimillion-dollar enforcement action without an actual complaint, and then refuse to explain why, it sets a dangerous precedent for small businesses everywhere.”
As the lawsuit moves forward, the Goldwater Institute says it will continue to press for the release of records, arguing that public accountability is at stake.
Jonathan Eberle is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Jul 19, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
A quiet battle has been raging over the groundwater of the Hualapai Basin between Arizona State Representative John Gillette (R-LD30) and Mohave County Board of Supervisors Chairman Travis Lingenfelter.
Gillette has alleged that Lingenfelter enjoys the support of Governor Katie Hobbs, and High Ground, LLC., a firm “closely tied to the Walton Family Foundation and Environmental Defense Fund.”
In an email to AZ Free News, Rep. Gillette stated that Lingenfelter “has ‘cozied up’ with Governor Hobbs and High Ground, LLC., not by joining their party, but by aligning on a policy platform that places rural water in the hands of the Governor. He has advocated for several of the leftists’ water bills that trample the rights of property owners.”
The controversy appears to have arisen around the Final Assessment of the Hualapai Basin Water Data Integrity issued by Gillette to fellow legislators and third-party reviewers, which was allegedly made public by Lingenfelter in a May 8, 2025, formal rebuttal.
In his final assessment, Gillette wrote, “After continued research, legislative engagement, and review of both historical and current data, my original 2021 assessment of the Hualapai Basin water situation remains valid. The data presented by the City of Kingman and Mohave County remains suspect, with indications of overstatement used to drive political narratives and policy agendas.”
In the assessment, which Rep. Gillette asserted was reviewed by “three independent scientific and policy bodies prior to publication,” he found:
- The Hualapai Basin has enough groundwater storage to supply the region for 100–300+ years, even under heavy usage.
- Forecast models were based on worst-case pumping assumptions and should not be used to justify alarmist policy actions.
- Recharge estimates, storage volumes, and historical withdrawal rates all point to significant long-term water availability.
- The City of Kingman and Mohave County appear to have overstated risks—possibly to justify control over water rights or block agricultural competitors.
In the formal rebuttal dated May 8th, Lingenfelter addressed Gillette and claimed, “Your letter unfortunately contains a series of flawed assumptions, technical inaccuracies, and mischaracterizations that misinform rather than advance the public dialogue around long-term rural groundwater sustainability in Mohave County.”
He added, “Your letter asserts that data presented by Mohave County and the City of Kingman remains ‘suspect’ and ‘politically compromised.’ Such a characterization is categorically false and impugns the reputations of Mohave County, City of Kingman, and credentialed hydrologists at the ADWR and USGS and the public they serve.”
Responding to Lingenfelter’s rebuke in a formal response on May 16th, Gillette wrote, “While I welcome constructive dialogue, your letter reflects a degree of emotional overreach rather than a calm, scientific response to the concerns raised. Unfortunately, it reveals more about political defensiveness than about data transparency or hydrological best practice.”
Responding to critiques of the assessment’s findings Gillette wrote, “The assessment I authored was reviewed by three independent scientific and policy bodies prior to publication. All concluded that the findings were as accurate as possible given available data. I welcome peer review. What I reject is politically motivated resistance to scrutiny. As further evidence of bias, it should be noted that the ‘comparison document’ you reference—submitted by your team only days after my final assessment—contains several confirmations of my position.”
Rep. Gillette pushed back on Lingenfelter’s assertions based on the MODFLOW-NWT model from the U.S. Geological Survey and its 75,586 adjustable parameters writing, “As any trained analyst knows, such complexity magnifies sensitivity. Even small changes in assumptions—especially politically influenced assumptions—can result in dramatic shifts in outcome. Your confidence in the model would carry more weight if you supported my proposal to recalibrate baseline figures using 15 new field test sites with controlled, non manipulated measurement inputs. This is the kind of ground-truth methodology science demands. Strangely, your rebuttal ignores this recommendation entirely.”
He further strongly criticized the veto of a bill to cap irrigation on an irrigation non-expansion area (INA) by Governor Katie Hobbs, saying the veto “executed without explanation—is further evidence that political goals are outweighing scientific governance.”
AZ Free News reached out to Supervisor Lingenfelter for a comment and received the following reply:
Thank you for reaching out. I am not aware of any dispute or controversy between the Mohave County District 1 Office and Representative Gillette’s Office as you phrase it. As Mohave County Supervisor for District 1, I have served as Mohave County’s lead on water issues for the past five years, and was actively involved in our local water policy advocacy during my prior four years on the Kingman City Council.
My responsibility is to represent the shared, official position of both Mohave County and the City of Kingman, guided by the most accurate and credible data and hydrological modeling available, based on a multi-year, science-based partnership between Mohave County, the City of Kingman, and the United States Geological Survey (USGS)—an independent agency with a long-standing reputation for being the gold standard of scientific water modeling.
The ‘Final Assessment of the Hualapai Basin Water Data Integrity’ issued by Rep. Gillette is his office’s interpretation. The County and City remain firmly grounded and unified in the professional peer-reviewed science and long-term hydrological data and modeling that have guided our efforts to protect rural groundwater and ensure sustainable water use for future generations.
As always, Mohave County, City of Kingman, and USGS look forward to jointly collaborating with all legislators on our water issues on behalf of our rural communities.”
Based upon his team’s findings, Rep. Gillette has announced his intention to pursue “a stand-alone Hualapai Basin bill—developed outside of executive influence—that reflects the data as it exists, not as it is manipulated.”
Editor’s Note: Following the filing of this report, AZ Free News was contacted by Nick Ponder, Senior Vice President of Government Affairs of HighGround Public Affairs. Mr. Ponder provided the ’Analysis of Water Constraints and Economic Growth,’ a report prepared for Mohave County by Rounds Consulting Group, and the formal rebuttal issued on May 8th by Chairman Lingenfelter to Rep. Gillette with the note: “The County, City, and USGS have been very transparent in the processes and data used in determining the water situation in the Hualapai Valley Basin. The letter and the attached analysis should reflect that robust and transparent process.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
by AZ Free Enterprise Club | Jul 18, 2025 | Opinion
By the Arizona Free Enterprise Club |
Following President Trump’s directive to scrub divisive Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion programs, practices, and language from public institutions, the U.S. Department of Education sent a letter to the Arizona Department of Education (DOE) to ensure that schools comply with these requirements.
The Arizona DOE notified every school district and charter public school that they must submit a completed certification confirming compliance with the federal civil rights law. A public website was developed to track which districts and schools have completed the certification and which have not. Though the majority of schools are listed as “in compliance,” the question remains: have they all truly purged their websites and learning environments of DEI practices? A quick review and some basic research suggest that not all these schools are fully committed to the removal of this woke material.
Alhambra Elementary School District in Phoenix has a subcommittee titled “Culture, Conditions, & Climate” with a stated need to “increase its Diversity, Equity, Inclusion capacity to ensure it is an inclusive environment.” The district plans to achieve this by subjecting staff to DEI trainings designed to establish that these adults teaching your children become anti-racist activists.
Recently, Scottsdale Unified School District has been the center of controversy surrounding their adoption of new textbooks that teach about George Floyd, Black Lives Matter, and anti-law enforcement rhetoric. Arizona Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne has spoken out against this anti-American, DEI-infested curriculum, emphasizing that schools must steer clear of promoting an “unbalanced political agenda.”
In Glendale, the Washington Elementary School District has published a “Statement of Commitment to Educational Equity,” in which it outlines how DEI principles are integrated into its educational framework.
In an application for federal charter school start-up grants for 2024-2028, Desert Sage High School in Tucson declares its commitment to “diversity, equity, inclusion, anti-bias education, and social justice.” Among its goals is increasing the percentage of Hispanic and Native American students—an effort aimed more at virtue signaling just to demonstrate how unbiased they really are.
Several other schools maintain overreaching non-discrimination statements that include “gender identity” and “sexual orientation,” and some keep DEI in their mission statements.
And these are just the districts and schools that claim to comply with the federal civil rights law…
>>> CONTINUE READING >>>
by Matthew Holloway | Jul 18, 2025 | News
By Mathew Holloway |
Municipal Affairs Liaison at the Goldwater Institute William Beard sat for an interview with AZ Free News to expand on an op-ed published Saturday, “Regional Transit In Tucson: Bigger Tax Bill, Worse Results?”
Beard warned in his column that as we approach 20 years of the 2006 vintage Regional Transportation Authority (RTA), only 18 of the 35 projects promised to the taxpayers of Pima County have been completed.
He wrote, “The mismanagement is staggering. Tucson’s unfinished Regional Transportation Authority (RTA) projects are estimated to be $400–$600 million short. At the current pace—roughly $50 million in spending per year—completing the work would take at least eight more years. There’s one big problem, however: the sales tax that funds the RTA is set to expire in 2026, and time is running out. Tucson officials have responded by throwing up their hands and admitting defeat, postponing four projects for inclusion in a future ‘RTA Next’ plan.”
Beard directly attributes the RTA’s financial woes and lack of productivity to a series of economic factors, exacerbated by the City of Tucson’s project mismanagement, delays, and unwillingness to shoulder the added cost burden. He explained, “Every infrastructure plan faces risks, and Pima County’s strategy was no exception. The 2008 recession slowed tax collections, and inflation has since driven construction costs well beyond the 10% buffer allowed by law. Tucson, however, made matters worse by repeatedly altering project scopes to appease neighborhood groups, further delaying timelines and driving up costs. Each time, Tucson failed to take responsibility by allocating more supplemental resources. Instead, city leaders appeared to hope the problem would simply go away.”
He added, “Tucson’s leaders clearly misunderstand the purpose of the RTA, viewing it more as a construction manager responsible for overruns than a basic funding mechanism distributing tax dollars. Each city was responsible for designing and building its own projects. Any change in scope—additional lanes, neighborhood preferences, unforeseen costs—was theirs to fund, not the RTA’s.“
Speaking with AZ Free News, Beard elaborated:
“I’m from Tucson. I grew up there, so this is a little personal for me. But there’s a history of kicking the can down the road by the community writ large, leadership, etc. A ‘Why deal with it today when we can postpone to tomorrow’ attitude. And it’s only when things truly reach a critical point that something happens politically.
“The powers that be down there would prefer to kind of maintain the status quo. They don’t want their boat rocked. They don’t want anybody coming in and potentially undermining their political power, so let’s maintain things as they are.
“To the point of the article, the problem fundamentally is two things. One, was it a failure to plan or a plan to fail? And number two, remember when voters vote on these long-term things, you always end up with a situation where the compromises politically that were made in order to get the thing past the voters that were approved in the beginning, political leadership that are elected further on into the cycle, they don’t believe that they are obligated to follow the wishes of whatever compromises were made in the first place.”
As for the political fallout, Beard predicted that an attempt from Tucson Mayor Regina Romero to extricate the city from the RTA, as she threatened in 2022, might not “end well for her politically speaking.”
He noted, “The problem is she is basically telling all of the voters across Pima County, not just the other communities, but the voters throughout Pima County, including her own voters, ‘eff you’. And I don’t think, given what happened with (Proposition) 414 a few months ago in the city of Tucson, I don’t think that will end well for her politically speaking.”
City voters soundly rejected Prop 414 or the “Safe & Vibrant City” proposition, which would have enacted a half-cent sales tax increase for the next 10 years to fund various city projects. City Manager Tim Thomure told AZCentral that the Proposition’s rejections sent city planners “back to the drawing board [to] sharpen our pencils and work it out so that we live within the budget that will be available to us.”
Beard continued saying that Romero, “is, of the opinion, and there are other people, including Supervisor Hines on the Board of Supervisors, of the opinion that the City can basically go its own way and make its own sales tax. They’re forgetting, of course, that if that happens, roughly… a third of the total revenue that would come to the region would disappear because it would revert back to the state legislature to determine whether or not those funds get distributed based on the regional planning that southern Arizona currently enjoys.”
He added that Tucson’s deviation from the RTA planning adopted in 2006 could leave the city open to legal consequences. He observed, “I’m not an attorney, so I don’t give legal advice, but I spent 30 years in the contracting world and I’ve read enough of the documents, the intergovernmental agreements, the procedures, policy procedures of the RTA that was adopted in 2006, all of them keep referring to voter language, you know, the amount of money that was set aside by the voters that could go to these projects.
“Under state law, you can vary that up to 10 % overrun, because it’s the vagaries of construction, that happens. But anything above and beyond that, you’ve got to go back to the voters in order to get their approval to make that kind of scope change. Again, I’m not an attorney, but I can read what’s in the language and it’s pretty clear.”
According to Beard, the RTA board did send its new legal counsel a question with the hope of getting an answer by the end of July at their next formal board meeting, asking: “What is the legal obligation of the RTA board to complete all of the projects if the revenue has not come in to satisfy all of the needs that the voters … determined 20 years ago?”
He concluded: “To be blunt, the city of Tucson’s got nobody to blame but themselves. You can point fingers at the RTA all you want to. You can point fingers to the leadership. The reality is in the numbers; the math is the math. And for all of these projects the City of Tucson kept postponing, it only dramatically increased the amount of money they would have to bring to the table, even assuming the RTA never had a revenue shortfall.
“Because the City of Tucson kept postponing these projects, the costs were going through the roof and there was no way legally for the RTA to step forward and say, oh yeah, we’ll cover those extra costs. That’s not possible.”
Matthew Holloway is a senior reporter for AZ Free News. Follow him on X for his latest stories, or email tips to Matthew@azfreenews.com.
