State Rep. Walt Blackman (R-LD7) has endorsed Republican Bradley “Brad” Bettencourt in the three-candidate race for two Arizona House seats in Legislative District 9.
Blackman is a retired U.S. Army combat veteran who served for 21 years and received the Bronze Star Medal for combat actions in Iraq. He currently serves as chairman of the House Government Committee.
“I’m proud to endorse Brad Bettencourt for the Arizona House in Legislative District 9,” Blackman said. “Brad is a businessman and community leader who has already shown he can step up, fix real problems, and get the numbers to add up. That is the kind of common-sense leadership Arizona families need. He will work hard, respect taxpayers, and be a strong voice for Mesa and Tempe. I encourage LD9 voters to support him.”
Blackman, a 21-year U.S. Army combat veteran and chairman of the House Government Committee, had the following to say.
“I’m proud to endorse Brad Bettencourt for the Arizona House in Legislative District 9,” Blackman said. “Brad is a businessman and community leader who has… pic.twitter.com/HhYahtjhwi
Bettencourt welcomed the endorsement and cited Blackman’s military and legislative service.
“Rep. Blackman’s endorsement means a great deal,” Bettencourt said. “He has served this country in uniform and this state in the Legislature. He knows the difference between talk and results. I will take that same standard to the House: fiscal responsibility, safe communities, parents in charge of their children’s education, and a state budget that works for the people who live here.”
Bettencourt will face Democratic Rep. Lorena Austin and Democratic candidate Jacob Martinez in the general election.
The official statewide primary canvass recorded 10,441 votes for Bettencourt in the Republican primary. Austin received 11,252 votes, and Martinez received 9,290 votes in the Democratic primary.
Austin currently represents LD9 alongside Democratic Rep. Seth Blattman. Blattman announced in December that he would not seek reelection in 2026.
Bettencourt is president of the Dobson Association, the homeowners’ association serving Dobson Ranch in Mesa. His campaign biography says he earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University, previously worked as a credit analyst and credit officer, and operates a real estate investment business.
Bettencourt has cited his work at Dobson Ranch as evidence of his approach to government finances. His campaign says the community, which includes approximately 5,000 homes and condominiums, uncovered more than $1.5 million in budget errors before he helped bring its finances back into order.
Bettencourt has made fiscal responsibility, housing affordability, water security, public safety, school choice, and government spending central issues in his campaign.
The Legislative District 9 Republican Committee endorsed Bettencourt in February. The committee’s resolution cited his service as an elected Republican precinct committeeman, his Dobson Ranch leadership, and his business experience.
The U.S. trade deficit widened to $88.58 billion in July, increasing $17.39 billion from June and ending the month 43 percent above its 12-month average, according to an analysis released Thursday by Republicans on the Joint Economic Committee (JEC).
The Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and U.S. Census Bureau reported that the deficit increased 24.4 percent from a revised $71.2 billion in June. Total exports declined $6.6 billion to $310.7 billion, and imports increased $10.8 billion to $399.3 billion.
The monthly figures are seasonally adjusted and are not adjusted for changes in prices.
The July increase occurred within a year-to-date decline in the trade gap. Through the first seven months of 2026, the goods and services deficit was $188.4 billion, or 29.6 percent, lower than during the same period in 2025. Exports increased $237.2 billion, or 12 percent, and imports increased $48.8 billion, or 1.9 percent.
The latest figures were released as the Trump administration continues rebuilding its tariff framework following legal setbacks and imposing new duties on goods from dozens of countries.
The goods deficit increased $17.62 billion to $119.59 billion, placing it 31 percent above its 12-month average. The services surplus increased by $225 million to $31.02 billion, reaching 5 percent above its 12-month average.
Exports of goods declined $6.2 billion to $201 billion during July. The decrease included reductions of $4.5 billion in crude oil exports and $3.9 billion in nonmonetary gold exports. Imports of goods increased $11.4 billion to $320.6 billion, led by increases of $6.9 billion in computers, $6.6 billion in computer accessories, and $1.2 billion in semiconductors.
The Washington Times attributed much of the technology-related increase to demand associated with the expansion of artificial intelligence infrastructure. Computers, computer accessories, and semiconductors produced a combined monthly import increase of approximately $14.7 billion.
Total trade deficit in July was $88.58B, 43% above the 12-month average. In trade of goods, the US ran a trade deficit of $119.59B, 31% above the 12-month average. In trade of services, the US ran a trade surplus of $31.02B, 5% above the 12-month average. https://t.co/SWQZ1mDv7e
— Joint Economic Committee Republicans (@JECRepublicans) September 3, 2026
Over the 12 months ending in July, the United States recorded a total trade deficit of $743.58 billion. The country ran a $1.10 trillion deficit in goods and a $353.73 billion surplus in services. Total exports reached $3.67 trillion, and imports totaled $4.41 trillion during the period.
Vietnam accounted for the largest goods trade deficit over the 12-month period at $219.12 billion, representing 20.39 percent of the total goods deficit. Mexico followed at $213.35 billion, or 19.85 percent, and Taiwan ranked third at $203.67 billion, or 18.95 percent.
The largest goods trade surpluses were recorded with the Netherlands at $79.74 billion, the United Kingdom at $45.12 billion, and Hong Kong at $43.90 billion. The BEA’s July report also recorded monthly goods deficits of $27.5 billion with Mexico, $23.3 billion with Vietnam, $18.1 billion with Taiwan, and $15.2 billion with China.
Civilian aircraft, engines, equipment, and parts; nonmonetary gold; and crude oil were the country’s three largest goods exports by value during the 12 months ending in July. Together, the categories accounted for 17.94 percent of exported goods.
U.S. goods exports to Mexico totaled $370.39 billion, followed by Canada at $337.85 billion, and the United Kingdom at $109.39 billion. The three countries accounted for 34.62 percent of U.S. goods exports during the period.
Computers, computer accessories, and pharmaceutical preparations were the three largest imported-goods categories by value, accounting for 20.89 percent of all goods imports. The United States imported $583.73 billion in goods from Mexico, $385.96 billion from Canada, and $271.07 billion from China. Together, the three countries supplied 36.11 percent of U.S. goods imports over the 12-month period.
The Trump administration has presented tariffs as a mechanism for encouraging domestic manufacturing, protecting U.S. industries, and producing federal revenue. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said the administration is pursuing a policy under which companies that manufacture products in the United States would avoid tariffs applied to imported goods.
In a Friday social media post, President Trump connected trade policy with his call for the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates.
“Lower the rate or I’ll stop trading with countries with which we have a deficit,” Trump said.
Trump: U.S. Has the Right to Stop Trading With Deficit Countries
President Donald Trump says the U.S. has leverage over countries running trade deficits, arguing America has the right to stop trading with them if necessary.
Trump wrote that the United States should have the lowest interest rate in the world and said ending trade with countries that maintain surpluses with the U.S. would be “better than tariffs.”
The BEA and Census Bureau are scheduled to release their August trade report on Oct. 6.
Goldwater Institute attorneys urged the Arizona Supreme Court on Tuesday to allow Arizona State University (ASU) professor Owen Anderson to pursue his lawsuit alleging that the school’s “Inclusive Communities” employee training violated state law.
During oral arguments in Arizona Board of Regents v. Anderson, Goldwater Institute Vice President for Litigation Jon Riches argued that the Arizona Court of Appeals applied the wrong legal analysis when it concluded that Anderson had no implied private right to enforce the statute in court.
If a legal right exists, so does the right to enforce it.
That's the case we made before the Arizona Supreme Court today on behalf of @dr_owenanderson, a professor at ASU who is fighting for his right NOT to be forced into discriminatory DEI training. pic.twitter.com/OoPngHtixm
“Where there is a legal right, there is a legal remedy, is one of the oldest maxims in Anglo-American law,” Riches told the justices. “For decades, this court has applied that principle to find implied causes of action where a statute does not expressly create them. Yet without citing a single one of this court’s cases, the lower court did exactly what this court commanded it not to; it treated legislative silence as dispositive as to whether a statute creates a cause of action. But as this court [has held], legislative silence begins rather than ends the inquiry.”
In a post to X on Tuesday, Anderson invoked the legal maxim in Latin, writing, “‘ubi jus ibi remedium’ if there is a right there is a remedy. A cornerstone principle of common law. Yet @ASU and @AZRegents are asking the @AZCourts to suspend this principle and keep me as an employee from holding them responsible for racist DEI training.”
Anderson also shared a clip from the hearing in which Justice Clint Bolick characterized the right-remedy maxim as “the indispensable common law principle” and invoked Chief Justice John Marshall’s discussion of the principle in the landmark 1803 decision Marbury v. Madison.
Following the hearing, Anderson posted a statement saying, “That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts. Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly as to say, ‘I forgot the question.’ Oops! Now we wait for a decision.”
That was an excellent hearing today before the @AZCourts Jonathan Riches for @GoldwaterInst presented a solid case. The Justices asked the @AZRegents lawyer questions that exposed the contradiction at the heart of their claims, with their lawyer at one point stumbling so badly…
The Supreme Court limited its review to whether the Court of Appeals failed to apply the factors established in the court’s 1988 Transamerica Financial Corp. v. Superior Courtdecision before finding that A.R.S. § 41-1494 provides no implied private right of action.
Those factors include the statute’s context and language, its subject matter, its effects and consequences, and the law’s overall purpose. Riches argued that the lower court improperly treated the Legislature’s silence about a private cause of action as conclusive instead of beginning the broader analysis required under Transamerica.
The Arizona Board of Regents asked the justices to uphold the appellate ruling. In its supplemental brief to the Supreme Court, the board argued that courts should begin with the statutory text and consider secondary factors such as legislative history, consequences, and purpose only when the text is ambiguous.
The board maintained that § 41-1494 regulates government conduct without creating a private right or remedy. It also pointed to the statute’s annual compliance-reporting requirement and argued that lawmakers left enforcement to elected officials. The board said nearly all surrounding statutes contain express private rights of action, indicating that the Legislature deliberately omitted one from § 41-1494.
The statute prohibits the state, its agencies, and political subdivisions from requiring employees to undergo training, orientation, or therapy that presents blame or judgment based on race, ethnicity, or sex. It also prohibits the use of public money for such training and directs the Arizona Department of Administration to submit an annual compliance report to the governor and legislative leaders.
Anderson’s case began after ASU informed employees in October 2022 that they were required to complete its “Inclusive Communities” training. Anderson, a philosophy and religious studies professor, filed suit against the Board of Regents in 2024, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief.
Anderson alleges that the training presented prohibited concepts involving race, sex, and identity. His court filings cite training materials discussing “whiteness,” white supremacy, heterosexual privilege, land acknowledgments, and efforts to “decolonize the university.” The accompanying examination identified designated answers concerning systemic bias, transformative justice, and the incorporation of diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging throughout the university.
A Maricopa County Superior Court judge found that the statute contained no express private cause of action but concluded that it implied one for employees subjected to prohibited training. The Arizona Court of Appeals reversed that decision in December, finding that the statute “unambiguously does not create a private right of action.”
The Court of Appeals left Anderson’s underlying allegations about the training unresolved. The Supreme Court’s current review also concerns the enforcement question rather than whether the content of ASU’s training violated § 41-1494.
The Board of Regents has disputed that the training was mandatory. Anderson said the alleged injury arose from being required to undergo the training.
“Well, I think the hurt is in taking the training, and so I would ask them to consider it from their perspective if they were asked to sit through hours of training that involved racial discrimination against a group they identify with, they would be offended by that and feel hurt,” Anderson said. “So the hurt — the consequence — is just in the fact that I had to sit through that.”
Anderson previously asked the Supreme Court to accept the case after the appellate ruling, arguing that public employees would otherwise lack an effective way to enforce the training prohibition. Goldwater’s petition sought recognition of an implied private cause of action allowing employees to challenge alleged violations by government employers.
The Supreme Court took the case under advisement following Tuesday’s arguments. Anderson said that he intends to proceed toward trial if the justices recognize his right to bring the claim. The court has not announced a deadline for its decision.
Federal officers arrested a man identified as a person of interest in the fatal shooting of Tucson Police Department recruit Carlos Ramirez as he attempted to enter the United States through the Douglas Port of Entry.
Alexis Monter, 30, approached the port’s pedestrian lane at approximately 7:53 p.m. on Sunday. During the inspection process, a CBP officer checked Monter’s information and received an active National Crime Information Center (NCIC) warrant, according to a CBP announcement.
The warrant identified Monter as a person of interest in the shooting of a Tucson police recruit and advised officers to consider him armed and dangerous. CBP officers detained Monter and contacted the Douglas Police Department, which took custody of him at approximately 8:42 p.m.
“The vigilance of our officers at the Douglas Port of Entry is critical to the safety of our communities,” Douglas Area Port Director Martin Gomez said. “By identifying and apprehending this individual, our officers have ensured that a dangerous subject is removed from the streets and held accountable for his alleged actions.”
CBP described the underlying investigation as the shooting of a Tucson police recruit without identifying Ramirez by name. KVOA connected Monter’s arrest to the Ramirez case, and KOLD reported that Monter was arrested in connection with the Aug. 19 shooting.
ANOTHER ARREST IN TPD RECRUIT KILLING: We just received this release from CBP saying 30-year-old Alexis Monter was arrested in connection to the death of TPD recruit Carlos Ramirez. We've asked PCSD why we're just finding out, and how many suspects there actually are in this… pic.twitter.com/7Tr2ylkt4g
The CBP announcement did not specify Monter’s suspected role in the shooting, disclose the offense listed in the warrant, or identify any charges filed against him following his transfer to Douglas police.
Ramirez, 23, was found shot to death inside his home in the 7700 block of South Enchanted Spring Drive during the early morning hours of Aug. 19. His pregnant fiancée, a Pima County Sheriff’s Department corrections officer, was shot in the shoulder. She and her unborn child survived.
An interim complaint filed in the case states that Ramirez’s fiancée heard banging outside their bedroom before Ramirez told her to retrieve a gun from a safe because two masked men were inside the home. Ramirez fought with the masked men before shots were fired.
Investigators obtained surveillance footage showing a dark Acura SUV leaving the area. Additional footage showed Alex James Barnett and Santiago Jorge Rogers at a gas station near West Valencia Road shortly before the shooting.
Rogers, 39, was arrested on Aug. 22 at a hotel near South Palo Verde Road and charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault. A judge ordered him held without bond. Barnett, 33, surrendered on Aug. 24 following a three-hour standoff at an apartment complex near Broadway Boulevard and Camino Seco. A judge set his bond at $2 million in the Ramirez case and ordered him held without bond for an alleged probation violation.
Ramirez had completed 23 weeks of training at the Southern Arizona Law Enforcement Training Center and was scheduled to graduate on Aug. 27 with Basic Recruit Class 26-1. His classmates honored him during the graduation ceremony, where his brother, an Arizona Department of Public Safety trooper, accepted Ramirez’s badge and presented it to his fiancée.
The investigation into Ramirez’s killing remains ongoing.
Democratic congressional nominee Amish Shah is facing fresh criticism from the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) over his support for taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants. The NRCC is pointing to Shah’s call for a “wholesale repeal” of the tax-and-spending law President Donald Trump signed in 2025.
During an April candidate forum, Shah was asked what he would do about the law commonly known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The Trump administration and the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) refer to Public Law 119-21 as the Working Families Tax Cut.
“So number one, repeal the tax cuts,” Shah said in a video released by the NRCC. “Yeah, I’ve called for a wholesale repeal of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. … I think it’s abominable.”
The NRCC argues that repealing the entire law would also reverse its immigration-related healthcare restrictions and rescind billions of dollars provided for immigration enforcement and border security.
LEAKED: AZ Democrat @DrAmishShah said, "So #1, repeal the tax cuts! Yeah, I’ve called for a wholesale repeal" … "Yes!"
Socialist Shah would raise taxes on Valley families by OVER $4,000 and end No Tax on Tips/Overtime/Social Security. AZ can't afford Socialist Shah! pic.twitter.com/JOfaelDmtl
“If Socialist Amish Shah got his way, criminal illegal immigrants would be back on free healthcare while Arizona families foot the bill,” NRCC spokesman Ben Petersen said in a statement provided to AZ Free News. “Every step of the way, Amish Shah backed radical open borders policies that led to the worst border crisis in American history and he’d do it all over again.”
Shah did not mention immigration or Medicaid in the cited portion of the forum. His remarks called for repealing the broader law and its tax provisions.
The legislation became Public Law 119-21 when President Trump signed it on July 4, 2025. It combined tax provisions with changes to Medicaid, food assistance, energy policy, and immigration enforcement.
The law narrows the categories of noncitizens eligible for federally funded Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program benefits beginning Oct. 1. Under guidance issued by the CMS, federal Medicaid and Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP) funding generally will be limited to U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, Cuban and Haitian entrants, and migrants covered by the Compact of Free Association.
The restrictions will affect some immigrants lawfully present in the United States, including refugees and people granted asylum. Across Medicaid, CHIP, Medicare, and Affordable Care Act marketplace coverage, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the law’s combined immigration-related provisions would leave approximately 1.4 million lawfully present immigrants uninsured by 2034.
Illegal immigrants were already ineligible for comprehensive federally funded Medicaid coverage before the 2025 law. Federal matching funds were, and remain, available when a patient requires emergency treatment and would otherwise qualify for Medicaid apart from immigration status.
CMS said the new law preserves federal matching funds for emergency treatment. It also preserves state options to cover lawfully residing children and pregnant women through Medicaid or CHIP.
A separate provision caps the federal reimbursement rate for emergency Medicaid at each state’s standard matching rate beginning Oct. 1, rather than the enhanced rate available for the Medicaid expansion population. Repealing that provision would restore the previous reimbursement formula for emergency care. It would not establish comprehensive Medicaid eligibility for people living in the country illegally.
The 1.4 million figure cited by the White House and Republican organizations during the bill’s 2025 debate came from a separate CBO analysis of the earlier House-passed version.
The Congressional Budget Office determined that approximately 1.4 million people whose immigration or citizenship status was unverified could lose coverage because states would face a reduced federal Medicaid matching rate if they continued operating state-funded health programs for illegal immigrants.
“Those 1.4 million people currently are covered under state-funded programs alone,” the CBO wrote. “Their health insurance coverage does not involve federal funding.”
Shah has focused his opposition to the law on its wider healthcare provisions. In a July 2025 guest commentary for the Arizona Capitol Times, the emergency room physician called the law “a logistical failure, professional betrayal, a moral outrage and a national disgrace.”
The law also contains major appropriations for border and immigration enforcement. It provides $4.1 billion to hire and train additional Customs and Border Protection personnel, including Border Patrol agents, Office of Field Operations officers, and Air and Marine agents. Another $2.05 billion is designated for retention, hiring, and performance bonuses.
The law appropriates $29.85 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement activities through fiscal year 2029, including hiring and training additional personnel. It also allocates billions for border barriers, detention capacity, transportation, and state reimbursement.
A wholesale repeal of the One Big Beautiful Bill, codified as Public Law 119-21, would require Congress to decide which tax, healthcare, immigration, and spending provisions to eliminate or replace. Shah has not released a detailed proposal for repeal legislation specifying how he would treat each provision.
