by Ethan Faverino | Dec 13, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), through U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), has achieved unprecedented border security milestones, with illegal border crossings reaching the lowest levels ever recorded at the start of a fiscal year.
Preliminary data for October and November 2025 show a continued historic decline in apprehensions and encounters, reflecting the effectiveness of President Trump’s policies and leadership.
Since President Trump took office on January 20, 2025, total enforcement encounters along the southwest border through the end of November stand at 117,105—37% below the monthly average of 185,625 recorded during the Biden administration.
U.S. Border Patrol apprehensions have averaged under 10,000 per month, described by DHS as “a level of deterrence unmatched in modern border history”.
Daily apprehensions along the southwest border now average just 245—fewer than 11 per hour—and a stunning 95% reduction from the Biden-era daily average of 5,110 (February 2021-December 2024). For comparison, December 2023 saw 336 illegal crossers apprehended every hour during the height of the prior administration’s border crisis—more than today’s entire daily total.
In October 2025, nationwide Border Patrol encounters and apprehensions totaled 30,573, distinctively down from 142,742 in October 2024, 309,605 in October 2023, and 278,317 in October 2022.
Preliminary data for November 2025 show 30,367 encounters, slightly lower than October’s record low. Combined, October and November recorded just 60,940 encounters—the lowest two-month start to any fiscal year on record and 28% below the previous low of 84,293 set in FY2012.
“Once again, we have a record low number of encounters at the border and the 7th straight month of zero releases. Month after month, we are delivering results that were once thought impossible: the most secure border in history and unmatched enforcement successes,” said Secretary Kristi Noem. “Thanks to President Trump’s leadership and the dedication of DHS law enforcement, America’s borders are safer than ever before.”
Every individual apprehended is processed for removal in accordance with the law, reversing Biden-era policies that pulled agents from the field to facilitate mass releases, leaving hundreds of miles of border unpatrolled for extended periods.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Dec 13, 2025 | News
By Ethan Faverino |
A group of Republican military veterans in Congress, led by Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-MT) and Rep. Rick Crawford (R-AR), has introduced H.Res.932 to denounce what they describe as “dangerous and seditious rhetoric” from six Democratic lawmakers.
The resolution accuses the Democrats of encouraging members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to defy orders from the Commander-in-Chief, potentially violating the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ).
The measure, co-sponsored by 27 representatives, including freshman Congressman Abe Hamadeh (R-AZ08), highlights a video posted on November 18, 2025, in which the targeted Democrats—Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), Rep. Christopher Deluzio (D-PA), Rep. Maggie Goodlander (D-NH), and Rep. Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA)—urged service members to resist “illegal” orders.
The resolution argues that such statements, made without evidence of unlawful directives from the Trump administration, undermine the constitutional chain of command and place troops at risk.
“Congressman Hamadeh has joined sixteen fellow military veterans in Congress in condemning the six Democratic legislators who engaged in wildly inappropriate and potentially seditious conduct by encouraging our military and intelligence personnel to defy their commander-in-chief for political purposes,” stated the Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh in a tweet on December 4, 2025.
Rep. Zinke echoed these sentiments in his own announcement: “Today, @RepRickCrawford and I, joined by 16 fellow veteran lawmakers, introduced a resolution condemning the Members of Congress who publicly urged our military and intelligence professionals to refuse orders from the Commander in Chief. By encouraging personnel to independently judge the legality of orders, these individuals are promoting disobedience for political purposes and at the peril of our service members, without being able to point to a single piece of evidence of illegal orders being issued. The U.S. military code is clear on this, and as veterans themselves, they all should have known better.”
The resolution emphasizes core constitutional principles, noting that the President’s role as Commander-in-Chief is enshrined in Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution. It also cites UCMJ Article 92, which criminalizes the failure to obey lawful orders, and warns that encouraging insubordination is a federal offense.
The document points out that orders are presumed lawful unless “obviously unlawful,” and criticizes the Democrats for insinuating otherwise without proof.
When pressed for evidence of unlawful orders from President Trump, Senator Slotkin admitted she was “not aware of things that are illegal,” with other participants in the November 18 video making similar concessions.
Despite this lack of proof, the group claimed the Trump administration is “pitting the military and intelligence community against American citizens.”
The resolution concluded with, “The House of Representatives denounces the dangerous and seditious rhetoric spewing from these six Members of Congress that has led to an environment placing troops and their loved ones at risk of harm, compromising and undermining the national security of the United States and the peaceful coexistence and respect deserved by our brave men and women serving in the military and the intelligence community.”
In a follow-up tweet on December 6, 2025, the Office of Congressman Abe Hamadeh urged caution: “The Congressman’s Democratic colleagues should be more careful when making incendiary accusations about the conduct of our military and law enforcement personnel. These performative confrontations may be good for their fundraising, but they’re not good for our country.”
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Dec 12, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Governor Katie Hobbs is being accused of kicking black and disabled adults and children off an elevator so she didn’t have to wait in line at a football game.
The alleged incident was said to have occurred at the Territorial Cup: the post-Thanksgiving Day football game between Arizona State University (ASU) and the University of Arizona (U of A).
A local reverend and former political candidate, Jarrett Barton Maupin, Jr., accused Hobbs of forcing his group, which consisted of several handicap adults and disabled kids, off an elevator to the executive suites for the game. His group had waited in line for the elevator connecting to the suites. Maupin explained he had a delegation with him consisting of folks from the inner city who had never attended an ASU football game.
According to Maupin in a post to X and a subsequent interview on “The Afternoon Addiction with Garrett Lewis,” the displaced group was given the reason of “executive privilege” for their removal.
Others of equal or greater elected importance were present, per Maupin, waiting in line for the elevator connecting the executive suites at the game.
Here’s Maupin’s account of what occurred:
“Everyone was in line to leave. You had a U.S. Senator in there waiting in line behind us, you had the governor of the River Indian community, you had so many people there, congressmen, even people like Karrin Taylor Robson, candidates. Lots of what people might consider special people, but everyone waiting and understanding that there’s one elevator up to the suites and one elevator down. So we get in, it’s our turn to get in, and it’s about 15 people, and we all happen, just happened to be African American, it wasn’t planned, including the elevator operator who was a black woman. And we get in, she’s getting ready to press the button and everything, and suddenly they say, ‘You gotta get off the elevator! Clear the elevator!’ I thought there was a problem, I said, ‘What’s going on?’ And they said, ‘Well, there’s somebody with executive privilege. You gotta get off the elevator.’ So we get off. And, lo and behold, our governor and her security detail, it’s like maybe five or six people, get on this elevator, and so they took this elevator.”
When others countered that Hobbs required that elevator ride for security reasons, Maupin shared that he and almost every other attendee within the suites had a security detail, but he didn’t observe others forcing the evacuation of an elevator as Hobbs was alleged to have done. Maupin also disclosed that Senator Ruben Gallego shared a subsequent elevator ride with them.
“No, it was not [a call made by her security team]. Funny thing is a U.S. Senator and staff/security rode down after us,” said Maupin. “I have a security detail. Almost everyone in the suites did, besides guests. Electeds, candidates, business leaders. What she did was rude and unnecessary. It was a lame move. But only her latest.”
Maupin questioned whether Hobbs had the authority to order people off elevators, and what about the football game triggered an executive privilege.
“What was the emergency?” said Maupin. “We all have pressing business. I’m pretty busy. I know Senator Gallego is pretty busy and [Governor] Stephen Roe Lewis, and everyone that was up there[.]”
Later, Maupin said he was assured by Representative Andy Biggs that the congressman wouldn’t use executive privilege to oust constituents, especially not minorities or disabled individuals. Biggs is vying to unseat Governor Hobbs in 2026.
“I have also been assured that he would have ‘jumped right in [the elevator] with us,’” said Maupin.
Maupin questioned whether this was a consistent pattern of behavior with Hobbs, citing the racial discrimination allegations put forth by Talonya Adams, her former staffer, which were twice affirmed in court.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 12, 2025 | Education, News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona Rep. Eli Crane is highlighting a significant win for rural communities after the U.S. House overwhelmingly passed the Secure Rural Schools Reauthorization Act of 2025 on Dec. 9. The bill restores lapsed payments and guarantees new funding through 2026 for counties across Crane’s largely rural Second Congressional District; many of which rely heavily on federal forest-land payments to support schools, roads, and public safety services.
The House approved the legislation by a bipartisan vote of 399–5, marking the first standalone reauthorization of the Secure Rural Schools (SRS) program in recent years. The bill, passed by the Senate in June, now heads to President Trump’s desk for signature. It would restore missed 2024 payments while authorizing full funding for fiscal years 2025 and 2026, following a lapse that forced many rural counties nationwide to absorb steep budget shortfalls.
Created by Congress in 2000, the SRS program was designed to stabilize funding for counties with large shares of federally managed forest land as traditional timber receipts declined. Under the Act of May 23, 1908, 25 percent of national forest revenues were directed to states for public schools and roads in affected counties. As logging revenues fell over time, Congress established SRS to ensure more predictable funding for education and infrastructure in rural communities.
The U.S. Forest Service manages approximately 196 million acres of national forest land nationwide. SRS payments are distributed under three funding categories: Title I for county roads and schools, Title II for collaborative projects on federal lands, and Title III for additional county projects. Participating counties may elect between SRS payments or traditional 1908 Act payments and determine how funds are allocated among the three titles.
Crane, a member of the House Natural Resources Committee, supported the reauthorization, which directly benefits rural counties across Arizona’s Second Congressional District, including Apache, Coconino, Gila, Navajo, and Yavapai counties, along with portions of Graham, Mohave, Maricopa, and Pinal counties.
“I’m proud to join my colleagues in reauthorizing the Secure Rural Schools program to provide vital support for schools in rural Arizona,” Crane said in a statement. “This extension secures much-needed stability and funding. This is a positive outcome, and I will always fight for those I represent.”
Rep. Doug LaMalfa (R-CA), who introduced the legislation and serves as chairman of the Congressional Western Caucus, led the effort in the House alongside Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise. LaMalfa emphasized that SRS payments are often the difference between maintaining basic services and making deep cuts in rural communities.
“For rural counties, Secure Rural Schools funding is essential,” LaMalfa said. “These payments help keep schools open, keep roads maintained, and help ensure sheriff, fire, and emergency services remain in place when federal timber revenues fall short. When the program lapsed, rural schools and counties were cut short of the funding they rely on to provide basic services. This bill restores that funding and keeps future payments on schedule.”
The reauthorization follows a 2023 lapse that forced many counties to revert to traditional 1908 Act revenue-sharing, resulting in funding reductions of up to 80 percent in some areas. Counties reported teacher layoffs, school program cuts, and deferred road maintenance as a result. The restored 2024 payments under the amended 1908 Act were distributed in April 2025 with a 5.7 percent sequestration reduction.
Since its creation, the program has delivered roughly $7 billion to more than 700 counties and 4,400 school districts nationwide. With the House vote now complete, rural Arizona counties are preparing to factor restored SRS funding into upcoming budget planning as they await final action from the White House.
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 Staff Reporter | Dec 11, 2025 | Education, News
By Staff Reporter |
The Arizona Board of Education (ASBE) removed language relating to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) from state teaching standards and English language learning courses.
This follows a delay in their decision on the matter several months ago.
State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne published a press release approving ASBE’s decision to go forward with removing DEI language from Arizona education.
Arizona’s federal funding for 2026 amounts to about $870 million; should Arizona schools not purge DEI, that federal funding may be refused, per the Trump administration.
Horne said the DEI divestment not only counted as compliance with President Donald Trump’s executive order conditioning federal funding on the absence of DEI, but as a philosophical good for students.
“All people should be judged based on their character and ability, not their race or ethnicity. DEI language and programs promote the exact opposite, and they have no place in the classroom,” said Horne. “These terms do not belong in teaching standards, which are meant to direct educators on the most effective ways to teach students’ core academics. Every instructional minute is precious, and DEI efforts distract from that essential mission.”
Multiple federal courts issued nationwide preliminary injunctions against the DEI ban earlier this year. However, the proceedings of those cases were impacted by the Supreme Court ruling in June through Trump v. CASA that declared these and other nationwide injunctions improperly exceed the authority of federal courts. The Supreme Court determined that lower courts must offer specific relief to the involved parties, and generally can’t issue nationwide injunctions to non-plaintiffs.
Following this decision by ASBE, a dedicated working group launching in February will draft materials purging DEI from the Arizona Professional Teaching Standards and Structured English Immersion (SEI) Endorsement Course Frameworks.
These materials will define DEI-related language in order to determine which language to remove or revise.
All 15 counties will have representation in this working group. There will be special considerations to include teacher representatives from General Education, Special Education, and the various teacher subgroups such as English Language Learning, Gifted, and Talented programs.
Stakeholder input will be collected from the three public universities, county education superintendents, school administrators, Arizona Rural Education Association, Arizona Educators Association, and current Structured English Immersion course providers.
ASBE is scheduled to consider these materials next September.
While the state’s top education authority supports these modifications, other stakeholder groups oppose them.
The Arizona Education Association (AEA) submitted a letter to ASBE urging rejection of the proposed changes. AEA leadership claimed over 22,000 educators statewide signed onto the letter in their press release. That’s roughly one-third of the teacher workforce in the state. However, the letter clarified that AEA counted mere membership with their organization as equivalent to all members signing on to their letter.
AEA President Marisol Garcia said without DEI Arizona education would cause a “race to the bottom” — vulnerable to constant changes and little of the continuity required for imparting a strong education — as well as a purging of history.
The other major teachers unions at the national level — the American Federation of Teachers and National Education Association, as well as the civil rights organization, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People — sued the Trump administration to stop the DEI ban.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Dec 11, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Republican Party is calling a recent court ruling a major victory for election integrity, but how much the decision will actually change voter roll maintenance remains an open question.
In a statement released this week, Arizona GOP Chair Gina Swoboda announced that the Arizona Court of Appeals, in Petersen, et al. v. Fontes, upheld an Arizona law that requires counties to begin the cancellation process when a voter swears on a jury questionnaire that they no longer live in the county. Swoboda described the ruling as a necessary correction that will help ensure clean voter rolls ahead of future elections.
“This ruling is a major victory for our state and for every Arizona voter,” Swoboda said in the update, framing the ruling as part of a broader effort to restore public confidence in the state’s elections.
“Cleaner rolls protect voters. That’s the bottom line. No more dodging the law, no more loopholes, and no more games with Arizona’s voter rolls. Republicans in Arizona are fighting to ensure our elections are secure and stopping extreme leftist policies that would have thrown our elections into chaos. This is a huge step forward, but our work continues. We’ll keep working to restore trust, enforce the law, and deliver an election system every Arizonan can count on.”
In the AZGOP statement, the party referred to the ruling as “a significant defeat for Secretary of State Adrian Fontes,” noting that the state’s second-highest-ranking Democrat was “forced to abandon his extreme rule that would have allowed counties to toss out every vote cast if a canvass was submitted late,” describing the policy as “reckless,” and saying it “jeopardized lawful ballots and undermined public confidence.”
Republicans are celebrating the decision as a significant victory for structural reform; however, the ruling itself paints a more nuanced legal picture.
On the jury-questionnaire issue, the court held that federal law does not preempt Arizona’s statute, A.R.S. § 16-165(A)(9)(b), which directs county recorders to cancel a voter’s registration if the voter fails to respond to a mailed notice after telling a jury commissioner they no longer reside in the county. The opinion explains that the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) allows removal when a voter “confirms in writing” that they have changed residence and does not require that confirmation go directly to the county recorder. Instead, the court found that a signed juror questionnaire can qualify as that written confirmation:
“Because the Seventh Circuit precedent does not conflict with A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9, the NVRA does not preempt that Arizona statute. … Here, the county recorder sends the notice only when a person signs (under penalty of perjury) a written juror questionnaire saying the person no longer resides in the county. A.R.S. § 16-165.A.9(b). That notice satisfies the NVRA.”
Under the statute, the juror form does not lead to automatic cancellation. Instead, it triggers a process: the recorder must send a notice by forwardable mail warning that, if the voter does not respond within 35 days, “the county recorder shall cancel the person’s registration.” The 2023 Elections Procedures Manual had directed counties to move such voters to an inactive list instead of canceling their registrations, but the court concluded that approach conflicted with the statute and therefore exceeded the Secretary of State’s authority.
Swoboda and other GOP leaders also highlighted language in the 2023 manual that would have instructed the Secretary of State to proceed with a statewide canvass without counting any county whose official canvass arrived late. The appeals court, however, declined to rule on that provision, finding the challenge moot because Fontes had already replaced it in the draft of the 2025 manual with language committing to use “all available legal remedies” to compel a county board of supervisors to complete its canvass and “protect voters’ right to have their votes counted.”
While the ruling clearly reinforces that the Secretary of State’s election manual authority is bounded by statute, the judges also sided with Fontes on a key question involving the active early voting list. Upholding the superior court, the panel agreed that a separate statute governing removal notices for the active early voting list, A.R.S. § 16-544(H)(4), is not retroactive and applies starting with the 2024 election cycle:
“The 2023 Manual thus has the removal notice statute process start with the 2024 election cycle. The 2024 election cycle started on January 1, 2023. The superior court agreed with the Secretary. We thus affirm.”
Arizona counties regularly maintain their voter rolls using multiple data sources, including death records, address changes, and federal databases. Several prominent Republicans have argued that those procedures remain insufficient. The jury-form issue addressed in this case represents a narrow slice of that broader process. The practical number of registrations affected by the ruling is not yet known.
Arizona GOP leaders, including Swoboda, Arizona House Speaker Steve Montenegro, Senate President Warren Petersen, and former Speaker Ben Toma, have pursued multiple legal challenges over election procedures and voter-roll maintenance in recent years. Some of those efforts have succeeded in forcing procedural changes, while others have been dismissed on standing or jurisdictional grounds.
That track record makes this latest ruling politically significant even if its technical impact proves limited. For election integrity activists, it represents steady, gradual progress toward tightening controls. Critics, meanwhile, characterize them as partisan attempts to re-litigate election processes long after votes have been cast.
Swoboda’s update also criticized past election-related deadlines and procedures that Republicans argue undermined public trust, particularly citing disputes over ballot processing timelines and late canvassing.
Supporters of the ruling argue it restores a basic principle: if a voter swears they’ve left a county, that sworn statement can be used, under existing law, to start the notice-and-cancellation process so the registration does not remain active indefinitely, akin to voters trying to leave “the Hotel California,” as Swoboda quipped in a video posted to X. Opponents counter that aggressive roll maintenance must be handled carefully to avoid mistakenly removing eligible voters.
For now, the ruling directs how counties must treat sworn jury-form declarations moving forward, reaffirming the statutory process: notice, a waiting period, and eventual cancellation if there is no response. Whether that translates into large-scale voter-roll changes or simply a modest administrative correction will depend on how often such declarations occur and how county recorders opt to implement the ruling.
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.
