by Staff Reporter | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Rep. Adelita Grijalva opted not to address accusations that Democrats blocked an immediate, full release of the Epstein files on Wednesday.
A reporter questioned Grijalva during the Congressional Hispanic Caucus press conference about the Democratic inaction on a resolution to release the files in full that day.
Grijalva opted not to answer and instead stepped back to allow Rep. Pete Aguilar to speak on her behalf. Aguilar insisted Republicans were trying to prevent the release of the files.
“I think it’s incredibly clear that Republicans will stop at nothing to avoid the disclosure of this information,” said Aguilar.
Upon Grijalva’s swearing in on Wednesday, hers was the final signature needed on a petition to force a House vote on their full release. However, House Democrats rejected an attempt at a full release that same day.
Rep. Tim Burchett, a Republican, moved for unanimous consent of a resolution (HR 4405) to release all of the Epstein files immediately. House Democrats objected.
“We Republicans are requesting this unanimous consent. Are Democrats objecting to this request?” asked Burchett.
“Chair reminds the gentleman from Tennessee that as indicated by Section 956 the House Rules and Manual: it is not a proper parliamentary inquiry to ask the chair to indicate which side of the aisle has failed under the speaker’s guidelines to clear a unanimous consent request,” responded the speaker pro tempore.
Burchett said this was a strategic move to control the narrative on the Epstein files: by not authorizing a release all at once, a narrative could be better crafted.
“This is all gamesmanship folks. It’s not about releasing the files. They had something on Trump, they would’ve released it five and half or four years [ago]. And they hate Trump more than anything in the world,” said Burchett. “So they can piecemeal the truth and the half-truths, both sides, of what really went down with Epstein.”
Grijalva declined to address this inaction by her colleagues; however, she had much to say about House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The freshman congresswoman claimed Johnson’s delay in swearing her in had little to do with the government shutdown and everything to do with him being “misogynistic” and her being “a woman of color.” Grijalva framed the government delay as a great effort to prevent her swearing in.
“If I were a Republican, I would not have waited this long. If I were a man, I would not have waited this long. We all know that the rules are always different for women of color and people of color and we have to fight against that,” said Grijalva. “People in our community know what it’s like to depend on a Grijalva.”
Grijalva pledged to advance legislation to ensure the swearing-in delay that she encountered wouldn’t occur in the future.
A vote on the full release of the Epstein files is anticipated to occur sometime next week.
On Wednesday, House Republican leadership did release an additional trove of the Epstein files. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform released an additional 20,000 pages of documents.
As part of their publicization of the documents, Democrats redacted some of the material in the newly released trove.
Members of the media and public questioned the Democrats’ redactions, which included the hiding of a victim’s name in connection to an allegation against President Donald Trump.
The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform responded to the sensationalized redaction that the mystery victim in question was Virginia Giuffre: a known advocate of Trump’s innocence in relation to Epstein.
“[T]his victim, Virginia Giuffre, publicly said that she never witnessed wrongdoing by President Trump,” stated the committee. “Democrats are trying to create a fake narrative to slander President Trump.”
Along with progress on the Epstein files, Congress also voted to end the government shutdown on Wednesday.
The shutdown lasted 43 days, the longest-running one in the nation’s history. Six House Democrats joined Republicans to vote for an end to the shutdown, 222 to 209. The Senate voted to end the shutdown on Monday.
President Donald Trump signed the spending bill into law on Wednesday night, officially ending the shutdown.
Arizona’s elected officials were divided along party lines across both chambers in their votes on ending the government shutdown. Democrats voted against it, Republicans voted for it.
The Democratic votes came from Reps. Henry Cuellar (Texas), Donald Davis (North Carolina), Jared Golden (Massachusetts), Adam Gray (California), Marie Gluesenkamp Perez (Washington), and Thomas Suozzi (New York).
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Matthew Holloway | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
Arizona’s top elected leaders — Democrats and Republicans alike — have joined forces to demand federal action after the seven Colorado River Basin states missed a critical deadline to finalize post-2026 water-sharing rules. In a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, they warned that refusal by upper basin states to commit to verifiable conservation has pushed the negotiations to a breaking point.
The letter, dated November 11, 2025, highlights Arizona’s role as a leader in water conservation and criticizes upper basin states for refusing to commit to verifiable reductions, which the signatories say have stalled a seven-state agreement needed to sustain the river amid ongoing droughts.
The seven Colorado River Basin states—four in the upper basin (Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, New Mexico) and three in the lower basin (Arizona, California, Nevada)—missed a federal deadline on November 11th to submit a consensus plan for sharing water shortages after 2026, when current operating guidelines expire. Federal officials, including the Bureau of Reclamation, have urged the states to reach an accord to avoid potential court intervention or unilateral action by the Trump administration.
In the letter, the Arizona leaders commended Burgum’s efforts over the past year to develop a framework preserving the century-old 1922 Colorado River Compact, which allocates water among the states. They emphasized the river’s critical role in fueling Arizona’s advanced technology ecosystem, world-class agriculture, military bases, and communities home to millions, including 22 of the basin’s 30 Native American tribes.
“Arizona’s cutting-edge semiconductor industries and IT infrastructure are making it possible for the onshoring of manufacturing operations that are critical for maintaining American technological leadership,” the letter states. It notes that Yuma County, one of the world’s most sophisticated agricultural regions, produces over 90% of the winter leafy greens supplied to the United States and Canada each year.
The signatories stressed that Arizona’s allocation is vital not only to the state’s citizens but to national economic growth and independence. They warned that the upper basin states’ refusal to offer “meaningful, verifiable conservation commitments” over the last two years risks these foundations of growth.
Arizona has positioned itself as a basin-wide leader in water efficiency, the letter asserts, partnering with California and Nevada to propose creative and significant post-2026 operating criteria. Under most scenarios, Arizona’s plans would conserve 1.5 million acre-feet of water per year, representing more than 27% of the state’s entitlement in most years. This follows more than 3 million acre-feet in efficiencies already offered by the lower basin states since 2023 to stabilize Lakes Mead and Powell.
In contrast, the letter points out that upper basin states have repeatedly refused to implement any volume of binding, verifiable upper basin reductions. “This extreme negotiating posture—four of the seven Basin States refusing to participate in any sharing of water shortages—has led to a fundamental impasse that is preventing successful development of a 7-State consensus plan for management of the Colorado River,” it reads.
The group urged Burgum to use his authority to ensure that any alternative considered by the Department of the Interior “contains measurable and enforceable conservation requirements” for the upper basin, guaranteeing the resource remains available for Arizona’s contributions to the economy and national security.
Signatories to the letter include Governor Katie Hobbs (D), Senate President Warren Petersen (R-LD14), House Speaker Steve Montenegro (R-LD29), Senate Democratic Leader Priya Sundareshan (D-LD18), and House Democratic Leader Oscar De Los Santos (D-LD11).
A joint statement from the seven states and federal officials acknowledged the missed deadline. Still, it affirmed a shared recognition of the basin’s challenges, with negotiators committing to continuing talks despite the setback. Lake Mead’s surface elevation stood at 1,057 feet as of recent measurements, with commenters noting that’s just 37 feet above levels that could trigger a “devastating” crisis for Arizona, including potential mandatory cuts to urban and agricultural users.
The full text of the letter is available here.
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 Matthew Holloway | Nov 14, 2025 | News
By Matthew Holloway |
The Arizona Supreme Court recently declined to review an Appeals Court ruling holding the City of Tucson liable for a public nuisance caused by homeless encampments, siding with three property owners who suffered property damage and financial losses. The Goldwater Institute highlighted this case as “welcome news for all Arizonans,” following the adoption of voter-approved Proposition 312.
The case, Bradford v. City of Tucson, comes on the heels of a similar court ruling against the City of Phoenix over its “Zone” encampment and is now being highlighted by the Goldwater Institute alongside voter-approved Proposition 312—a 2024 measure that lets property owners seek refunds when cities decline to enforce basic public nuisance laws.
Filed on behalf of three Tucson residents, the lawsuit sought injunctive relief against the City of Tucson, after homeless encampments near their homes and businesses in the Navajo Wash developed with makeshift toilets, dangerous fires, and individuals engaging in violent and criminal behavior.
The appellate court, reversing a trial court ruling against the residents, found that the “record is replete with testimony of specific incidents which proved that camping in the Navajo Wash has caused unsanitary and indecent conditions that invade the rights of the neighboring residents and business owners,” and demonstrated that Tucson was not shielded from liability “because the City knew the activity of homeless camping in this location was being carried on and that it repeatedly and continually caused a nuisance, yet consented to it anyway.”
Prop 312 now gives property owners a reimbursement tool in situations like those described in Bradford v. Tucson, allowing Arizonans to seek relief when a municipality “follows a policy, pattern, or practice of declining to enforce existing nuisance laws prohibiting illegal camping, obstructing public thoroughfares, loitering, panhandling, public urination or defecation, public consumption of alcoholic beverages, or possession or use of illegal substances, or maintains a public nuisance,” according to the Goldwater Institute’s explanation of Prop 312 claims.
Reimbursements are capped at the amount of property taxes paid the prior year, with any excess eligible for reapplication later.
Goldwater explained the law’s necessity on its website:
“Rampant homelessness is overtaking Arizona’s cities, as municipalities refuse to enforce laws against public camping, loitering, intoxication, and other nuisances. The result has been a rise in violent crime, biohazardous pollution, property destruction, and even death. Residents and business owners have had to take matters into their own hands, installing fences, hiring security, and cleaning up garbage, human waste, and other hazardous materials themselves—services the city is supposed to provide with the tax money these residents pay every year.”
Under Prop 312, once the Department of Revenue notifies a municipality of a claim, the city has 30 days to accept or reject it. If rejected, property owners may challenge the decision in superior court; if the city does not respond in time, the refund is deemed approved. Goldwater has offered to assist residents, saying, “If you believe your claim was improperly denied and you would like legal assistance, please contact us! Our lawyers may be able to help you.”
Claims are filed through the Department of Revenue’s online portal at prop312reimbursement.aztaxes.gov, which requires proof of property ownership, tax payment, and mitigation costs. The department notifies cities and issues approved reimbursements by check.
The decision represents a major blow to a large Arizona city’s assertion of immunity and underscores growing frustration with Tucson’s approach to homelessness amid public safety concerns.
In an op-ed Monday, Timothy Sandefur, Goldwater’s vice president for legal affairs, urged city leaders to act:
“Homelessness is a tragic and frustrating issue. But policies that leave people living on the streets aren’t the answer. Instead, they only create a new set of victims: the innocent taxpayers who must pay for police protection that they don’t receive. The time has come for city officials to shoulder their responsibilities—instead of forcing homeowners to shoulder the costs.”
Sandefur also warned that property owners in other states lack similar protections, citing Utah, and encouraged lawmakers elsewhere to “follow Arizona’s lead” by adopting Goldwater’s proposed Safe Neighborhoods Act.
Correction Notice: A previous version of this story incorrectly linked the Bradford v. Tucson case to the Goldwater Institute and cited an unrelated 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.
by Staff Reporter | Nov 13, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
A recent whistleblower filing alleges Attorney General Kris Mayes was paid to prosecute President Donald Trump’s supporters.
According to the whistleblower, Christina Bobb — one of the indicted former Trump lawyers and current senior elections counsel for the Republican National Committee — Mayes inadvertently disclosed in filings her receipt of $200,000 from a Democratic Party offshoot founded in the 2020 election cycle for the purpose of defeating Trump and his allies.
The funds came from States United Democracy Center (SUDC), which the complaint alleged was payment to grant the organization prosecutorial influence over Mayes’ case against Trump’s 2020 attorneys, allies, and electors. The payment came in two allotments: $50,000 and $150,000.
“Prosecutors claim on the record and in emails that States United represents their office,” stated the complaint.
SUDC delivered a document to Mayes in the summer of 2023 proposing the charges to be brought against Trump’s foremost 2020 supporters. Mayes’ chief deputy attorney general, Dan Barr, told Capitol Media Services last December that the SUDC document “did not have a significant, if much, impact at all” in their case against the Trump 2020 electors.
Consistent with Mayes’ ongoing resistance to disclose further details of their working relationship with SUDC as related to the prosecution of Trump supporters, Barr declined to “get into the inner workings” of their relationship with SUDC.
Two key participants within SUDC involvement in Mayes’ prosecution have a history of high-profile actions taken to undermine Trump.
SUDC founder Norm Eisen was co-counsel for the House Judiciary Committee during the first impeachment of Trump in 2020.
The attorney on SUDC filings, Marc Elias, was counsel for former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s campaign. Elias also coordinated the Steele dossier that would serve as the basis for the falsified allegations of Russia interference in the 2016 election. In recent years, Elias has been the left-leaning legal bully stick ensuring the success of Democrat-led election reforms and demise of Republican-led election reforms.
The whistleblower complaint also questioned whether Mayes would receive a third payment upon a successful conviction.
Bobbs’ complaint was filed alongside a motion to disqualify Mayes and SUDC from continuing prosecution.
The motion came shortly after a Maricopa County Superior Court remanded Mayes’ case back to the grand jury for violating due process.
In September, several months after this motion was filed, Mayes lost her bid to continue prosecution with the court of appeals.
Mayes not only has these recent court outcomes stacked against her case — she has federal pressures as well.
Last Friday, President Donald Trump pardoned his key 2020 supporters through a proclamation — including those whom Mayes seeks to prosecute.
“This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation,” stated Trump.
Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller responded to the pardons with the prediction that Mayes would drop the case, saying she had “no choice” in a Tuesday interview with The Gateway Pundit.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
by Ethan Faverino | Nov 13, 2025 | Economy, News
By Ethan Faverino |
A comprehensive new analysis of the U.S. Census Bureau data by the Retirement Living Research Team reveals a seismic shift in American migration patterns, with eight of the top ten states for net population growth located in the South, joined by Arizona and Nevada.
The 2025 report, which segments migration by generation, shows Texas leading the nation with a net annual gain of 72,700 residents. On the other hand, California recorded the largest net loss at 254,332 people, almost double that of the next-ranked state, New York, with a net loss of 130,145 people annually.
The study revealed a unifying trend that every generation is leaving California, which posted the highest net migration across all age groups. High cost of living, along with recent wildfires, were cited as causes of leaving the state.
Arizona continues to solidify its status as a migration powerhouse, welcoming a net total of 55,160 new residents—equivalent to 151 people moving daily. The state saw 234,926 inflows against 179,766 outflows, driven largely by baby boomers and millennials.
- Baby Boomers (ages 60-74): Arizona ranks #2 nationally with a net gain of 13,476
- Millennials (ages 25-44): Net gain of 14,359
- Gen X (ages 45-59): Net gain of 8,001
- Gen Z (ages 18-24): Net gain of 7,695
- Silent Generation (75+) Net gain of 2,363
Florida dominates the retirement migration with a net gain of 37,924 baby boomers annually—the largest single age group migration in the country. Next is Gen X with a net gain of 22,555, signaling early retirement planning.
Younger generations are choosing different paths of migration, with Millennials flocking to Texas (+35,445 net) and Washington state (+18,959), and Gen Z moving to South Carolina (+15,925) and Washington, D.C. (+12,792 net).
The report points to cost of living, climate, tax policies, and job opportunities as primary motivators. Southern states like Texas, Florida, and South Carolina dominate due to affordability and warm weather, while high-cost states like California, New York, and Illinois see sustained outflows.
Ethan Faverino is a reporter for AZ Free News. You can send him news tips using this link.
by Staff Reporter | Nov 12, 2025 | News
By Staff Reporter |
Arizona may be the next state to adopt drug injection sites following Governor Katie Hobbs’ veto.
Safe injection sites, overdose prevention centers, safer drug consumption services, supervised injection services—all descriptors for locations or facilities where drug addicts can inject illegal drugs while medical personnel watch to ensure an overdose doesn’t occur. In the event of an overdose, personnel intervene to reverse it.
Arizona doesn’t have any drug injection sites—yet. It also doesn’t have a ban on them, and it won’t for the foreseeable future under this current administration.
Earlier this year, Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed HB2798, a bill that would have prohibited local governments from allowing the development of any drug injection sites. Hobbs indicated the injection sites were part of “common sense solutions” for drug addiction.
“These sites are nonexistent in Arizona,” said Hobbs. “I encourage the Legislature to seek common sense solutions to actually help Arizonans struggling with substance use disorder.”
Hobbs’ veto rationale wasn’t widely shared by others in her party. Other states banned drug injection sites before they came into existence. Pennsylvania, for example, passed a ban in 2023 with the support of Governor Josh Shapiro, also a Democrat. So did California.
State-supplied overdose reversal kits are widespread in the state already, even and especially in places where minors frequent. Arizona schools have received tens of thousands of overdose kits in recent years to address the growing trend of minors abusing drugs. Libraries across the Valley also received more than their fair share.
The lawmaker behind the rejected bill, Republican State Rep. Matt Gress, said Hobbs should be replaced for killing his legislation.
Gress paired his commentary with recent footage of an injection site from Canada in Vancouver, British Columbia.
“Arizona deserves a better governor,” said Gress.
Those who spoke out against the bill during committee hearings included the Southwest Recovery Alliance (SRA).
SRA’s executive director Arlene Mahoney opposed the bill language referring to drug injection sites as “narcotics injection sites” rather than “overdose prevention centers,” which advocates often prefer.
“I think the name ‘narcotics injection site’ incites a lot of fear into people and it doesn’t encompass what an overdose prevention center actually provides. It’s an integrative healthcare facility that offers, yes, a safe place for people to consume pre-obtained drugs inside a facility which they would be doing in parks and other places anyways,” said Mahoney.
Mahoney was a social worker and co-investigator on a federally funded study on methadone application at the University of Arizona’s Harm Reduction Research Lab from last year to August.
In 2023, the Biden administration issued a $5 million grant to study the effectiveness of overdose prevention across 1,000 participants at two safe injection sites in New York City and one in Providence, Rhode Island, over the course of four years.
The first injection site in the United States was authorized to launch by New York City in 2021.
Apart from New York and Rhode Island, few legally sanctioned drug injection sites exist because of concerns with federal drug laws.
The city council of Denver, Colorado, attempted to implement a drug injection site in 2018, but the Trump administration warned the site would be illegal.
However, after the Biden administration showed a friendliness to the concept, more drug injection centers are emerging.
In 2022, San Francisco launched a social services resource facility, the Tenderloin Center, that quickly devolved into a drug injection site. The transition to the latter caused the site’s closure after less than a year.
The Tenderloin Center racked up a serious bill: $22 million to service around 400 people daily for 11 months. That’s about $72,400 a day—just under $200 per person if, indeed, an average of 400 people used the center daily.
Last year, Vermont established operating guidelines for drug injection centers after its legislature authorized and funded a drug injection center in the city of Burlington. The city launched its drug injection pilot program earlier this year.
Minnesota has authorized state funding for drug injection centers, but hasn’t granted legal authorization for them.
AZ Free News is your #1 source for Arizona news and politics. You can send us news tips using this link.
