The Trump administration is gearing up to try to revoke one of the most overreaching, unscientific regulatory edifices ever erected: the EPA’s 2009 “endangerment finding.” News broke this week that the Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to rescind this cornerstone of federal climate policy, which declared that greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane pose a danger to human health and welfare.
If this move succeeds, it would limit the federal government’s ability to regulate carbon dioxide emissions from cars, power plants, and industries—a prospect that has the climate alarmist crowd clutching their pearls. And frankly, it’s about time someone challenged this rank absurdity.
Let’s take a walk down memory lane to 2009, when the Obama-era EPA, emboldened by the 2007 Supreme Court ruling in Massachusetts v. EPA, decided to anoint itself the arbiter of America’s energy future. The endangerment finding was born, asserting that CO2 – literally plant food, and the fundamental building block for all life on planet Earth – is actually a “pollutant” that “endangers public health” as defined under the Clean Air Act.
This vast expansion of the regulatory state wasn’t based on some groundbreaking scientific discovery but rather on a political agenda dressed up in green rhetoric. The finding has since provided the legal foundation for a slew of regulations, from tailpipe emissions standards to power plant rules, all designed to choke the fossil fuel industry and push the U.S. toward a so-called “clean energy” utopia that exists only in the fever dreams of climate activists.
Now, the Trump EPA, led by Administrator Lee Zeldin, appears poised to dismantle this house of cards. Zeldin’s draft proposal argues that the EPA overstepped its authority by issuing such a sweeping determination.
The plan focuses on a legal argument that the EPA’s administrator lacks the power to make broad proclamations about greenhouse gases without specific congressional authorization. This is a direct jab at the 2007 Supreme Court decision, a judicial overreach that gave unelected bureaucrats a blank check to regulate the economy. It is key to also remember that that decision came at a time when the Chevron Deference, which the Court did away with a year ago, was still in effect.
Adopted in 1984, the Chevron Deference held that courts must defer to the judgment of regulators when interpreting the congressional intent of federal statutes. But the Clean Air Act was never designed to regulate CO2, a point even the late Rep. John Dingell, a co-author of the law, made clear.
Of course, the climate alarm lobby will drag this fight into the courts, so overturning the finding will not be easy. The EPA must navigate a minefield of procedural requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act, and the alarmists will try to overwhelm the courts with claims that climate change has only grown since 2009, asserting that every extreme weather event somehow proves their case.
But the Trump administration isn’t denying climate change outright; it’s questioning whether the EPA has the legal authority to act as America’s climate czar. This is a fight worth having, because if the agency can regulate CO2 without clear congressional approval, what’s stopping it from declaring water vapor a pollutant next?
The bigger picture here illustrates the absurdity of the energy transition itself. The endangerment finding has been a cudgel to force a shift away from reliable, affordable fossil fuels toward a fantasy of windmills and solar panels that can’t power a modern economy. The U.S. is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases globally, but even if we zeroed out emissions tomorrow, global temperatures would barely budge without similar action from China and India.
Meanwhile, Americans bear the brunt of higher energy costs and a less reliable grid. Rescinding the endangerment finding could free up the economy to innovate without the EPA’s heavy hand, letting market forces—not bureaucrats—drive energy and climate solutions.
This move is a bold step toward dismantling the regulatory state’s stranglehold on American energy. It won’t be quick or easy, and the climate zealots will fight tooth and nail. But if the Trump administration can pull it off, it’ll be a victory for common sense over green dogma, a win for innovation over regulation. A long, hard fight lies ahead, but it is one worth having, and which is long overdue.
David Blackmon is a contributor to The Daily Caller News Foundation, an energy writer, and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.
On Wednesday, July 16th, I attended the quarterly public meeting held by the federal monitor overseeing the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office, alongside Sheriff Jerry Sheridan. These meetings are intended to gather community input regarding the continued federal oversight. Historically, these sessions have been dominated by voices calling for the oversight to continue — but not anymore.
The people of Maricopa County are fed up. We’re tired of the federal government wasting taxpayer dollars, constantly shifting the goalposts, and interfering with our local law enforcement. Last week, hundreds of concerned citizens showed up to support Sheriff Sheridan and his dedicated team. And we’re not done. We will continue to make our voices heard every quarter until Judge Snow hears us loud and clear: enough is enough.
Out of thirteen mandated benchmarks from Judge Snow, the Sheriff’s Office has met twelve. The only remaining issue? Hispanic individuals, on average, experience encounters that are 17 seconds longer than individuals of other races. Seventeen seconds. That is the justification being used to prolong this multimillion-dollar oversight?
As someone who has worked in customer service, I can tell you that when a language barrier is involved, conversations naturally take longer. It’s not discrimination — it’s respect. It’s a commitment to ensuring clarity, understanding, and fairness. I would often take several minutes longer, not just seconds, to ensure someone understood important documents or procedures. That’s called good service — not racism.
Yet the ACLU and federal monitors insist this slight timing difference is grounds for continued federal control. They are actively seeking racism in places where it does not exist, undermining the professionalism and integrity of our Sheriff’s Office.
It’s time to end this charade. The citizens of Maricopa County demand the immediate termination of this federal monitoring. Let our sheriff do his job without unnecessary interference and outrageous costs.
Stop the federal monitoring of our Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office.
Lisa Everett serves as the Legislative District 29 Chair. You can follow her on X here.
15 months. That is how much time we have left until Arizona can elect a new governor, and it couldn’t come soon enough.
Since taking office in 2023, Katie Hobbs has been a complete disaster. The heights of her corruption have certainly been well documented. From her illegal use of public resources to solicit money for her inauguration, to an alleged pay-to-play scheme between Hobbs and an Arizona group home that donated to her inauguration, to shelling out $700,000 to a company owned by the brother of the now-former Office of Tourism Director to create a new state logo, Hobbs has proven that the people of Arizona are her lowest priority. And there are no signs that will change any time soon.
In the latest reveal of her efforts to turn her office into a jobs program for her political friends, it was discovered that Hobbs handed out nearly $600,000 in taxpayer money to a former Democrat politician and her assistant for two newly created jobs. These just add to the long line of other phony baloney jobs Hobbs has created so that her buddies can get paid six-figure salaries to sit around and do nothing on your dime. In fact, just last year, she added six new jobs in the newly created Office of Resiliency (whatever that is), four new employees in the Office of Tribal Relations, and three new in-house attorneys, to name a few. All total, Hobbs has increased executive employment costs by over 50%!
With all these new government jobs, you would think Arizona must be leading the way in the nation for job creation, but no. It’s just the opposite…
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.
Recently, the Peoria Unified Governing Board made a necessary correction: They removed the superintendent from the dais, restoring a clear boundary between the elected and the employed. While some saw this as dramatic, the only real surprise was that the line had been blurred for so long.
Unfortunately, the Higley Unified School District went the opposite direction, and they did it quietly.
At what should have been a routine meeting last week, Superintendent David Loutzenheiser, attending his very first meeting as head of Higley Schools, took a seat on the dais without any board vote or public discussion. And unfortunately, his first moves were not in line with what he promised when interviewed.
Immediately after the meeting began, Board Member Anna Van Hoek read a detailed statement opposing the new seating arrangement. Her opposition was not just personal, it was procedural. According to Van Hoek, she learned about the change via email, without any discussion or vote among the five board members. She stated: “The dais represents the authority entrusted to us directly by the voters.”
Van Hoek is absolutely correct.
Per Arizona Statute §15-503, governing boards in Arizona are responsible for hiring and evaluating the superintendent. When an employee sits on the dais as if equal to the officials tasked with his oversight, it blurs the lines of authority. That distinction may be lost on those with long careers in education, but in the private sector, these boundaries are well understood. There is a reason the CEO does not share the boardroom table with the board of directors. It is not about ego, it is about structure, accountability, and ensuring each role is properly respected.
Employees, even highly paid ones, are assigned responsibilities, expectations, and standards of behavior. If a superintendent is perceived as a peer rather than an employee, will board members evaluate him objectively when the time comes? That is not a rhetorical question as it became reality just minutes into the meeting when Board Member Scott Glover asked the superintendent if it was “okay” to table the vote on his dais placement. That single moment flipped the chain of command upside down.
Superintendent Loutzenheiser oversees a district with a budget exceeding $100 million and is responsible for hundreds of employees. He will hold meetings with principals, department heads, and administrators to carry out the board’s direction. Will any of them be invited to sit beside him at his desk? Of course not. And yet, some expect him to sit shoulder to shoulder with his bosses. It is not just improper, it is dysfunctional.
According to Van Hoek’s statement, the superintendent requested to move to the dais, and Board President Amanda Wade approved the request entirely on her own. When Van Hoek received the email, she immediately requested the seating change be added as an action item for the July 8 board meeting. Had she not spoken up, the change would have gone forward without any transparency, just Wade’s quiet approval. That would have set a dangerous precedent.
While Loutzenheiser initiated the request, the greater failure lies with President Wade, who acted without board consensus. Tiffany Shultz, another board member, responded to Van Hoek’s concerns by claiming the new arrangement promotes collaboration and a “united front.” Yet collaboration was not on display in that email from the superintendent to board members. And the role of an elected official is not to present uniformity, but to represent the full range of community concerns, especially when those views differ.
There is no legal or ethical requirement for a school board to look united. In fact, the opposite is true. Voters should expect to see board members raise concerns, challenge decisions, and vote independently. When votes are unanimous and debate is absent, the public should worry, not applaud. Disagreement is not dysfunction. It is how oversight works.
Sadly, the obsession with unity and harmony is a symptom of a broader trend in public education, one fueled by Social Emotional Learning (SEL). SEL prioritizes emotional well-being and interpersonal bonding over academic rigor and role clarity. This focus has blurred the lines between teachers and parents, students and staff, and now board members and the superintendent. Meanwhile, test scores fall and academic achievement stalls.
The confusion SEL has introduced into the system is precisely why the Arizona Legislature passed laws like the Parents Bill of Rights, to restore proper authority to parents. In the same way, this dais debacle exposes a need to restore proper authority and boundaries at the board level.
President Wade claims she values her fellow board members. If that is true, why didn’t she involve them in the decision? Her words and actions while sitting on the dais say otherwise.
It is important that the public can identify district staff in their designated spaces. I have attended many board meetings and am shocked at the whispers and private conversations happening on the dais between board members. Now, the same thing can happen between the superintendent and whichever board member is seated beside him. That is a problem.
Superintendent Loutzenheiser is under a three-year contract with a base salary of $210,000, not including perks and bonuses. With that kind of compensation comes an obligation to honor the governance structure. If he wants to begin his tenure with integrity, he should respectfully return to his proper seat off the dais at the next board meeting.
It may seem like a small gesture. But it would speak volumes.
Because the dais is for the elected, and it must stay that way.
Peggy McClain is a concerned citizen who advocates for accountability in Arizona’s schools. You can follower her on Twitter here.
The steady decline of academic success and moral integrity is an undeniable reality in many Arizona school districts. K-12 libraries are plagued with sexually graphic novels. Science textbooks tout evolutionary theory and climate change nonsense. ELA assignments contain race-baiting themes and false social justice narratives. LGBTQ+ clubs are in full force, while private spaces still pose a safety risk to female students.
Do Christian/conservative teachers have any responsibility to restore order in our public schools? Aren’t they on the frontlines of steering young minds and upholding ethical standards in the classroom? Why don’t we see more exposure of subpar curricula and corrupt policies that fail to protect educators’ constitutional rights at work?
Will this school year be any different, or will Arizona teachers maintain the status quo?
Jessica Tapia’s Story
California educator and parental rights advocate Jessica Tapia
Jessica Tapia is an alumna and former employee of Jurupa Unified School District (JUSD). She graduated from Jurupa Valley High School, secured a full-time position in the district, and eventually landed her dream job as a high school P.E. teacher.
Tapia loved her career and her students, but she loved God foremost. And her faith would soon be tested.
Six years into her career, some JUSD students decided to research Tapia and discovered Christian/conservative posts on her social media page. The juveniles reported their findings to district officials, who conducted an internal investigation. Tapia was placed on administrative leave and admonished to hide her online profile. As a condition of employment, she would also have to agree to use students’ preferred names and pronouns, even without parental consent.
If Tapia complied with JUSD’s policies—including allowing boys to access girls’ locker rooms—she would keep her compensation package and enjoy acceptance among her peers. Otherwise, she faced serious and permanent consequences. Thankfully, Tapia not only believed in the unchanging truth that God created male and female, she was also willing to defend her faith and freedom of speech on school grounds.
Tapia was fired from her dream job, and the woke mob demanded her head on a platter. In a moment of truth, Tapia lost nearly everything she worked hard to achieve, and her reputation was now tarnished. JUSD reprimanded her for unprofessional conduct and accused her of publishing “racist, offensive, and disrespectful” content. No doubt, the most painful experiences came in the form of separating from her students and watching colleagues turn their backs.
This would be a sad story if it ended here.
Tapia knew her rights and filed a lawsuit against JUSD. Turns out, firing a teacher who refused to lie to students and families is not only morally reprehensible, but it’s also illegal. After a long battle with many ups and downs, stretching and testing her faith, Tapia finally won! JUSD settled with Tapia for $285,000 and another $75,000 for her attorney fees. She’s now one of America’s leading advocates for teachers and parental rights in education.
When JUSD violated Tapia’s First Amendment rights, she pushed back. When dangerous transgender policies contradicted her faith—and put female students at risk—Tapia refused to comply. When following orders suddenly meant hiding vital information from parents, she said no. Tapia didn’t cower in fear, take a bribe, or ignore the situation altogether. Instead, she chose to do the hard thing. The right thing.
What’s Your Story?
School board members are elected officials who swear an oath to uphold the United States Constitution. Protecting teachers is their responsibility when it comes to drafting and voting on district policies. Administrators should not manipulate or control this process. Furthermore, school districts don’t have the legal right or moral authority to give ultimatums or blackmail employees into submission. It’s time teachers say, “Enough is enough.”
Transgender ideology is a dangerous lie and a mental illness that shouldn’t be imposed on anyone. Still, K-12 educators often conceal their Christian beliefs to avoid backlash and discrimination. These are the “don’t rock the boat” types. It’s also possible that some teachers are simply unaware or unbothered by high-profile issues on campus. These are the “ostrich” types. For the sake of moral clarity, consider the following real-life scenarios that also degrade our public education system.
We currently have teachers who, for whatever reason, purposely pass unprepared students on to the next grade level. Rebellious teachers hide inappropriate books in their classrooms and read filth to children behind parents’ backs. An increasing number are perpetrating or ignoring signs of sexual, physical, mental, and emotional abuse. Public schools are overflowing with activists disguised as teachers whose sole mission is to advance union agendas.
I say, enough is enough.
Of course, there are a host of problems that educators shouldn’t be blamed for, including:
overspending, mismanagement, and corruption at the district level.
excessive classroom sizes.
laxed or nonexistent disciplinary policies.
the expectation of training fellow teachers without compensation.
submitting to self-important, intimidating administrators (many of whom don’t even like children).
These hardships don’t go unnoticed by parents, community members, and board members who share educators’ concerns. Nevertheless, Tapia’s story is a prototype, a demonstration of boldness that highlights every teacher’s responsibility to always respond with moral integrity and conviction.
It’s simple: Set and keep professional boundaries. Respect students and safeguard their innocence. Be straightforward with parents and never lie to save face. Refuse to be intimidated or comply with unconstitutional policies. Don’t quit in the heat of the battle. Know your rights. If you experience legitimate discrimination on school grounds, consult legal counsel and file a complaint.
Teachers shouldn’t be discouraged when criticisms are ignored and questions go unanswered. Those with the most power are typically the least compelled to solve problems that don’t immediately affect them. Oftentimes, negative publicity is the only way to disrupt the status quo. To be sure, nothing will change if good teachers keep playing nice, remaining silent, or walking away. There’s no outrunning the madness in government schools—you must find the backbone to confront the madness head-on.
Tapia’s testimony aligns with a theme we see throughout the Bible: God rewards obedience and courage; He hates rebellion and cowardice. Tapia’s story is a provocation for teachers to blow the whistle and stand on truth regardless of the consequences. Even if you’re not particularly religious, your First Amendment rights don’t end where bad district policies begin.
This school year can be different than years past. It just takes one good teacher to find their voice and lead the way.
