I have to admit that I laughed out loud – almost spewing coffee on my keyboard – Friday morning when I read this headline from a competing platform’s energy-related newsletter: “SOLAR DOESN’T USE MUCH FARMLAND: Solar occupies less than 1% of farmland in the U.S., according to the Solar Energy Industries Association.”
To paraphrase from former President Bill Clinton’s grand jury testimony, that depends on what the meaning of “much” is. Curious about the subject, I decided to research the question, accessing a wealth of public information easily available to anyone, including those in the solar industry. The answer I found might surprise the folks at the Solar Energy Industries Association. Or maybe it wouldn’t, which might explain why they choose to couch the answer in such a misleading way.
The salient question: How many acres make up 1% of U.S. farmlands?
According to the USDA’s most recent data, the 2025 total land in farms is 873.95 million acres (down slightly from prior years). Earlier years were a bit higher (e.g., ~900 million in 2017), but the total has been gradually declining. One percent of 873.95 million acres = 8.74 million acres.
Farmland here generally refers to “land in farms” per USDA definitions (including cropland, pasture, woodland, etc., on farms). Figures can vary slightly by source or definition (e.g., cropland-only vs. all agricultural land), but the ~874 million acre range is the standard benchmark from official USDA reports.
Now, for some context. The King Ranch in South Texas is arguably the largest and most celebrated big farming and ranching operation in U.S. history. Established in 1854 by pioneering rancher Richard King, the ranch at its peak consisted of 1.2 million acres.
Thus, the solar power industry itself admits that its wind arrays currently occupy an area of fertile farmlands that is roughly 8 times the size of the biggest farming and ranching operation in United States history. That is a stunning number, yet the authors of that referenced newsletter characterize it as being “not much.”
Being a guy who grew up in a farming and ranching family, that sure seems like “much” to me. It also most likely seems like “much” to experts whose own studies find that placing solar arrays atop farmlands robs the land of crucial nutrients and renders it more vulnerable to erosion. Disturbingly, unless radical changes are quickly made, the industry plans to cover up many more King Ranch-sized swaths of fertile land in the coming years.
A 2024 report by the Institute for Energy Research finds that, despite these warnings by experts in the field, the vast majority of new solar projects are targeting farmland to house their industrial projects in the coming years. “The target for solar operations is increasingly in the Midwest, where government handouts to solar allow them to pay more to rent land than the farmers providing food for the nation,” the report says, adding, “Farmland preservation groups believe 83 percent of new solar installations will come from farm and ranch lands with half of these installations on the richest land for food and crops.”
Fortunately, the big federal subsidies which drove the recent huge solar expansion are scheduled to begin expiring in July. But with hundreds of new solar projects already in the queue, millions more acres of fertile farmlands will be removed from the food system in the years to come even as a fertilizer shortage threatens to disrupt global food supplies. All to create unreliable, unpredictable, intermittent electricity for a few hours a day that could be provided by an array of more reliable power sources which occupy a fraction of the land, none of which intentionally target farmlands as their homes.
It’s a completely irrational misallocation of hundreds of billions of dollars in capital brought to us directly by the Biden autopen presidency and its Orwellian Inflation Reduction Act. You could never make this stuff up if it weren’t already happening before your very eyes. Watch it and weep.
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.
Arizona lawmakers may soon be summoned back to the Capitol for a special session to consider a “grand bargain” on Empowerment Scholarship Accounts (ESAs). If so, they should put the interests of ESA families first.
Under one version of the deal, the Arizona Education Association (AEA) and its allies would drop their ballot initiative restricting ESAs. In exchange, the legislature would abandon three measures it referred to the ballot this session — protections for military families’ scholarships, payroll reform for teachers’ unions, and a mandate that districts spend 60 percent of their budgets on instruction — and would enact most of the ESA provisions debated this session in House Bill 2142. (There’s one important exception: the unnecessary testing mandate would be dropped.)
A much better deal, proposed by Republican gubernatorial candidate Andy Biggs, would offer “one for one,” with the legislature dropping the payroll ballot measure in return for the AEA dropping its ballot measure. The legislative GOP caucus is behind the Biggs deal—the question is just how desperate the AEA is to avoid going to the ballot. But if the “grand bargain” requires some reforms to the ESA program, legislators should hold out for a better deal than the original proposal.
The AEA-backed initiative is not a modest accountability measure; it is a serious threat to the ESA program, imposing a host of harmful regulations, including a restrictive income cap that would kick tens of thousands of students off the program, blocking parents from buying basic school supplies, and confiscating funds that families had saved for their children’s education. If Democrats balk at the Biggs proposal, trading away three referred measures and a handful of program restrictions to make that threat disappear is a defensible trade.
But as Arizona’s ESA defenders take yes for an answer, they should be honest about what they’re doing and minimize harm to ESA families. The HB2142-based “grand bargain” is not, as the American Federation for Children (AFC) has suggested, a set of “commonsense reforms” that simply tidy up the program. It is a series of concessions — real costs imposed on real families — that ESA supporters are accepting because the alternative is worse. Calling it “commonsense” or a “fix” obscures this. It allows the organization to claim credit for “saving” the ESA program without ever having to explain to the families of more than 100,000 students who rely on it what its own proposed changes will actually do to their accounts.
In the wake of the HB2142-based proposal, I solicited feedback about it on a social network page for ESA families. I received nearly 400 comments from ESA parents who overwhelmingly opposed the proposed regulations. They explained in detail how the supposedly “commonsense” restrictions would hamper their ability to provide their children with an education that works best for them.
Here is what the three central provisions of the HB2142-based proposal would actually do — and why each of them, even if ultimately worth swallowing in some form, makes the program worse for the families it serves.
Capping Rollover Funds
A key feature of ESAs that distinguishes them from a traditional voucher is that families can save unspent funds from year to year rather than being forced to spend a lump sum on a single school by a single deadline. This matters because families spend their own money more efficiently than bureaucrats spend other people’s money. The ability to save and re-deploy funds gives families both the incentive to economize and the flexibility to plan for expenses that don’t arrive on a tidy nine-month school-year schedule. A voucher must be spent now, at one school, or it will be lost. ESA funds can be banked for next year’s therapy bill, a multi-year curriculum purchase, or a future tuition increase.
The deal under discussion would cap how much families can carry forward — $50,000 for students with disabilities, $24,000 for everyone else — with the excess confiscated and deposited into the state general fund each year. That won’t matter for most families who spend close to their full allotment annually. But for the families who most need the flexibility ESAs were designed to provide, particularly families of students with special needs, it will be a bitter pill to swallow.
Families saving toward a multi-year placement at a specialized school, parents stockpiling funds for a major piece of assistive technology, or families anticipating a more expensive placement as a child with a disability ages into more intensive services — these are exactly the families a cap punishes.
The rollover cap is a “solution” in search of a problem. The rollover cap creates a perverse “use it or lose it” incentive that won’t save money; it will only encourage wasteful spending. If lawmakers proceed with a cap, the least they should do is exempt students with disabilities entirely. The case for forced spend-down is weakest exactly where the case for flexibility is strongest: students whose educational and therapeutic needs are least predictable and most expensive over time.
Fingerprinting Mandate
The deal would require fingerprint clearance cards — the same background-check credential used for school district and charter school employees — for individuals providing tutoring or teaching services paid for with ESA funds, as well as for staff at qualified private schools. For an institution — a school, a learning center, a tutoring company with a storefront and rotating staff — this is a reasonable extension of an existing framework, as schools are already required to fingerprint their teachers.
But the bill does not stop at institutions. As drafted, it would also sweep in independent tutors — the retired teacher down the street who tutors a handful of children at a family’s kitchen table, the local college student who helps with algebra twice a week. This is a fundamentally different relationship from a teacher supervising a classroom of other people’s children at an institution. A tutor working in a family’s own home, under that family’s direct supervision and invited in by that family’s own judgment, is not analogous to a stranger left alone with a building full of students.
Parents already vet who comes into their homes; that is what parental choice means. Mandating a state-administered background-check bureaucracy on top of that judgment does not make children safer — it makes it harder and more expensive to find a tutor at all, particularly in the specialized subjects and therapeutic disciplines where the pool of qualified providers is already thin.
The fix here is narrow and obvious: limit the fingerprinting requirement to qualified schools and institutional tutoring providers, and exempt individual tutors providing services in a student’s own home. That preserves the child-safety rationale where it actually applies — institutional settings with unsupervised access to multiple children — without taxing the much more common, much more easily supervised arrangement of one family hiring one tutor.
Spending Restrictions
The deal under consideration also adds a long, explicit list of disallowed expenses. Most of this list is theater. Jewelry, lingerie, hot tubs, bounce houses, and gift cards were never allowable ESA expenses in the first place. Codifying their prohibition changes nothing about what families can actually buy. It exists to give legislators something to point to — a list that sounds tough — rather than to solve an actual problem in the program. That is itself a tell about how this provision came to be.
But a few items on the list are genuinely new restrictions, and those deserve scrutiny on the merits. Barring out-of-state and international museums and excursions, for instance, would forbid spending ESA funds on precisely the kind of experiential, field-based learning that homeschooling and hybrid-schooling families have used for years — a trip to a Civil War battlefield, a national museum in Washington, D.C., a language-immersion excursion across the border. These are not luxuries dressed up as education — for many families building a curriculum outside a traditional classroom, they are the curriculum. Banning them doesn’t close a loophole. It closes off a category of legitimate, well-documented educational practice that happens to be easy to caricature in a press release.
Hotel stays, meals, plane tickets and other travel expenses are already properly forbidden, but there’s no good reason to prevent families from purchasing tickets to a museum outside Arizona that would be allowed if it were in Arizona. Any grand bargain should restore legitimate educational purchases to the allowable-uses list.
Why AFC Is Getting This Wrong
None of these three provisions emerged from a serious conversation with ESA families about what they need. They emerged from a desire to manage headlines. Rather than designing ESA policy in the best interests of ESA families, AFC’s strategy would let school-choice opponents dictate the policy agenda. Chief among them is school-choice opponent Craig Harris at Channel 12, who has spent the better part of a year manufacturing alarm about ESA account balances and fraud rates that bear little resemblance to reality. The Arizona Department of Education has confirmed that flagged fraudulent or egregious spending amounts to roughly 0.3 percent of total ESA spending — a rate that would be the envy of nearly any government program. Harris has claimed fraud rates many times higher, and signature gatherers for the AEA-backed and AFC-backed ballot campaigns alike have been caught on camera spreading those falsehoods to voters.
The right response to false claims is to correct them. Instead, AFC has chosen to give ESA opponents a say in how to regulate the program — an approach that has repeatedly proven disastrous for ESA families. Instead of proposing rollover caps because Harris made an issue of high account balances, school-choice proponents should explain to Arizona voters why families save those balances in the first place — often precisely because they have a child with disabilities whose needs are expensive and unpredictable.
AFC’s approach sets a dangerous precedent: when an activist-journalist manufactures a talking point, AFC’s policy response is to regulate around it rather than to defend the program based on the facts.
Arizona’s ESA families were not asked whether they would trade their ability to save for a child’s future needs, or their ability to hire a trusted neighbor as a tutor, for a quieter news cycle. They deserve a coalition that designs policy around what actually serves them — not one that lets their loudest opponents write the rules by proxy, then dresses up the result as “commonsense.”
The next time AFC or any other organization in this space asks Arizona families to accept a “commonsense reform,” someone should ask the obvious question: commonsense according to whom, and at whose expense? If the goal is just to keep Craig Harris’s headlines at bay, it’s a fool’s errand — he and his ilk will continue manufacturing anti-ESA headlines so long as there’s an ESA program.
“Avoiding bad headlines” is not a serious approach to policymaking and certainly not in the interests of ESA families. Arizona’s ESA families deserve better.
Consider the Deal — With Open Eyes
None of this is an argument against the special-session deal. The AEA-backed initiative would do far more damage to far more families than a rollover cap or a fingerprinting mandate ever could, and trading three referred ballot measures plus some unnecessary or even harmful ESA restrictions to take that threat off the table is a trade worth considering. Dropping the testing mandate from the deal is itself a meaningful win, preserving the central insight of school choice: families, not state-mandated exams, are the accountability mechanism.
Taking the HB2142-based deal might be a necessary evil, but it’s certainly not a victory. At best, it would be a retreat to a more politically defensible position, not a “commonsense” fix or policy advance. If there is a special session, lawmakers who support the ESA should do everything in their power to minimize the harm to ESA families. That would entail supporting the Biggs proposal or, at the very least, holding out for revisions to HB2142 that seriously consider the impact on ESA families.
Jason Bedrick is a Senior Research Fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Education Policy.
The government’s first responsibility is to protect its citizens. Public safety is the foundation of every successful society; without it, all else becomes secondary.
Families cannot thrive if they fear for their safety. Businesses cannot grow if crime and disorder dominate communities. Places of worship cannot serve their congregations if worshippers worry about violence. Schools cannot educate effectively if students and teachers feel unsafe.
Unfortunately, America has witnessed an alarming rise in political violence, intimidation, and threats in recent years. What was once considered beyond the pale has become increasingly common. Americans are growing accustomed to hearing about attacks on elected officials, threats against judges, vandalism targeting political opponents, violence directed at law enforcement officers, and harassment aimed at individuals simply because of their political beliefs.
This trend should concern every American, regardless of party affiliation. Political violence has no place in a constitutional republic.
The strength of the United States has always been rooted in our ability to settle disagreements through debate, elections, and the rule of law. Americans have never agreed on everything. Our nation’s history is filled with fierce political disagreements. Yet our system has endured because we recognized that ballots, not bullets, determine the future of our country.
There can be no double standards when it comes to condemning violence. Whether the victim is a Republican, Democrat, Independent, law enforcement officer, journalist, religious leader, or private citizen, violence must be rejected unequivocally. Too often, political actors excuse misconduct when it is committed by individuals they view as allies. That mindset only fuels further division and instability.
Americans deserve better. The overwhelming majority of citizens simply want safe communities where they can raise their families, operate businesses, attend school, practice their faith, and participate in civic life without fear. These are not extraordinary demands; they are basic expectations in a free and civilized society.
Law and order are fundamental values to me, not matters of controversy. Supporting law enforcement is a personal conviction, which is why I am proud to stand with our men and women on the thin blue line.
Yet in recent years, we have seen efforts to undermine respect for law enforcement, excuse criminal behavior, and politicize public safety. While constructive discussions about improving institutions are important, we must never lose sight of the indispensable role that police officers, deputies, federal agents, and first responders play in protecting our communities.
Every day, men and women in uniform put themselves in harm’s way to keep Americans safe. They deserve our gratitude, respect, and support.
At the federal level, we must continue providing law enforcement agencies with the resources necessary to combat violent crime, secure our borders, disrupt criminal organizations, and prevent acts of domestic and international terrorism. We must also ensure that prosecutors aggressively pursue those who commit violent offenses and that the justice system holds offenders accountable.
As Americans, we are blessed to live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. Our freedoms, opportunities, and constitutional system are the envy of countless people around the globe. But those blessings cannot be taken for granted.
As we approach the 250th anniversary of our nation’s founding, we should recommit ourselves to the principles that have sustained America for nearly two and a half centuries: respect for the Constitution, respect for the rule of law, respect for one another, and an unwavering commitment to peaceful civic engagement.
Political disagreements will always exist. That is part of democracy; violence is not.
The American people deserve safe streets, secure communities, and confidence that their government will protect them. Public safety is not a Republican issue or a Democrat issue; it is an American issue, and it is time for all of us to treat it as an America First issue.
Earlier this spring, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) released a new policy on protecting women’s sports in future Games. The Committee concluded that “for all disciplines on the Sports Programme of an IOC Event, including individual and team sports, eligibility for any Female Category is limited to Biological Females.”
The IOC’s rationale was very thorough and scientific. The Committee found that “to protect fairness in sports and events that rely on strength, power, and/or endurance, as well as safety particularly in contact sports, it is necessary and adequate to base eligibility for competition on biological sex.” The IOC’s new policy should be applauded, yet it came on the backs of decisive and unapologetic leadership from President Donald J. Trump, former female athlete Riley Gaines, and so many others.
For the vast majority of Americans, this finding was celebrated. Most people still believe in science and common sense to drive their thoughts about everyday life, including the line between men’s and women’s sports. A 2025 NBC News Stay Tuned Poll showed that 75% of respondents disagreed with biological male athletes competing in female sports. In a January 2025 Iposos survey, 94% of Republicans, 67% of Democrats, and 64% of Independents also indicated their preference for protecting the integrity of women’s sports.
While the IOC and the majority of the American public may agree on the scientific facts behind biological men and women and the necessities of safeguarding women’s sports, many elected Democrats around the nation, including in Arizona, do not. It was unfortunate to see that while only a minority of national Democrats think boys should be able to play in girls’ sports, one hundred percent of Arizona’s out-of-touch liberal legislators voted to allow boys in girls’ sports. These Democrats are holding on to crazy, unscientific, and dangerous fantasies about opening women’s sports for any and all comers. They would rather jeopardize the safety of girls and women to protect the feelings of men pretending to be women.
The issue transcends women’s sports, as it has included a malicious desire to allow men into women’s private spaces, such as bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Across the country, Democrats have continually blurred the lines between men and women and what we have historically held sacred in this country (for very good reasons). Again, most reasonable people do not believe that a biological man should be allowed to walk into a woman’s restricted area. Yet this has been happening for years and celebrated by the left.
The ultimate gaslighting is telling a boy that he is a girl or that he can invade girls’ private spaces and arenas. I can’t wake up one day and decide I want to identify as a cat – no matter how much I match my appearance to our feline friends. If I did so, then people would rightly think I’ve lost my mind. This is what has been happening, though, around America. People are showing their insanity by working to bend the rules of biology.
That’s why as Senate President, I’ve refused to capitulate to the crazy and dangerous ideas of the left – and I’ve actually gone on the offensive for what’s right. I’ve led the charge on safeguarding girls’ bathrooms, locker rooms, and sports. I’ve even spearheaded the defense of Arizona’s commonsense law protecting the integrity of women’s sports, taking our case (Jane Doe v. Warren Petersen) all the way to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS). Currently, SCOTUS is considering two of these women’s sports cases (from West Virginia and Idaho), and the forthcoming opinion will decide the fate of other laws being held up in federal litigation, including Arizona’s. In fact, I was sitting in the Supreme Court next to Attorneys General McCuskey and Labrador during the oral arguments for this case at the beginning of the year. It was sadly unsurprising to hear that some of the Justices didn’t know the biological definition of a woman. Fortunately, though, for the rest of real America, most of the Justices did know the biological definition of a woman – and I believe we will receive a 6-3 ruling in favor of science and common sense.
Unfortunately, for Arizonans – especially the girls and women depending on their government officials to protect their safety and decency in public spaces – our state has a Democrat governor and attorney general who are both unwilling to listen to the majority of reasonable people and stand for the integrity of women’s sports or the decency of privacy in bathrooms, showers, and locker rooms. Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed several reasonable attempts by the Republican-led Arizona Legislature to protect females in these arenas and spaces, while Attorney General Kris Mayes has been absent throughout the process to defend Arizona’s Save Women’s Sports Act.
As the IOC found in creating its new policy for future Olympic Games, “biological sex, which is divided into categories (Male and Female, based on their reproductive biology, including their sex chromosomes, gonads and hormones, is distinct from gender identity, which is a person’s sense of themselves as a woman or a man or neither/non-binary.” This finding didn’t used to be controversial at all, and it still isn’t in most American circles. The problem is that we’ve allowed a few (though growing number of) radicals to influence our policies across our states, nation, and world, leading to chaos and insanity about these unalterable scientific laws.
Though this debate has been raging now for several years, we are still relatively in the early stages of the war over women’s sports and private spaces. We cannot lose this battle or allow future generations of Americans to grow up in a new normal, where boys and men are allowed unfettered access to girls’ and women’s restricted areas or sports. That’s why I’m fighting every day to protect women’s sports and private spaces.
Arizona taxpayers work hard for every dollar they send to the government. They expect those dollars to be spent wisely, transparently, and honestly. When government fails to protect taxpayer money from waste, fraud, and abuse, it goes beyond just a financial problem. It is a betrayal of the public trust.
Over the past two years, Arizonans have learned disturbing details about widespread fraud within our state’s Medicaid system. Investigations have uncovered billions of dollars in questionable spending, fraudulent billing schemes, and the exploitation of vulnerable individuals who were supposed to be receiving treatment and care. Reports indicate that taxpayers may have lost billions while bureaucrats failed to ask basic questions or exercise proper oversight.
The media rarely covers these stories. Bureaucrats hate being watched. And way too many politicians would rather stay quiet than cause a stir. But that silence is exactly how fraud keeps growing. But we cannot shrug this off and move on. What we need is real accountability.
One elected leader who deserves tremendous credit for refusing to look the other way is Senator Carine Werner (LD4). Through multiple legislative oversight hearings, Senator Werner has demanded answers from state agencies, pursued whistleblower testimony, and insisted that government officials be held accountable. While many were content to issue statements and move on, she rolled up her sleeves and did the hard work of oversight. Her efforts have brought much-needed transparency to a scandal that should concern every Arizona taxpayer.
The push for accountability extends beyond Medicaid. Republicans in the House and Senate have also raised important concerns about ensuring public assistance programs are administered responsibly and that benefits are directed to those who genuinely qualify, including SNAP, which provides food assistance to every corner of this state. Programs designed to help struggling Arizonans who have no other avenue to meet their basic needs must be protected from abuse and mismanagement. Taxpayers have every right to expect strong verification standards, accurate eligibility determinations, and regular oversight of how public dollars are spent.
As I have conversations all over Legislative District 3, I hear the same frustration from voters. People are tired of government waste not being addressed while families continue to hand over their hard-earned money every April. They want leaders who will protect taxpayers with the same care they use to manage their own personal finances.
I’ve said repeatedly that government should be focused on delivering results in a few limited areas, not protecting and growing bureaucracy. Every dollar wasted by government is a dollar that cannot be used for public safety (a key focus that needs to be invested in), infrastructure, water security, education, or sent back to Arizonans in the form of needed tax relief. Taxpayers deserve to know where their money is going and whether programs are actually working.
When elected to represent LD3 in the Arizona House, I will make accountability a top priority. That means supporting aggressive legislative oversight – and leading it when necessary, demanding transparency from state agencies, strengthening protections for whistleblowers, and ensuring fraud investigations receive the resources necessary to follow the facts wherever they lead. It also means asking tough questions about spending and insisting that agencies justify how taxpayer dollars are being used, or face significant cuts.
Arizonans are tired of the excuses. We need a real change in culture and elected officials from the top down who will demand audits, push back against resistant agencies, tighten the rules, and stop treating taxpayer money like some endless slush fund.
As a member of the State House, I pledge to support the efforts already begun by vigilant legislators. I will fight to expose waste, stop fraud, eliminate abuse, and ensure taxpayer dollars are treated with the respect they deserve.
George Khalaf is a candidate for the Arizona House in Legislative District 3. You can follow him on X here.
Now, Arizona’s largest monopoly utility, APS, is asking the Arizona Corporation Commission for yet another rate hike. Their double-digit 14% request is bad enough on its own. But buried within APS’ ask is something even worse: automatic rate hikes for the next five years (something the Corporation Commission voted in favor of just a year and a half ago).
It isn’t just APS. At the same time, the Commission is also considering a double-digit (also 14%) rate hike for TEP, along with automatic rate increases. Arizona ratepayers are now seeing the consequences of years of bad energy policy, costly clean energy commitments, and a Commission that has not stopped any of it.
Before APS’ rate request becomes a real rate hike on your bill, the Commission still has to vote on it. Right now, the case is before an administrative law judge, with hearings expected to continue through June and July. After the hearing concludes, the judge will issue a recommended order, and then the Corporation Commission will make the final decision.
So, the question now is simple: will the Commission finally say no, or will it force ratepayers to pay for the Green New Scam?
This Rate Hike Is Not Because of AI or Data Centers
APS, Kris Mayes, and the Corporation Commission would like ratepayers to believe this rate hike is about AI, data centers, and explosive load growth. It isn’t…
