Congressman Andy Biggs (R-AZ-05) and the rest of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform are probing the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) decision last fall to ban media outlets’ drones from flying over the southern border.
On Monday, the committee announced that its ranking member, Congressman James Comer (R-KY-01), sent a response letter to FAA Administrator Steve Dickson. According to their press release, “heavily redacted documents” provided by the FAA in response to an initial committee letter revealed that an FAA headquarters manager believed that banning drones would be illegal initially. However, an “unknown U.S. Customs and Border Protection official” called the manager and convinced that person to change their mind.
“The FAA’s decision to abruptly reverse course on the legality of banning media drones raises questions about potential political interference at the agency to hide President Biden’s border crisis from the public,” read the letter. “That telephonic or other assistance apparently changed FAA’s opinion on the legality of issuing a TFR. Ultimately, the TFR was issued later that evening, raising concerns about its legality and FAA’s rationale for changing its position. These emails call into question FAA’s conduct, particularly where a TFR may have been issued improperly and for the purpose of disrupting media attention related to the border crisis. The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.”
The FAA banned media drones from covering the border crisis in September.
The American people have a right to transparency when it comes to President Biden’s failed border and interior enforcement policies.
The FAA first announced its ban in mid-September of last year. At the time, media outlets were informed that the ban was a Temporary Flight Restriction (TFR) of two weeks. It’s now been a little over six months.
NEW: We’ve learned that the FAA just implemented a two week TFR (Temporary Flight Restrictions) over the international bridge in Del Rio, TX, meaning we can no longer fly our FOX drone over it to show images of the thousands of migrants. FAA says “special security reason”. pic.twitter.com/aJrjAPO2Pz
However, the FAA reversed course again after some resistance from the media. Fox News received clearance to fly its drones the next day. In a later tweet, the FAA encouraged other outlets to apply for clearance. An FAA spokesperson later told Fox News that Border Patrol requested a temporary flight restriction because drones were interfering with those flights made by law enforcement.
. @FoxNews applied this morning and has received clearance to operate from now until the end of September in the restricted airspace linked below.
The ban occurred after media outlets filmed the tens of thousands of illegal immigrants crossing the Del Rio, Texas area of the border, especially focusing on those huddled under a bridge.
The committee requested more documents from the FAA pertaining to all documents and communications referring or relating to the day of the TFR, unredacted copies of the emails given to the committee, documents and communications from Biden’s inauguration to present regarding the legality of issuing the TFR, and an explanation of the legal basis relied on by the FAA to issue the TFR.
BORDER: Illegal immigrants wait to be transported by Border Patrol after crossing the Rio Grande from Mexico into Del Rio.
Most are under the international bridge and out of public view.
According to the latest data released by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), law enforcement encountered nearly 154,000 illegal immigrants crossing the Southwest border. This number doesn’t include those illegal immigrants who evaded apprehension, known as “gotaways”: different than those who evade encounters entirely, or go through the catch-and-release process.
According to CBP data obtained through Border Patrol and by Townhall, CNN, and The Washington Postcompiled by the Republican National Committee (RNC), over 504,600 estimated gotaways have occurred since President Joe Biden was sworn in. Former and current border officials clarified that those estimates are conservative. National Border Patrol Council’s Rio Grande Valley Chapter Vice President and Spokesman Chris Cabrera told Senator Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) that the actual number of gotaways is likely “twice, if not three times” the Biden Administration’s November estimate of around 400,000 — which would be around 1.2 million.
As evidenced by the CBP chart “Southwest Land Border Encounters by Month,” encounters remain far above those over the last three years. Unlike the last three years, however, there’s been a sharp downturn in encounters from December to January. Similar sharp downturn trends occurred in 2016 and 2017. Overall, Southwest border encounters dropped about 14 percent from December to January: 19 percent for the Office of Field Operations (OFO) and nearly 14 percent for U.S. Border Patrol.
CBP’s latest numbers come nearly a month after the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) toldReuters that the country should expect the border crisis to worsen throughout 2022. A majority of Arizona law enforcement expressed support for mitigation efforts proposed by Governor Doug Ducey: federal legislation to increase border security through completing border wall, physical barriers, and virtual surveillance; requiring asylum seekers to show proof of attempt to claim asylum prior to crossing and at a port of entry; increasing the number of immigration judges; and increasing funding for local law enforcement and humanitarian efforts.
Corinne Murdock is a reporter for AZ Free News. Follow her latest on Twitter, or email tips to corinne@azfreenews.com.
On Tuesday, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against President Joe Biden’s COVID-19 Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) vaccine mandate for health care workers. Arizona health care workers under CMS jurisdiction via Medicare and Medicaid programs don’t have to adhere to the vaccine mandate. Louisiana Western District Judge Terry Doughty, an appointee of previous President Donald Trump, issued the order.
Arizona Attorney General Mark Brnovich announced the injunction Tuesday afternoon.
“NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION Great news – a federal judge just granted our coalition’s request to STOP the Biden Administration’s overreaching ‘job or jab’ COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers. We will continue to take action to protect Arizona’s health care heroes,” wrote Brnovich.
? NATIONWIDE INJUNCTION ?
Great news – a federal judge just granted our coalition's request to STOP the Biden Administration's overreaching “job or jab” COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers.
Brnovich joined a coalition of 13 other states led by Louisiana Attorney General Jeff Landry, a Republican, in response to an emergency order issued by CMS on November 4. Under the CMS mandate, health care workers would’ve had to be fully vaccinated by January 4. That would’ve required individuals receiving vaccines requiring two doses to receive their first injection by December 6 to be fully compliant.
In a memorandum, Doughty wrote that Biden’s attempt to bypass Congress posed a grave threat to our Constitutional order. He emphasized the importance of safeguarding American liberties more so during the pandemic than at any other time.
“If the separation of powers meant anything to the Constitutional framers, it meant that the three necessary ingredients to deprive a person of liberty or property – the power to make rules, to enforce them, and to judge their violations – could never fall into the same hands,” wrote Doughty. “The executive branch is allowed to usurp the power of the legislative branch to make laws, two of the three powers conferred by our Constitution would be in the same hands. If human nature and history teach anything, it is that civil liberties face grave risks when governments proclaim indefinite states of emergency.”
Although Press Secretary Jen Psaki issued a statement on Tuesday emphasizing the importance of vaccinations to combating COVID-19 and the latest variant, Omicron, she didn’t address the ruling as of press time.
Neither did President Joe Biden. Instead, Biden’s remarks for most of Tuesday concerned bills his administration worked to pass such as the infrastructure law, with the school shooting in Oxford, Michigan occupying the remainder of that day.
Reuters noted in their coverage that the White House declined to comment on these legal losses.
This is the latest in a series of legal battles over COVID-19 vaccine mandates that the president has lost. Courts also temporarily halted the federal contractor vaccine mandate, as well as a rule through the Occupational Health and Safety Administration (OSHA) requiring businesses with 100 or more employees to either be vaccinated or tested weekly.
Kentucky Eastern District Judge Gregory Van Tatenhove, a Bush appointee, also issued his order halting the Biden Administration’s requirement that new government contracts require contractor employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19 on Tuesday. Tatenhove’s rationale for imposing the injunction was similar to Doughty’s, citing “serious Constitutional concerns.” Tatenhove didn’t dispute that the COVID-19 vaccine worked, or that the federal government could mandate vaccinations within certain circumstances. Rather, Tatenhove said that the legal question at hand concerned what authorities the president and federal government had.
“Can the president use congressionally delegated authority to manage the federal procurement of goods and services to impose vaccines on the employees of federal contractors and subcontractors? In all likelihood, the answer to that question is no,” wrote Tatenhove. “[T]here is a serious concern that Defendants have stepped into an area traditionally reserved to the States, and this provides an additional reason to temporarily enjoin the vaccine mandate.”
Read Doughty’s full opinion ordering an injunction against the CMS mandate here.
If you’re an employer who’s following through with the OSHA mandate, the CMS mandate, or Fed contractor mandate, then you’re on your own.
The imprimatur of the federal government no longer exists and will not indemnify you.
These are not laws, and they are going down in flames.
Criticism continues to grow against a sweeping new federal mandate supported by the Biden Administration which requires private employers of 100 or more employees to develop and enforce a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy.
The mandate, outlined in a 490-page document, is referred to as an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). It establishes a Jan. 4, 2022 deadline for compliance, and requires employees of those companies to be vaccinated or be forced to wear a face covering at work while undergoing regular COVID-19 testing at the employee’s expense.
The Industrial Commission of Arizona (ICA) and the Arizona Attorney General’s Office are pushing back on the mandate which is estimated to cover more than 84 million employees, or about two-thirds of America’s private-sector workforce. OSHA estimates that about 23 million Americans will choose to undergo the vaccination to preserve their jobs.
On Thursday, the ICA issued a statement that Arizona businesses are not bound by OSHA’s mandate unless the commissioners vote to formally adopt a similar policy. Arizona is one of 22 states previously granted federal approval to operate a state plan to address issues typically under the purview of OSHA.
Then on Friday morning, Arizona was one of 11 state plaintiffs in a federal lawsuit filed in the U.S. Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals against President Joe Biden and OSHA to stop the COVID-19 ETS. The petition contends the vaccination mandate “is unconstitutional, unlawful, and unwise” and an attempt to infringe on the States’ powers expressly reserved by the Tenth Amendment.
In addition to Arizona, the attorneys general from Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming are plaintiffs.
Also on Friday, State Rep. Steve Kaiser criticized the White House’s support of the workplace vaccine mandate, calling it “an onerous and overreaching policy that will hurt businesses and the people who they employ.”
Kaiser, a Republican who represents LD15 covering north Phoenix and Cave Creek, owns Junk King, a Phoenix area franchise providing removal and hauling services.
“As a small business owner, it’s clear to me that Biden’s policy would force employees to choose between being vaccinated against their will, completing weekly COVID-19 testing (at their own expense), or losing their jobs. That’s wrong,” he said. “It’s more critical than ever that Arizona defend businesses and their employees and ensure their ability to continue making decisions for themselves – instead of liberal politicians in Washington.”
According to Kaiser, state officials are doing the right thing by trying to protect Arizonans who would be harmed by implementation of what he calls a “terrible” mandate. He supports ICA’s position that Arizona -and not OSHA- has had the exclusive responsibility for nearly 50 years for developing and enforcing any occupational safety and health standards within the state.
“Under Arizona’s long-approved state-plan procedures, the Industrial Commission has exclusive authority to decide if, when, and to what extent the State of Arizona will adopt the OSHA vaccination ETS,” the ICA statement reads. “Arizona has a 47-year track record of protecting the safety and health of Arizona’s workers and remains fully committed to this mission.”
The ETS requires employers to determine the vaccination status of each employee, obtain acceptable proof of vaccination, maintain records of each employee’s vaccination status, and maintain a roster of each employee’s vaccination status. It also requires employers to provide employees with a variety of information and literature about COVID-19 and to provide an employee “reasonable time and paid sick leave to recover from side effects experienced following each dose.”
In addition, employers are now mandated to report work-related COVID-19 fatalities to OSHA within 8 hours of learning about them, and work-related COVID-19 in-patient hospitalizations within 24 hours of the employer learning about the hospitalization.
For now, OSHA officials are less confident that smaller employers can implement a mandatory vaccination policy “without undue disruption.” But it appears those smaller businesses could be facing a similar mandate in the future.
“OSHA needs additional time to assess the capacity of smaller employers, and is seeking comment to help the agency make that determination,” it says.
Credit unions in Arizona have joined the Arizona Treasurer’s Office in opposition to a proposal requiring financial institutions to give the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) citizens’ personal account information if the account exceeds $600 of deposits or withdrawals. In a letter, they urged Senator Kyrsten Sinema and Senator Mark Kelly to oppose this measure being considered in Congress as part of the $3.5 trillion budget reconciliation bill. This proposal would threaten the financial security of more than 100 million Americans from all demographics.
“Being forced to hand over your personal household or small business financial records to the government as a law-abiding citizen is as intrusive as it gets. There are no guardrails in the bill for how the government can leverage this highly private information,” said Arizona Treasurer Kimberly Yee. “As Arizona’s Chief Banking and Investment Officer, I cannot stay silent while Arizonan’s sensitive financial data is at risk of unprecedented government surveillance.”
“There is simply no scenario in which this is a good idea for credit union members, or customers at any financial institution for that matter,” said Scott Earl, President and CEO of Mountain West Credit Union Association. “Between the exposure risk of data privacy, and the
significant resources and associated costs that would need be required to comply with this measure, it is a bad idea all around.”
The letter states, “As State Treasurer and credit unions in Arizona, we join with the many voices and groups from across the nation who strongly oppose this intrusive proposal.
Congress should not approve the IRS to have access to law-abiding Arizonan’s personal financial transactions in a blatant attempt to tax them unnecessarily.”
