Democratic Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs told reporters last week she would continue the program under her Republican predecessor Doug Ducey to bus migrants out of the state — but in a more humane and efficient way. 

On Tuesday, Hobbs defended her decision to keep the program in place, telling The Arizona Sun that her administration would focus on ensuring that the state’s continued payment of migrants’ travel costs is ‘efficient and humane.’

‘We just wanted to make sure that we were addressing this issue and, as I talked about many times in the campaign, in a way that was the best use of taxpayer resources and something that wasn’t a political stunt,’ Hobbs told the newspaper.

Then-Gov. Ducey began busing migrants out of Arizona back in May. The program was later expanded to include the option of chartered air travel aboard a 737 aircraft, according to a state contract signed Jan. 14.

During Ducey’s tenure, more than 3,000 people were bused from the Yuma area to the nation’s capital at an overall cost of more than $7 million. Republican lawmakers earmarked $15 million for the program last year. The border has seen a historic crisis under President Biden’s tenure, with records broken for illegal crossings month after month. 

Hobbs, who assumed office earlier this month, told reporters last week: ‘We need to look at that practice and make sure it’s effective, [that] it’s something that supports local communities.’ 

‘If we’re spending the money to bus people, why not just get them to their final destination?’ she said. 

Hobbs told The Arizona Republic that her focus would differ from the actions of Republican governors Greg Abbott, of Texas, and Ron DeSantis, of Florida, who both have transported migrants to Democratic-run cities as a rebuke of the Biden administration’s handling of the southern border. 

‘We’re interested in focusing on the humanitarian aspects of this and just putting people on a bus as a political stunt and sending them to Martha’s Vineyard or wherever they went is not providing any help or any solution to the actual issue,’ Hobbs said. 

Washington, D.C.’s Democratic Mayor Muriel Bowser declared a public emergency related to the bussing of migrants to the nation’s capital last year. New York Mayor Eric Adams, also a Democrat, recently visited the border at El Paso, Texas, and has declared that there is no more room for illegal migrants in his city. Adams called on the federal government to solve the crisis.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., a progressive Democrat running for U.S. Senate, is accusing independent Sen. Kyrsten Sinema — his potential rival in 2024 — of being funded by ‘deep-pocketed lobbyists’ despite his own connections to the Washington, D.C., lobbying industry.

Fox News Digital obtained a fundraising text sent by Gallego, who tossed his hat into the 2024 Arizona Senate race last week, in which he took a swipe at Sinema even though she has yet to announce whether she will run for reelection.

‘It’s Ruben Gallego here – and I’m in. I’m running against Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Senate. Why? Because Sinema has chosen to use her power to protect the already powerful, instead of using it for the people she’s supposed to serve,’ Gallego said in the text.

‘I’m running for all of us – and I want us to win as a united team. But it will take more than resolve to defeat Sinema and the deep-pocketed lobbyists funding her campaign,’ he added.

Gallego, however, has his own ties to the lobbying industry, some of which seem set to benefit his campaign in the weeks and months to come, according to his own campaign materials obtained by Fox.

One campaign event flyer requests potential high-dollar donors to attend a reception with Gallego scheduled for Feb. 28 in Washington and hosted by prominent Democrat lobbyists Matt Gorman, Patrick Gorman and Mike Lux.

The suggested contributions to attend the reception range from $500 as a ‘supporter,’ $1,000 as a ‘friend’ and $2,900 as a ‘sponsor.’

According to Federal Election Commission (FEC) data, Gallego has also previously received money from lobbyist groups and corporation political action committees (PACs) that actively engage in lobbying activities in Washington. Those include lobbying firm Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck LLP and PACs associated with Amazon.com Inc. and Amgen Inc., a biopharmaceutical company.

Each most recently gave money to his reelection campaign for Congress in the weeks ahead of the midterm elections last year. FEC data for Gallego’s Senate campaign has not yet been made available.

Additionally, Gallego’s wife, Sydney Barron Gallego, works as a lobbyist for the National Association of Realtors in Washington and has previously worked in a number of financial roles for multiple Democrat organizations and campaigns.

Fox reached out to Gallego’s campaign for comment but did not receive a response.

Sinema, who left the Democratic Party last year to become an independent, has also previously received money from various lobbyist groups and corporation PACs actively engaged in lobbying activities.

She has faced criticism from the left for taking in large amounts in contributions from lobbyists and company executives, especially over those from the pharmaceutical industry at the same time she opposed her former party’s drug pricing bill in 2021.

Sinema also didn’t respond to Fox’s request for comment.

Should she decide to run for reelection Sinema would not face Gallego unless he were to win the yet to be scheduled Democratic primary and head to the general election.

She would also likely face a Republican challenger, although no candidates have publicly declared their intention to run. Former Senate candidate Blake Masters and former gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake have been floated as potential challengers.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., vowed that he and two other House Democrats do not plan to go away, despite not being reappointed by House Speaker Kevin McCarthy to committees they historically served on, adding the speaker’s decision was ‘purely about political vengeance.’

During a press conference on Wednesday, Swalwell and Reps. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., and Adam Schiff, D-Calif., responded to McCarthy’s decision to not reappoint the three legislators to their committees.

‘Even though we have said publicly, ‘These smears are bringing death threats against us,’ he continues to do it, which makes us believe that there’s an intent behind it,’ Swalwell said. ‘But we will not be quiet. We’re not going away. I think he’ll regret giving all three of us more time on our hands. But at the end of the day, our mission now is to restore the credibility and integrity of this institution of which the speaker has so gravely, so gravely smashed and destroyed.’

In a letter on Tuesday, McCarthy shot down demands from Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries to reappoint Swalwell and Schiff, who were ’eminently qualified’ legislators with more than two decades of providing oversight of the nation’s Intelligence Committee.

McCarthy has expressed concerns in the past over the two legislators. Swalwell’s alleged ties to a Chinese spy named Christine Fang, or Fang Fang, in 2014 raised questions.

McCarthy also has said Schiff has lied too many times to the American public. Schiff was one of the Democrats’ lead spokesmen on the explosive allegations against former President Donald Trump, saying he colluded with Russia in the 2020 election.

An investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller ‘did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.’

McCarthy said Tuesday that he could not put partisan loyalty ahead of national security, nor could he simply recognize years of service as the sole criteria for being part of the Intelligence Committee.

‘Integrity matters more,’ he said. ‘The misuse of this panel during the 116th and 117th Congresses severely undermined its primary national security and oversight missions — ultimately leaving our nation less safe.’

After learning of McCarthy’s decision, Schiff turned to Twitter.

‘Kevin McCarthy just kicked me and @RepSwalwell off the Intelligence Committee,’ he said. ‘This is petty, political payback for investigating Donald Trump. If he thinks this will stop me, he will soon find out just how wrong he is. I will always defend our democracy.’

A reporter on Capitol Hill asked McCarthy about his decision to not reappoint Swalwell and Schiff to the Intelligence Committee on Tuesday, and the House speaker did not hold back.

McCarthy said Schiff used his position as chairman of the Intelligence Committee and lied to the American people about information the rest of America did not have. McCarthy also said when a whistleblower came forward, Schiff claimed he did not know the person even though his staff met with him.

‘No, he does not have a right to sit on that,’ McCarthy said. ‘He can serve on a committee, but he will not serve on intel because it goes to the national security of America, and I will always put that first.’

The speaker also went into details about Swalwell, saying the FBI never gave congressional leaders a briefing about Swalwell’s problem with a Chinese spy until he served on the Intelligence Committee.

‘So, it wasn’t just us who were concerned about it. The FBI was concerned about putting a member of Congress on the Intel Committee, that has the rights to see things that others don’t, because of his knowledge and relationship with a Chinese spy,’ McCarthy said. ‘I got that briefing, so I do not believe he should sit on that committee… and I believe there’s 200 other Democrats that can serve on that committee.’

Omar was also left out of being appointed to the House Foreign Affairs Committee, mainly because of her past antisemitic remarks.

McCarthy said in November that when he is speaker of the house, he would remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee over her antisemitic comments.

‘We watch antisemitism grow, not just on our campuses, but we watched it grow in the halls of Congress,’ McCarthy said at the Republican Jewish Coalition’s 2022 leadership meeting in Las Vegas. ‘I promised you last year that as speaker she will no longer be on Foreign Affairs, and I’m keeping that promise.’

In a tweet before joining Congress, Omar claimed Israel had ‘hypnotized the world,’ and after being elected she submitted a resolution to the House comparing boycotting Israel to boycotting the Nazis. Omar also came under fire in 2019 for appearing to minimize the 9-11 attacks, when speaking to a Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) audience in March of that year. ‘CAIR was founded after 9/11 because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were starting to lose access to our civil liberties,’ Omar told the audience that day.

‘Kevin McCarthy’s purely partisan move to strip us from our committee is not only a political stunt, but also a blow to the integrity of our democratic institution and threat to our national security,’ Omar said Wednesday. ‘If McCarthy wants to denigrate the House and its committees, we will always stand up to these efforts.’

The Biden administration on Wednesday said that new border measures, which were expanded earlier this month, were already having an effect to help reduce the record migrant numbers encountered in December — a day after a lawsuit from 20 states claimed the program is unlawful.

The administration has expanded a humanitarian parole program first introduced for Venezuelans in October to include Cubans, Nicaraguans and Haitians. The program allows up to 30,000 migrants to fly in each month as long as they had not entered the U.S. or Mexico illegally, have a U.S. sponsor and pass background checks. It’s combined with an expansion of Title 42 expulsions to include those nationalities.

The moves were in response to a significant increase in encounters from those nations alongside a massive surge in migration that has dogged the Biden administration since taking office. In December, there were more than 251,000 migrant encounters, marking a new highest month that outpaced even the busiest month of FY 2022 — which overall saw a record 2.3 million encounters.

But in a statement, the Department of Homeland Security said that since then, initial numbers for January show a 97% drop in encounters of those four nationalities — and January is on track to see the lowest number for border encounters since the start of the crisis in February 2021.

The agency said that encounters from the four countries had dropped from an average of 3,367 a day in December to just 115 a day in January, and touted the numbers as proof that the measures were working.

The numbers were released a day after 20 Republican states sued the administration over the program, claiming it is unlawful.

‘These expanded border enforcement measures are working,’ said Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas said in a statement. ‘It is incomprehensible that some states who stand to benefit from these highly effective enforcement measures are seeking to block them and cause more irregular migration at our southern border.’ 

That lawsuit, filed by Texas and America First Legal in the Southern District of Texas, and joined by 19 additional states, argues that the program is illegal given the ‘exceptionally limited’ parole power available to the federal government. The lawsuit focuses on the limits placed on parole by Congress that says the authority is to be used on a ‘case-by-case basis for urgent humanitarian reasons or significant public benefit’ — a standard that the states say the program fails to meet.

‘The parole program established by the Department fails each of the law’s three limiting factors. It is not case-by-case, is not for urgent humanitarian reasons, and advances no significant public benefit. Instead, it amounts to the creation of a new visa program that allows hundreds of thousands of aliens to enter the United States who otherwise have no basis for doing so. This flouts, rather than follows, the clear limits imposed by Congress,’ the lawsuit reads.

The states say the program is also unlawful as it did not engage in the notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act, and that states ‘face substantial irreparable harms from the Department’s abuse of its parole authority, which allow potentially hundreds of thousands of additional aliens to enter each of their already overwhelmed territories.’

‘Every state in America, especially border states like Texas, is being crushed by the impacts of illegal immigration,’ Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton said in a statement to Fox News Digital. ‘The Biden open borders agenda has created a humanitarian crisis that is increasing crime and violence in our streets, overwhelming local communities, and worsening the opioid crisis. This unlawful amnesty program, which will invite hundreds of thousands of aliens into the U.S. every year, will only make this immigration crisis drastically worse.’

But the administration has been pushing back against criticism of its handling of the southern border from Republicans in Congress and elsewhere — including pointing to Republican lawmakers’ refusal to back a sweeping immigration bill and other requests for funding by the administration. 

President Biden on Friday accused Republicans of attempting to use immigration to score ‘political points’ and that was echoed by an administration official on Wednesday who condemned the lawsuit against the parole program.

‘This lawsuit once again shows that extremist elected officials don’t want real solutions; they would rather just keep using immigration to try to score political points. They keep claiming we need to secure the border, but then turn around and try block nearly every measure we take to do just that,’ the official said.

‘They’ve blocked comprehensive immigration reform and funding for border security, and are now trying to block a program that has dramatically reduced the number of migrants attempting to enter the country illegally all while providing a safe, lawful, and orderly pathway for migration for people fleeing communism or economic collapse,’ the official said. ‘If these states succeed, their latest stunt will lead to more illegal immigration.’

An Omaha, Nebraska, university ordered a student organization to remove political posters depicting guns and slogans that some found offensive, according to reports.

The College Fix, a conservative news website focused on higher education, reported that Creighton University has a ban on pro-Second Amendment poster, and members of the Young Americans for Liberty are currently fighting to get that ban overturned.

The group claims the ban infringes on their First Amendment rights.

After being told to remove the political posters, University officials told Mason Wood, chapter leader during the Fall 2022 semester, he was required to fill out paperwork to host a ‘Controversial Event’ if he wanted to pass a petition seeking to end the school’s ban on gun images.

A representative for the Young Americans for Liberty told The College Fix that the school administration at Creighton maintains its ban on imagery of guns, even when it comes to political speeches on the Second Amendment.

‘While the Second Amendment remains one of the top political issues in the country, Creighton’s administration acts like its students are children – unable to handle the image of a common firearm or know how to speak about issues without permission from a bureaucrat,’ YAL director of student rights JP Kirby told The College Fix. ‘We at YAL trust our students as the free-thinking adults they are, and we support their rights to share their beliefs with others.’

YAL officials did not respond to inquiries regarding the challenges the Creighton chapter was facing.

Creighton Assistant Director for Programming and Student Organizations Sarah Giacomini told Wood in an email that the school does not allow images of guns to be used in posters. When Wood submitted the event to Giacomini, he provided handouts with guns, and was told they need to be removed.

‘This is something we have done in the past with other organizations,’ she told Wood. ‘If you choose to use the images of guns in the future and would like to plan an event under our Freedom of Expression Act or host a Controversial Event, we can have that conversation, but because you are just wanting to table this week, these are my requirements. If these changes cannot be made, then you will not be allowed to table on campus tomorrow.’

Creighton officials did not immediately respond to questions pertaining to the ban and Giacomini’s requirements.

Creighton University is a private Catholic institution, so it does not necessarily have to follow the same rules as public universities.

Still, its student handbook has a policy on Freedom of Expression.

In the policy, the university claims to strive to be a community dedicated to the pursuit of truth into the betterment of society. It also wants to ensure a safe learning environment.

‘As a University, Creighton is committed to its role as an academic institution in which the widest possible freedom of expression and openness to diverse ideas should be responsibly presented and examined,’ the policy reads. ‘It is because of these commitments that we embrace freedom of thought and expression.’

Swifties and Ticketmaster are apparently, never, ever, ever, getting back together.

Or maybe, after the debacle Taylor Swift fans suffered trying to purchase seats for her tour, you could say there is ‘Bad Blood’ between them and the ticket industry. 

The puns and plays on Swift’s canon rolled through a hearing this week by the Senate Judiciary Committee probing potential antitrust practices by Ticketmaster. The ticket giant dominates events ranging from concerts to sports. 

Ticketmaster and Live Nation merged in 2010.

‘I believe in capitalism and to have a strong capitalist system,’ said Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-Minn. ‘You can’t have too much consolidation. Something that unfortunately for this country, as an ode to Taylor Swift, I will say we know ‘All Too Well.’’

Klobuchar leads the Judiciary Committee’s antitrust subcommittee after Democrats retained control of the Senate in the midterm elections.

‘I had hoped as of a few months ago to get the gavel back,’ mused Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, of Klobuchar. ‘But she’s ‘cheer captain, and I’m on the bleachers.”

That’s a line from Swift’s tune ‘You Belong With Me.’

‘Nice of Taylor Swift to have written a song about this very situation,’ Lee added. 

All I can say is that it’s a good thing Black Sabbath never had issues with its tickets. Imagine the jokes senators could concoct surrounding Black Sabbath classics like ‘Fairies Wear Boots,’ ‘Sweet Leaf’ and ‘War Pigs’? 

Perhaps I’m just being ‘Paranoid.’

But back to Swift.

Lawmakers credited the singer-songwriter and her acolytes for focusing attention on possible antitrust issues. A small contingent of Swift fans protested outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building before the hearing.

‘As I was driving up this morning, I couldn’t help but notice I’d never seen more smiling and happy demonstrators than I saw today,’ said Lee. ‘I think Swifties have figured something out, and they’re very good at getting their message across.’

‘We apologize to the fans. We apologize to Ms. Swift. We need to do better, and we will do better. Ticketmaster learned valuable lessons from the sale,’ Joe Berchtold of Live Nation testified before the committee.

Despite the mea culpa, Berchtold punted.

‘Primary ticketing companies, including Ticketmaster, do not set ticket prices. We do not decide how many tickets go on sale and when. And, we do not set service fees. Pricing and distribution strategies are determined by the artists. Service fees, even if they’re called ticketing fees, are retained mainly by the venues and their portion of the service fee,’ said Berchtold.

He also said that Live Nation ‘lost, not gained, market share since the merger’ with Ticketmaster in 2010.

As to the digital disaster with ticket sales for Swift’s upcoming ‘The Eras’ tour, Berchtold claimed that automated consumers and bots deluged systems, blocking fans from purchasing tickets. 

‘We were then hit with three times the amount of bot traffic that we’d ever experienced,’ he said. 

Berchtold noted that Live Nation has spent around $1 billion over the past decade to combat bots.

But that failed to impress Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

‘Our critical infrastructure in this country — whether it is utilities, electric, water, power, banking services, credit card processors, payment processors, health care companies — they get bot attacks every single day by the thousands. By the thousands. And they have figured it out. But you guys haven’t,’ chided Blackburn. ‘This is unbelievable.’

The House and Senate are narrowly divided, but the Swift ticket maelstrom achieved something rare on Capitol Hill.

‘I have to thank Ticketmaster for an absolutely stunning achievement. Bringing Democrats and Republicans together in clear unity,’ said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn. ‘Ticketmaster has the view that it’s everyone but us. You ought to look in the mirror and say, ‘We’re the problem. It’s me.”

That’s a reference to a line in Swift’s latest hit, ‘Anti-Hero,’ when she sings, ‘I’m the problem. It’s me.’

‘Anti-Hero’ hit No. 1 for eight non-consecutive weeks.

To lawmakers, Live Nation is certainly a central player in this drama. And probably an anti-hero. But many in the music industry believe they are cornered by Live Nation and are compelled to work with Ticketmaster.

‘We truly do not see Live Nation as the enemy,’ testified singer Clyde Lawrence. ‘They’re just the largest player. And that feels stacked against us as artists and often our fans as well.’

Lawrence told senators that Live Nation takes a 20% commission on merchandise sold at concerts, and performers rarely see a cut of revenues generated from concessions and parking.

‘Venues fear losing Live Nation concerts if they don’t use Ticketmaster,’ said Jack Groetzinger, CEO of SeatGeek. ‘The only way to restore competition in this industry is to break up Ticketmaster and Live Nation.’

There’s also a dispute over who sets fees for concert tickets. A Government Accountability Study report found that fees make up 27% of all ticket prices. Many consumers don’t know the grand total for tickets until they have already made a final transaction.

‘I don’t know where the answer lies. But no one is taking responsibility,’ said Lawrence.

‘The market can’t work well without transparency,’ testified Kathleen Bradish of the American Antitrust Institute.

‘Clearly there isn’t transparency when no one knows who sets the fees,’ added Klobuchar.

Criticism over fees and Ticketmaster date back to the mid-1990s.

In 1993, Pearl Jam capped ticket prices for its ‘Vs.’ tour at a scant $18. This came just after Ticketmaster scooped up its main marketplace competitor, Ticketron. Pearl Jam eventually canceled its tour because it tried to perform in venues where Ticketmaster wasn’t contractually bound to handle tickets. Things were a logistical nightmare.

Pearl Jam guitarist Stone Gossard and bassist Jeff Ament testified before a House panel in 1994 about their plight.

‘Many Pearl Jam fans are teenagers that do not have the money to pay $30 or more that is often charged for tickets today,’ Gossard testified. ‘It is this incestuous relationship and the lack of any national competition for Ticketmaster that has created this situation we’re dealing with today.’

Back at this week’s hearing, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., offered a solution to the ticket conundrum.

‘Cut out the middle people,’ suggested Kennedy. ‘If you really care about the consumer, give the consumer a break. Not every kid can afford $500 to go see Taylor Swift.’

With ticket prices soaring, it remains to be seen whether the music industry can ‘Shake It Off.’