Trump owes Arizona $744 million — and the state's Republicans want him to pay up

Republican legislative leaders are asking the Trump administration to reimburse Arizona for spending $744 million on border security over the past four years — a month after Gov. Katie Hobbs sent her own request, which remains unanswered.

The federal government’s recently passed budget set aside roughly $13 billion to pay states for border-related costs incurred since 2021, the beginning of former President Joe Biden’s term. The fund was created at the urging of Texas’ congressional delegation, and the lion’s share of the money is expected to go to the Lone Star State, which racked up more than $11 billion in expenses pursuing aggressive immigration enforcement policies.

On Sept. 10, Arizona Senate President Warren Petersen and House Speaker Steve Montenegro sent a letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem saying that some of that money should be given to the Grand Canyon State. In a joint written statement, the pair sharply criticized Biden and called on the Trump administration to help the state recoup millions spent on border security.

“For four years, the Biden Administration failed to defend our border, leaving Arizona to shoulder the burden,” Petersen wrote. “Our Republican-led Legislature invested more than half a billion dollars to keep our citizens safe, and it is only right that those costs now be reimbursed.”

“Thanks to President Trump and his administration, Washington is finally treating border security as a priority again, and Arizona taxpayers deserve to be reimbursed for the work we had to do during Biden’s dereliction of duty,” echoed Montenegro.

GOP leaders: AZ should be repaid

During Biden’s four years in office, the rate of border crossings reached record highs. The increase was due to many reasons, including shifting migration trends that led to more families traveling together and federal policies that experts believe incentivized multiple unauthorized entry attempts because they prioritized quick expulsions over criminalization. The spike in immigration numbers caused a political headache for Biden, who responded to it by tightening the country’s asylum policies and coordinating with Mexico to deter migrants, eventually resulting in historic lows in 2024.

Republicans across the country capitalized on the issue to stoke voter discontent and push for harsher immigration enforcement strategies at the state level. In Arizona, then-Gov. Doug Ducey and the GOP controlled legislature allocated more than $500 million for border security initiatives in 2022.

The bulk of that, around $335 million, was earmarked for the construction and maintenance of a border wall made up of empty shipping containers. But the wall was built illegally, and a federal judge ordered the state to take it down just months after it was installed. Ultimately, the state spent more than $200 million of that money for nothing.

The remaining funds were later reshaped by Hobbs into a statewide grant program for law enforcement agencies dealing with the fallout of criminal activity originating at the border, like drug smuggling.

In their letter, Petersen and Montenegro pointed to the short-lived wall as proof that Arizona deserves to be reimbursed for its investments in border security, especially given that it was a priority for Trump during his first administration.

“In 2021 and 2022, Republicans in the Arizona Legislature, in conjunction with our Republican Governor, created the Border Security Fund and appropriated $599 million to address the immediate crisis and secure the border,” they wrote. “Since then, most of these monies have been expended, most visibly on implementing President Trump’s vision of a southern border wall.”

Along with the money spent on the border wall, the $744 million estimate includes $145 million Petersen and Montenegro say has been used to pay local sheriffs and state troopers over the past four years.

The Republicans acknowledged that Texas will likely receive the better part of the $13 billion set aside for reimbursement, but they noted that Arizona’s efforts merit recompense, too.

“Texas, having the largest border with Mexico, provided a robust response through Operation Lone Star,” they wrote. “But Texas was not alone, and the State of Arizona allocated significant resources to protect its border.”

Political tiff between Dem Gov and GOP legislative leaders muddles common goal

The letter from the state’s top Republicans comes more than a month after Hobbs sent her own — and it asks for less than she did. The Democrat requested nearly $760 million, and totaled expenditures made by her predecessor as well as initiatives she championed, like task forces formed to combat fentanyl smuggling or cartel activity throughout the state and the deployment of national guardsmen to the border.

The July letter was the second time Hobbs has sought to pressure the federal government into paying Arizona back for border-related expenditures. In 2023, amid record-high immigration levels, Hobbs called on the Biden administration to reimburse Arizona for $512 million it had spent on border security. That request was ignored, and Hobbs’ latest letter has yet to receive a response, according to spokesman Christian Slater.

It’s unclear what impact a second letter will have on securing a reimbursement for Arizona. Petersen and Montenegro did not reply to a request for comment on whether they felt they would be more successful than Hobbs in prompting a response.

The disparity between the two letters, and the lack of collaboration between their authors, highlight a partisan divide — even as they both seek the same result. Slater said Hobbs didn’t try to include Petersen or Montenegro in her July letter, and the pair didn’t reach out to her office to join their own, but added that she was “glad to see legislative Republicans follow her leadership.”

In their letter, Montenegro and Petersen highlighted a political spat with Hobbs to imply that her reimbursement request was insincere. Last year, Republicans backed a bill to make crossing the Arizona-Mexico border a state crime. Hobbs vetoed it. It was later repackaged into a ballot referral that won the approval of 63% of Arizona voters.

Petersen and Montenegro alluded to that political feud both as proof that the Grand Canyon State is committed to bolstering border security and in an apparent bid to undermine Hobb’s request.

“Last year, Arizona voters overwhelmingly supported the ‘Secure the Border Act’ referred to the ballot by the Arizona Legislature following Democrat Governor Katie Hobbs’ veto of the measure,” they wrote. “We are aware that this year, Governor Hobbs is now requesting reimbursement for border related expenses.”

In a written statement accompanying the announcement of the new letter, Montenegro reiterated that criticism of Hobbs.

“Unlike Governor Hobbs, House and Senate Republicans have stood firm on border security from the start,” he said. “Arizona voters made their voices clear when they overwhelmingly passed the Secure the Border Act that Democrats tried to block. Our citizens know they can trust the Republican Legislature to safeguard and wisely direct any funds Arizona receives through the One Big Beautiful Bill.”

Petersen and Montenegro told Noem in their letter that any reimbursed money would be added to the state general fund, put under strict Republican oversight and used to give relief to Arizona taxpayers, though no exact plans for it were outlined.

What might federal money mean for the Secure the Border Act?

The future of border security funding in Arizona is fraught with legal uncertainty, but the $13 billion set aside by the federal government may resolve that. The money is not only intended to reimburse states for past actions, but also set aside to reward actions taken to deter unauthorized border crossings until 2029.

The Secure the Border Act, which Petersen and Montenegro touted in their letter, is currently tied up in state litigation and frozen by a federal ruling. That might change, especially as the Trump administration has dropped a lawsuit against a similar law in Texas.

The Arizona version empowers any police officer in the state to arrest people suspected of crossing the southern border, gives state judges the ability to issue deportation orders and creates a bevy of new criminal penalties aimed at punishing non citizens for presenting false documentation.

The problem is that the act doesn’t have set funding, in violation of the Arizona Constitution, which mandates that any ballot measure that is likely to incur new costs to the state cite a revenue source that doesn’t come from the state general fund. Despite multiple warnings from law enforcement officials during legislative debates last year that the act’s requirements would necessarily force them to shoulder the cost, Republican lawmakers refused to remedy the issue. Because of that missing funding provision, an immigrant rights group launched a legal challenge against it earlier this year in the hopes of preventing it from ever being implemented.

Another legal quandary stopping the Secure the Border Act from being enforced is a lawsuit filed against the Texas law that the Arizona iteration was modeled after. The Arizona version explicitly pauses its provisions having to do with criminalizing unauthorized border crossings until its Texas inspiration goes into effect.

The Biden administration initially took the Texas law, known as SB4, to court, arguing that it unconstitutionally encroached on the federal government’s sole authority to enforce immigration laws. The courts ultimately froze the law, but in March the Trump administration announced it was withdrawing from the case. In July, an appellate court affirmed a ruling blocking the law from being enforced. But last month, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton requested a rehearing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has so far declined to rule on the merits of the case around SB4, but if it ends up before the conservative-majority bench in the future, opponents fear the high court may side with the rights of states to pass their own immigration enforcement laws.