Backlash grows against police in Nancy Guthrie case after suspension revelation
Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos has headed the investigation into Nancy Guthrie's disappearance from her Arizona home since day one
Backlash has been steadily building against the lead investigator in the case of Nancy Guthrie's disappearance on February 1, with Pima County Sheriff Chris Nanos coming under fire for past disciplinary issues as the investigation approaches its 12th week.
The sheriff's history at the El Paso Police Department in Texas has drawn criticism as he resigned from his position in 1982 in order to avoid disciplinary action. He addressed the allegations that he misrepresented himself when applying for a job at the Pima County Police Department in the '80s, after leaving his job in Texas.
Chris' lawyer responded to the probe into his past with a 22-page document that explained his conduct. "Sheriff Nanos resigned from the El Paso Police Department in 1982. At the time of his resignation, he held the rank of corporal," the document read.
Sheriff Chris Nanos has come under fire in recent weeks
"His resignation came in the wake of a dispute with a supervisor over the towing of vehicles. The supervisor wanted to impose a three-day suspension for insubordination. Sheriff Nanos appealed that recommended discipline to the Chief, who found in favor of the supervisor."
"Rather than accept a three-day suspension, Sheriff Nanos offered to resign in lieu of discipline. The Chief accepted his offer, and Sheriff Nanos resigned," he continued. The document added that he had not lied about his employment history, and wrote on his resume that he left the job in 1982, despite the Pima County Sheriff's Department website stating that he left in 1984.
Chris' lawyer also acknowledged the disciplinary actions he was subject to at El Paso, including "counselling, reprimands and suspensions". The letter then spoke on the sheriff's previous statement under oath that he had never been suspended as a result of disciplinary action.
The sheriff has lead the Nancy Guthrie investigation since day one
correct that Sheriff Nanos was never suspended during his four decades of decorated and faithful service with the Pima County Sheriff's Department," his lawyer wrote to the Pima County Board of Supervisors.
"However, Sheriff Nanos was suspended more than forty years ago while employed by [the] El Paso Police Department. In the context of his live deposition, Sheriff Nanos did not understand the question related to discipline with a different agency not governed by the Arizona Peace Officers' Bill of Rights."
Social media users quickly shared their distaste for the sheriff after his past in El Paso came to light. "Everyone wants him gone," wrote one X user, while another added that "people are angry". A third chimed in that Chris had "botched this [case] from the start," while a fourth added: "My gut is telling me it was totally mishandled."
Chris faced backlash from social media users
Chris did garner support from some social media users, with one writing: "Wasn't this decades ago? [In my opinion] he is working hard to find Nancy Guthrie," while another added that the focus on his past was "fueling a dishonest narrative" about Chris' competency.
Nancy went missing from her Arizona home in February
The Pima County Sheriff's Department has worked closely with the FBI since Nancy went missing in February. While several suspects have been questioned regarding her disappearance, no arrests have been made, and DNA evidence is still being examined by the authorities.
Nancy, the 84-year-old mother of Today show star Savannah Guthrie, was believed to have been taken by force from her home in Tucson, Arizona, after blood was found on the doorstep, and her personal effects were found inside the house.
5 MINUTES AGO: DONALD TRUMP GETS MORE BAD NEWS... SEE MORE.tr
5 MINUTES AGO: DONALD TRUMP GETS MORE BAD NEWS... SEE MORE.
WASHINGTON, D.C. — July 10, 2026 — President Donald J. Trump found himself back at the center of the global spotlight this week after unveiling a series of major foreign policy moves on the sidelines of the 2026 NATO Summit in Ankara, Turkey, held July 8–9.
The announcements immediately triggered intense media coverage and fierce political debate as the administration rolled out several sweeping strategic decisions that could carry major consequences far beyond Washington.
The growing scrutiny surrounding President Trump reflects the extraordinary pace of developments coming out of the summit, where the White House outlined what officials described as a new phase of America’s international security strategy.
One of the most significant announcements involved Ukraine.
The Trump administration approved a license allowing Ukraine to manufacture Patriot air defense missile systems domestically.
According to administration officials, the move is designed to strengthen Ukraine’s ability to defend itself against continued missile attacks while reducing the need for additional direct U.S. federal spending by shifting more production responsibility to Ukraine under American authorization.
At the same time, the administration announced another major diplomatic shift involving Syria.
The White House formally notified Congress of its intention to remove Syria from the U.S. State Sponsor of Terrorism list.
That decision begins the required 45-day congressional notification period and comes after the 2024 political transition in Damascus.
Administration officials argue that removing Syria from the list could help reopen access to international financial markets, encourage foreign investment, and accelerate the country’s gradual reintegration into the global economy.
Supporters also believe the move could contribute to broader regional stability.
But while Washington was making one diplomatic move, tensions elsewhere in the Middle East were rapidly escalating.
President Trump declared that the interim ceasefire arrangement with Iran was effectively over following Iranian-backed attacks against commercial shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
The response came quickly.
Trump authorized multiple rounds of U.S. military strikes targeting Iranian military facilities and key port infrastructure.
The escalation immediately raised concerns about regional security and drew intense attention from governments, military officials, and foreign policy experts around the world.
Together, the three major developments — Ukraine’s Patriot production authorization, the proposed removal of Syria from the terrorism list, and renewed U.S. military action against Iran — dominated coverage of the NATO summit.
Lawmakers, defense experts, diplomats, and foreign policy analysts have offered sharply divided assessments of what these decisions could mean for America’s national security and the balance of power overseas.
Some view the moves as a demonstration of stronger American deterrence.
Others warn that the rapid series of decisions could produce unpredictable geopolitical consequences in the months ahead.
Administration officials, however, insist the actions are part of President Trump’s broader “Peace Through Strength” foreign policy doctrine.
The White House describes that strategy as one built around military readiness, aggressive deterrence, and expanding American influence through strategic partnerships rather than committing the United States to prolonged direct interventions abroad.
Now, as President Trump returns to Washington following the Ankara summit, attention is beginning to move beyond the announcements themselves.
The bigger question is what happens next.
Officials, lawmakers, U.S. allies, and international observers are now closely watching how these decisions could reshape America’s strategic posture across Europe and the Middle East.
The administration is also preparing for the upcoming Pennsylvania Defense and Innovation Summit, scheduled for July 14–15.
National security, defense manufacturing, military modernization, and emerging technologies are expected to dominate that gathering.
Meanwhile, the political debate in Washington is showing no signs of slowing down.
America’s allies are watching.
Its rivals are watching.
And the decisions announced in Ankara are already emerging as one of the defining foreign policy moments of the administration.
What remains uncertain is how far the consequences will reach — and whether these moves ultimately strengthen America’s global position or trigger an entirely new set of challenges in the months ahead.
