A Utah legislator just introduced a bill that would put a state ban on the controversial — and somewhat obscure — drug kratom. If passed, Utah would join at least seven other states in banning its sale altogether, making the law stricter than federal government regulations.

Kratom derives from a tropical tree in Southeast Asia. Depending on dosage, it can have either sedative or stimulating effects. The kratom leaf contains two major psychoactive ingredients, mitragynine and 7-hydroxymitragynine, the latter better known as 7-OH.

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved the drug for any type of medical use and the Justice Department’s Drug Enforcement Agency has identified it as a “drug and chemical of concern.”

At the heart of the kratom debate is a core disagreement: Is kratom itself the problem, or are look-alike synthetic kratom products being sold in stores to blame?

The Trump administration’s focus is on synthetic products. In a recent press conference, FDA Commissioner Marty Makary said the administration believes “it’s a night and day (difference) in terms of the public health risk” between natural and synthetic kratom.

The sponsor of Utah’s new bill, Sen. Mike McKell, R-Spanish Fork, sees kratom in all forms as a dangerous opioid masquerading as a supplement. He doesn’t differentiate between natural kratom products and what might be synthetic/manipulated compounds.

The American Kratom Association disagrees, insisting to the Deseret News that science supports regulation — not prohibition — and that synthetic kratom-like substances, like 7-OH, are the problem, not natural kratom.

7-OH occurs naturally in the plant, but many products on the shelves that are labeled as kratom have chemically altered 7-OH or are extracted to be far stronger than what the plant produces on its own.

Mac Haddow, senior fellow on public policy for the American Kratom Associationa, said McKell is lumping together natural kratom with synthetic 7-OH, and that Utah already has in place a law that “has become the model around the country.”

He’s referring to the Kratom Consumer Protection Act, which established penalties for not following specific labeling and selling requirements of the drug, etc. McKell said he voted for the protection act in 2019 and now regrets it.

“We’re for banning 7-OH and other synthetically derived compounds from 7-OH called pseudondoxal and MGM 15,” Haddow said. “That’s what his bill should do … and I think that’s what he wants to do, is to protect the public.”

But rather than regulating the drug, McKell said, banning is the only appropriate course of action to protect lives. Haddow said the American Kratom Association is willing to work with McKell on the bill; McKell said that won’t be happening,

“I want to make clear, my goal is to protect the public, not kratom,” he said. “And I think it needs to be clear that there are hundreds of thousands of dollars flowing to the people pedaling kratom in this state and other states.”

“I think the industry is abused,” and “these products are becoming far more dangerous,” McKell said. “Kratom is harming people.”

He shared data gathered from the Utah Department of Health and Human Services that was viewed by the Deseret News, showing kratom was involved in 152 overdose deaths from 2020 to 2025, and increased by 43% from 2021 to 2025. The Mayo Clinic has noted that a kratom drug overdose is possible, but it is rare. And the FDA has said that in these cases, “kratom was usually used in combination with other drugs, and the contribution of kratom in the deaths is unclear.”

The Deseret News recently did a deep dive investigation into the drug, speaking to health care professionals and addiction specialists, lobbyists for the drug and victims of its addictive nature, which gave it its infamous nickname, “gas station heroin.”

Why McKell believes a ban is necessary

During his investigation, McKell said one of his greatest concerns is how easily obtainable kratom and kratom-containing products are. Products can be found in gas stations, convenience stores, smoke shops and even grocery stores.

McKell said he went to 15 different locations and asked for their most popular kratom product and had nine samples tested at the state lab, where the results showed the 7-OH levels were all within the legal limit.

“The reality is they are extracting the plant form of kratom, and they are making the plant form of kratom, the mitragynine, way more potent,” he said. He argues that “the kratom plant itself is harmful, and people are getting addicted to it.

McKell noted that it doesn’t shock him when he hears a story of someone who started taking natural kratom and it solved all their pain problems. “It doesn’t surprise me that somebody who is using opioids is able to replace one opioid with another? What’s happening is, you do have people that have been able to replace the opioid they’re currently using, and replace it with kratom. … because kratom is just like an opioid.”

Though it isn’t classified as one, kratom has been shown in studies to “produce opioid- and stimulant-like effects,” per the National Institute on Drug Abuse. “People report using kratom to manage drug withdrawal symptoms and cravings (especially related to opioid use), pain, fatigue and mental health problems,” but studies have found that users can become addicted to it and experience withdrawals when trying to quit.

McKell said one of his constituents admitted to consuming eight to 10 of the two-pack “heavily extracted” kratom pill options that he said cost around $20 each at the gas station.

On top of the financial hardship the addiction causes, McKell was blown away by the accessibility. The U.S. regulates opioids — “We run it through a pain clinic, we run it through your physician, we run it through a pharmacy, and we’ve got strong drugs sitting there at the gas station. … I don’t think there’s a (valid) argument we should sell opioids in gas stations where it’s readily available to public,” where it is also known to attract more vulnerable populations, he said.

SALT LAKE CITY — Melissa Holyoak has been appointed by the U.S. Department of Justice as the interim U.S. attorney for the District of Utah.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi appointed Holyoak to the position on Monday.

The previous U.S. attorney for Utah, Felice John Viti, was the acting U.S. attorney under the Vacancies Reform Act. He moved into the position after Trina A. Higgins resigned. Viti will now return to his role as the first assistant U.S. attorney, according to the attorney’s office.

As U.S. attorney, Holyoak will be Utah’s top federal law enforcement officer for the district of Utah. She will prosecute federal crimes, and defend the United States in civil lawsuits within that district.

Holyoak previously served Utah as solicitor general with the Utah Attorney General’s Office, Bondi’s office said in an email. She oversaw civil and criminal appeals, constitutional defense, as well as antitrust and data privacy divisions among others.

According to a profile that ran Monday in the Deseret News, Holyoak is a “conservative who values the state’s role in a system that shares sovereignty with the federal government.”

Most recently, Holyoak served as a commissioner of the Federal Trade Commission.

“Melissa is a woman of keen judgement, deep integrity, and unfailing commitment to the rule of law,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “… She will be sorely missed at the FTC. But our loss is Utah’s great gain.”

Holyoak graduated from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 2003. She is married and has four children.

She is a member of the Utah, Washington D.C. and Missouri bars.

Contributing: Mary Culbertson, KSL

How federal law enforcement is working with ICE in Utah and beyond

SALT LAKE CITY (KUTV) — Three high-profile death penalty cases are costing Utah County taxpayers millions of dollars, and records show the financial burden could have been reduced if the county had been accepted into a state fund designed to help pay those legal bills.

“We’re going to approve over $1 million today in expenses for an event that we didn’t want,” one Utah County commissioner said in a recent public meeting. “None of us wanted, and it happened to be here, and our taxpayers will now foot the bill.”

The most recent case involves Tyler Robinson, accused of shooting and killing Charlie Kirk earlier this year. So far, more than $1 million has been approved to cover the cost of prosecuting and defending Robinson.

But Robinson’s isn’t the only case draining county resources. Utah County is also footing the bill to defend Michael Jayne, accused of killing Sgt. Bill Hooser in 2024, and to retry Douglas Carter, charged with murdering a woman in Provo back in 1985.

“These types of cases are among the most expensive a county can face,” said Skye Lazaro, a criminal defense attorney. “They cost multiple times more than a regular prosecution and defense of a non-capital case.”

Lazaro explained that death penalty cases require highly specialized Rule 8-qualified attorneys, along with more experts, more investigations, and extra legal safeguards. Contract records obtained through a GRAMA request show just how quickly those costs add up. For Carter’s case, defense attorneys are capped at $200,000, with another $140,000 available for investigators and specialists. Jayne’s defense carries a similar price tag.

“The $200,000 is just for billable attorney hours,” Lazaro said. “Then you have to add all the additional expenses, and that’s in both agreements.”

So why didn’t Utah County seek help from the state’s Indigent Aggravated Murder Defense Fund, a resource already used by more than 20 of Utah’s 29 counties? According to Utah County Commissioner Amelia Powers Gardner, they tried to. Gardner, who described the fund like an insurance pool for counties, said the county commission saw the need and applied in June 2024, but the application went nowhere.

“When we submitted our application, it was just never accepted,” she said. According to Gardner, someone outside of Utah County gave incorrect information to the state Indigent Defense Commission, claiming the county had nine pending capital cases, when there were only four.

“They were told that letting Utah County join would bankrupt their fund,” she said. “The arguments against us were misrepresented, and we never got a chance to clarify them.”

But the fund’s executive director, Matthew Barraza, disputed that version of events. In a written statement, he said the application was never rejected. They were simply waiting on Utah County to respond to follow-up questions. “There was never any official decision, as we were waiting for their response,” Barraza wrote.

Had the county joined, the cost would have been substantial up front. About $1 million to cover its share for the previous two years and 2024, with an estimated $350,000 annual contribution after that.

Gardner said the county had already budgeted for it. “We had set aside the million dollars to pay into that pool,” she said. “But we ended up having to use that money to hire counsel to represent those cases.”

Looking at the costs to join the fund and the budgets of the cases, it appears Utah County taxpayers would have saved a significant amount of money had the county joined the fund in 2024. Something Lazaro confirmed, adding, “If these three cases go to trial through a penalty phase where the death penalty is elected, I think we can be reasonably certain that we would exceed those numbers.

_____