Idaho Group Calls Federal Intervention 'Necessary' To Redraw State Border
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Leaders of a movement to redraw Oregon's state borders so more conservative residents can officially live in Idaho are calling federal intervention "necessary" following years of inaction on behalf of the Democratic-led state Legislature.
Why It Matters
The Greater Idaho Movement has been successful on ballot measures in 13 Oregon counties as of December 2024, with efforts beginning in 2020 to legally redraw state borders to allow current residents in Eastern Oregon to officially become part of Idaho.
Leaders and supporters have been transparent about wanting to promote a "greater Idaho" by adding conservative representation from current Oregon residents. They have also criticized the border line that was established 163 years ago, referring to it as "outdated" and indicative of a current "cultural divide" when juxtaposed with western Oregon.
Demonstrators hold signs in favor of the Greater Idaho Movement in Enterprise, Oregon, on May 12, 2023.
Demonstrators hold signs in favor of the Greater Idaho Movement in Enterprise, Oregon, on May 12, 2023.
ROBYN BECK/AFP via Getty Images
What To Know
State lawmakers from eastern Oregon who sponsored bills this past session to spur a border redrawing "were completely ignored by the Democrat majority in Salem," the Greater Idaho Movement said in a statement on Monday.
"This failure to listen to the people of Eastern Oregon or our elected representatives only reinforces why Eastern Oregon counties need the governance of Idaho, a state far more in line with our values and way of life," the statement says. "After five years of hearing from voters and advocating with legislators to respect voter wishes, it is clear to our organization that Oregon leadership is intent on holding Eastern Oregon counties captive as part of a state we no longer wish to be part of and that federal engagement is necessary to achieve self-determination for the people Eastern Oregon."
Newsweek reached out to the group for comment.
Even with the successful local ballot measures over the years, the longtime Democratic majorities in the Oregon House and Senate have made the group's ultimate intentions to redraw lines and live in Idaho difficult.
Democrats have controlled the Oregon House, Senate and governor's office since 2007. Newsweek reached out to Democratic leadership for comment.
"The failure of the Oregon Legislature to move either of the Greater Idaho bills in this session is an affront to the people of Eastern Oregon, as well as the democratic process in general," the statement adds. "For five years the people of Eastern Oregon have been making their wishes known at the ballot box.
"Those wishes are to have elected leaders investigate letting our counties separate and join Idaho."
In December 2024, following the election of President Donald Trump, Greater Idaho Movement President Mike McCarter, Vice President Sandie Gilson and Executive Director Matt McCaw sent the then-president-elect a letter requesting support from the incoming administration.
In the letter, the group told Trump that "the people here overwhelmingly voted for you," adding: "We humbly ask you for your support in helping Eastern Oregonians achieve what the people have said they want, and that's to join Idaho."
McCaw told Newsweek in 2023 that area voters have been receptive to solving the urban-rural divide, with elections in the eastern portion of Oregon heavily leaning Republican.
"Eastern Oregon is far more similar to Idaho in almost every way than it is to western Oregon," McCaw said at the time. "It doesn't make any sense to be getting the state-level government from the state of Oregon, who feels very differently on almost every issue. It would make far more sense to get that government from Idaho."
Neither the Trump administration nor the president has not commented on the efforts of the Greater Idaho Movement.
What People Are Saying
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, told Newsweek in 2023 that Greater Idaho's efforts are a "dubious siren song" that is unrealistic and contains "multiple fatal flaws beyond its fundamental implausibility," including questions about Oregon landowners' water rights in addition to some Oregonians paying a sales tax in Idaho for the first time in their lives.
Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, said during a town hall in 2023 that "there are a whole set of barriers that would make the process very difficult."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
8 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Republicans, Democrats alike exhort Trump: Keep security pact with Australia and UK alive
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. lawmakers from both parties are urging the Trump administration to maintain a three-way security partnership designed to supply Australia with nuclear-powered submarines — a plea that comes as the Pentagon reviews the agreement and considers the questions it has raised about the American industrial infrastructure's shipbuilding capabilities. Two weeks ago, the Defense Department announced it would review AUKUS, the 4-year-old pact signed by the Biden administration with Australia and the United Kingdom. The announcement means the Republican administration is looking closely at a partnership that many believe is critical to the U.S. strategy to push back China's influence in the Indo-Pacific. The review is expected to be completed in the fall. 'AUKUS is essential to strengthening deterrence in the Indo-Pacific and advancing the undersea capabilities that will be central to ensuring peace and stability," Republican Rep. John Moolenaar of Michigan and Democratic Rep. Raja Krishnamoorthi of Illinois wrote in a July 22 letter to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth. Moolenaar chairs the House panel on China and Krishnamoorthi is its top Democrat. The review comes as the Trump administration works to rebalance its global security concerns while struggling with a hollowed-out industrial base that has hamstrung U.S. capabilities to build enough warships. The review is being led by Elbridge Colby, the No. 3 Pentagon official, who has expressed skepticism about the partnership. 'If we can produce the attack submarines in sufficient number and sufficient speed, then great. But if we can't, that becomes a very difficult problem," Colby said during his confirmation hearing in March. 'This is getting back to restoring our defense industrial capacity so that we don't have to face these awful choices but rather can be in a position where we can produce not only for ourselves, but for our allies." US cannot build enough ships As part of the $269 billion AUKUS partnership, the United States will sell three to five Virginia-class nuclear-powered submarines to Australia, with the first delivery scheduled as soon as 2032. The U.S. and the U.K. would help Australia design and build another three to five attack submarines to form an eight-boat force for Australia. A March report by the Congressional Research Service warned that the lack of U.S. shipbuilding capacities, including workforce shortage and insufficient supply chains, is jeopardizing the much-celebrated partnership. If the U.S. should sell the vessels to Australia, the U.S. Navy would have a shortage of attack submarines for two decades, the report said. The Navy has been ordering two boats per year in the last decade, but U.S. shipyards have been only producing 1.2 Virginia-class subs a year since 2022, the report said. 'The delivery pace is not where it needs to be" to make good on the first pillar of AUKUS, Admiral Daryl Caudle, nominee for the Chief of Naval Operations, told the Senate Armed Services Committee last month. Australia has invested $1 billion in the U.S. submarine industrial base, with another $1 billion to be paid before the end of this year. It has agreed to contribute a total of $3 billion to uplift the U.S. submarine base, and it has sent both industry personnel to train at U.S. shipyards and naval personnel for submarine training in the United States. "Australia was clear that we would make a proportionate contribution to the United States industrial base,' an Australian defense spokesperson said in July. 'Australia's contribution is about accelerating U.S. production rates and maintenance to enable the delivery of Australia's future Virginia-class submarines.' The three nations have also jointly tested communication capabilities with underwater autonomous systems, Australia's defense ministry said on July 23. Per the partnership, the countries will co-develop other advanced technologies, from undersea to hypersonic capabilities. At the recent Aspen Security Forum, Kevin Rudd, the Australian ambassador to the United States, said his country is committed to increasing defense spending to support its first nuclear-powered sub program, which would also provide 'massively expensive full maintenance repair facilities" for the U.S. Indo-Pacific fleet based in Western Australia. Rudd expressed confidence that the two governments 'will work our way through this stuff.' AUKUS called 'crucial to American deterrence' Bruce Jones, senior fellow with the Strobe Talbott Center for Security, Strategy and Technology, told The Associated Press that the partnership, by positioning subs in Western Australia, is helping arm the undersea space that is 'really crucial to American deterrence and defense options in the Western Pacific.' 'The right answer is not to be content with the current pace of submarine building. It's to increase the pace," Jones said. Jennifer Parker, who has served more than 20 years with the Royal Australian Navy and founded Barrier Strategic Advisory, said it should not be a zero-sum game. 'You might sell one submarine to Australia, so you have one less submarine on paper. But in terms of the access, you have the theater of choice from operating from Australia, from being able to maintain your submarines from Australia," Parker said. 'This is not a deal that just benefits Australia." Defense policy is one of the few areas where Republican lawmakers have pushed back against the Trump administration, but their resolve is being tested with the Pentagon's review of AUKUS. So far, they have joined their Democratic colleagues in voicing support for the partnership. They said the U.S. submarine industry is rebounding with congressional appropriations totaling $10 billion since 2018 to ensure the U.S. will have enough ships to allow for sales to Australia. "There is a little bit of mystification about the analysis done at the Pentagon,' Kaine said, adding that 'maybe (what) the analysis will say is: We believe this is a good thing.'
San Francisco Chronicle
8 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Can San Francisco avoid Trump's ire after National Guard deployments in D.C. and L.A.?
Once again, President Donald Trump has brought his campaign of retribution against liberal jurisdictions to the streets of a major American city, ordering hundreds of National Guard troops to deploy to another Democratic stronghold. And once again, the city in question is not San Francisco, a past Trump target that has so far avoided the kind of direct clash with his administration that previously played out in Los Angeles and is now unfolding in Washington. Trump announced Monday that he was temporarily placing the D.C. police department under federal control and sending 800 National Guard troops to the nation's capital. Those extraordinary steps were necessary because of 'violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals' that have overrun the city, Trump said, even though official statistics show violent crime in Washington is down. The president put other cities on notice, warning that New York, Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland could also see National Guard deployments over crime concerns. He did not mention San Francisco, a famously liberal sanctuary city that was panned by Trump last year as 'not even livable.' It's not as if San Francisco is flying under Trump's radar entirely. He has promoted the unlikely idea of reopening Alcatraz as a federal prison, and immigration agents have detained people in the city as they've sought to carry out Trump's mass deportation plans. San Francisco has also repeatedly fought Trump administration policies in court. But when it comes to Trump sending military forces to what he views as lawless cities led astray by Democratic politicians, San Francisco and its mayor, Daniel Lurie, do not appear to be top of mind for the president — at least not for now. Some political observers say that's a testament to how well Lurie and other moderate Democrats are running the city, while others warn that Trump could easily turn his ire on the city at a moment's notice. Jay Cheng, executive director of the moderate political group Neighbors for a Better San Francisco, sees political vindication in the fact that Trump didn't invoke San Francisco when he previously sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles or when he announced the actions in Washington on Monday. Cheng said San Francisco voters have shown in electing Lurie, District Attorney Brooke Jenkins and a moderate Board of Supervisors majority that they're focused on improving police staffing, reducing crime, shutting down drug markets and making the city function more efficiently. 'In San Francisco, we're showing that Democratic leaders can successfully govern a city,' Cheng said. 'He's not mentioning us because we're not a good example for his narrative, because we have Democrats that are doing a great job around public safety.' State Sen. Scott Wiener, D-San Francisco, had a more blunt assessment of Trump's treatment of New York, Chicago, Baltimore, Oakland and Washington. All of those cities have Black mayors and large Black populations, Wiener noted, calling it 'straight up Donald Trump's alley and straight out of his racist playbook.' Wiener doubted that Trump was taking note of any specific political changes in San Francisco when thinking about where he wanted to send the National Guard. 'Donald Trump has taken many swings at San Francisco over the years — just ask Nancy Pelosi,' Wiener said. 'The other thing is, when it comes to Trump, the eye of Sauron is going to look wherever it's going to look,' Wiener said. 'If he's going after Oakland, Baltimore, Chicago, New York and L.A. today, he's going to go after other cities tomorrow.' Since he became San Francisco mayor in January, Lurie has carefully avoided even uttering Trump's name in public in an attempt to avoid drawing too much attention from a vengeful president with a reputation for being unpredictable. He's seen little evidence that his approach is unpopular: In fact, 50% of respondents in a recent Chronicle poll said the mayor was right to prioritize local issues. Lurie's office had no comment Monday. Former Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf said Monday that she has 'great compassion for the mayors who are struggling with the right thing to do in Trump's second term,' pointing to the decisive conservative control of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Republican majorities in both chambers of Congress. Schaff had a widely-publicized clash with Trump during his first term in 2018, when she as Oakland mayor issued a public warning about an imminent immigration sweep. Trump called her action a 'disgrace' and urged his attorney general to consider prosecuting Schaaf. In direct response to Schaaf, a Republican Congressman introduced unsuccessful legislation that would have imposed criminal penalties — and possible jailtime — against local officials who made similar disclosures. Schaaf said she thinks it's 'wise' for mayors to focus on what they were elected to do, unless they find themselves directly in the crosshairs of the White House, which is the situation that she thinks she faced in Oakland seven years ago. 'I really did not want to be sucked into a national debate when I was elected to run the city, to keep people safe,' Schaaf said. 'It doesn't surprise me that Mayor Lurie is focused on what he was elected to do and not allowing himself to be distracted, because Trump hasn't called out San Francisco in this way.' Barbara Lee, Oakland's current mayor, responded Monday to Trump's comments about her city by calling them inaccurate and 'an attempt to score cheap political points by tearing down communities he doesn't understand.' Schaaf told the Chronicle that she has 'a lot of respect and faith' that Lee will 'do what is right for her values and the values of Oakland.' And while Trump isn't talking much about San Francisco now, that could change under the wrong circumstances, said Jeff Cretan, who was a spokesperson for former Mayor London Breed. A high-profile violent incident during an immigration action or protest in San Francisco could quickly result in Trump setting his sights on the city, Cretan said. 'I don't want to see something horrible happen, but that could change things,' he said. 'Sometimes those moments are what galvanize people … Those bigger, symbolic things that resonate with people more often are what draw a lot of the attention.' Lurie has clearly indicated his desire to avoid such a scenario. In June, after Trump first sent National Guard troops to Los Angeles, a reporter asked Lurie if he anticipated something similar happening in San Francisco, where protests had already erupted. Lurie said he was focused on 'keeping San Franciscans safe.' 'We have this under control,' he said.
NBC News
9 minutes ago
- NBC News
Legality of Trump's deployment of National Guard in L.A. is argued in federal court
Just hours after President Donald Trump said he would deploy the National Guard to Washington, D.C., a federal judge in San Francisco heard arguments Monday about whether the administration violated federal law when it mobilized troops to Los Angeles this summer. California is asking U.S. District Court Judge Charles Breyer to order the Trump administration to return control of the remaining troops to Gov. Gavin Newsom and to stop using the military 'to execute or assist in the execution of federal law.' The federal government is arguing that the deployment of the National Guard and Marines was solely to support immigration officials, who were impeded by large-scale protests across the city in early June. In response, the Department of Defense ordered some 4,000 California National Guard members and 700 Marines to Los Angeles as thousands of immigration activists and supporters marched in the streets and outside federal buildings to show their opposition to Trump's mass deportation effort. Trump characterized the demonstrators as violent mobs, but Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom maintained that local law enforcement was equipped to handle the protests. Trump said the troops would protect federal personnel and property and would not engage in law enforcement activities. About 250 National Guard members remain on duty in Los Angeles, according to the Pentagon. The state sued the Trump administration for what it called an unwarranted deployment and won an early victory from Breyer, who found the federal government had violated the Tenth Amendment clarifying the balance of power between federal and state governments. The Trump administration appealed the decision, arguing that courts cannot second-guess the president's orders. The U.S. Department of Justice secured a temporary halt to Breyer's ruling, which allowed control of the California National Guard to remain with Trump. Central to the trial is the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the president from using the military as a domestic police force. The case, which is expected to continue through Wednesday, could set a precedent for how the Trump administration handles future deployments of federal troops in D.C, Baltimore and other cities led by Democratic mayors. 'The factual question, which the court must address, is whether the military was used to enforce domestic law, and if so, whether there continues to be a threat that will be done again,' Breyer told the court. Three witnesses testified, starting with William Harrington, the former deputy chief of staff for the Army task force overseeing the Los Angeles operation. Harrington, who did not participate in or witness field work, said he raised concerns about the Posse Comitatus Act on June 7 during a task force briefing before federal forces arrived in Los Angeles. During questioning by state Deputy Attorney General Jane Reilley, Harrington said he worried that if the California National Guard was deployed, it would lose law enforcement authority because of the statute and be reduced to a supportive role. That was the case when federal forces accompanied immigration agents to separate operations at Los Angeles' MacArthur Park and a cannabis cultivation center in Camarillo, north of L.A., Harrington said. 'They were asked to provide force protection for the agents while they were performing their federal functions,' he said under cross examination. 'The soldiers actually did not engage in any activity.' Prior to deploying at MacArthur Park on July 7, when federal officers and National Guard troops fanned out across the mostly empty space, Harrington received an intelligence report that did 'not indicate a high-value target or threat to federal functions at this location,' he said. Still, some 90 Guard members were among the forces seen plodding through the popular park where children with a day camp played. 'What I saw in the park today looked like a city under siege, under armed occupation,' Bass said at the time. Army Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, commander of the Los Angeles task force, conceded in court that federal forces have outnumbered local police officers on some occasions. During an immigration enforcement action in Mecca, a desert community about 142 miles east of Los Angeles, approximately 300 task force soldiers were present, compared to 200 federal law enforcement agents, Sherman said. Breyer appeared to bristle on multiple occasions, at one point arguing with both Sherman and DOJ attorneys about whether federal forces can intervene any time people protest a law they dislike. 'What about tax law?' he asked Sherman. 'We've never had a situation like that, your Honor,' Sherman replied. 'I'm trying to figure out really what boundaries are established,' by law, Breyer tersely responded. Ernesto Santacruz Jr., field office director for the Department of Homeland Security in Los Angeles, testified that federal intervention was necessary because local law enforcement was slow to respond when a crowd of some 1,500 demonstrators gathered outside the federal building on June 6 to protest immigration arrests. The unruly crowds made it difficult for his agents to do their work, including entering the federal building where detained immigrants are held, he said. 'We had to pivot, and we had to pretty much condense teams to have a larger footprint,' Santacruz said in court. 'That impacted our ability to conduct our missions.' Lawyers with the DOJ asked Breyer for a quick judgement at the end of the day, arguing that the state had failed to make its case. Trial resumes Tuesday morning.
