Dear congressional delegation, here's what we learned from 11 in-person town halls throughout Idaho
An Open Letter to Idaho's Congressional Delegation:
Beginning Feb. 28 and concluding May 3, we held 11 in-person town hall meetings throughout Idaho — Pocatello, Idaho Falls, Nampa (2), Boise (2), McCall, Lewiston, Moscow, Post Falls, Boise, Twin Falls — to listen to all Idahoans concerned about the chaotic and centralized agenda of President Donald Trump and Elon Musk.
At their core, our statewide meetings amounted to a democracy tour that centered on the foundation of the U.S. Constitution and the duty of elected officials to honor their sacred oaths of office. Deep concerns over the rule of law and due process were repeatedly expressed. We heard distinct fear over exploding executive authority and waning influence from Congress. In fact, concerns over possible implementation of martial law were shared as President Trump expands power in defiance of the courts and Congress.
Attendees repeatedly asked whether the use of the Alien Enemies Act was lawful. Town hall participants queried us about the growing number of constitutional questions before the courts. We were repeatedly asked whether America was in a constitutional crisis. We both affirmed a looming crisis.
Your avoidance of Idahoans has resulted in your further isolation from the common sense and pragmatism of Idahoans.
During our town halls, Elon Musk shared news cycles with President Trump grotesquely demonstrating how $290 million in 2024 campaign contributions can corrupt our elections and buy a seat adjacent to the Resolute Desk. Idahoans expressed shock at how an unelected billionaire took a chainsaw rather than a scalpel to our government.
You would have received an earful on the Musk team's hacking of our most personal data. Idahoans believe they must rely solely on the judiciary to protect citizens' rights under the Constitution while Congress stands complicit. Our neighbors clearly know the proper bounds of executive power and the constitutional role of checks and balances by Congress in preventing authoritarians from hijacking our democracy. What is unclear are your views on these important subjects.
If you had accompanied us, you would have heard a great deal of anger and frustration over the shock and awe emanating daily from the White House. They voiced serious disdain for the performative executive orders, rambling press statements, revenge-based ad hominem attacks on opponents, sycophantic fawning from cabinet members and daily violations of due process. We heard all of this from your constituents.
Idahoans are not fooled by the White House gaslighting strategy of quickly diverting Americans' attention from one shiny object to another. It seems like ancient history when you remained silent as 1,600 January 6 insurrectionists were pardoned after rioters disrupted the peaceful transfer of power by violating our Capitol and your offices. You meekly stand by as President Trump upends our 80-year-old international alliances through bullying and belittling. Idahoans don't understand why ALL CAPS intemperance has replaced diplomacy.
Town hall attendees expressed concern that MAGA ideologues and tech-capitalists are gunning for our public lands, thereby restricting our ability to hunt, recreate, graze, hike and cherish our magnificent resources. Current and retired public land managers spoke passionately about their love of country and pride in their special knowledge so important to protecting our natural resources.
Concern by rural Idahoans were shared with us. Cuts to Medicaid could cause closures of rural hospitals despite an ballot initiative approved by 61% of Idahoans to expand Medicaid.
The lack of clarity on tariff policies is causing chaos among farmers who rely on exports. Similarly, Idaho small businesses appear to be collateral damage on the mis-handled tariff rollouts.
The dairy industry is waiting for the next shoe to drop on immigration. Rural school districts are threatened by vouchers prioritizing urban private schools. An end run on clear water standards can threaten anadromous fish runs. Sources of objective news for rural Idaho through the Public Broadcasting System are headed to the chopping block, creating larger news deserts.
Idahoans stated concerns about dark money in the political system. They equate your silence with dollar-fueled intimidation and raised the Citizens United decision on many occasions. Billionaire cabinet members have been confirmed who appear to be ideologically selected and driven primarily by personal loyalty rather than to the Constitution. Idaho has a strong record on human rights that could be displaced with DEI conspiracy theories and anti-woke messaging. Misinformation is rampant.
Clearly, town hall participants were upset with Democrats and Republicans alike for allowing President Trump to shatter norms, challenge constitutional safeguards, defy court decisions, govern by executive orders, upend decades-old alliances, prioritize loyalty as a primary qualification for public service, attack institutions based on revenge, lie and dissemble daily, and put our economy and retirement security at risk through chaotic tariff gambles.
Overall, our town halls were centered on protecting our democracy, rule of law and constitution. We listened. We learned. We were inspired by the patriotism and civic concern of our fellow Idahoans who approached the microphones to speak on issues big and small. In each town hall there was a deep commitment to find common purpose to protect our precious democracy now under attack.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Gizmodo
9 minutes ago
- Gizmodo
Elon Musk Keeps Suggesting War Is a Good Thing for Society
Elon Musk is both the wealthiest person in the world and a major contractor for the U.S. military as the head of SpaceX. When the billionaire talks about war and its potential consequences, we need to listen, whether we like it or not. But if you've been paying attention to what Musk has been saying about the positive aspects of war in recent months, you're probably hearing things that make you nervous. 'Throughout history, any civilization that experiences extended periods of prosperity with no serious threat of invasion has low birth rates after a few generations,' Musk wrote on X Monday. 'One can debate the cause, but not the correlation. The Romans lamented this constantly.' It's no secret that Musk is obsessed with the Roman Empire. But he seems to really be fixated on the supposed causes of its fall, using those claims to rationalize his own right-wing worldview in 2025. Musk believes the world is in danger of collapsing because people aren't having enough kids. Well, to be more precise, he's worried wealthy people from Western countries aren't having enough kids. Musk also seems to suggest that peace is bad for a country's growth with his tweet on Monday. He was more explicit about his idea that war might be good a couple of months ago. Musk gave an interview to Bloomberg News back in May, appearing remotely via video link for the Qatar Economic Forum in Doha. 'When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no cleansing function for unnecessary laws and regulations,' Musk said. 'When you have an extended period of prosperity with no existential war, there's no cleansing function for unnecessary laws and regulations.' Not exactly something you want to hear from one of the most powerful men in the country who also happens to be a defense contractor. [image or embed] — Matt Novak (@ May 20, 2025 at 2:14 PMThe interview was one of the most unhinged that Musk gave during his time as the head of DOGE, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency. The billionaire called the woman who was interviewing him an NPC or non-playable character, and threatened anyone who was coming after him with prison time. Things have changed, obviously, as Musk had a falling out with President Trump and is no longer officially part of the U.S. federal government. He theoretically can't go knock on the door at DOJ and tell Pam Bondi to start arresting people anymore. But that doesn't mean he lost all his influence, as the billionaire still holds tremendous power as a defense contractor. And that's what makes his outlook on war so frightening. If Musk thinks that war can be good or have a 'cleansing function,' it certainly incentivizes people like him to push for more violence around the world. And the SpaceX CEO's motives are typically pretty transparent. The Washington Post conducted an analysis that concluded Musk's companies have gotten at least $38 billion in contracts, loans, subsidies, and tax credits from the U.S. government over the past two decades. When the U.S. military and intelligence agencies launch more satellites, Musk's companies benefit. And his personal wealth owes a lot to government handouts. Not a single dollar was stripped from Musk's companies during his great ransacking of the federal government with DOGE, according to the news outlet NOTUS. But Tesla did lose out on an electric vehicle tax credit with the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' the issue that seemed to really divide Musk and Trump. Musk insisted he didn't care about the tax credit, but Trump repeatedly said it was the reason Musk was upset with him. Musk and Trump have an uneasy relationship, especially after the Tesla CEO accused Trump of being in the Epstein files. But Musk still can influence policy, as was demonstrated when Trump threatened to cut off funding to his companies, but reporting from the Wall Street Journal noted SpaceX was just too vital to discard. And as long as Musk is considered crucial to the functioning of the U.S. military, we should probably pay attention to the things he says about war. Especially when he's making claims that it's good for any given society.
Chicago Tribune
9 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Government shutdown talk is starting early ahead of a difficult funding fight in Congress this fall
WASHINGTON — It's become tradition. Congressional leaders from both major political parties blame each other for a potential government shutdown as the budget year draws to a close. But this year, the posturing is starting extraordinarily early. The finger-pointing with more than two months to go in the fiscal year indicates the threat of a stoppage is more serious than usual as a Republican-controlled Congress seeks to make good on its policy priorities, often with no support from the other political party. Democratic leadership from both chambers and the two panels responsible for drafting spending bills met behind closed doors recently to discuss the strategy ahead. The leaders emerged demanding that Republicans work with them but were careful to avoid spelling out red lines if Republicans don't. 'We are for a bipartisan, bicameral bill. That's what always has been done,' said Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. 'The onus is on the Republicans to help us make that happen.' On the Republican side, lawmakers describe the Democrats as itching for a shutdown. Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Schumer had threatened a shutdown should Republicans pass a bill to roll back $9 billion in public broadcasting and foreign aid funds. Republicans subsequently passed those cuts. 'It was disturbing to see the Democratic leader implicitly threatening to shut down the government in his July 'Dear Colleague' letter, but I'm hopeful that he does not represent the views of Senate Democrats as a whole,' Thune said. The federal government is operating on a full-year continuing resolution that provided about $1.7 trillion in spending for defense and non-defense programs. The funding expires Sept. 30. President Donald Trump requested a comparable amount for the coming fiscal year, but the Republican proposed dramatically overhauling how that money is distributed to include more for defense and border security and significantly less for health, education, housing and foreign assistance. So far, the House has approved two of the 12 annual spending bills. The Senate has yet to approve any, but those bills that have advanced out of the Senate Appropriations Committee are enjoying bipartisan support while the House bills are generally advancing out of committee on party line votes. This week, the Senate is expected to consider the appropriations bill to fund military construction projects and the Department of Veterans Affairs, generally one of the easier spending bills to pass. One or two others could get added to the package. Congress got off to a late start on the funding process. Republicans prioritized Trump's tax and spending cut bill. Most lawmakers agree Congress will need to pass a stop-gap measure before Sept. 30 to avoid a shutdown and allow lawmakers more time to work on the full-year spending measures. Democrats overwhelmingly opposed this year's funding bill that expires in two months. But in the end, Schumer and nine Democratic colleagues decided a government shutdown would be even worse. They voted to allow the bill to proceed and overcome a filibuster, giving Republicans the ability to pass it on their own on a final vote. Schumer took considerable heat from progressives for his strategy. House Democratic leadership issued a statement at the time saying 'House Democrats will not be complicit.' And members of his own caucus publicly expressed disagreement. 'If we pass this continuing resolution for the next half year, we will own what the president does,' said Sen. Adam Schiff, D-Calif. 'I am not willing to take ownership of that.' Some liberal groups threatened to hold protests at various events Schumer was planning to promote a new book, and some of those events ended up being postponed due to security concerns. The Democratic frustrations have only grown stronger in the ensuing months. First, the Democrats watched the Trump administration slow-walk or block hundreds of billions of dollars from going out in part through the work of its Department of Government Efficiency. Then they watched as Republicans passed Trump's big tax and spending cut bill without any Democratic votes. Finally, they watched as Republicans this month canceled $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds when much of it had been previously agreed to on a bipartisan basis. Meanwhile, Trump's director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russ Vought, declared that the appropriations process 'has to be less bipartisan.' Democrats complain that much of the work taking place in the House has been a waste of time, since those partisan bills have no chance of getting 60 votes in the 100-member Senate. 'At this point in time, why have appropriations if they can just unilaterally through rescissions whack it all away?' said Rep. Mike Quigley, D-Ill. 'I think what you're seeing is more frustration than I've ever witnessed.' Republicans control all the levers of power in Washington. That could make it harder to blame Democrats for a shutdown. But in the end, any bill will need some Democratic support to get the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster. 'Our concern is that from their standpoint, they want to have a shutdown,' Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said of Democrats. '… The Democrats see it as a way to derail the agenda that we're putting through.' Sen. John Barrasso, the No. 2-ranked Republican in the Senate, said Republicans were determined to hold votes on the 12 spending bills. He said that Schumer 'had unilaterally shut down the appropriations process' in previous years by not holding such votes, moving instead to negotiate directly with GOP leadership in the House and then-President Joe Biden's Democratic administration on an all-encompassing spending package. 'If Democrats walk away from this process again, simply to protect wasteful Washington spending,' Barrasso said, 'they will be the ones sabotaging the Senate and shutting down the government.'
The Hill
9 minutes ago
- The Hill
With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law
When President Donald Trump rolled out a plan to boost artificial intelligence and data centers, a key goal was wiping away barriers to rapid growth. And that meant taking aim at the National Environmental Policy Act — a 55-year-old, bedrock law aimed at protecting the environment though a process that requires agencies to consider a project's possible impacts and allows the public to be heard before a project is approved. Data centers, demanding vast amounts of energy and water, have aroused strong opposition in some communities. The AI Action Plan Trump announced last week would seek to sweep aside NEPA, as it's commonly known, to streamline environmental reviews and permitting for data centers and related infrastructure. Republicans and business interests have long criticized NEPA for what they see as unreasonable slowing of development, and Trump's plan would give 'categorical exclusions' to data centers for 'maximum efficiency' in permitting. A spokeswoman for the White House Council on Environmental Quality said the administration is 'focused on driving meaningful NEPA reform to reduce the delays in federal permitting, unleashing the ability for America to strengthen its AI and manufacturing leadership.' Trump's administration has been weakening the law for months. 'It's par for the course for this administration. The attitude is to clear the way for projects that harm communities and the environment,' said Erin Doran, senior staff attorney at environmental nonprofit Food & Water Watch. Here's what to know about this key environmental law, and Trump's effort to weaken it: What is NEPA and why does it matter? NEPA is a foundational environmental law in the United States, 'essentially our Magna Carta for the environment,' said Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, another environmental group, referring to the 13th century English legal text that formed the basis for constitutions worldwide. Signed into law by President Richard Nixon in 1970, NEPA requires federal agencies proposing actions such as building roads, bridges or energy projects to study how their project will affect the environment. Private companies are also frequently subject to NEPA standards when they apply for a permit from a federal agency. In recent years, the law has become increasingly important in requiring consideration of a project's possible contributions to climate change. 'That's a really important function because otherwise we're just operating with blinders just to get the project done, without considering whether there are alternative solutions that might accomplish the same objective, but in a more environmentally friendly way,' Park said. But business groups say NEPA routinely blocks important projects that often taken five years or more to complete. 'Our broken permitting system has long been a national embarrassment,' said Marty Durbin, president of the U.S. Chamber's Global Energy Institute. He called NEPA 'a blunt and haphazard tool' that too often is used to block investment and economic development. The White House proposal comes as Congress is working on a permitting reform plan that would overhaul NEPA, addressing long-standing concerns from both parties that development projects — including some for clean energy — take too long to be approved. What's happened to NEPA recently? NEPA's strength — and usefulness — can depend on how it's interpreted by different administrations. Trump, a Republican, sought to weaken NEPA in his first term by limiting when environmental reviews are required and limiting the time for evaluation and public comment. Former Democratic President Joe Biden restored more rigorous reviews. In his second term, Trump has again targeted the law. An executive order that touched on environmental statutes has many agencies scrapping the requirement for a draft environmental impact statement. And the CEQ in May withdrew Biden-era guidance that federal agencies should consider the effects of planet-warming greenhouse gas emissions when conducting NEPA reviews. Separately, the U.S. Supreme Court in May narrowed the scope of environmental reviews required for major infrastructure projects. In a ruling involving a Utah railway expansion project aimed at quadrupling oil production, the court said NEPA wasn't designed 'for judges to hamstring new infrastructure and construction projects.' 'It's been a rough eight months for NEPA,' said Dinah Bear, a former general counsel at the Council on Environmental Quality under both Democratic and Republican presidents. John Ruple, a research professor of law at the University of Utah, said sidelining NEPA could actually slow things down. Federal agencies still have to comply with other environmental laws, like the Endangered Species Act or Clean Air Act. NEPA has an often overlooked benefit of forcing coordination with those other laws, he said. Some examples of cases where NEPA has played a role A botanist by training, Mary O'Brien was working with a small organization in Oregon in the 1980s to propose alternative techniques to successfully replant Douglas fir trees that had been clear-cut on federal lands. Aerially sprayed herbicides aimed at helping the conifers grow have not only been linked to health problems in humans but were also killing another species of tree, red alders, that were beneficial to the fir saplings, O'Brien said. The U.S. Forest Service had maintained that the herbicides' impact on humans and red alders wasn't a problem. But under NEPA, a court required the agency to redo their analysis and they ultimately had to write a new environmental impact statement. 'It's a fundamental concept: 'Don't just roar ahead.' Think about your options,' O'Brien said. O'Brien, who later worked at the Grand Canyon Trust, also co-chaired a working group that weighed in on a 2018 Forest Service proposal, finalized in 2016, for aspen restoration on Monroe Mountain in Utah. Hunters, landowners, loggers and ranchers all had different opinions on how the restoration should be handled. She said NEPA's requirement to get the public involved made for better research and a better plan. 'I think it's one of the laws that's the most often used by the public without the public being aware,' said Stephen Schima, senior legislative counsel at environmental law nonprofit Earthjustice. 'NEPA has long been the one opportunity for communities and impacted stakeholders and local governments to weigh in.' Schima said rolling back the power of NEPA threatens the scientific integrity of examining projects' full impacts. 'Decisions are going to be less informed by scientific studies, and that is one of the major concerns here,' he said. Ruple said uncertainty from NEPA changes and competing opinions on how to comply with the law's requirements may invite even more litigation. 'And all of this will fall on the shoulder of agencies that are losing the staff needed to lead them through these changes,' he said. ___ Follow Melina Walling on X @MelinaWalling and Bluesky @ ___ The Associated Press' climate and environmental coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at
