Press "Enter" to skip to content

Posts published in January 2026

Meaning of the strike

January 8, 2026

A guest reading from Everett Wohlers; he lives in Idaho.

With the reported drone attack on the Venezuelan port a couple of days ago, Donald Trump has made good on the verbal threats and threatening actions against the sovereign territory of Venezuela that he has been making for the past two months.  People should understand the legal meaning of that strike under US law, so here is a quick look at that.

First, the Constitution, in Article VI, para. 2, says, "This Constitution . . . and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby. . . ."

Second, the United Nations Charter, which is a binding treaty to which the US is a party, says in Article 2, para. 4, "All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state. . . ."

Third, UN General Assembly Resolution 3314, dated 14 December 1974, adopts a definition of "aggression" to elaborate on the meaning of the UN Charter provision above.  Article 1 of the Resolution says, "Aggression is the use of armed force by a State against the sovereignty, territorial integrity or political independence of another State. . . ."  Article 2 identifies what constitutes aggression as, "The First use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression. . . ."  Article 3 explains in more detail, "Any of the following acts ... shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression:  (a) The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State. . . , (b) Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State. . . ."  Article 5, para. 1 makes clear that excuses for aggression, e.g. drug intervention or the alleged presence of third country forces, will not stand, saying, "No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression."  Article 5, para. 2 lays out the significance and consequences of aggression for the aggressor as, "A war of aggression is a crime against international peace. Aggression gives rise to international responsibility."

It is quite clear that the drone strike on the port is an act of aggression in violation of the UN Charter and that it is subject to "international responsibility."  However, the enforcement mechanism for such violations, as laid out in the Charter in Chapter VII, calls for the Security Council to decide how to enforce.  In other words, the US veto in the Security Council means that the US and its leadership have impunity with respect to such violations.

The more relevant effect of the violation of the Charter is under domestic law.  Because the Charter is "the supreme Law of the Land," a violation of it is a violation of the "Law of the Land," i.e. of US law.  While there is no chance that the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi would take any action against such a violation of law by Trump, et.al., a "crime against international peace" would surely qualify as a "high crime" under Article II, section 4, of the Constitution.  Would such a crime be sufficient to cause even some of the Republican members of Congress to see the need to hold Trump to account and to join the Democrats in an impeachment and conviction of Trump, et.al., for such high crimes?  Probably not.  But the mid-terms are in less than a year, and then, who knows?

 

MAGA vibes at the Statehouse

January 7, 2026

Idaho MAGA warriors are giving off troubling vibes as the state heads into the 2026 legislative session. With all signs indicating a severe shortage of revenue to fulfill the needs of critical state programs, they have been sharpening their knives to cut to the bone. They seem to be blind to the fact that there are two ways of balancing a budget.

When I worked for Senator Len Jordan in the early 1970s, he told me the Republican philosophy for balancing a budget–decide the funding needs of essential programs and then raise sufficient revenue to fulfill those needs. That’s how Jordan operated as Idaho’s Governor in the early 1950s and during his ten years in the U.S. Senate.

Governor Little is now faced with a budget deficit this year, but the words “tax increase” do not seem to be in his vocabulary. He only speaks of spending cuts. The revenue shortfall should not be a surprise. Last year, Little happily signed a bill granting $400 million in tax cuts that favored the wealthy, despite the fact that it was $300 million more than he had proposed. At that time, he expressed concern about future years and the effect of expected federal spending cuts but simply disregarded those concerns.

Little also signed HB 93, a bill that subsidizes private and religious education. The $50 million cost will be visited upon taxpayers who derive no benefit from the program. It provides practically no accountability for the use of the subsidy funds. The $50 million is just what the state had proposed to spend on our chronically underfunded special education programs, but that proposal was recently scrapped because of budget woes.

The projected shortfall of revenue for the current fiscal year, which ends on June 30, is about $40 million. Next year, the deficit could range between $600 million and $1 billion, depending upon whether the state adopts federal tax code changes. The Idaho Center for Fiscal Policy reported that the state reduced revenue by a cumulative total of $4 billion over the past five years to pay for income tax cuts. House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, the chief architect of the tax cutting frenzy, deserves the credit for our budgetary poverty. Here’s hoping he does not try it again this year.

MAGA legislators are hoping to make additional cuts to Idaho’s Medicaid program, including repeal of the Medicaid expansion that 60% of Idaho voters approved in 2018. That would deprive up to 90,000 Idahoans of medical coverage. In combination with the massive Medicaid cuts in Trump’s Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill approved by Idaho’s Congressional delegation last year, it would devastate Idaho’s rural hospitals and threaten access to healthcare for everyone.

The Idaho Freedom Foundation (IFF), which controls the voting of many MAGA legislators, has called for the elimination of Medicaid expansion and cutting K-12 school funding by $166.5 million. The group has no use whatsoever for public education and has done all within its power to sabotage our public schools and dedicated teachers.

Representative Ted Hill of Eagle, who received a 70% rating from IFF last year, typifies the dismissive attitude of MAGA warriors toward public schools. Hill said some school districts, including Boise, ignore laws that the Legislature passes. He is willing to “go to war with the school boards.” He continued, “School boards are the problem. They get in there and they act like little emperors in their little empire and they do whatever they think they can.” Hill appears to believe that being elected to the Legislature makes one all-knowing. Actually, the government closest to the people governs best.

Hill asserts that some public schools are “propaganda indoctrination centers” because they have displayed classroom signs saying everyone is welcome. It was his bill last year that banned such signs. MAGA legislators pass numerous bills placing requirements or limitations on what public school teachers and administrators must or must not say or do. However, the tax subsidy voucher bill does not “permit any government agency to exercise control or supervision over any nonpublic school.”

Hill, like many other legislators, has a child in private school. Legislators are required to publicly disclose a “potential conflict of interest” before voting on a piece of legislation. Intending to take personal advantage of a tax credit that subsidizes the education of a legislator’s children is certainly a conflict. House and Senate rules require disclosed conflicts to be recorded in their respective journals. Neither Hill nor any other legislator is recorded in a journal index as having disclosed a conflict of interest on HB 93.

It would be wise for voters to ask their legislators if they cashed in on the voucher subsidy before this year’s elections.

 

Wayne Kidwell’s service

Wayne Kidwell’s service

January 5, 2026

The Gem State lost an accomplished public figure this year with the November 7 death of Wayne Kidwell at age 87. He was born in Council, Idaho, on June 15, 1938, and raised in Boise, where he supported himself during his last high school years. He spent many years faithfully serving the public in local, state and federal offices.

Kidwell graduated from Boise High School in 1956, obtained a BA degree from the University of Idaho in 1960 and a law degree from the U of I in 1964. He interrupted his studies twice–first, to serve a year in the US Marine Corps and, again, to serve two years as an officer in the US Army Military Police Corps, including a tour on the DMZ in Korea. He attained the rank of Captain.

Kidwell’s first elective office was as Ada County Prosecutor. He then went on to be the second Idahoan elected to the top level of all three branches of state government. In 1968, he was elected to the State Senate, where his Republican colleagues chose him as Majority Leader. He was elected as Idaho Attorney General in 1974, defeating the incumbent, Tony Park. In 1998, he was elected to the Idaho Supreme Court, retiring in January of 2005. He ran unsuccessfully for Congress in 1972 and 1980. He was expected to run for Governor in 1978 but decided instead to spend time with family.

In 1980, Kidwell was appointed as the first Attorney General of the Republic of the Marshall Islands. Two years later he was appointed Associate Deputy Attorney General for the Reagan Administration’s Department of Justice. His responsibilities included the Department’s liaison with the White House.

Kidwell’s tenure as Idaho’s Attorney General was remarkable. He hired attorneys based on their qualifications, rather than political affiliation. He hired an excellent consumer protection chief, even after the candidate volunteered he’d voted for Kidwell’s opponent. He had courage, as evidenced by his fertilizer anti-trust lawsuit against the J.R. Simplot Company in 1975. When I was introduced to Jack Simplot in 1983 as Idaho’s new Attorney General, he said, “I hope you don’t file a lawsuit against me like that knothead Kidwell.”

In a 1976 argument to the U.S. Supreme Court, Kidwell convinced the Justices that Idaho should be allowed to sue Oregon and Washington for endangering salmon and steelhead by overfishing the runs. Both of his AG successors carried on with that lawsuit. In addition to providing competent legal advice and representation to the state, Kidwell steadfastly championed consumer protection, victims’ rights and scrupulous observance of the law, both by the public and by governmental entities at all levels.

I became acquainted with Wayne in 1974, when he attended a meeting of the Jerome County Republican Central Committee to gain support for his Attorney General campaign. I was a member of the Committee, but I had already committed to support his primary election opponent, Tim Hopkins of Idaho Falls. That may have gotten us off to a bad start. During his two campaigns for a position on the Supreme Court in the 1990s, I supported his opponent both times. He lost his 1994 race but won in 1998. It just so happened that I ran for the Court in 2004 and took the position he was vacating. During the transition, we finally got to know each other and became good friends.

We met for lunch frequently and he soon invited me to join him and a former Ada County District Judge, Duff Mckee, for a weekly luncheon meeting at Eddie’s Restaurant on Overland Road in Boise. Our trio was dedicated to discussing and solving the problems of the state and nation. I learned that Wayne was vitally interested in the world around him. He studied the cosmos, ancient civilizations, scientific theories and natural phenomena. He was an armchair expert on coffee with at least 3 high quality espresso machines so as to make the very best brew. About four years ago, we invited Wayne’s 1974 opponent for the AG’s job, Tony Park, to make it a lunch foursome. The foursome got along famously, viewing most social and political issues in the same light. It’s interesting how the passage of time can wisen your views and break down barriers. Unfortunately, our group lost both Tony and Wayne in 2025. May they rest in peace.

Trump was Oregon’s story of the year

Trump was Oregon’s story of the year

January 4, 2026

In this season of reviewing the year’s top news stories in Oregon — either because of importance or attention — this year, in this state, the job is unusually and maybe eerily easy.

There was only one big story in Oregon in 2025: Donald Trump, not just nationally but specifically in Oregon.

Trump administration actions and responses to them were the dominant subject this year for Oregon’s congressional delegation. Town halls the state’s two U.S. senators held in each county saw crowds four or five times the size of previous years, drawn by complaints or concerns about administration policies.

Federal employment in Oregon, despite its lack of large military bases, is considerable, and it felt the impact of DOGE cuts early in the year. Cuts in a variety of agencies continued all year.

Federal stances on enforcing a wide range of environmental laws changed drastically last year along with those cuts in agencies (at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Forest Service, for example). Plans were being developed to remove development protections from about two million acres of forest land in Oregon, along with Forest Service staff cuts.

Federal rules on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, or “food stamps”) were changed dramatically, along with cuts in other areas.

Federal agencies began pressuring for changes in state and local agencies in a variety of areas as well. This summer state and local governments in Idaho scrambled to approve wind and solar electric projects — which largely are out of favor with the Trump Administration — ahead of expiring federal tax credits.  Another example, as the Capital Chronicle reported in September: “The Trump administration on Tuesday opened an investigation into a contested Oregon policy of requiring prospective adoptive and foster parents to affirm their child’s gender identity, spelling uncertainty for hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding for the state.”

While Gov. Tina Kotek was at work on various issues including homelessness and housing, and called a special legislative session on funding for the Department of Transportation, conflicts with the administration, not least the question of nationalizing the Oregon Guard and placing troops on city streets, never were far away.

Both the governor and the Legislature have had to contend with an unusually unpredictable economic and budget environment resulting in large part from Trump Administration actions, making planning far more difficult.

Attorney General Dan Rayfield had barely taken office early in the year before he began launching or joining in legal battles against the Trump Administration on dozens of occasions, on subjects ranging from health issues, federal funding for emergencies, salmon recovery, consumer protection, electric vehicle charging stations, use of the national guard, survivors of crime, housing assistance, sex abuse, sustainable energy,  immigration, student loans and much more. The numbers of cases and specific actions are so large and complex that developing specific objective numbers becomes impossible.

Rayfield also has held town hall meetings through the year, which like those of the senators have been dominated by concerns about administration actions.

Not that state officials are alone in court filings. A Newport group even filed a lawsuit over relocation of a helicopter.

Secretary of State Tobias Read has been doing battle with the administration, sometimes in court, over voter registration information and election procedures in the state.

Oregon has Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on the streets, in all seasons, and Latino communities around the state have been turned upside down. A number of communities have experienced raids; the actions in Woodburn may be the largest, and the November detainment of a McMinnville high school student (and U.S. citizen) were among the highest profile, but by no means unique.

Nor was the administration alone on the streets. The Trump administration prompted what may be the largest single-day protests — under the heading of No Kings — in the state’s history, from Portland and Salem to Lakeview and Burns. That’s in addition to the persistent protests at the ICE center in Portland.

Owing in part to drastic budgeting changes and to the federal government shutdown (another one of those could be on the way in late January, by the way), state and local governments have seen expected federal funds turn shaky, upsetting infrastructure and service projects which had been considered solid.

On the business side, tariffs and other economic actions have had often deleterious effects across a range of industries. Oregon’s wine industry is among those hard hit; one person in the industry remarked to me that conditions are the “worst since prohibition.” But such unlikely sectors as Oregon’s large nursery industry were caught up too.

Tourism on the Oregon coast is down this year. And, after squabbles over a relocation of a critical helicopter away from Newport (a decision apparently reversed, for now) and possible construction of an ICE facility in that city (still apparently a live possibility), that concern may grow in coming months.

All of the preceding is of course an incomplete list.

Oregon had only one really dominant story in 2025, overwhelming anything that originated from within the state. It was the Trump administration.

A repeat of that is possible for 2026.

 

Physical safety and mental health

Physical safety and mental health

January 2, 2026

On the surface, local law enforcement and mental health services might seem an odd couple, two pieces of public policy that appear not to have a lot to do with each other. And the broader picture of Idaho politics might seem some distance from either of them.

But they absolutely intertwine, as key officials in both law enforcement and mental health services would be quick to tell you, and that interconnection - not least on the political side - is growing rapidly.

The overall picture has been clear for a long time. This, for example, in a report a year ago from the American Police Beat website: “Some research studies have estimated that at least 20% of police service calls involve a mental health or substance use crisis, and this demand has been increasing for many departments. In a nationwide survey of over 2,400 senior law enforcement officials, approximately 84% reported an increase in mental-health-related calls during their careers, and 63% noted that their department now spends more time on mental illness calls than in the past.”

The mindset of a mental health organization and that of a police force - and their modes of operating and approaching a situation - are ordinarily highly different. But some meeting of those minds is necessary, because of the large numbers of cases and incidents where neither approach - the purely medical on one side, the sheer enforcement on the other - by itself is likely to lead to a happy result. And on the evidence, and on the whole, both sets of professionals understand that.

Around the country, many communities have been trying out “models” - structures involving both law enforcement and mental health professionals, to de-escalate situations and avert problems in the future. So far no one seems to have come up with a perfect silver bullet, and maybe each community will have to work it out for themselves.

The need to do that seems well understood, and it is poking into political issues, such as the state budget.

In November, Magellan of Idaho, which operates the state Medicaid mental health payment system, said it planned program cuts which would (as a news article said) “affect peer support specialists who help people navigate mental health treatment, and specialized mobile teams that treat patients with severe mental illness who have struggled in routine treatment settings. The cuts, which call to end the services on Dec. 1, stem from the state’s attempts to avoid a projected budget shortfall.”

That drew quick and loud statements of concern and criticism from mental health professionals. Mental health clinics and patients have sued the state Department of Health and Welfare.

But on December 1, the Idaho Sheriff’s Association weighed in too, in a letter from its President Samuel Hulse of Bonneville County. It warned that the reductions to mental health services represent a significant public-safety concern. “As sheriffs, our foremost duty is to protect the people of Idaho. We urge State leadership to recognize the real-world public-safety consequences of these decisions and to work with counties to ensure Idahoans in crisis — and the agencies who respond to them — are not left without support.”

The state’s revenue shortfall, he added, was “self-inflicted” by the legislature, and the governor who signed the bills.

On December 19, Hulse hosted a Behavioral Health Open House at the Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office location in Ammon, and area law officials as well as  mental health professionals appeared to discuss the problem. It drew a crowd.

Hulse is on to something here. The next step would be to round up coalition-level support, including law enforcement and the mental health community but reaching beyond that, to anyone concerned about issues ranging from education to homelessness and business security.

Broaden that base wide enough, and keep it in front of public view steadily (maybe with the use of case studies and specific examples) and maybe even the Idaho Legislature will find itself compelled to listen.

(image)