Posts published in “Jones”

There was a time in the distant past when Idaho elected officials had moral compasses and were dedicated to serving the interests of the Gem State. Since agriculture is so important to the Idaho economy, they were constantly on guard against federal plans and schemes that would harm that vital industry. As Legislative Assistant to former Senator Len Jordan in 1970-1972, I had a front row seat to the action.

Every time there was even a hint of Idaho water being poached by another state, the entire Congressional delegation–Senators Jordan and Frank Church and Reps. Orval Hansen and Jim McClure–spoke out loud and clear against it. When President Nixon ended beef import quotas in June of 1972 so as to bring in more beef and lower prices, the delegation collectively raised hell. Jordan always vigorously opposed actions that would harm farmers in other states, figuring there was strength in numbers.

Len Jordan was the epitome of courage, having stood up to a President of his own party numerous times. He spoke out and voted against Nixon’s two segregationist Supreme Court nominees–Haynsworth and Carswell. He led the Senate floor fight in 1972 to force Nixon to spend funds lawfully appropriated by Congress. He supported the President when he thought he was right and opposed him when he was wrong.

With Jordan’s example in mind, it is frightening to see the craven cowardice of Idaho’s top politicians–Senators Risch and Crapo, Representatives Simpson and Fulcher and Governor Little. When Donald Trump acts against the interests of farmers, we don’t hear a peep from these officials who are supposed to represent our interests.

When Trump announced to Californians a year ago that he wanted to send them Columbia River waters, our politicos remained silent. His January 24 executive order meddling with irrigation water in federal storage did not elicit a peep. We can only hope he doesn’t try that in Idaho, as it does not appear our elected heroes will push back.

Our Congressional delegation is afraid of telling Trump that the constitutional power to set tariffs is theirs, not his, and that his tariffs are raising farmers’ costs for fertilizer, machine parts, lumber, chemicals and practically everything they buy. Senator Crapo should take a particular interest in the tariff problem because he is Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, which is responsible for setting tariffs. Somebody should probably wake him up and let him know that Trump tariffs are hurting folks on the farm.

Idaho is not big into soybeans but midwestern farmers are desperate for help on soybeans. China bought $12.6 billion in U.S. soybeans last year, but absolutely none this year, thanks to retaliation for Trump’s erratic tariffs. Trump admires Argentina's nutty President, Javier Milei, and spent 20 billion U.S. taxpayer dollars to keep him in office. Milei won at the expense of midwestern farmers. China bought more than one million tons of Argentinian soybeans to fill its need and will likely purchase Argentinian and Brazilian soybeans long into the future. Representative Majorie Taylor Greene said the Argentine bailout was “probably one of the grossest things” she’s ever seen. Idaho’s top elected officials could not crank up the courage to protest.

Closer to home, Trump is throwing a haymaker at Idaho’s beef producers. I grew up in the cattle business. For many years my father, Henry Jones, had the largest beef operation in southern Idaho. It is kind of a boom or bust business. It happens to be the one bright spot on the agricultural scene in Idaho and across the country, but there have been many bust years and producers finally have a chance to make up for them.

But destroying the market of U.S. soybean farmers was not enough to help President Milei, so Trump now wants to quadruple beef imports from Argentina to knock down beef prices in the U.S. Trump claimed he had to help because Argentina was “dying, alright? They are dying.” Cattlemen in Idaho and across the country are justifiably outraged. Rep. Greene said, “honestly it’s a punch in the gut to all of our American cattle ranchers.” Senators representing South Dakota, Utah, Montana and Utah have publicly objected to Trump’s plan, but our Congressional delegation and Governor have remained silent, apparently frightened to stand up for our farm community.

That’s not really surprising because none of them will say anything about the thuggish tactics employed by ICE against Idaho’s undocumented workers who harvest our crops, milk our cows and do the important work that keeps Idaho’s agricultural sector operating. If our officials can’t muster the courage to do their jobs, they should either undergo spinal transplants or check themselves into retirement homes.

 

Donald Trump has made a dramatic show of making America's military blow up purported drug boats off the coast of Venezuela, hundreds of miles from American soil. So far, Trump has amassed a body count of 32, who he claims, without evidence, are “narco-terrorists.” He has failed to reveal the identity of the boat crews, what their destination was or why the Coast Guard couldn’t simply have performed its regular task of interdicting and searching the boats to confirm they were carrying illicit drugs.

Trump has publicly claimed the boats were carrying fentanyl, when almost all of that drug is widely known to be transported across the U.S. border with Mexico. Over 90% of fentanyl seizures in the last 5 years have come from Mexico.

Obliterating the boats is a stupid tactic because it destroys the evidence and does not allow for interrogation of the suspects. Dead suspects cannot disclose valuable intelligence to use in going after the drug kingpins. The tactic violates U.S. law because Trump has not gotten Congressional approval to use lethal force against the suspects, having failed to show they pose an imminent threat to the U.S.

The boat attacks also violate rules of international law that top U.S. military lawyers have urged the services to observe. With its scofflaw attitude, the Trump regime has tarnished the reputation of the United States as a beacon for the rule of law. We became the most powerful nation on Earth because of our dedication to lawful conduct. When we repeatedly demonstrate that the U.S. will not follow U.S. and international law, our reputation, trading relations and economy will suffer.

Soon after taking office as Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth fired the top Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) of the military services. He called them “roadblocks to orders that are given by a commander in chief.”  He likely understood that Trump had no intention of complying with established laws governing the use of the nation’s military.

He was obviously correct, but unaware of our first commander in chief’s view of the role of a JAG officer. George Washington appointed the first JAG shortly after taking command of the Continental Army. He wrote that “an Army without Order, Regularity & Discipline, is no better than a Commission’d Mob.”

Trump’s killing of purported drug traffickers would not pass muster with a reputable JAG officer. However, Trump has plenty of loyal sycophants who will risk their legal reputations to justify his unlawful actions. Our own Senator Jim Risch is just such a Trump puppet. Risch took to the Senate floor to prostrate himself at Trump’s feet, claiming that the boats were conducting “an actual attack” on the U.S., even though they were about 1,000 miles from Miami. Without offering a hint of proof, he branded them as “terrorists.”

Neither Trump nor Risch realizes that they are placing military officers charged with carrying out the killings in an untenable position. Strikes like these should be reviewed and approved by a competent and independent JAG officer. If these strikes are unlawful, as they certainly appear to be, service personnel pulling the trigger could later face court martial charges for obeying an unlawful order. Of great interest in this regard is the surprising and sudden decision of Admiral Alvin Holsey, the commander in charge of the boat destructions, to announce his retirement after less than a year as the commander of U.S. Southern Command. More retirements may be in the offing. Another top officer, Colonel Doug Krugman, resigned this month because of Trump’s obvious contempt for the Constitution.

Neither Risch nor Trump served in the military–Trump because of phantom bone spurs and Risch because of “an ulcer”--so they are likely unaware that soldiers are legally and honorably prohibited from giving or following an unlawful order. As an artillery spotter in Vietnam, I was fully aware of the real possibility of a court martial for killing non-threatening civilians, even in an actual wartime setting. Common human decency says you don’t gleefully announce the killing of suspects who could easily be arrested.

In the final analysis, Trump’s repeated killings in the Caribbean are more performance art than military necessity. If he was really interested in pursuing drug kingpins, he would not have diverted hundreds of prosecutors and drug enforcement agents from going after the drug networks. Trump has them wasting their talents on immigration cases. An exhaustive report from Reuters found that drug prosecutions have fallen to the “lowest level in decades” under Trump. Furthermore, Trump has been uncommonly generous in handing out pardons and clemency to drug kingpins. Perhaps it's time for him to stop breaking the law and start enforcing it.

 

America was born in protest. In fact, we might never have separated from Great Britain, were it not for a list of grievances written into our Declaration of Independence 249 years ago. The 13 British colonies had had enough of the arbitrary actions of King George III and peaceably advised him so in that treasured document.

Several years later, with those grievances in mind and in hopes of preventing a recurrence of lawless actions by America’s new government, our ancestors wrote up a Constitution and Bill of Rights. Our First Amendment, guaranteed “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” The First Amendment stands out as a principal protection against arbitrary king-like rule.

Ever since he took office in January, we have witnessed a growing contempt for the constitutional order, including free-speech rights, by Donald Trump and his MAGA crowd. If wide swaths of Americans object to his arbitrary, unconstitutional orders and actions, he and his minions don’t write it off as Americans exercising their constitutional rights. He sees it as a threat to his royal eminence. Those who protest are labeled as “domestic terrorists, agitators, anarchists” and even worse.

Many who fear the path Trump is taking toward despotic rule have gathered in communities across the country to hold “No Kings” rallies. The purpose is to speak out against despotic words and unconstitutional action by the Trump regime. I spoke at a rally held on April 5 in Twin Falls by the local chapter of Indivisible. It was a well-attended patriotic rally of good, decent folks spanning the political spectrum.

The No Kings rallies across America on June 14 protested Trump’s lavish military parade in Washington that was timed to celebrate his kingly birth. The protest also called him out for his repeated and deliberate transgressions of the US Constitution. The Indivisible patriots had to step forward because the cowardly GOP members of Congress don’t have the courage to stand up for the Constitution. Idaho’s House and Senate members–Senators Risch and Crapo and Representatives Simpson and Fulcher–know Trump is trampling over the Constitution, but they don’t have the courage to protest, being much more interested in maintaining their political offices. Thank Heaven for the First Amendment.

Another Indivisible rally is scheduled for 2,200 communities throughout America on October 18, including Boise, Idaho Falls, Hailey, Moscow, Pocatello, and Twin Falls. I’ll be speaking at the one in Twin Falls.  Many concerned, civic-minded folks will attend.

Trump’s obedient sycophants, like House Speaker Mike Johnson, have condemned those who are concerned by Trump’s march to despotism. Johnson called the upcoming rally a “hate America rally” of the ”antifa, pro-Hamas crowd and the Marxists.”

That’s quite a mix and match of ideologies and dead wrong on all counts.

It is interesting how Antifa, an ideology that opposes fascism, always manages to get woven into the MAGA worldview as the root of all evil. It is not an organization and does not hold meetings or carry out sinister actions. Even if it were an actual group, the idea of opposing fascism is not really obnoxious, unless you happen to be a fascist. Mussolini would have tried to stamp them out.

Nevertheless, Donald Trump has had it in for Antifa for many years. During his first term, Trump said he would be “designating ANTIFA as a Terrorist Organization" for allegedly inciting violence during Black Lives Matter protests. A June 2020 protest in Spokane sparked a panic in Coeur d’Alene when false rumors spread about an Antifa invasion of North Idaho. Armed citizens lined the streets to fight off the ideology. Not a single Antifan materialized.  As far as anyone knows, Trump has not yet been able to produce a picture of an Antifan or Antifa gathering, making them as elusive as the Northern Sasquatch.

But, even if Antifa were not more than just a way of thinking, why shouldn’t those who hate fascism have the right to think and speak their beliefs under the First Amendment? Trump seems to think they should be rounded up and punished. What could be a more clearcut violation of free speech rights?

The idea that America should not return to rule by a king, be it Trump or some other wannabe monarch, will be revisited on the 250th commemoration of the Declaration of Independence on July 4, 2025. I pray that he will not have managed, with his 10,000 more ICE agents funded by the Big Beautiful Billionaires Bill, to impose his vision of a kingship on our beloved democratic republic. With the good work of Indivisible and other American patriotic organizations, we might well survive as a free nation.

 

When the history of Donald Trump’s second term is written, September 30, 2025, will be known as the time when America’s top military leaders became fully aware of the serious danger confronting their beloved nation. It is when the top brass personally observed the fragile mental condition of the Commander in Chief. Many had heard of his rambling and largely incoherent speeches, but here he was in full frontal view

They all knew the incomprehensible danger of calling in America’s top generals and admirals to meet with their top civilian commander at a known time and location. Our chief adversaries, Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping, must have given at least passing thought to sending in a drone to completely decapitate our entire military command structure. And to call the more than 800 top military leaders away from their critical work of defending the country, just to attend a meaningless harangue by Trump and his unqualified Secretary of Defense, was complete nonsense.

Pete Hegseth tried his best to put on a show like General George Patton when he was preparing the Third Army for its invasion of France during WWII. But he came off more like an angry Donald Duck. Each of those in attendance was much more qualified to be in charge of the Defense Department than Hegseth, and they all knew it. Hegseth griped about fat and unshaven soldiers. He railed against what he called the “stupid rules of engagement,” which largely track long-established national and international rules for conducting warfare. Those of us who served in one of the nation’s wars appreciated those rules, disregarding them at our peril and to our disgrace.

When it was Trump’s turn to address the big brass, he spent about 70 minutes with his eyes half closed, speaking as if he were just waking up from a deep sleep. He spoke of how he walked “very slowly” on stairs, while former President Obama “would bop down those stairs. I’ve never seen it. Da-da, da-da, da-da, bop, bop bop. He’d go down the stairs. Wouldn’t hold on.” He spoke of how he deserved the Nobel Peace Prize but would probably never get it. He mentioned the seven or eight wars he claimed to have ended, how he loved his signature, that he still wanted to make Canada the 51st state, how he disliked the shape of present-day Navy ships and a seemingly inexhaustible outpouring of other unrelated subjects. The full speech is readily available online.

One thing that likely struck fear into the assembled top commanders of the nation’s military was Trump’s repeated mention of nuclear weapons during his monologue. In light of his rambling and unhinged discourse, the military brass had to be deeply unsettled to think that Trump’s finger was on America’s nuclear trigger.

Trump also startled the crowd with his McCarthy-like claim that America is plagued with domestic enemies, “insurrectionists” who are “paid by the radical left.” He told the non-political military officers that “we’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room.That’s a war, too. It’s a war from within….we should use some of these dangerous cities as a training ground for our military.” Trump said, “our inner cities” are “a big part of war now.”

The assembled leaders are well aware of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the US military from engaging in civilian law enforcement. They knew that a confrontation between British troops and Boston civilians in 1770 resulted in the Boston Massacre, which led to the signing of the Declaration of Independence 249 years ago. I’m sure the top brass was not very enthusiastic about doing a repeat of that war against civilians.

The leaders present could not speak on the record about Trump’s unhinged behavior, but several defense officials did so off the record. One said, “listening to Donald Trump was deeply troubling and it is clear he is unfit for the role of commander in chief.” Another said, “This is truly disturbing. He is clearly unwell even for Trump.” That individual referenced the 25th Amendment, which deals with presidential incapacity.

While the meeting was a fiasco, it will  play a tremendously helpful role in the protection of the United States from the despotic aims of Donald Trump. He is obviously intent on trying to force the nation’s military to assist in his efforts to capture full control of the country. By giving our patriotic military leadership an unfiltered view of his frightening persona, he has shown them the dire need for them to work behind the scenes, both together and separately, to frustrate his plans.

 

Attorney General Raul Labrador is having a hard time taking “no” for an answer to the State Land Board’s June 17 decision to terminate his legal services and hire its own legal counsel. It must have been a hurtful blow because the Idaho AG has served as the Land Board’s legal advisor ever since Idaho achieved statehood in 1890. However, the relationship of an attorney to his or her client requires trust and confidence, which apparently was lacking between Labrador and the other 4 members of that Board.

Rather than living with the Board’s 4-1 vote to oust him as its attorney, Labrador has doubled down and is trying to force his services upon that agency. The Board, using its new attorneys, sought to file a brief to have some input into a case in federal court regarding access to land in the Boise foothills. Much to everyone's surprise, Labrador filed opposition to the Board’s brief, claiming he was the only state lawyer who had the authority to represent the Board.

The Board responded, saying among other things, that Labrador’s unorthodox move was “contrary” to the Idaho Rules of Professional Conduct, which apply to all Idaho lawyers. Those rules prevent a lawyer from representing a client “if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest.” The Rules specify that such a conflict can arise “from a lawyer’s own interests.” Labrador’s personal conflicting interest is trying to salve his hurt feelings by forcing the Board to hire him back. It is not at all clear how he could fulfill his “duty of undivided loyalty” to the Board, and “exercise the utmost good faith” to protect its interests, by depriving it of its say in the federal court case.

Conflicts of interest seem to be a recurrent theme with the Attorney General. During his first week in office, Labrador personally dropped a well-founded trespassing charge against Sara Brady, a prominent friend and supporter. The Attorney General’s office only handles a misdemeanor prosecution when the prosecuting agency has a conflict of interest. In Brady’s case, former AG Lawrence Wasden had agreed to handle the case for that very reason. When Labrador inherited the case, he should have seen his obvious conflict of interest and immediately sent the case back to the prosecuting agency instead of doing his friend a favor.

On two occasions Labrador instituted legal proceedings against client agencies without even giving them advance warning. One proceeding was against the Department of Health and Welfare and several of its employees over a child care grant program. All of the targets were his clients, which constituted a conflict of interest, as well as a breach of his duty to them. A district judge made Labrador withdraw from the case and appoint unconflicted attorneys to handle it. In the other case, which Labrador filed against the Idaho Board of Education, another district judge held that Labrador had violated his duty of trust to the client agency. He was required to withdraw from the case and appoint unconflicted attorneys to proceed with it.

During his tenure as AG, Labrador has engaged in other conflicts of interest of a more significant and troubling nature–giving preference to culture war legislation over constitutional requirements. The Idaho Constitution is the supreme law of Idaho and every Idaho officeholder signs an oath to support that sacred document. That includes defending the Constitution against a conflicting legislative act. The latest instance involves the education tax subsidy law passed by the Legislature as House Bill 93.

The group that filed a lawsuit against the subsidy law on September 17, notified Labrador in August of its blatant unconstitutionality and reminded him of his obligation to stand up for the Constitution. He refused to do so, creating a clear conflict of interest between his personal interests and his lawful duty.

Labrador should take a lesson from Lawrence Wasden, who held AG’s office before him. When the Legislature passed a law to give a sweetheart deal to those leasing prime state cottage sites, Wasden let it be known that the legislation violated the Constitution. The Land Board is required to get the maximum, long-term rental from those lands for the benefit of public schools. The sweetheart law deprived schools of much-needed financial support. Wasden filed suit to get the law declared unconstitutional and he won that case. I had the privilege of writing the Supreme Court decision declaring the law unconstitutional.

Whether it is acting ethically with state clients or opposing unconstitutional legislative actions, we should expect Idaho’s chief legal officer to stand up for the rule of law.  Elected officials who let their personal beliefs or interests take preference over the public interest or ethical rules must be reminded by the voting public that conflict of interest rules are not optional.

 

A lawsuit to prevent taxpayer money from being used to pay for private and religious education is now before the Idaho Supreme Court. A dedicated coalition of public school supporters filed the suit on September 17, asking the Court to declare Idaho’s voucher subsidy law unconstitutional. They are also asking the Court to prevent the Idaho State Tax Commission from implementing and administering the law.

The lawsuit is based upon Article IX, section 1 of the Idaho Constitution, which states:

“The stability of a republican form of government depending mainly upon the intelligence of the people, it shall be the duty of the legislature of Idaho, to establish and maintain a general, uniform and thorough system of public, free common schools.”

Private and religious schools are not a system, nor are they general, uniform, thorough, free or common. They are not open to every Idaho kid. And the voucher subsidy law dishes out public money with minimal accountability requirements.

The law passed in the 2025 legislative session is a step toward privatizing education in Idaho. It was heavily supported by out-of-state billionaires who targeted and defeated legislators who opposed using public funds for private education in the last several elections. Those same monied interests spent hundreds of thousands of dollars lobbying for the subsidy in the last couple of legislative sessions.

The law grants parents who send their children to private schools a “refundable” tax credit of up to $5,000 per child. The credit is $7,500 for special needs kids, although those kids could very well be denied admission to private schools. This is not an ordinary tax credit. If the parents’ tax liability is less than $5,000 and they claim the full credit, the parents would get a check from the state for the difference.

In 2024, Idaho's median household income was reported to be $70,214. Using the 2024 tax rate, an Idaho family would have been obligated to pay an estimated $4,072 in state income tax. If the family claimed a full $5,000 credit for one child, they would be relieved of their $4,072 tax obligation and get a check from the state in the amount of $928. The more credits they claimed, the bigger the check. In effect, families receiving a credit exceeding their tax liability would not contribute anything to the wide range of governmental programs financed by the state income tax.

Predictably, the right-wing culture warriors at the Mountain States Policy Center (MSPC) came out with guns blazing against the lawsuit. Chris Cargill, the group’s CEO, circulated an opinion piece titled, “Idaho activists sue taxpayers and target children.” He failed to deliver on the title because the challengers are not activists, they aren’t suing taxpayers and they certainly are not targeting children. They are merely trying to protect the public school system that was established as Idaho’s official school system in 1890.

The framers of Idaho’s Constitution mandated that the Legislature provide adequate state funding for the public school system. The framers gave not the slightest hint that any public funds could ever be expended on private or religious education. In fact, the framers absolutely prohibited public money from ever being spent on religious teaching. Based on experience from other states with school vouchers, it is likely that about 90% of the $50 million earmarked for Idaho’s voucher subsidy will go to religious schooling.

It is not hard to understand where MSPC is coming from. Like the ill-named Idaho Freedom Foundation, MSPC is part of the billionaire-funded State Policy Network, which has been trying to privatize education throughout the nation for many years. It is well known that the Freedom Foundation has been trying to do away with the Idaho public school system. MSPC is also a member of the infamous Project 2025, which has advocated for eliminating the U.S. Department of Education and establishing universal school choice throughout the United States. Donald Trump is fully behind MSPC’s education agenda. The Idaho voucher subsidy law is central to that agenda.

MSPC claims the voucher subsidy is broadly supported by Idahoans, referring to a deceptively worded survey it claims to have conducted. The survey did not let respondents know that most families taking advantage of the subsidy would not pay a penny of income tax or that they might even get a check back from the state.

School vouchers, whatever they are called, are actually unpopular with Idahoans. The 32,336 pleas that Gov. Brad Little received from the public this year to veto the voucher subsidy legislation speaks volumes. Idahoans can take heart because the current lawsuit, if successful, will preserve the integrity of our public school system.

 

Donald Trump released a video on September 2, showing a boat being blown up in International Waters about 2,000 miles from America’s shores. Trump claimed the boat contained a massive amount of drugs that its 11 occupants were transporting to the U.S. No evidence has yet surfaced that his contentions were truthful.

Trump said the attack was a clear message to drug lords to stop sending drugs to poison our people. MAGA minions began echoing that same theme. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell said: “If you traffic drugs toward our shores, the United States military will use every tool at our disposal to stop you cold.” Parnell failed to mention that the boat had turned around and was headed back to shore when it was destroyed. JD Vance chimed in: “Killing cartel members who poison our fellow citizens is the highest and best use of our military.” Like many American veterans, I have always believed that defending America against vicious dictatorships, like Vladimir Putin's Russia and Xi Jinping’s China, was the military’s highest and best use.

Senator Jim Risch said he was “extremely confident” that the target of the boat attack was “a group of narco-terrorists.” He continued: “I can’t tell you how many lives were saved by the president of the United States when he pulled the trigger on that. There were tons of drugs that went down with that that would have wound up right here in the USA.” Risch provided absolutely no factual basis for any of his claims.

Having been a drug warrior during my eight years as Idaho’s Attorney General, I can tell you that killing low-level drug workers is unlikely to make a dent in the illegal drug trade.  With the massive profits that criminals reap by feeding America’s insatiable appetite for illicit drugs, the loss of any number of drug mules is a minimal cost of doing business. So long as there is a thriving market for their deadly product, there will be plenty of suppliers, both foreign and domestic.

Fighting the drug scourge takes significant efforts to investigate and enforce the nation’s drug laws. Trump’s diversion of 25,000 criminal law enforcement agents to assist ICE with its roundup of immigrants does not help. DEA, FBI and ATF agents should be focusing their expertise on putting the drug cartels out of business, instead of chasing workers. Trump’s 2026 budget request, calling for funding cuts of over $1.2 billion for those federal agencies, will further impede their enforcement efforts.

On the other hand, enforcement action alone will not solve the nation’s serious drug abuse problem. Unless the United States makes a concerted effort to reduce the demand for dangerous drugs, we are not going to come close to reducing our drug dependency. Domestic enforcement efforts can help, but effective and available drug treatment is absolutely essential. Properly-run substance abuse programs can work to reduce drug dependence, while also reducing the customer base of the cartels.

The number of deaths caused by drug overdoses is staggering. Statistics of the National Institute on Drug Abuse show that overdose deaths climbed from just under 20,000 in 1999 to over 100,000 in recent years. Government data shows that treatment of substance use disorder helped reduce drug overdose deaths by about 27% last year. Yet, the Medicaid cuts imposed by Trump’s Big Beautiful Billionaire Bill will make about 1.6 million Medicaid enrollees ineligible for treatment–a big step backwards.

Let’s get back to Trump’s elimination of the 11 people on the boat. The boat was sunk by a military drone. One or more other drones finished off the survivors in the water. Even if the survivors were drug runners, they posed no threat to anyone as they were flailing in the water.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio made it clear that the U.S. could have followed the lawful practice of searching the boat and arresting the crew, if they turned out to be criminals. He said: “Instead of interdicting it, on the president’s orders, we blew it up–and it’ll happen again.” Indeed, Trump killed three more alleged drug mules in a second strike on September 15. It seems that extrajudicial drug killings will be standard practice in the Trump regime. What Next? If that practice can be employed without consequence on the high seas, could it not be used by ICE on American soil?

The plight of the drone operator(s) who pulled the trigger at Trump’s command is another source of concern. Bringing lethal fire upon a boat in international waters, without legal justification, would likely be a violation of the rules of engagement for the drone operator(s). American military personnel can be punished for complying with an unlawful order. They should not have been placed in that dilemma.

 

Survivors of Jeffery Epstein’s abuse spoke at the US Capitol on September 5, telling about their years of torment caused by the serial pedophile. They made the simple request that Donald Trump release the Epstein files, which he could do with the stroke of a pen. Files amassed by the FBI and Justice Department since 2005 would likely contain significant evidence of Epstein’s charged and uncharged crimes–victim statements, investigators’ notes, the identity of those who took part and what caused law enforcement to finally start investigating allegations against Epstein.

Donald Trump could have cleared the air and supported the victims by releasing the entirety of the files. Instead, he slapped them in the face, claiming that the entire Epstein tragedy was a “hoax” and refusing to meet with them. The message, from the highest official in the land to those who had suffered sexual abuse as minors, was that they would have no support from the government–a clearcut case of victim shaming.

Anyone who has been involved in child sex abuse crimes knows that there are powerful deterrents to reporting–shame, intimidation, threats and the like. Epstein’s victims have reported that both he and his accomplice, Ghislaine Maxwell, threatened them with dire consequences if they disclosed the abuse. When wealthy, prominent people are the criminal molesters, victims are often ignored or discounted. Maria Farmer reported Epstein’s abuse twice to the FBI in 1996, but no action was taken against him until a decade later.

When I took office as Idaho Attorney General in 1983, we put a high priority on protecting kids from physical and sexual abuse. Criminal laws were toughened to prevent abuse and prosecuted when it happened. But, unless young victims feel safe in coming forward to report abuse and testify in court, the effort will not fully succeed. Substantial emphasis on the needs and protection of abuse victims is essential.

Accordingly, we got a victim rights bill passed to ensure the protection and recovery of abuse victims. We worked with county prosecutors to establish county victim assistance programs. Laws were passed to protect victims in the court setting and to allow their stories to be told to juries. I argued a case to the US Supreme Court to allow the use of child statements in court. Most other states saw the need for similar protections.

It is hard to calculate the damage that will result from Trump’s false labeling of the Epstein saga as a hoax. Abuse victims can’t help but read his outburst as a cue to silence their voices. After all, law enforcement ignored Maria Farmer’s abuse reporting for ten years, possibly because Epstein was a wealthy, powerful person and she was a nobody in their view. For the self-described “chief law enforcement officer” of the country, Trump’s reckless claim will further traumatize young victims of sexual abuse.

The Epstein files are not a hoax in any sense. The strange thing about this entire matter is that Trump and his allies have repeatedly pledged that he would release the files. Those files are under his complete control, yet Trump has refused to honor that pledge. Strangely enough, his resistance began in earnest when his Attorney General, Pam Bondi, had the records scoured and told Trump his name appeared “multiple times.”

Some information has surfaced that Trump may have been the one who instigated the investigation of Epstein’s conduct. On September 5, US House Speaker Mike Johnson told a reporter that Trump “was an FBI informant to try to take this stuff down.” Johnson later tried to walk back the statement a bit but could not stuff the cat back into the bag. It may have occurred to the Speaker that this would show Trump knew about Epstein’s criminal activity in the 2005-2006 timeframe.

Johnson’s comment provides some substance to a report that Trump disclosed Epstein’s sexual abuse of minors to law enforcement in order to preempt Epstein from reporting Trump for money laundering activities on behalf of a Russian oligarch. This revolved around property that Epstein told Trump he wanted to buy, but which Trump surreptitiously bought out from under him. Journalist Michael Wolff has written about the unseemly dealing between them. If and when Trump decides to release the unredacted files in their entirety, we may finally learn the truth. If he continues to withhold them, we will have good reason to believe it is because he has something shameful to hide.

In the meantime, Trump should show compassion for Epstein’s victims. He should unequivocally tell the nation that abuse victims will be supported and protected and that abuse by even the rich and powerful will be punished to the fullest extent of the law.