Rob Harding

@elonmusk Based on that metric, we already don’t live in a democracy and haven’t for quite some time. More info from @representus👇 cc: @america act.represent.us/sign/problempo…

@mattvanswol It seems there is a political incentive to be the minority party. Start there. cc: @ScottPresler

It genuinely feels like the GOP is actually TRYING TO LOSE elections and be a minority party. They won't pass the SAVE Act. They won't pass more DOGE cuts. They won't even defund the freaking Taliban. I wish I knew why, it doesn't make any sense.

@IdahoansFirst Thanks. I understand your concern. One thing you asserted: “They already cooperate fully and effectively with ICE on immigration enforcement through existing voluntary channels…” I think that’s objectively false in some counties - helps explain the push for 287(g) agreements.

My answer to all accountability issues is to appoint citizen task forces. The government will never hold itself accountable. It's our responsibility. That said, I am all about local control so naturally I can't support the legislature forcing elected county sheriffs into mandatory 287(g) agreements. Sheriffs are independently elected by the voters in their own counties and are directly accountable to those voters at the ballot box, not to the state legislature in Boise. The sheriffs have been clear on why they oppose being forced into these agreements. They already cooperate fully and effectively with ICE on immigration enforcement through existing voluntary channels so no formal 287(g) program is required to get the job done. A state mandate adds redundant bureaucracy, mandatory training, reporting requirements, and administrative overhead without improving results or public safety. It removes local flexibility, tying sheriffs’ hands and forcing one size fits all rules on counties that have different resources, priorities, and circumstances. Even the bill’s “opt-out” provision (requiring public justification to DHS) still feels coercive and undermines the independence of elected officials. It is government overreach. Elected leaders should be held accountable by the people who elect them, not by top down mandates from the legislature. Strong immigration enforcement and local control are not mutually exclusive. We can achieve both without stripping sheriffs of the authority voters gave them. The part that concerns me the most from the 287(g) agreement is this: "Each law enforcement agency in this state shall make an application for a section 287(g) program ... and shall participate in any future program or successor to an existing program." Local sheriffs would be locked into whatever immigration related program DHS develops or changes in the future, regardless of who controls the federal administration or what priorities it sets. This is very concerning.

The "opt-out" in S1441 isn't a real solution. It's a political trap. The legislature has already spent weeks demonizing Idaho's sheriffs as soft on crime or "sanctuary" sympathizers just for wanting to keep 287(g) voluntary, like it always has been. Now they toss in this public shaming requirement where county commissioners or city councils have to submit a written "finding" and explain themselves to DHS if they opt out. That's not accountability. That's a way to solidify the smear and pressure every local government into compliance or face the political fallout. Sheriffs already cooperate with ICE daily, multiple have said so publicly. This mandate creates redundancy, costs, and binds them into a federal program that could change under future admins. It's classic political virtue signaling in an election year, dressed up as "tough on immigration." And yeah, it reeks of the same leftist style tactics we've seen elsewhere: demonize local law enforcement, erode their discretion, then force compliance through public pressure and mandates. Disgusting to watch it play out in a red state like Idaho. Real support for law enforcement means trusting elected sheriffs to do their jobs, not tying their hands.

@MichaelAngil As far as I can tell, 287(g) in Kootenai County is going well. KC Sheriff’s Office welcomes the cooperation with @ICEgov. Why is 287(g) perceived to be an issue in other counties? I don’t understand.🤷‍♂️ cc: @secureIDelect @brian_lenney @brianalmon @RogueLou18 @RealTheoWold

The Idaho Sheriffs’ Association is on a full PR blitz against 287(g) legislation. Across media and press statements, they raise concerns about mandates, trust, and resources. But they consistently leave out one key fact: The bill includes an opt-out provision. Any sheriff can decline participation, they just have to publicly explain why. If that were acknowledged, the narrative changes pretty quickly. This isn’t about being “forced.” It’s about whether they’re willing to be accountable to the public, or not. Hard to ignore that the one provision that introduces public accountability is also the one never mentioned.

Every Senator that fled DC to get on a plane for home must immediately return back to the Senate to fully fund the Department of Homeland Security & TSA agents. You signed up for this job when you ran for the US Senate. This isn’t a game — get back to work.

@maziehirono Thank you, Captain Obvious.🤦‍♂️

Donald Trump is not, never will be, and has never been a king. #NoKings

@mattvanswol @elonmusk 🎯🎯🎯

@elonmusk The Uniparty, sadly, is alive and well.

So let me get this straight... The EXACT SAME PEOPLE who gave Elon Musk a standing ovation for DOGE, and then only voted on 1 DOGE cut... ...are the SAME PEOPLE saying we need secure elections, but won't pass the SAVE Act????

@DataRepublican @jennpf85 @LeaderJohnThune U.N.I.P.A.R.T.Y. cc: @MikeBenzCyber

Hello Senator Thune, At 3 AM on Friday, March 27th, in a near-empty chamber, you passed a bill by voice vote that excludes all funding for ICE and CBP. Let me repeat that: voice vote. No roll call. No record of who was there. No accountability. Just you, Barrasso, and a handful of senators shuffling paper in the dead of night while America slept. You could have demanded a recorded vote. You chose not to. You could have held the line for five more days until the House returned. You chose not to. You could have used the same procedural tools Democrats have used against you for 40 days. You chose not to. Instead, you gave Chuck Schumer exactly what he asked for, DHS funding minus immigration enforcement, and called it a win. Then you walked to the cameras and blamed the Democrats. Let's be precise about what you did: 1. You caved to a demand Democrats made on Day 1 of this shutdown. Forty-one days of supposed hardball negotiation, and you settled for their opening offer. 2. You handed them a template. The next time Democrats want to defund any agency — ICE, CBP, or anything else — they now know: just shut down DHS and wait. John Thune will fold at 3 AM. 3. You punted to reconciliation. "Good possibility," you said. Not "we will." Not "guaranteed." Just maybe. Meanwhile, ICE operates on fumes from last year's bill with no certainty of future funding. The precedent you set: You have argued for months that the filibuster is sacrosanct. That the 60-vote threshold protects minority rights. That we cannot bend Senate rules for policy wins. But at 3 AM on Friday, you bent every norm that actually mattered: • Voice vote to avoid accountability • Empty chamber to avoid debate • Midnight deal to avoid scrutiny • Immediate recess to avoid questions You'll bend the rules to avoid a fight. You just won't bend them to win one. What you've actually accomplished: Democrats demanded ICE restrictions. They got ICE defunded. Not reformed. Not restrained. Defunded. And you're out here tweeting about how Democrats are the "Defund the Police" party while you just voted to defund border enforcement at 3 in the morning. The question you should answer: Why did this deal have to happen at 3 AM? Why couldn't it happen at 3 PM, with cameras rolling and every senator on record? You know why. Because you didn't want your voters to see what surrender looks like. Here's my message: We saw it anyway. Stop hiding behind "Democrat obstruction." You're the Majority Leader. You set the schedule. You control the floor. You chose this outcome. Own it.

Let’s summarize where we are after a 40+ day Democrat shutdown of the Department of Homeland Security. 1) ICE and CBP are funded, thanks to the Working Families Tax Cuts and the foresight of President Trump and Republicans in Congress. 2) After holding DHS and the American people hostage for over 40 days, Dems got ZERO restrictions that would prevent ICE and CBP agents from doing their jobs safely. 3) Due to Dem obstruction of the appropriations process, ICE and CBP will get even more funding through budget reconciliation. 4) Dems have once again established themselves as the “Open Borders, Defund the Police” party heading into an election. 5) Dem leadership has proven once again they can’t be trusted to make a deal. Which begs the question if you’re a Dem senator or one of their left-wing supporters: What was this really all about?

@brian_lenney From Kootenai County up north with a 287(g) agreement with @ICEgov in place… …the water is warm.😎 Join us, rest of Idaho! cc: @IdahoNews_ @secureIDelect @RealTheoWold @KootenaiGOP

Here we have Idaho…

@mattvanswol @suzost Business as usual, Matt. We can tell you’re frustrated. You’re not alone. Just one suggested correction: it’s not incompetence.

WE ARE DROWNING IN THE INCOMPETENCE OF THE GOP!!!!!!! I CANNOT BELIEVE THIS SHIT!!!!! - BARELY EXECUTIVE ORDERS CODIFIED - CAN'T DEFUND THE TALIBAN - NO RECESS APPOINTMENTS - BARELY ANY DOGE CUTS - NO SAVE ACT …NOW THEY ARE GOING ON VACATION???!!!!! WHAT THE HELL???!!!!!!!!

@Savsays Certainly Well Done. Probly Burnt.😬

It’s cannot be understated how unfathomably cooked we are if we can’t even get basic voter ID laws passed in this country.

@Milajoy Why do you think that?

Tucker Carlson has lost his mind. It's sad. I used to so enjoy him.

@ScottPresler Actions speak louder than words. Fetterman’s ‘Nay’ vote says it all.

Senator Fetterman (D-PA) voted against the voter ID amendment. He is NOT for the SAVE America Act & he does NOT support voter ID.

@IdahoansFirst @ChristnNitemare I agree that’s something fair to question. More than fair - reasonable. My thought is that cultural fights and broad tax cuts are NOT sufficient to address the practical challenges faced by us and our neighbors across the state. Thanks Justin.

The governor has broad executive authority to engage directly with citizens, host public events, and gather input on any issues including cultural differences. This is standard practice for governors across the country, who routinely hold town halls and listening sessions. I would take full advantage of this authority to personally moderate regular monthly (or even weekly) listening sessions where Idahoans with differing views can discuss our cultural differences in a civilized way with each other while I listen to their concerns. This keeps the government from overreach and lawsuits by avoiding new mandates or divisive laws. No top down control, just real dialogue that puts Idahoans First. We can tackle housing, infrastructure, and jobs while respecting Idaho values through understanding and dialogue, not division. Mark Fitzpatrick deserves credit for boldly standing up for traditional family values, parental rights, and strong immigration enforcement. He's unapologetic on those fronts in a way many politicians aren't. That said, Idaho families are struggling with real quality of life issues as I already stated. Mark hasn't put forward any detailed plans to make housing more affordable, fix our infrastructure issues, or improve academic outcomes beyond cultural protections. On top of that, as owner of Idaho Wild Real Estate, he actively welcomes out of state buyers while his company profits from the very in-migration driving up our prices yet campaigns with "Idaho isn't for sale." I think it's fair to question if cultural fights and broad tax cut are enough to address the practical challenges facing everyday Idahoans.

Homophobic Hetero Awesome Fest Organizer Running for Governor of Idaho christiannightmares.substack.com/p/homophobic-h…

@IdahoansFirst @ChristnNitemare From my vantage point, I don’t think you are giving Mark credit for the core QoL issues that he appears eager to address in good faith if he gets elected. Put another way, writing Mark off as a “cultural warrior” is not accurate. I say this having met him and talked with him.

@IdahoansFirst @ChristnNitemare Thanks. Those are all real and pressing issues around the state - no doubt about it. For a future governor, do you see a workable approach that is somewhere in between the binary options you presented - one that focuses on core QoL issues as well as related cultural issues?

@IdahoansFirst @ChristnNitemare Why do you say/think that? On what issues? — undecided Idaho voter

@ChristnNitemare Just dandy isn't it. 🙄 He doesn't represent Idahoans. Just the judgemental ones.

@LeadersOfUSA @RealTheoWold @Cernovich Grasping defeat from the jaws of victory. Elected Republicans are great at that - lots of practice.

@robathon16 @RealTheoWold @Cernovich Right?

It says a lot that Republican leadership would rather put the SAVE Act through a months-long, guaranteed-to-fail reconciliation process than actually do the work of using the talking filibuster to pass it.

@SenMikeLee @EIwatchdogs That is exactly right. 🎯

If everyone is family, no one is family. If everything is urgent, then nothing is urgent. If anyone can illegally exercise a right of American citizenship, like voting—then American citizenship means nothing.

@LibertyBelle208 in Idaho ➡️ in America Fixed it for you. @iaproject

Illegals do not belong in Idaho.