Trump’s endorsement power keeps saving the wrong Republicans



For a decade, not one lukewarm Republican incumbent senator or governor has lost a primary and been replaced by a more conservative challenger under Donald Trump’s leadership of the GOP. That changed Tuesday night.

Four-term U.S. Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) did not merely lose to state Attorney General Ken Paxton. He got routed by 28 points.

The Paxton endorsement and Cornyn’s defeat should have marked a turning point in Trump’s political strategy. Instead, they look like the high point of the cycle.

The decisive factor was obvious: Trump finally endorsed the challenger instead of the RINO incumbent. Now, imagine what the party might look like if he had done that over the past five election cycles.

The point is not to dwell on missed opportunities. Upcoming primaries in red states will determine whether conservatives retain any real statewide fighters.

Paxton’s victory proves Trump could finish his term by draining the swamp. Sadly, he more often sides with the swamp or stays silent long enough for moneyed interests to crush more principled candidates.

Most insurgent challengers lack Paxton’s name recognition. But if Trump’s endorsement could move Paxton from a close race to a 240-county rout, it could make lesser-known challengers competitive against weak incumbents. In open seats, a grassroots conservative with Trump’s backing would be nearly unbeatable.

Several upcoming races offer conservatives a chance to make red states actually govern like red states. Too often, Trump is absent or on the wrong side.

Start with Iowa.

Gov. Kim Reynolds is retiring, and Democrats have fielded a credible challenger pretending to be a moderate while running against land grabs. Republicans need a non-corporatist nominee who does not carry the baggage of the status quo Republicans in Congress.

Betting markets have RINO Rep. Randy Feenstra as the heavy favorite for the GOP nomination because he has the most money and name identification. Conservatives have fielded multiple candidates, but with only days until the election, Zach Lahn has the most traction and the clearest message against data centers and land grabs.

Thankfully, Trump has not endorsed Feenstra. But if he endorsed Lahn, Lahn could win outright without a runoff.

The Iowa Senate race shows the opposite problem. Former state Sen. Jim Carlin challenged Sen. Joni Ernst after she obstructed Pete Hegseth’s nomination. Trump should have endorsed Carlin. Instead, he encouraged Ernst to run again. Then, when Ernst retired thanks to Carlin’s hard work, Trump endorsed RINO Rep. Ashley Hinson, ensuring no improvement over Ernst.

RELATED: Trump-backed candidate easily wins primary to replace Sen. Mitch McConnell in Kentucky

Luke Sharrett/Getty Images

Trump made a similar move in Louisiana. Sen. Bill Cassidy was already politically wounded, with conservative challengers in the race. Trump could have helped finish him. Instead, he helped clear the field for Rep. Julia Letlow, a carbon capture supporter backed by major AI money who declined to run when the race looked difficult.

South Dakota presents the next major red-state test.

Sen. Mike Rounds represents everything MAGA claims to hate on social, fiscal, and national security policy. Yet Trump endorsed him last year, clearing the field and guaranteeing no serious opposition. This has become a familiar pattern. A Trump endorsement effectively cancels the primary.

The biggest prize in South Dakota is the governor’s race. After MAGA Inc. promoted Kristi Noem as a conservative champion, many of us warned she was a capricious establishment Republican. Her lieutenant governor, Larry Rhoden, took over the term and now seeks a full one. Rep. Dusty Johnson, former leader of the RINO Main Street Partnership, is also running. So is wealthy businessman Toby Doeden, who claims the MAGA label while pushing data centers.

Speaker Jon Hansen is the only conservative in the race. He led the fight against carbon capture land grabs, helped build a conservative majority in the state House, and fought the abortion amendment, marijuana amendment, and COVID tyranny in South Dakota. Now, he is fighting data centers.

A Trump endorsement would likely win the race for Hansen. Instead, conservatives have to worry that Trump might intervene on the wrong side if the race heads to a runoff.

Anyone who thought Trump’s late endorsement against Cornyn signaled a strategic turning point should look at South Carolina. Trump recently reaffirmed his endorsement of Sen. Lindsey Graham ahead of the June 9 primary against Matt Lynch and several other candidates.

Trump’s endorsements of Graham in 2020 and again now have driven off stronger challengers. That is clearly why, barring a miracle, one of the most obnoxious Republicans in the Senate will probably remain there until he dies.

Even when conservatives cannot defeat incumbent RINOs, they should at least ensure that open seats produce better Republicans. Montana shows how hard the establishment works to prevent that.

Trump and the RINO establishment that runs the Montana GOP helped execute a sleazy scheme around Sen. Steve Daines’ retirement. Daines announced his retirement on the filing deadline while the establishment had U.S. Attorney Kurt Alme lined up to walk into the seat without a primary. The goal was obvious: avoid a competitive race from a member of the Montana Freedom Caucus.

Meanwhile, Gov. Greg Gianforte, another RINO Trump ally, is at war with the state Freedom Caucus and is spending heavily to defeat conservative incumbents in the legislature next Tuesday.

RELATED: JD Vance might be unstoppable in 2028

Matt Rourke/Pool/Getty Images

This pattern keeps repeating. Trump elevates, preserves, and empowers statewide GOP leaders who hate conservatives. Those leaders then turn their guns on freedom caucus members in their own legislatures.

Idaho proved the point last week. Trump’s endorsement of Gov. Brad Little for a third term helped keep him in power. Little then spent hundreds of thousands of dollars helping defeat five conservatives in the legislature.

North Dakota shows the same dynamic. Trump cleared the field for governor two years ago and helped install Rep. Kelly Armstrong, one of the most liberal Republicans in Congress. Armstrong is not up for re-election this year, so he is using his money and clout to target the few conservatives in a legislature with almost no official Democrats but plenty of undocumented ones.

Trump has generally stayed out of state legislative races. But his long shadow of RINO endorsements now creates a greater headwind against conservative candidates than ever before.

And don’t even get me started on Trump’s endorsement of Byron Donalds in Florida to replace the greatest governor of this generation.

The Paxton endorsement and Cornyn’s defeat should have marked a turning point in Trump’s political strategy. Instead, they look like the high point of the cycle.

From here, conservatives have every reason to worry that Trump will return to his old habit: rewarding the swamp, clearing the field for weak Republicans, and leaving the movement’s best fighters to fend for themselves.

Idaho derails teachers' unions' taxpayer-funded gravy train



American teachers' unions are notorious for political meddling, holding schools hostage, and transforming children into leftist foot soldiers.

Idaho decided that not one more dollar of taxpayer funds should go toward supporting such radical organizations — then on April 10, it made that prohibition law.

'That's just restoring neutrality.'

House Bill 516a, which was introduced in January, prohibits school districts — including specially chartered districts — or their agents or representatives from using or authorizing the use of taxpayer funds to support teachers' unions.

They may not, for instance,

  • deduct dues, fees, fines, or contributions from the pay of a professional employee on behalf of a union;
  • increase a teacher's compensation in order that the difference or some part of it could be used to pay toward teachers' union or affiliate dues;
  • provide more personal or contact information of a teacher to a teachers' union than permitted under state law;
  • require an employee to meet, communicate, or listen to a teachers' union or its affiliate;
  • distribute union communications or membership solicitations;
  • contribute funds or blow money on behalf of a union or its affiliate; and
  • provide, except in certain cases, any form of compensation or paid leave to a public employee so they can partake in union activities.

RELATED: Radicals train for massive May Day protests at public schools, thanks to America's largest teachers' union

Darin Oswald/Idaho Statesman/Tribune News Service/Getty Images

Individuals who knowingly violate this law can be fined up to $1,500, unless he or she is a re-offender, in which case the fine is increased to $2,500.

The bill was passed in a 59-10 vote in the state House, passed by the state Senate on April 1 in a 20-14 vote, and ratified by Idaho Gov. Brad Little (R) on April 10. The law takes effect on July 1.

Little noted, "While local and state teachers' associations do important work, they remain private organizations that currently receive taxpayer-funded support not extended to other private entities. House Bill 516a addresses that imbalance."

The governor did, however, express some concern that the new law contains language that may "lead to increased scrutiny of a teacher's actions purely based on their affiliation with their local association" and have a "chilling effect on school districts' ability to collaborate with their local association on professional development and charitable work in the community."

Layne McInelly, president of the Idaho Education Association, which endorsed Little ahead of the 2018 election, is less than thrilled about the new law.

McInelly claimed that the governor "ignored his better angels, signed this terrible bill into law," and somehow left students and teachers "worse off."

Maxford Nelsen, director of research at the Freedom Foundation, told Center Square, "By getting school districts out of this business of using taxpayer funds, collect union dues and prop up teachers' union activity — that's just restoring neutrality."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Red-state inaction is the soft underbelly of border politics



Fourteen months into Trump’s second term, the verdict is in. No mass deportations. No major immigration reform. And if Democrats return to power, they will rip the doors off the hinges again.

Trump did slow the flow and put a dent in some outdated visa programs. But the results remain too small relative to the scale of what came before him and what may come after him.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing.

That leaves one durable partial solution: Use red-state supermajorities to deter illegal aliens from settling in those states when the next wave comes. States may lack the power to deport illegal aliens outright, but they can make daily life harder. They can deny jobs and benefits, impose criminal penalties, and create a lasting deterrent that survives any one presidency.

Ron DeSantis appears to understand this in Florida. Almost no other Republican governor does.

Idaho offers the clearest example of the problem. On paper, it looks like the kind of state where serious immigration enforcement should be easy. Republicans hold 61-9 and 29-6 majorities in the House and Senate. Conservatives gained ground in the House thanks to the Freedom Caucus. Yet when the time came to pass meaningful reforms, the GOP establishment folded.

The House moved several bills. The Senate is quietly killing them. Gov. Brad Little (R) remains publicly silent, apparently hoping the issue dies in committee while he cruises to re-election under Trump’s preemptive endorsement and keeps his donor class happy.

The bills now stalled in Idaho expose the fraud.

H704 would mandate E-Verify for all public and private employers and give the state attorney general real enforcement power. It passed the House 43-26 despite opposition from 17 Republicans. It now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee under Chairman Jim Guthrie and Senate President Pro Tempore Kelly Anthon.

H700 would make it a misdemeanor knowingly to hire illegal aliens without using E-Verify. That bill is also dead in the Senate, and 22 House Republicans opposed it.

H659 would require all counties and cities to cooperate with ICE through 287(g) agreements. In a state with barely any elected Democrats, one might assume mandatory ICE cooperation would be the easiest of calls. Instead, the bill passed the House 41-27, with 18 lukewarm Republicans joining Democrats in opposition, and now sits dead in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H660 would require police to inquire about immigration status after a lawful arrest and would mandate a twice-yearly report on crimes committed by illegal aliens. By definition, this involves people already suspected of some other offense. Even so, the bill passed only 40-30 and is now being blocked in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

RELATED: The TSA showdown reveals a brutal truth about our politics

Blaze Media Illustration

H764 would create a state analogue to the federal statute that penalizes anyone who knowingly or recklessly conceals, harbors, transports, or materially assists illegal aliens. It includes misdemeanor and felony penalties, license revocations, and forfeiture provisions. In other words, it would build precisely the kind of standing deterrent red states will need when Democrats reopen the border. It has not even advanced out of committee.

S1318 would audit refugee-resettlement contractors in Idaho, including the number of refugees served, their demographic and language data, participation in language programs, housing use, geographic distribution, and relevant public-health statistics. It would also require disclosure if those entities aided illegal aliens. It remains blocked in the Senate State Affairs Committee.

H592 would require the state to track how many illegal aliens receive hospital services and how much that costs taxpayers. It would not deny care. It would merely quantify the burden. A similar law in Florida led to a drop in illegal-alien use of the health care system. Idaho’s bill has not moved.

H656 would do the same basic thing in schools by auditing the number of illegal aliens enrolled. It has gone nowhere.

How does this happen in a state so red? The answer is simple: Many Republican officials remain functionally progressive on immigration.

Little is deeply unpopular with the grassroots, but he neutralized the threat of a primary by securing Trump’s endorsement. Everyone knows he opposes these bills. He simply does not want to say so out loud. Better to let them die quietly in committee than risk angering the base or the business interests that still demand cheap labor.

Call it political Murphy’s law. DeSantis is term-limited in Florida. Brad Little gets a third term.

RELATED: Memo to Trump: Stop negotiating and ramp up deportations

DOMINIC GWINN/Middle East Images/AFP/Getty Images

Even Florida has not gone far enough. It already has E-Verify, but lawmakers failed to remove the 25-employee exception. Similar attempts to strengthen E-Verify have failed in West Virginia, Indiana, Oklahoma, and South Dakota, all solidly red states.

A few bright spots remain.

Tennessee may pass some worthwhile bills, though lawmakers gutted legislation to charge illegal aliens tuition. Arizona’s legislature is close to passing SB 1421, which would bar illegal aliens from opening bank accounts, cashing checks, or obtaining loans by prohibiting financial institutions from accepting foreign ID cards or ITINs as sole identification. It would make life in the United States much harder without legal status. The bill passed the Senate and awaits a House vote. Unfortunately, Arizona has a Democrat governor who will likely veto it.

That only raises the harder question: Why is this not already law in the 22 Republican trifecta states?

The same problem appears in commercial trucking. Amid the rash of crashes involving illegal-alien drivers, very few states have acted seriously. Oklahoma alone passed a law requiring proof of citizenship to reciprocate out-of-state commercial driver’s licenses. Florida appears to be the one state seriously enforcing the English-language requirement and checking for illegal aliens at truck stops.

Iowa let a bill die in committee that would have required driver’s license exams to be administered only in English. Indiana passed an English-only testing bill, but still failed to address out-of-state CDLs, even after two illegal aliens killed Indiana residents in separate incidents in less than two weeks in February.

One day, red states will need to enact these deterrents. The only question is timing. Will Republicans build them now, during the lull, or will they wait until hundreds of thousands of new invaders flood back in under a future President Gavin Newsom?

That choice will tell us whether Republicans ever meant a word they said about immigration.

Idaho is deep red. So why do leftist bureaucrats still run the show?



Idaho votes like a conservative juggernaut. Republicans hold the governor’s mansion, both legislative chambers, and every statewide office. Yet the administrative state still runs on autopilot, and progressives who never win at the ballot box keep their hands on levers of power.

Last week delivered a clean example. Estella Zamora, the 72-year-old vice president of the Idaho Human Rights Commission, lost her seat after Gov. Brad Little withdrew her reappointment. Progressive activists erupted. The press corps dutifully framed it as a purge. But the real scandal sits one step earlier: Little’s office initially recommended her for another term, as if nobody bothered to look.

President Trump’s ‘drain the swamp’ mandate doesn’t end at Maryland and Virginia’s borders. It reaches every state capital where permanent bureaucrats ignore the electorate.

That rubber-stamp culture explains how red-state voters keep getting blue-state governance.

Zamora held influence for more than three decades. She didn’t win it from voters. She inherited it from the system. A Democratic governor appointed her in the 1990s. Republican administrations kept renewing her anyway, term after term, until she became another “untouchable” fixture inside Idaho’s bureaucracy.

Only public pressure forced movement. Conservative activists and outlets like the Gem State Chronicle, along with our own program, Idaho Signal, highlighted Zamora’s political activism online. She appeared before the Senate State Affairs Committee on Jan. 28 as part of the reappointment process. Lawmakers asked questions. The public noticed. Little reversed course a few days later.

Little made the right call in the end. The process that led to the near-miss should worry every Idaho voter.

Zamora didn’t simply hold personal opinions. She couldn’t resist using her public platform to attack Immigration and Customs Enforcement, an agency charged with enforcing federal immigration law. Her posts pushed anti-ICE propaganda, circulated protest material, and condemned enforcement operations as “harmful.” She aligned herself with the activist line that treats border enforcement as a moral offense.

Idaho doesn’t need every commissioner to share the governor’s politics. Idaho does need commissioners who can credibly carry out their duties without turning a state post into a political megaphone. A human rights commission depends on public confidence. Activism that signals contempt for lawful enforcement undermines that confidence.

This isn’t a free-speech dispute. Zamora can say whatever she wants as a private citizen. Voters can judge it. Officials must still decide whether that behavior fits a role that demands impartiality and restraint.

Progressives are already shouting “censorship” and “partisan purge.” They’re portraying Zamora as some saintly Latina icon victimized for speaking out. That rhetoric flips the facts. Nobody owes a lifetime appointment to someone who campaigns against the policies Idaho voters repeatedly choose in overwhelming numbers at the ballot box. Public service carries conditions. When the public loses trust, leaders should act.

RELATED: Trump’s primary endorsements are sabotaging his own agenda

Photo by JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images

The greater lesson extends beyond Zamora.

Idaho’s bureaucracy keeps reappointing the same figures because too many Republican offices treat commissions and boards as background noise. Staffers recycle names. Vetting becomes procedural. Appointments become habit. Progressives understand this weakness, so they play the long game: They entrench themselves in institutions that outlast elections.

That pattern repeats across the country. Red states elect Republican leaders. Agencies keep advancing progressive priorities through regulation, enforcement discretion, and institutional culture. The left loses elections and wins governance anyway.

Republican governors and legislators can’t keep solving this problem only after activists force their hand. They should audit commissions and boards, review reappointments with real scrutiny, and replace partisan operatives with people who respect the mission and the law without bias and without apology.

President Trump’s “drain the swamp” mandate doesn’t end at the Maryland and Virginia borders. It reaches every state capital where permanent bureaucrats ignore the electorate and treat public posts as ideological turf.

Idaho voters spoke loudly. The administrative state had better listen because we’re just getting started.

Six questions Trump and conservatives can no longer dodge in ’26



For conservatives, January 2025 felt like an auspicious moment to be alive. Donald Trump sat atop the world with a bully pulpit larger than any media outlet and the power to drive virtually any narrative he chose. Yet instead of using that power, we spent the year arguing over the power the GOP supposedly lacked.

Almost no legislation was passed. Many of the most transformational policies Trump enacted through executive action now sit mired in the courts.

Where is our Mamdani?

Fast-forward to January 2026. The economy looks grim. Democrats are crushing Republicans in special elections. It feels like a different universe.

Republicans tend to operate on a familiar two-year cycle. After a victory, the first year involves explaining why campaign promises cannot be fulfilled. The second year, ending in November elections, turns into defensive posturing: As disappointed as voters may be, they must remember that Democrats represent instant political death.

The implication stays constant. Voters must dutifully back the GOP, ignore the fact that Republicans currently hold power, and politely bypass the primary process out of fear of weakening resistance to Democrats.

As we enter the new year, we have reached the “rally around the GOP to stop the Democrats” phase of the cycle once again.

But reality intrudes. No matter how faithfully the base rallies, Republicans will likely lose in November because of the economy. Absent a dramatic national reset, Democrats will retake the House, probably with a substantial majority.

That makes the present moment decisive. With trifecta control still intact for now, Republicans must use what power they have to improve daily life, enact changes harder to undo, and reinforce red-state America so the coming blue wave does not obliterate the remaining red firewall.

Whether Republicans break free from their familiar cycle of election-failure theater comes down to the answers to these six questions.

1. Will the red firewall hold?

Republicans will likely lose the House and surrender residual power in battleground states such as Georgia and Arizona. Independents have abandoned the GOP, and that trend will accelerate as economic conditions worsen.

The question is whether Republicans will give their voters something worth turning out for. Base turnout alone will not flip purple territory, but it could stop the bleeding deep into red states and keep races such as the Iowa and Ohio governorships out of reach.

This past year made clear that Republicans are losing races they never should have had to defend. A deeper economic downturn would push that line even farther.

2. How toxic do AI data centers become — and will Republicans notice?

By the end of 2025, opposition to data centers surged across ideological lines. Communities worry about water use, power strain, housing values, and secondary effects.

Democrats have begun embracing that resistance as Trump elevates data centers and tech interests as pillars of his economic agenda. Will this issue fracture Republicans’ coalition or even force a break with Trump?

3. What will Republicans do with health care?

Democrats engineered a trap that forces Republicans to address health care, the single largest driver of deficits, inflation, and household pain.

Obamacare made unsubsidized insurance unaffordable for most Americans. Democrats then timed the expiration of expanded subsidies to land on Trump’s watch, ensuring that voters blame him rather than the law’s architects.

Anything Trump does — or refuses to do — will be pinned on him. That reality argues for pushing a genuinely free-market repeal-and-replace that lowers costs. History suggests that outcome remains unlikely. I’m not holding my breath, anyway.

4. Will Trump finally ignore a lawless court?

Could a powerless judge issue a ruling so egregious that it would prompt Trump to defy it at long last?

I am not holding my breath on that one, either.

RELATED: The courts are running the country — and Trump is letting it happen

Photo by Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

5. Will Trump clear the decks on his promises dating back to 2015?

Democrats will likely control one or both chambers for the remainder of Trump’s term. Regardless of strategy, they probably win the midterms.

That means Trump has nothing to lose by executing fully on his original agenda now. Immigration moratoria, judicial reform, welfare devolution, bans on the Council on American-Islamic Relations and Antifa — these changes should be forced through every “must-pass” bill available.

An all-out approach carries policy upside and political clarity.

6. Will Trump stop making bad primary endorsements?

This year’s primaries matter far more than the general election. They will determine whether red states have leaders willing to defend their prerogatives when Democrats reclaim federal power.

If Trump continues endorsing lackluster governors and candidates such as Byron Donalds in Florida, Greg Abbott in Texas, and Brad Little in Idaho, conservatives will have nowhere to retreat when figures like Zohran Mamdani dominate national politics.

RELATED: Trump’s agenda faces a midterm kill switch in 2026

Photo by Amir Hamja-Pool/Getty Images

Mamdani’s takeover of New York and his appointment of Ramzi Kassem — a 9/11 al-Qaeda defense lawyer — as chief counsel drew outrage on the right. At his inauguration, Mamdani declared, “We’ll replace the frigidity of rugged individualism with the warmth of collectivism.”

Rather than merely lamenting how Marxists consolidate power in deep-blue America, conservatives should let that example ignite action where they actually govern. If the left can floor the gas pedal in its strongholds, why can’t we?

Where is our Mamdani?

This moment demands urgency. GOP power has become a “use it or lose it” proposition. Trump must finally become the right-wing disruptor his supporters were promised.

If he cannot — or will not — then Republicans deserve to go the way of the Whigs.

Woke Boise mayor tosses Appeal to Heaven flag aside like trash, raises LGBTQ flag in defiance of state law



The radical mayor of Boise, Lauren McLean, took time on Easter Sunday to crumple up an Appeal to Heaven flag like trash so she could hoist an LGBTQ flag unobstructed at city hall in direct defiance of a new Idaho law.

Earlier this month, Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law H.B. 96, which strictly regulates the flags that counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities in Idaho may fly on public property. The law mainly permits only those flags representing the U.S., the military, the state of Idaho, schools, and Indian tribes.

Despite this new law, Boise has continued to fly the "Progressive Pride" flag, depicting the rainbow associated with non-heterosexual identities, the colors affiliated with so-called transgenderism, and black and brown stripes that pay fealty to non-white skin colors.

"We will continue flying it because we are a safe and welcoming city that values all comers," McLean said in a statement.

'Now this is a mayor. We gotta re-elect her. She stands for all the people.'

Early Sunday morning, some area activists attempted to beat McLean at her own game. They brought a ladder, positioned it on the city flagpole, then proceeded to make some changes to the flags blazing there, video showed.

For one thing, the two men placed black trash bags over the Pride flag and a flag promoting organ donation.

They also clipped to the pole an Appeal to Heaven flag made famous during the American Revolution. Because of its official association with the state of Massachusetts, the Appeal to Heaven flag does not violate H.B. 96, the Idaho statesman said.

Later that morning, undeterred by the attempts to bring Boise into compliance with the new state law, Mayor McLean and an assistant went to the flagpole and restored the flags to the way they were.

Far from passively rearranging the flags, McLean took a knife of sorts and cut part of the Appeal to Heaven flag before her assistant finished the job, tearing away the flag and the black bags covering the Pride and organ-donation flags. McLean then balled the flag up into one of the black trash bags and tossed it on the ground like garbage.

Their actions were so politically charged that the Idaho statesman criticized McLean's lack of "respect" for a flag "which has a lot of historical significance for Americans." Yet McLean was so nonchalant about it all that at one point, she paused and wished some passersby a "happy Easter."

Pam Hemphill — a rabid leftist who claims to have previously supported President Donald Trump and the MAGA agenda but who now takes every opportunity to excoriate MAGA and trumpet Democratic talking points — filmed McLean and her assistant and could barely contain her enthusiasm for their woke flag stunt.

"I am so happy. ... This is wonderful," Hemphill gushed.

"Now this is a mayor. We gotta re-elect her. She stands for all the people," Hemphill continued, even as McLean and the assistant basically ignored her.

Hemphill also characterized her detractors as "idiots" and "haters." "All you know is propaganda and hate," she said.

Mayor McLean has managed to flout H.B. 96 so brazenly because the law is basically toothless. Even Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford, whose office has been bombarded with complaints about the flag mess in Boise, has admitted there's little he can do.

"The law, as it stands, doesn’t provide any enforcement mechanism," Clifford said in a statement posted to social media.

Clifford further noted that criminal laws generally "apply to individuals, not institutions," but H.B. 96 applies mainly to local governments and government bodies.

Idaho Attorney General Raul Labrador, a Republican, also acknowledged that "the law does not allow for criminal prosecution in this situation."

"I cannot prosecute conduct that is not a crime, and I will not distort or stretch Idaho law to invent one. What I can do — and am actively doing — is reviewing every available civil legal option under Idaho law in response to this situation," he added.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Leftist mayor ignores deep-red state law, flies racial LGBTQ flag



A leftist mayor has opted to defy a new law in her deep-red state by flying a flag that represents the woke racial and sexual agenda.

Less than two weeks ago, Idaho Republican Gov. Brad Little signed into law H.B. 96, which strictly regulates the flags that counties, municipalities, and other governmental entities may fly on public property. Introduced by state Rep. Heather Scott (R-Blanchard), the bill basically restricts public flags to those representing the U.S. and its military, the state of Idaho, local cities, schools, and Indian tribes.

Scott indicated the purpose behind the law was to keep flag-flying from becoming too "political."

"I believe this bill is necessary for government to be neutral and unified and that government buildings should represent all Idahoans and not be used for political movements or social movements," she said, according to KIVI-TV.

The law took effect immediately. However, Lauren McLean, the radical mayor of Boise, does not seem to care.

According to reports from over the weekend, Boise City Hall still flies a flag known as the "Progressive Pride" flag, depicting the rainbow associated with non-heterosexual identities, the colors affiliated with so-called transgenderism, and black and brown stripes that pay fealty to non-white skin colors.

The Idaho Dispatch reported that the flag was momentarily removed, but the mayor's administration raised it again.

McLean indicated in a statement that the sex- and race-based flag represents the inclusiveness of the Boise community. "We will continue flying it because we are a safe and welcoming city that values all comers," she said.

'I never looked at her as a law breaker, but I guess she is.'

McLean also claimed in her statement that flying the Pride flag has been a Boise tradition that dates back almost a decade. "For nearly ten years the city has been flying the Pride flag," she said.

However, keen observers at BoiseDev noticed that the flag that flies over the city currently appears in better condition than the one that flew as recently as February. The colors on the current flag "now appear more vibrant, and a small hole in the flag is no longer present," the outlet reported.

The city did not respond to questions from BoiseDev about whether a new flag had been used.

BoiseDev also noted that McLean and other city leaders quickly abided by another state law, S.B. 1141, that prohibits sleeping in outdoor public places or inside cars, even while they continue to ignore H.B. 96.

The difference may be that S.B. 1141 imposes penalties for noncompliance. Cities that fail to enforce S.B. 1141 can be hit with a $10,000 fine imposed by the state attorney general. Even McLean admitted that she would work with the police department to enforce S.B. 1141 "because we must."

H.B. 96 has no such enforcement mechanism. Still, Scott is shocked by McLean's defiance.

"I just assumed [McLean] would follow the law," Scott told BoiseDev. "It’s interesting that she’s not going to follow the law. I never looked at her as a law breaker, but I guess she is."

In a conversation with KIVI, state Rep. Monica Church, a Democrat who represents a district that includes Boise City Hall, seemed to relish the fact that there is no way to enforce H.B. 96 at the moment. She also views H.B. 96 as "an opportunity for political grandstanding," the outlet added.

Gov. Little and Attorney General Raul Labrador did not respond to a request for comment from the Idaho Dispatch.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Idaho Bill Sitting On GOP Governor’s Desk Could Shatter School Vaccine Mandates

The Idaho Freedom Act would prohibit businesses and schools from requiring vaccines for employment or attendance.

Idaho enacts new protections for teachers who don't play the pronoun game — and all the right people are upset



Idaho has enacted new protections for teachers and other public employees who do not use someone's "preferred pronouns."

On Monday, Gov. Brad Little (R) signed H.B. 538 into law. The bill prohibits:

... any governmental entity in the State of Idaho from compelling any public employee or public school student to communicate preferred personal titles and pronouns that do not correspond with the biological sex of the individual seeking to be referred to by such titles or pronouns.

The legislation explains the prohibition is necessary to "ensure that the constitutional right to free speech of every person in the State of Idaho is respected."

Teachers, moreover, are empowered under the law to sue their school district if they are forced to comply with someone's preferred name or pronouns. No student, teacher, or government employee can be disciplined for not using someone's preferred pronouns or for refusing to call someone by a name other than that person's legal name, the law states.

The law takes effect on July 1.

A spokeswoman said Gov. Little signed the Republican-backed bill because he supports policies that advance "free speech and parental rights."

"While Gov. Little expects state employees to treat each other and members of the community with dignity and respect, he does not support government compelling speech at risk of penalty or excluding parents from significant decisions impacting a child’s health and wellbeing," spokeswoman Madison Hardy said.

Progressive organizations, meanwhile, have voiced their opposition to the law.

The American Civil Liberties Union of Idaho claimed the "human cost" of the law is "devastating."

"Transgender people live in and call Idaho home. By creating exclusionary public work and school environments, the state is subjecting them to predictable and dire harm," the organization claimed.

Planned Parenthood said that Gov. Little should be "ashamed" for supporting H.B. 538 and H.B. 421, a bill that would change the legal definition of "sex" in Idaho to "an individual’s biological sex, either male or female."

Mistie DelliCarpini-Tolman, Idaho state director of Planned Parenthood Alliance Advocates, called Little "callous and cruel" for supporting "harmful bills that target LGBTQ+ Idahoans."

"We’re heading in the wrong direction. Our state needs more kindness, compassion, understanding – not permission to discriminate against others," DelliCarpini-Tolman said.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Red State Gov Signs Bill Protecting Parental Rights In Medical Decisions

'Fundamental right and duty'