Note: This is a guest op-ed by the Tax Foundation. In most respects, Idaho and Montana have been enthusiastic in their pursuit of tax competitiveness. But if there’s one area of tax policy on which they are worse than their peers, it’s in their incorporation of GILTI—the federal tax on Global Intangible Low-Taxed Income—into their own state tax codes. Not even California or Illinois does that. Twenty states and the District of Columbia tax GILTI, and Idaho and Montana are among them. With the federal tax on GILTI undergoing substantial changes under the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB), there’s no time like the present for lawmakers to reconsider this uncompetitive, and increasingly irrational, state tax policy. Under the new federal law, GILTI is about to change to a tax on what is being called Net CFC Tested Income (NCTI). Since neither of these tongue-twisting terms is a household name, let’s take a step back to see what they are, and why these seemingly obscure provisions matter. Prior to the enactment of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) in 2017, federal corporate income taxes applied to the entire worldwide net income (profits) of a corporation, with credits for foreign taxes paid. Now the U.S. operates under a mostly territorial system, with a few guardrails to curb international tax avoidance techniques like profit shifting and the parking of intellectual property in low-tax countries. One of these guardrails is GILTI, imposed on so-called “supernormal returns.” Essentially, under the GILTI regime, the federal government looks at the profits of foreign companies owned (or invested in) by U.S.-based multinationals, and if their annual profits are more than 10 percent of the value of their tangible property abroad, the U.S. assumes that the foreign entity is earning income from intellectual property (royalty payments on patents, trademarks, copyrights, and the like). It then taxes the foreign income above that threshold, albeit at a reduced rate, with credits for 80 percent of the value of taxes paid abroad. The upshot of this somewhat confusing system: if you have unusually high rates of profit in your foreign subsidiaries, and you aren’t paying much in foreign taxes on that income, the U.S. slaps a minimum tax on the activity. That makes a certain amount of sense. But when some states got in the act, taxing shares of this international activity, things got messy—fast. Now they’re getting messier. The OBBB overhauled the federal GILTI regime and rechristened it NCTI. Now, instead of only taxing foreign profits in excess of 10 percent, all  foreign income from these controlled foreign corporations is brought into the tax base. As an offset, the share of foreign tax credits that can be used against liability increases from 80 to 90 percent. Meanwhile, a 50 percent deduction that essentially limited the resulting tax to half the ordinary rate (10.5 percent rather than 21 percent at the federal level) is trimmed to a 40 percent deduction, raising the effective rate of the minimum tax. States often provide their own deductions that interact with this: Montana taxes 20 percent of GILTI and Idaho taxes 15 percent. Each of these inclusions would rise with the reduction in the federal deduction under NCTI. Under the GILTI regime, moreover, many expenses by U.S.-based multinationals were sourced to their foreign corporations to the extent that they were deemed to benefit them. Since these business expenses would have ordinarily been deductions from the U.S. company’s taxable income, these expense allocation rules (1) increased domestic tax liability for U.S.-based multinationals, since they were denied deductions for some of their business expenses; but, at the same time, (2) provided deductions for the foreign companies, reducing their taxable income potentially subject to GILTI. Under NCTI, these expenses are generally attributable to the parent corporation, and thus no longer reduce GILTI liability. (For a more detailed explanation of the changes, see here .) Under this new system, the initial base is broader (all income of these foreign corporations, with fewer expense deductions) and the rates are higher. And the vital offset—a credit for foreign taxes paid—isn’t available at the state level. That’s a huge problem, because without it, the whole system falls apart. When states tax NCTI, they’re not taxing foreign profit-shifting activity, or foreign income on which relatively little foreign tax has been paid. They’re taxing all the income of any foreign company in which a U.S.-based business has an ownership stake, even if the income was genuinely earned abroad (e.g., revenue from sales into European countries by a Europe-based corporation, rather than royalty payments for the U.S. parent company’s intellectual property sourced to a low-tax country), and without any reference to how much tax was paid to foreign countries. Actually, it’s worse than that. Foreign taxes do matter for state tax liability, but not in the way you would expect, and not in the way Congress intended. When the federal government allows credits against the U.S.-based company’s tax liability based on taxes its foreign subsidiaries paid abroad, this involves an imputation: the taxes are included in the parent company’s income and then credited against its tax liability. Imagine, for instance, that the U.S. company’s net income from foreign corporations was $100 million, and that those companies paid $10 million in foreign taxes. Without any tax credits, the NCTI tax liability would be $12.6 million ($100 million x 12.6 percent, which is 60 percent of the 21 percent federal rate). With the credits, however, the income is grossed up to $110 million, making pre-credit liability $13.86 million ($110 million x 12.6 percent), but then 90 percent of the value of the $10 million in foreign taxes paid is applied against the resulting tax liability, yielding $4.86 million in U.S. federal taxes. From this, it should be obvious that it’s no trifle that states omit the foreign tax credits, given their significance. And it gets worse still: states include the gross-up of income based on foreign taxes paid, even though they don’t acknowledge the tax credits. They literally tax the amount paid in foreign taxes. In the above example, states’ NCTI tax base would be 285 percent of the federal one. None of this makes any sense. It’s an inversion of the federal system and its purpose, and beyond that, there’s no principled way to apportion this foreign activity to specific states. Yet many states tax GILTI and are on track to even more nonsensically incorporate NCTI. GILTI was the rare tax issue where red states were just as guilty as blue states. But the conversion of NCTI, which will flow through to states currently taxing GILTI, might just be the nudge states like Montana and Idaho and others in the Mountain West need to remove this provision from their tax codes. There are valid reasons for the federal government to tax some of the income of U.S.-owned foreign corporations. But virtually nothing of its federal purpose, or even its intended federal base, is retained when incorporated into state tax codes, and there’s little innate justification for state taxation of international activity. California doesn’t tax GILTI/NCTI. Illinois doesn’t either. New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts eliminated all but a small share (5 percent inclusion). It’s time for policymakers in the Mountain West to ask why their states tax it, especially now that an already uncompetitive element of their state tax code is about to become considerably more burdensome. Jared Walczak is Vice President of State Projects at the T ax Foundation .

Government officials who damage private property must pay for what they ruin ruled the Wyoming Supreme Court unanimously last week in Thomas Hamann v. Heart Mountain Irrigation District . Common sense should have dictated the outcome years ago. But the decision ends a years- long battle between the Hamann family of Cody and Heart Mountain Irrigation District (HMID), whose former manager destroyed about $10,000 of fencing and other property and personally and permanently injured Mr. Hamann with an excavator while accessing his family’s land without permission. This is not just an example of one family receiving the partial justice it deserved (the case only dealt with the property damage, not the personal injury). It is a case of one man standing up for his rights so that every property owner in Wyoming will be treated with fairness and respect by irrigation districts and other state and local government organizations in the months and years ahead. HMID argued successfully in district court that it wasn’t liable for the damage to the Hamann’s property because board members hadn’t specifically authorized the manager’s actions during a public meeting (background on the story here ). During testimony, however, board members admitted that they frequently did not monitor the manager’s actions and left many decisions about how to carry out the function of the district to his discretion. Besides, under that logic, HMID would literally have to vote during public meetings on when and where a manager and other employees drink coffee, use the restroom, and other daily activities. Egregiously, HMID attempted to use open meetings laws as a cudgel to protect it from being held responsible for its role in the Hamann’s property damage when those laws are specifically designed to make it easier for citizens to make the inner workings of their government more transparent and accountable. It had argued that it could only make decisions during open meetings and therefore couldn’t be held responsible for the manager’s actions, which were not discussed in one. The state Supreme Court found that the manager was acting within the normal scope of his duties and that HMID should be held liable for his actions, even if board members hadn’t expressly ordered his behavior. A legal doctrine known as vicarious liability is used routinely to sue employers whose employees damage or ruin property or assault individuals, among other issues, when employees are acting within the normal range of their duties as in this case. Federal courts have also held the federal government responsible for the damage of their employees. The case could have gone farther by stating that all state and local government employees acting within the scope of their normal duties would be held to this standard, but the court chose to stick to the specifics of this particular case, which hinged on whether Mr. Hamann was due compensation under the state’s inverse condemnation statute. Inverse condemnation is a legal action by a property owner against the government for taking or damaging property. It is the opposite of eminent domain, the legal mechanism through which the government takes private property and compensates the owner ahead of the seizure. As the court found, “HMID’s narrow stance on liability is notably inconsistent with the very purpose of the inverse condemnation statute: to provide a means for landowners to seek compensation when the government forgoes formal action.” While specific to HMID, the decision does put state and local government organizations on notice that they are not above the law and can be sued successfully for property damage. As Austin Waisanen, an attorney with the Pacific Legal Foundation, the pro bono legal group representing Mr. Hamann, said, “This is an important victory for Wyoming property owners.” He added, “The government cannot avoid its obligation to pay compensation to property owners for property damage caused by its employees by merely claiming that an employee’s actions were unauthorized. ‘You break it, you fix it’ applies to the government, just like everyone else.”  Mr. Hamann said he is relieved by the decision despite the fact that he is still dealing with the physical damage of the incident. “I’ve resigned myself to the fact that my payoff is that they won’t do this to anyone else again,” he said. This ruling should be posted in every state and local government office as a reminder that everyone is beholden to the rule of law, including its enforcers.

Most Americans are unaware that the National Education Association (NEA) — the nation’s largest teachers’ union — enjoys a rare privilege: a federal charter granted by Congress in 1906. That puts the NEA in the same elite company as storied civic institutions like the American Red Cross, the Boy Scouts of America, and the U.S. Olympic Committee. But while those organizations are rightly seen as broadly patriotic and educational in purpose, the NEA has morphed into something entirely different. Rather than promoting the “character and interests of the profession of teaching” and the “cause of education in the United States” — the goals stated in its charter — the NEA has become a partisan political juggernaut, wielding hundreds of millions of dollars and outsized influence to advance an agenda far beyond the classroom. It’s time for Congress to step in and act, and a new bill would do exactly that. In the 2021–22 academic year, the NEA boasted nearly 2.5 million active members, and even more public school employees are bound by NEA-negotiated contracts. Its D.C. headquarters reported over $600 million in revenue, not counting the vast sums collected by its state and local affiliates. It is, by every measure, the largest labor union in the United States and the most powerful private influence on American public education policy. Yet the NEA was never meant to be a political engine. Incorporated in Washington, D.C. in 1886, the NEA initially functioned as a professional association, not a labor union. That changed in the 1960s and ’70s as collective bargaining in government took root. From that point forward, the NEA gradually transformed into a political organization — a shift that has only accelerated in recent years. Today, there’s little that the NEA doesn’t weigh in on, from gun control to abortion rights, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, racial justice activism, and gender policies in sports. In short, if it’s controversial in American politics, the NEA probably has a position on it — and the money to influence outcomes. Last week, the NEA voted to fight against President “Trump's embrace of fascism”, voted to promote controversial events in public schools, and voted to sever all ties with the Anti-Defamation League. The NEA stands alone among labor unions as the only one with a congressional charter. That charter — shorter and less restrictive than most Title 36 charters — grants the NEA prestige and recognition without any meaningful accountability to Congress or the public. Unlike other federally chartered groups, the NEA can determine the entirety of its governance and operations through its own internal bylaws, with little oversight. This imbalance must be corrected. Revoking the NEA’s charter entirely would serve only as a symbolic rebuke, because the union’s D.C. incorporation predates the charter. But Congress has the authority — and the obligation — to amend that charter to ensure the NEA upholds the public trust it once enjoyed. The NEA’s current behavior goes far beyond its original mission. While its charter focuses narrowly on promoting the teaching profession and the cause of education, the union’s own internal goals have ballooned to include: Promoting “the health and welfare of children,” Defending “public employees’ right to collective bargaining,” Supporting “racial justice for our students, our communities, and our nation,” Providing “leadership in solving social problems,” Using “all available means, including organizing, legal, legislative, electoral, and collective action.” In other words, the NEA is no longer just a teachers’ association — it is a massive political enterprise advancing an expansive and often divisive social agenda. That’s not what Congress envisioned when it gave the NEA its charter. In fact, it’s the exact opposite of what that designation was meant to honor. Short of revoking the NEA's charter, Congress could require any of the following reforms: Ban the NEA from electoral politics and lobbying. Mandate annual transparency reports to Congress. Prohibit racial quotas or discriminatory practices. Eliminate the NEA’s special D.C. tax exemption. Ensure its leadership structure is democratically representative of its members. Require affirmative consent before collecting dues from public employees. Ban taxpayer-funded union release time. Subject the NEA to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. Bar the NEA from encouraging or tolerating teacher strikes. Clarify officer liability, tax-exempt status, and corporate dissolution procedures. These aren’t radical demands — they’re basic guardrails for accountability. Perhaps the most revealing insight into the NEA’s current values came at its 2019 convention, when members rejected a proposal to refocus the organization’s efforts on “increased student learning in every public school in America.” The resolution argued that student learning should be the NEA’s highest priority and the central focus of its resources. It was voted down. That vote, more than anything else, demonstrates how far the NEA has drifted from its chartered purpose. It can be argued that the organization no longer prioritizes students or learning. It prioritizes power. Congress has reformed and even repealed federal charters before — most notably when it stripped the National German-American Alliance of its charter in 1918 after concerns about its activities. With the NEA, the case for reform is not rooted in partisanship but in principle. This is about ensuring that a powerful institution, operating under a congressional endorsement, actually serves the public good. The reforms listed above are reasonable, targeted, and an effective blueprint to restore accountability, transparency, and educational focus to the NEA. Congress must act to align the NEA with its original mission and ensure that America's largest teachers’ union once again becomes a voice for educators and students — not ideology. This is about reclaiming public education from politics and putting children first. Congress has the tools. All it needs now is the will.

Taxpayers across Washington state have had a rough go as of late. New gas taxes, increased capital gains income taxes, and higher B&O taxes are hitting the wallets of many across the Evergreen State. That’s why it was overall good news when state officials recently announced they used the new open-bidding system established in 2015 to get ferries in the water more economically. Due to the new open system, taxpayers will save an estimated $357 million throughout the program.   Washington Policy Center (WPC) wrote about the opportunity for open bid savings back in 2015 ( Ending ‘Build in Washington’ rule would cut new ferry construction costs by 30% ). At the time, the state had an uncompetitive landscape when it came to receiving bids: only one company met the requirements. As such, taxpayers paid a higher tax premium due to the restricted bidding process. While the recent savings news was mostly seen as a “win” for taxpayers, some saw the out-of-state contract as a “loss” for the Washington shipbuilding industry. To start, the Washington-based boatyard got a +13% credit to their bid, meaning they could be more expensive, yet still score better. Despite that advantage, they were still massively underbid by the winning Florida-based company. To many, the shock of a 33% savings ($714 million vs $1.07 billion) from open bidding revealed the burden Washington state places on businesses, rendering them uncompetitive in ferry construction. This led some lawmakers to call for reducing barriers  and easing regulations to increase competitiveness. After all, even under protectionism, shipbuilding in Washington state was shrinking under the “Build in Washington” rule. Employment in shipbuilding in the state fell 77% from its peak of 13,946 employees in 1982 to 3,268 by 2014 , per a WSSIP report. The other concern, even with the one-third savings, is the sheer cost of the electrification of the ferries. WPC noted in the 2015 report that WSDOT purchased diesel ferries at $131 million per ship while BC Ferries in Canada was getting hybrid diesel/LNG ferries at $79 million ($USD). Despite the potential for even more savings, leaders opted instead for electric ferries and their associated infrastructure. It should be noted that a $79 million LNG BC ferry would cost $109 million in today’s dollars, while the winning electric hybrid equates to $238 million per ferry, more than double. This shows how focusing on electric propulsion is a major factor in the inflated cost. This is confirmed by the fact that BC Ferries can retrofit a vessel to LNG for $10-50 million  ($USD, inflation-adjusted), while Washington officials say it costs $96 million  to convert a ferry to electric. Washington companies should be able to compete in their own backyard, just like they want to compete in other states. The open competition drove costs down 33%, saving taxpayers hundreds of millions of tax dollars. Yet the fact that shipbuilding in Washington is still so uncompetitive should signal an urgent S.O.S. to lawmakers that they need to right the state’s tax and regulatory ship.

AI is transforming how we produce, consume, and distribute information. Tools powered by artificial intelligence can accelerate research, summarize gigantic data sets, write papers, and demystify for others how algorithms that analyze us work. But the speed of progress carries with it a truth of its own: faster isn’t always better, especially when it comes to government documents. The recent publication of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services report 'Make America Healthy Again' provides a reminder of this. The report was packaged as an ambitious, sweeping vision for improving health outcomes, but it came under scrutiny after it was revealed  that dozens of citations were either plagiarized or fabricated, with some references citing studies that did not actually exist. This issue from the HHS report doesn’t show a new problem as much as it illustrates a new twist on an old one. In the past, government agencies have relied on employees and researchers in order to generate reports and citations. The presumption, both then and now, is that such materials are rigorously vetted before publication. The real mess was not the AI, but the review process. Best practices don’t change: Regardless of who or what produces a report, it’s the human official signing off on the report who is responsible for its verification. This lack of verification isn't new. In 2023, as reported by Reuters , a U.S. judge imposed sanctions on two New York lawyers who submitted a legal brief that included six fictitious case citations generated by an artificial intelligence chatbot, ChatGPT. Even traditional media has run into these problems. Early in 2024, the BBC tested the capabilities of AI tools such as ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, and Perplexity. The result? More than half of the AI answers tested contained significant factual errors, such as misquoting sources, making up facts, or providing bad advice. These are the kinds of errors that should give us pause, especially as AI comes to be more deeply embedded in education, media, and policymaking. At Mountain States Policy Center, we are all about innovation. For example, MSPC is blazing the trail with the launch of an AI-based assistant, “WONK.” Built to make research on legislation both more accessible and more transparent, WONK is designed to allow citizens, legislators, and reporters to quickly get details on legislative bills. By using artificial intelligence, MSPC isn’t just talking about modernizing government and policy conversations; we’re doing it. We also believe in accountability and transparency. At a time when large language models can produce policy memos, budget summaries, and even state reports in minutes, the role of human reviewers becomes more important, not less. AI can be a valuable tool, but it does not have the judgment, the context, or the moral compass of human reasoning. It is unaware of the consequences of an erroneous statistic or a fabricated fact that is relied upon. It doesn’t know when a citation warrants double-checking, nor does it take into account how an error might corrode public trust, especially in policymaking. To reap the benefits of AI without sacrificing public trust, policymakers should establish basic guardrails, like ensuring that AI-assisted government reports, press releases, and policy memos must be human-reviewed and verified before they are published. It would also be good for stakeholders to develop an AI literacy (what AI can and cannot do) training for civil servants who work with sensitive data, legal documents, and public health to ensure every public servant has access. A well-trained staff can avoid the very mistakes now filling the newspapers. This isn’t about stifling innovation. It is about keeping the public trust at the forefront and making sure new technologies serve truth, not just speed. The future should be rooted in accountability, not fear. AI is here to stay, and we should all learn how to use it as a tool rather than a speedy crutch.

Is Idaho about to fall off the fiscal cliff due to irresponsible budgeting? No. The Gem State’s current budget has a decent ending fund balance, substantial budget reserves on hand, and many important fiscal tools available should the economic outlook for the state and country change. Unfortunately, there’s a false narrative going around that Governor Little’s prudent use of budget planning tools means the state is on the wrong path. Here are the current details for the state’s budget framework: 2026 adopted spending : $5.62 billion   Ending fund balance : $345 million (6.2%) Unrestricted general fund reserves : $880 million (14.8%) Total reserves : $1.307 billion (22.1%) Due to a softening of the forecasted revenue growth, the Division of Financial Management sent a memo to state agencies on May 29 requesting they identify potential spending “holdbacks.” From the memo : “Governor Little will prioritize critical investments in essential areas while ensuring a conservative and balanced budget for Idaho. Although we understand that there are still many initiatives and challenges that impact your agency and operations, we must submit a balanced budget, and Idaho’s current revenue projections only allow for slight growth in appropriations for FY 2027. Governor Little will still work with your agencies and the Legislature to identify priorities and critical investments that solve problems and prepare Idaho for a successful future. Also, as we continue to watch revenue projections for FY 2026 and FY 2027, it is important that State agencies are prepared to manage budgets and maintain conservative spending. We are asking all state agencies to internally prepare 2%, 4%, and 6% budget holdback scenarios to have in place as we continue to watch economic trends at the national level. This exercise not only helps us be prepared for uncertainty but also allows agencies to look internally at priorities and operations and ensure critical operations are prioritized.” I recently had the opportunity to talk with Idaho’s Division of Financial Management Administrator Lori Wolff about the state’s budget outlook. She expressed confidence in the budget balance sheet and told me that the Governor’s request for agencies to identify possible spending holdbacks isn’t all related to changing revenue growth projections. She said: “Sometimes holdbacks are not due to revenue but to reduce future spending pressures.” Some have interpreted the May memo to claim that lawmakers were irresponsible to prioritize tax relief or invest in the new education choice tax credit  (HB 93) this year. Instead, it shows the Governor is taking advantage of a rational budget management tool to provide options if the economic outlook deteriorates in the future. Remember, revenues are still growing, and there is a $345 million ending fund balance for FY 2025   and $880 million in unrestricted reserves ($1.3 billion in total reserves). It is because of the state’s strong fiscal management that Fitch recently reaffirmed its top AAA credit rating for Idaho. Fitch noted : “Fitch believes the state is well positioned to absorb multiple rounds of recent tax cuts and dedicated spending allocations from the general fund, given Idaho's prudently managed budget with significant one-time spending that rolls off to create fiscal capacity.” Should the economic outlook deteriorate significantly, however, Governor Little has the option of using the aforementioned holdbacks , budget reserves , or a combination of the two. Realizing that a 10% reserve is considered healthy, Idaho has significant capacity to draw from its nearly 15% unrestricted savings account (22% in total reserves) if needed, without imperiling its budget stability.  As Administrator Wolff noted in June : “Idaho also has 22% of general fund revenues in rainy day funds, greater than almost every other state. While we continue to watch revenue closely, we feel good about the strength of the state budget and our economy.” A July 11 press release from Governor Little highlighted this positive economic growth for Idaho: " Withholding collections – reflecting job and wage growth – are up 5.9% over last year. Gross sales tax revenues are up 3.7%, and online sales tax collections are tracking 13.2% above last year. Idaho’s GDP has grown 150% in the last five years. Adjusting for inflation, Idaho’s real GDP is up more than 21% in the past five years alone, demonstrating exponential, resilient growth. In addition, Idaho ranks third in the nation for the largest increase in average weekly wages." Just to illustrate how prudent Idaho’s budget balance sheet is, let’s compare it with our neighbors in Washington State. Despite imposing the largest tax increase in state history  this year, the Evergreen State has only a fraction of the budget discipline  Idaho has demonstrated. For example: Washington’s ending funding balance is only $33 million (or 0.04%) compared to Idaho’s $345 million (or 6.2%). Washington’s total budget reserves are only 2.7% compared to Idaho’s 22%. There is no denying that there are economic headwinds facing state budgets across the country, driven primarily by unpredictable fiscal policy at the federal level. The good news for Idaho is that the state’s balance sheet is sound, with a 6.2% ending fund, more than a billion dollars in total reserves, and state revenues are still projected to grow overall.

Navajo George Tutt started uranium mining in 1949 as a hand mucker. Hand muckers would procure uranium waste and ore from veins in the mountains, using basic tools like pickaxes and shovels and wheeling it out in wheelbarrows. Today, miners are well informed about the risks surrounding uranium mining, and many steps are taken to protect workers from its effects. However, during Tutt’s time, such precautions were not taken. He recounts  that there was never any communication about risks surrounding uranium mining, and even basic safety measures like the distribution of work gloves were unknown during his time mining in Colorado. Unsurprisingly, Tutt and many of his coworkers would suffer from cancer or other ailments directly related to uranium mining activities.   Claudia Peterson was just five years old when she witnessed a large mushroom cloud rising about a hundred miles east of her southern Utah home. By the time she was thirty-five, Claudia was a cancer survivor  who had watched her father die of a brain tumor, her six-year-old daughter Bethany die after three years fighting neuroblastoma (a rare type of cancer which primarily affects young children), and her only sister Cathy die of skin cancer.  ​Neither of these stories are simply anecdotes. Sarah Fox provides compelling evidence in her 2014 book Downwind: A People’s History of the Nuclear West that the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), U.S. Public Health Service (PHS), and uranium mining companies all were aware of the serious health risks surrounding radiation poisoning resulting from uranium mining or nuclear bomb testing as early as 1951, but failed to inform miners or other citizens. It would be another 39 years until President Bush would sign the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) into law, which finally gave compensation for those affected. Across the states of Arizona, Nevada, and Utah, tens of thousands of people have claimed compensation from RECA.  That’s because from 1945 to 1962, the U.S. performed 100 above-ground nuclear tests, which released massive amounts of radioactive fallout across the continental U.S. Frustratingly, the AEC was the commission responsible for performing the tests and maintaining communication with the public about any potential risks from nuclear testing. This led to a perverse cycle whereby many dangerous nuclear tests were performed with virtually no real public communication about said dangers. And the results were devastating: disproportionate cases of lung, stomach, thyroid, and other types of cancer; severe radiation effects on crops and livestock among a population which was made up of primarily subsistence farmers; many infants and children who died from cancer tied to radioactive isotopes that passed from their mother’s breast milk or cattle’s dairy into their lungs and stomach. I do not have room here to recount more stories from individual downwinders. Thankfully, that project has been and will continue to be carried out by dedicated scholars like Fox. July 16 th  is the 80 th  anniversary of the first Trinity nuclear test . It is a good time for us all to reflect on the importance of government transparency. So long as the government is involved in a particular endeavor, it has the obligation to ensure that there are no serious public health risks from its activities. If there are any risks, the government has the obligation to tell its citizens so that they may vote, either with their feet or by the ballot. The story of the downwinders is ugly, but it is an important commentary on the need for government transparency. If we fail to take such commentary seriously, we should not be surprised to read about many more George Tutts or Claudia Petersons in the future.

In a shocking 8-1 ruling , the Washington State Supreme Court has given its official blessing to a secretive process that allows the offers and counteroffers leading to more than a billion dollars in taxpayer-funded compensation to remain secret until after the state budget is signed into law. By failing to uphold the clear intent of Washington’s robust public records law, expect more labor unrest, not less, as a result of this ruling. For example, Washington state employees walked off the job last year to protest the compensation offers from then-Governor Inslee. According to KOMO News : “WFSE negotiators said they want to express their frustration with where the labor talks have gone. They called the wage offer proposed by the state … ‘disrespectful’ and are demanding livable pay rates.” The problem is, except for a handful of people involved in the secret compensation talks, no one knew what the actual details were. Since 2004 , state negotiations with union executives about how much taxpayers compensate government employees have been secret, even though these talks with the governor’s office involve more than a billion dollars in public spending per biennium. Before 2004, compensation decisions were made transparently with public hearings. They were part of the normal legislative budget process. That’s as it should be. In a  2024 video , WFSE leaders told public employees that they can’t share details of the pay talks until a tentative agreement has been reached, implying that they are being forbidden from doing so. Ashley Fueston, council vice president, said, “The way that our bargaining structure works here in the state of Washington, we aren’t allowed to share the details of what’s happening within bargaining.”  What Fueston didn’t say is that secrecy is something union leadership wants and has  fought to maintain . For example, Section 39.13  of the WFSE 2023-25 contract says: "Bargaining sessions will be closed to the press and the public unless agreed otherwise by the chief spokespersons. No proposals will be placed on the parties’ web sites…. There will be no public disclosure or public discussion of the issues being negotiated until resolution or impasse is reached on all issues submitted for negotiations." Keeping taxpayers and public employees in the dark allows union leadership to get away with saying things like a compensation offer is “disrespectful” without actually providing any details. Unfortunately, this charade is likely to continue as a result of the state supreme court's ruling on June 26, which green-lights secrecy on the offers and counteroffers that lead to an agreement.   The lone dissenting voice to this tragic ruling was the new state Justice Salvador Mungia. He astutely noted : “The people have the right to know what their government is doing. That value is the basis for the Public Records Act (PRA). The presumption is that the public is entitled to information their government holds. Withholding information is the exception, and this court’s responsibility is to construe any exemption under the PRA as narrowly as reasonably possible so that information is disclosed and not withheld.” Government employee contract negotiations should be fully open to the public . At a minimum, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed should be made publicly available before and after the contract meetings, with a fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. This would better inform the public and state employees about promises and tradeoffs being proposed, so all sides could decide if the offers are in fact “disrespectful” or instead reflect fiscal realities. This type of transparency also makes clear whether one side or the other is being unreasonable in its demands, and quickly reveals whether anyone is acting in bad faith. Now that the state supreme court has issued this pro-secrecy ruling, reforms to the collective bargaining process in Washington are essential. For example, Idaho law prevents cities and unions from negotiating any contracts in secret. Democrats and Republicans passed the law unanimously and it was signed into law by former Governor Butch Otter in 2015. Ideally, contract negotiations should be fully open to the public. At a minimum, government officials should adopt an openness process like the one used by the City of Costa Mesa, California, to keep the public informed. The city’s policy is called Civic Openness in Negotiations, or COIN. Under COIN, all contract proposals and documents to be discussed in closed-door negotiations are made publicly available before and after the meetings, with fiscal analysis showing the potential costs. While not full-fledged open meetings, access to all of the documents better informs the public about promises and tradeoffs being proposed with their tax dollars before an agreement is reached. It's incredibly disappointing to see the Washington State Supreme Court rubber-stamp the current anti-transparent government employee compensation process being used in the Evergreen State. State employees and taxpayers deserve much better.

Parents, you won't want to miss these details from the Idaho State Tax Commission. The full implementation of HB 93 (school choice tax credit) is moving forward, and families are invited to register for an online webinar on August 19 or an in-person seminar in Boise on August 26 to learn more about how to apply for the tax credit. In preparation for these events, the Idaho State Tax Commission has posted an FAQ page to answer the questions parents may have about how to utilize this new education choice option. This new school choice program provides eligible families a $5,000 tax credit for educational expenses, including private school tuition. Special needs students could qualify for a $7,500 tax credit. It is universal (any family can apply), but priority will be given first to low-income families. Because of the first-come, first-served structure of the tax credit, parents are encouraged to act quickly once the application period opens. According to the Tax Commission: "You’ll be able to apply for the 2025 program online from January 15, 2026, through March 15, 2026. Please remember this is a first-come, first-served program, so we recommend you apply as soon as possible. The program requires priority to be given to parents whose total adjusted income doesn’t exceed 300% of the federal poverty level. In addition, applicants are required to keep receipts for qualified expenses. Applicants whose total adjusted income exceeds 300% of the federal poverty level will be placed on a wait list until priority applications have been processed. All applications will be processed in the order in which they’re received . . . You’ll apply online through our Taxpayer Access Point (TAP). You’ll need to get a TAP account if you don’t already have one for individual income tax. We suggest you register for a TAP account now, so you’ll be ready to fill out your application online in January. It can take from one day to two weeks to register for the account depending on your circumstances. To get a TAP account, register at tax.idaho.gov/NewTAP ."    The Parental Choice Tax Credit is currently capped at $50 million, which is equal to just .0185% of the state’s public school budget .  This tax credit does not take any funding from traditional public schools. As Mountain States Policy Center has repeatedly noted , the HB 93 school choice tax credit is not a voucher. The Idaho State Tax Commission also makes this point clear in its FAQ: "Is the Idaho Parental Choice Tax Credit program a voucher program? No. Once the tax credit is awarded through the application process, it goes directly to a parent, guardian, or foster parent of the eligible student(s)." We'll post additional details about this exciting new education choice program in Idaho as they become available.

President Trump recently signed H.R.1, aka the " One Big Beautiful Bill Act ," into law. The basis of the bill is an extension of the 2017 tax relief. Also included in the new law is the first substantial reform to the Medicaid health insurance entitlement. Despite claims that “the sky is falling,” the Medicaid reforms are actually a start at guaranteeing that the program will survive into the future and be available for the country’s most vulnerable people. Opponents decry the “cuts” to Medicaid. In reality, the new law actually reduces an INCREASE in spending from four percent to two percent. Only convoluted accounting would define an increase in spending as a “cut." Medicaid spending was $900 billion last year and has increased by 60 percent since 2019 . The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimates that even with H.R.1 in place, Medicaid will grow by $200 billion over the next decade. Medicaid began in 1965 as a 50/50 financial partnership between states and the federal government. It was focused as a health insurance safety net for the country’s poor and disabled. Obamacare in 2014 gave states the option of expanding the entitlement to any able-bodied, low-income individual between the ages of 18 and 64. The enticement for the states was a 90 percent contribution from the federal government. The program has never undergone significant reforms and in many states now functions as a piggy bank for not only taxpayer-funded health insurance, but also spending on housing, transportation, and food supplements. So, what are the Medicaid reforms in H.R.1? For starters, the law adds a work requirement for single, able-bodied individuals and recipients with children over the age of 13. The requirement is 80 hours per month and can include community service or education. Estimates vary, but research shows that potentially 40 percent of the able-bodied Medicaid enrollees could work but don’t . H.R.1 also includes a cost-sharing provision. Recipients will need to pay $35 as a co-pay for a provider visit, a medical test, or treatment. The out-of-pocket amount cannot exceed five percent of a family’s annual income. The law also tightens up eligibility checks. Instead of relying on states to determine the timing of compliance checks, H.R.1 requires that states confirm eligibility every six months. For years, states have been gaming Medicaid by using a provider tax. Hospitals pay a Medicaid tax, which shows higher state spending on Medicaid. This in turn, precipitates a higher financial match from the federal government. The state then pays hospitals a higher Medicaid fee. The whole scheme is essentially legalized fraud. H.R.1 drops the acceptable tax from 6 percent to 3.5 percent. As a payback to hospitals, the law sets aside $50 billion for rural hospitals. It is unclear how those funds will be dispersed. There are currently a staggering 83 million people, or 25 percent of the U.S. population, enrolled in Medicaid . Remember, Medicaid was supposed to be a health insurance safety net for low-income individuals and families. The estimates of the number of people who will lose health insurance because of H.R.1 have no foundation in reality. The CBO estimate , which is the most widely published, comes in at approximately 11 million people by 2034. Almost 5 million are estimated because of non-compliance with the work requirement, and another 1.4 million because they are not U.S. citizens. Millions more are expected due to unwillingness to do the necessary eligibility verification paperwork. There are two issues here. First of all, no one knows exactly how many people would be dropped from Medicaid. The numbers seem frightening, but are also being promoted by opponents of any Medicaid reform. Secondly, there is no way to know how many people who lose Medicaid would simply find other sources of health insurance. Opponents of H.R.1 believe that the law will “gut” the Medicaid entitlement. However, Medicaid must be reformed if it is going to survive as a health insurance safety net for the most vulnerable, as originally intended. Medicaid is now one of the largest non-discretionary budget items for the federal government and is one of the three largest budget items for every state. The "One Big Beautiful Bill Act" is a long-overdue beginning at Medicaid reform. The program needs to return to its roots as a helping hand for the most vulnerable and not be used as a Trojan horse for government-provided single-payer healthcare.

Add outrageous cell phone taxes to the major financial difference between living in states like Idaho and Montana, versus Washington state. When you open your cell phone bill each month, the price you agreed to with your carrier is only part of the story. Hidden beneath the advertised rate is a complex web of taxes, fees, and surcharges—many of them imposed by state and local governments. These charges vary widely across the United States, leading some consumers to pay nearly 25% more in taxes and fees than others in neighboring states. Cell phone users pay a combination of: Federal Universal Service Fund (USF) fees, which help subsidize rural communications and low-income support programs. State and local sales taxes, which apply to most goods and services. State-specific telecommunications taxes, which often predate modern wireless services and were originally designed for landlines. 911 fees, which fund emergency call systems. Here are a few examples of states with the highest effective cell phone tax rates (as of recent estimates): Illinois: Among the highest in the country, with combined state, local, and federal charges topping over 23% of the bill. Arkansas: Heavy state universal service and 911 fees push effective rates above 21%. Washington: High state taxes and local utility surcharges combine for a burden near 22%. Nebraska: Local telecommunications taxes and surcharges add up quickly, exceeding 20%. New York: Wireless consumers face layered state and city taxes, approaching 21% in many areas. In contrast, Idaho (3.35%), Montana (7.03%), Oregon (8.93%), and Delaware (8.64%) have some of the lowest wireless tax burdens. State and local governments have long relied on telecommunications taxes as a steady revenue stream. As more consumers dropped landlines and moved to wireless, lawmakers simply applied the same taxing structures—sometimes without updating the rates or simplifying the system. Unfortunately, these taxes are regressive, disproportionately impacting lower-income households who rely heavily on wireless service as their primary internet access. There's also complexity and lack of transparency, making it hard for consumers to know what they’re actually paying for. While the convenience of mobile service is undeniable, the patchwork of state and local taxes means you might be paying far more—or less—than your neighbors in the next state over.

In Congress, July 4, 1776 The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world. He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavored to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries. He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighboring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor. Delaware: George Read | Caesar Rodney | Thomas McKean | Pennsylvania: George Clymer | Benjamin Franklin | Robert Morris | John Morton | Benjamin Rush | George Ross | James Smith | James Wilson | George Taylor | Massachusetts: John Adams | Samuel Adams | John Hancock | Robert Treat Paine | Elbridge Gerry New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett | William Whipple | Matthew Thornton | Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins | William Ellery | New York: Lewis Morris | Philip Livingston | Francis Lewis | William Floyd | Georgia: Button Gwinnett | Lyman Hall | George Walton | Virginia: Richard Henry Lee | Francis Lightfoot Lee | Carter Braxton | Benjamin Harrison | Thomas Jefferson | George Wythe | Thomas Nelson, Jr. | North Carolina: William Hooper | John Penn | Joseph Hewes South Carolina: Edward Rutledge | Arthur Middleton | Thomas Lynch, Jr. | Thomas Heyward, Jr. | New Jersey: Abraham Clark | John Hart | Francis Hopkinson | Richard Stockton | John Witherspoon | Connecticut: Samuel Huntington | Roger Sherman | William Williams | Oliver Wolcott | Maryland: Charles Carroll | Samuel Chase | Thomas Stone | William Paca |

For years, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) has ignored the pleas of states wanting to study the implications of removing Sugar Sweetened Beverages (SSBs) from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits in small pilot programs. Though many studies incentivizing improved nutritional choices have been approved by the USDA. Why the preference for incentives over boundaries? Some might say it’s a reluctance to be a nanny state, as stated by the last Trump Administration. Former Secretary of Agriculture Sonny Perdue said in May 2017, “On what level do we want to become a nanny state of directing how, and what, people feed their families?” Or it’s the slippery slope of government coercion as argued by American Enterprise Institute’s Benjamin Zycher, “If it is acceptable for government to limit the food choices available to SNAP beneficiaries on healthfulness grounds, then no principle prevents the government from refusing to pay for individual health care services unless the given individual adheres to lifestyle choices—diet, exercise, etc.—approved by the government.” But really, it's none of those things. Excluding SSBs from SNAP benefits does not prevent beneficiaries from using personal dollars for these allotments, as explained by another American Enterprise Scholar Angela Rachidi saying , “Moreover, with or without restrictions, recipients remain free to purchase whatever foods they want—with their own money. The rationale for restricting SNAP purchases lies in ensuring that this taxpayer-funded program is aligned with its purpose.” Instead, the USDA’s reluctance has been political. The USDA has unilaterally rejected these requests to set stricter limits on purchasing decisions, languishing in the ‘ iron triangle ’ of opposition from food and beverage industry lobbyists, liberals defending SNAP benefits in totality, and institutional agency preferences. The reluctance to ban SSBs has ignored many years of research conjecturing that the removal of SSBs would contribute to the health of low-income Americans. A 2016 study from the USDA showed SSBs were the number one product purchased by SNAP benefits at 9.3%. Additionally, SNAP benefits were used in three-fourths of the food purchases versus out-of-pocket expenditures. It is hard to ignore the possible conclusions from the correlation that SNAP recipients have an obesity prevalence of 40%, versus 32% for low-income non-SNAP participants. It is not the place of taxpayer-provided benefits to pay for food that is undermining public health. Instead, restricting taxpayer-funded purchases away from unhealthy products leaves more SNAP benefits available for nutritious foods, as originally intended. The current administration’s Make America Healthy Again Commission is changing this long-run USDA narrative, recently approving six state petitions for banning SSBs, candy, and energy drinks with various proposals. Idaho is one of these six states removing unhealthy foods from SNAP. Current Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins said , “The Trump Administration is unified in improving the health of our nation. America’s governors have proudly answered the call to innovate by improving nutrition programs, ensuring better choices while respecting the generosity of the American taxpayer. Each waiver submitted by the states and signed is yet another step closer to fulfilling President Trump’s promise to Make America Healthy Again.” It is admirable to see Idaho as one of the first states in line to focus this taxpayer-funded benefit on healthy options. Directed by the state legislature with House Bill 109 during the 2025 legislative session, Idaho’s Department of Health and Welfare formally requested the waiver from the USDA. Then Idaho Department of Health and Welfare Director Alex Adams said , “This is about ensuring that public dollars are used to support public health. By aligning SNAP benefits with nutritional goals, we’re not only promoting better outcomes for families today—we’re investing in a healthier, more resilient Idaho.”(In March 2025, Alex Adams was nominated as the Assistant Secretary for the Administration of Children and Families at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.) Governor Brad Little also supported the waiver saying, "Idaho proudly welcomes the MAHA movement because it is all about looking for new ways to improve nutrition, increase exercise, and take better care of ourselves and one another, especially our children. We are excited to partner with the Trump administration in bringing common sense to the government's food assistance program with the approval of our SNAP waiver." SNAP is an important resource for low-income families. Idaho recognizes the vital role it plays in ensuring a more resilient state. Removing SSBs and candy from the list of approved purchases will ensure that taxpayers are funding health food options for SNAP participants. Mountain States Policy Center recognizes that the citizen, not the government, is the best advocate for their own health. By removing the taxpayer-provided subsidies for sugary drinks, a government incentive is removed from unhealthy products, leaving the beneficiaries free to make their own food choices with their own dollars.

I was proud and honored to represent Mountain States Policy Center at the James Madison Institute’s annual Tech and Innovation Summit in Florida on June 25-26, 2025. The summit was divided into two parts: a closed-group roundtable and an open day that featured workshops and policy debates. On June 25, MSPC provided its expertise to the closed-group Emerging Tech Threats Roundtable. This in-depth conversation covered several important discussion topics, including AI and the structure of data center infrastructure, child safety online, and antitrust in tech markets. Our perspective focused on facilitating innovative technologies while adopting responsible safeguards with necessary human oversight. I had the opportunity to highlight how Mountain States Policy Center is actively participating in the national AI policy discussion . My recommendation to attendees was to look beyond white papers and start the hard, urgent work of building good policy from the ground floor. This includes being committed to federalism as a governing principle while understanding that there is still a need for a national framework. This is especially important as some states continue to adopt tech regulations. While a focus on protecting children online is important, these efforts should be part of a coordinated approach. The main JMI policy event featured a wide variety of workshops and learning sessions to help policy leaders keep up with the most current intelligence on technology and the challenges ahead. Topics within the tech sector were diverse, with sessions titled “Truth in the Age of AI,” “Florida’s Algorithm for Innovation,” and panels discussing broadband policy and regulatory reform. Former Michigan Congressman Justin Amash delivered a strong keynote address on the importance of principled governance in policymaking and specifically regarding technology policy. MSPC’s participation in the national tech conference demonstrated our continued focus on the need for thoughtful policymaking that encourages innovation, protects consumers, and responsibly controls the rise of new threats. We are grateful to the James Madison Institute for putting together the event and for the creative and thoughtful tech brainstorming.

If you’ve ever wondered whether it’s worth the drive across the border to fuel up in Idaho instead of Washington, the answer is a resounding yes—especially if you care about saving money, understanding where your tax dollars go, and holding government accountable. While fuel prices across the country remain volatile, the gap between Washington and Idaho has grown into a canyon. The difference? Taxes, regulations, and transparency—or the lack of it. As of this week, the average price of a gallon of regular gas in Idaho is $3.69, compared to $4.87 in Washington. That’s a jaw-dropping $1.18 difference per gallon. A standard 15-gallon fill-up in Idaho could save a Washington driver over $17 every time they gas up. For families feeling the squeeze of inflation, that’s not small change—it’s hundreds of dollars a year in real savings. Fuel taxes are a major reason for the price discrepancy: Washington state’s gas tax is increasing on July 1 by 6 cents to 55.4 cents per gallon, one of the highest in the nation. State lawmakers also put this gas tax increase on autopilot this year, with it set to increase automatically by 2% each year. When combined with the 18.4-cent federal tax, drivers will be paying nearly 74 cents per gallon in taxes alone. Idaho’s gas tax, by contrast, is 33 cents per gallon, bringing its total tax load to 51.4 cents per gallon—more than 22 cents less per gallon than Washington. But the taxes themselves are only part of the issue. Washington has further driven up costs through a cap-and-invest program, effectively a “carbon tax” that forces fuel suppliers to buy emissions credits. These regulatory costs are quietly passed along to consumers without clear disclosure. It is estimated that this carbon tax is currently adding an additional 46 cents per gallon to the cost of gasoline in the Evergreen State. Idaho doesn’t impose these carbon fees, meaning lower regulatory costs and less government interference in fuel pricing. It’s a clear, measurable advantage for Idaho drivers—and a growing point of frustration for Washingtonians. Drivers in border communities like Spokane, Clarkston, and Pullman have already figured it out: gas up in Post Falls, Lewiston, or Coeur d’Alene. It’s not uncommon to see license plates from Washington lined up at Idaho gas stations, with drivers saving hundreds of dollars per year by simply crossing the state line. This isn’t just about consumer choice. It’s about government responsibility. If Washington is going to impose the highest gas taxes in the country, policymakers have a duty to ensure those dollars are being used efficiently and transparently. Under state law and the Washington Constitution, fuel tax revenue is supposed to be spent on highway purposes—not swept into unrelated programs or used to fund political agendas. Unfortunately, that transparency is often missing. Between overlapping environmental programs, regulatory fees, and administrative costs, many taxpayers are left wondering: Where is all this money going—and why aren’t the roads any better? High gas prices aren’t inevitable—they’re often the result of policy choices. If Washington lawmakers want to rebuild trust, they must: Ensure fuel tax revenues are spent solely on roads, bridges, and transportation infrastructure; Increase transparency at the pump, so consumers understand what portion of their payment goes to taxes and fees; and Re-examine costly regulatory programs that drive up fuel prices without clear benefit to taxpayers or the environment. In Idaho, lawmakers could build trust by requiring gas taxes to be posted at the gas pump. This is a long-standing MSPC recommendation that will help the state be more transparent. Drivers are smart. When they realize they can save more than a dollar per gallon just by crossing the state line, they act—and they talk. If policymakers in Washington don’t start listening, the growing exodus to Idaho gas stations will only continue. And maybe that’s the real message here: If Washington won’t deliver savings, efficiency, and accountability—Idaho will.

Congress is currently debating the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Among the many provisions is a ten-year moratorium on state Artificial Intelligence (AI) regulations to help avoid a patchwork of rules. We recently hosted a webinar with the Abundance Institute discussing the future of AI and the need for a federal moratorium on state regulations ( video below ). Our region needs regulatory certainty to attract AI companies looking to expand. The proposed federal moratorium would provide exactly that—a stable, predictable environment where tech firms can invest with confidence, knowing they won't face a confusing patchwork of conflicting regulations across state lines. Further explaining why this is important, several regional business leaders and MSPC board members sent the following letter to Congress discussing the need for a federal AI regulatory moratorium. Dear Members of Congress, As business leaders across Montana, Washington, and Idaho, we write to urge your support for federal legislation establishing a moratorium on state-level artificial intelligence regulation. The emerging patchwork of inconsistent state AI laws threatens to undermine economic growth, innovation, and competitiveness across our region and nation. Economic Impact on Regional Businesses. Our states' economies depend heavily on industries that increasingly rely on AI technologies—from agriculture and energy to manufacturing and logistics. A fragmented regulatory landscape creates substantial compliance burdens that disproportionately harm smaller businesses and startups that lack the resources to navigate dozens of different state requirements. Compliance costs are already mounting. Companies operating across state lines face the impossible task of complying with conflicting regulations. What's permissible AI use in Montana may violate Washington state law, forcing businesses to choose between limiting their operations or accepting significant legal and financial risks. These costs ultimately get passed to consumers and reduce our competitiveness against international competitors who benefit from more unified regulatory approaches. Innovation suffers under regulatory uncertainty. The current trajectory toward state-by-state AI regulation is driving investment and talent away from our region. Tech companies and AI developers are increasingly choosing to locate in jurisdictions with clearer, more predictable regulatory environments. This brain drain threatens our states' long-term economic development and technological leadership. Current Federal Protections Are Sufficient Existing federal frameworks already provide robust consumer protections without stifling innovation. The Federal Trade Commission Act prohibits unfair and deceptive practices, including AI applications that harm consumers. Sector-specific regulations in healthcare (HIPAA), finance (FCRA, ECOA), and other industries already address AI use in high-risk contexts. The National Institute of Standards and Technology has developed comprehensive AI risk management frameworks that provide industry guidance without prescriptive mandates. State-level regulation adds complexity without corresponding benefits. Most proposed state AI laws duplicate existing federal protections while creating operational chaos for businesses. Rather than enhancing consumer protection, this regulatory proliferation often reduces it by creating loopholes and enforcement gaps between jurisdictions. The Case for Federal Preemption National competitiveness requires national standards. China and the European Union are developing unified AI governance frameworks that give their companies clear competitive advantages. The United States cannot afford to handicap its AI sector with a maze of conflicting state requirements while other nations advance with coordinated approaches. Interstate commerce demands federal oversight. AI systems inherently operate across state boundaries through cloud computing, data processing, and digital services. State-level regulation of inherently national and international technologies creates constitutional commerce clause conflicts and practical enforcement impossibilities. Small businesses need regulatory certainty. Our region's entrepreneurs and small businesses—the backbone of our rural and suburban economies—cannot afford teams of compliance lawyers to interpret dozens of different state AI laws. Federal preemption would level the playing field and allow these businesses to focus resources on growth and innovation rather than regulatory navigation. Regional Economic Considerations Our four-state region offers unique advantages for AI development and deployment—abundant renewable energy, strong research universities, and growing tech sectors. However, regulatory fragmentation threatens to undermine these natural advantages. Companies evaluating where to locate AI operations increasingly factor regulatory complexity into their decisions, often choosing states or countries with more streamlined approaches. Agriculture and natural resources sectors are particularly vulnerable. Precision agriculture, predictive maintenance in energy production, and supply chain optimization all rely heavily on AI technologies. Inconsistent state regulations could force these critical industries to abandon beneficial AI applications, reducing productivity and competitiveness. Conclusion The United States stands at a critical juncture in AI development. We can choose a path of coordinated federal leadership that promotes innovation while protecting consumers, or we can allow regulatory fragmentation to undermine our technological leadership and economic competitiveness. We respectfully urge you to champion a time bound moratorium on state-level AI regulation. This approach will protect jobs, promote innovation, and ensure that our region remains competitive in the global AI economy while maintaining appropriate consumer protections through existing and enhanced federal frameworks. Thank you for your consideration of this critical issue. We look forward to working with you to ensure America maintains its leadership in artificial intelligence while supporting the economic prosperity of our states and communities. Sincerely, Aaron Klein, Contio (Idaho) Scott Brown, CEO of Sterling Urgent Care (Idaho) Todd Cranney, Managing Partner of Riverwood Strategies (Idaho) William Junkermier, Vice President at Cerium Networks (Montana) John Otter, Board member of Simplot (Idaho) Tom Power (Washington) Julie Shiflett, Founder of Northwest CFO (Idaho) Russ Stromberg (Idaho)

Government cannot condition the benefit of free public education on a requirement that threatens a family's religious beliefs, the Supreme Court said in a landmark decision on Friday. Justices ruled 6-3 in Mahmoud v. Taylor  that public school districts cannot prevent families from opting out of lessons or events they find sexually explicit and inappropriate. In this case, Dr. Amina Mahmoud, a parent and educator, challenged a school district’s refusal to accommodate her request to exempt her child from a mandatory curriculum she believed violated her family's deeply held moral and religious beliefs. The district argued that standardized education mandates required uniformity in instruction, while Mahmoud maintained that her rights as a parent were being unconstitutionally overridden. The court sided with parents. Justice Samuel Alito wrote: "We hold that the parents who sought to have their children opt out of the storybooks are likely to succeed on their claim that the Board’s policies unconstitutionally burden their religious exercise. We have long recognized the rights of parents to direct the religious upbringing of their children. And we have held that those rights are violated by government policies that substantially interfere with the religious development of children." Today's ruling comes during the same month that we celebrate the 100th anniversary of the landmark decision Pierce v. Society of Sisters . In that case, the U.S. Supreme Court unanimously ruled that "the child is not the mere creature of the State." The ruling was monumental because it affirmed parents' rights to direct their own child's education, protected private and religious schools, and led to the movement of education choice that is helping so many children today. The decision in Mahmoud v. Taylor will impact families in states like Washington, where policymakers have sought to make it more difficult for parents to exercise their rights. It is parents, rather than the government, who are best suited to decide their child's educational needs.

Through social media, online platforms, and ever-present digital devices, parents today are up against a tidal wave of risks that can harm their children. There are so many dangers in the technology world, including cyberbullying, “harmful materials,” as well as the known addictive nature of social media. Make no mistake, online apps can be amazing tools, resources, and opportunities for every generation to pioneer the next technological advancement, but dangers are around every terabyte of data. Empowering parents with the right tools and resources to navigate this complex environment is key to garnering the benefits while mitigating the risks. Digital parenting tools matter more than just monitoring and tracking your child’s internet use, which can be difficult even under the best circumstances, especially when you take into account multiple children and multiple accounts. There can also be a technological learning curve of teaching and equipping parents to make decisions that maintain their family's beliefs and safety standards. Every type of device raises different safety concerns and needs specific measures. State mandates are coming in fast and furious, and state social media regulations are accumulating to address real concerns associated with social media use. For example, age verification laws have had a tricky time passing constitutional muster and have been blocked by the courts in California, Utah, Arkansas, Ohio, and Mississippi. While there is a need to protect children online, there is also an important balance to ensure we do not weaken constitutional rights. There are legitimate questions as to whether it is the government’s job to police the internet or social media.   In Arkansas, U.S. District Court Judge Timothy Brooks found the proposed law was an unacceptable affront to free speech,  saying  that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, even for minimal periods of time, constitute[s] irreparable injury," and that there was “no compelling evidence” that children would be protected by the legislation. A judge in California took the state to task for claiming their speech regulation bill would somehow improve children’s privacy. Judge Beth Labson Freeman  said  that age verification mandates are “likely to exacerbate the problem by inducing…children to divulge additional personal information.” Every time these bills have been challenged, they have failed to withstand even basic constitutional scrutiny. Alternatively, a market-based approach that rewards competition and relies on consumer responses could be the right solution. Not only does this make the development of digital parenting solutions more efficient, but it also helps to keep them relevant and user-friendly. It is important to note that the social media tools available to parents are endless. Our new study ( Parental guide to understanding digital media protection resources ) examines these different options for parents. Various tools will cater to a range of needs, from location tracking to content management, providing parents with the resources necessary to foster a safe and balanced digital space for their children. The choice of tool often depends on specific family needs, whether it's detailed insight into online behavior, extensive content filtering, or simple time management. By combining each of the strengths of these applications, parents can tailor a digital parenting strategy that is both effective and economical, ensuring their children's experiences are positive and protected. Innovation drives the tech market, and developers are continually fighting for consumer attention and market share. The market approach incentivizes “parental control tool developers” to find increasingly innovative and effective ways to differentiate their products as competition continues to mount. This creates a cycle of regular updates that not only improve existing features but also add new ones to handle future digital risks and parental worries. When new forms of online communication develop, those developers could build in ways to monitor them, ensuring that parents have the tools they need to safeguard their children against new threats, such as cyberbullying, on the next round of social media platforms. The rapid change of technology requires equally quick responses, something a market-driven approach is uniquely capable of delivering and can never come from government overseers. If we know anything from family experiences, a single solution does not work across the board for the different needs and values of each family member. The market-based approach offers a range of tools that suit different parenting styles and worries. Depending on what parents want, they can find the tools that best fit those needs, ranging from the least, to the most intrusive monitoring tools, or something that stands more towards teaching digital literacy. For example, some families may want something with more location tracking and geofencing features, while others may want better web filtering. If you look at the market, there are specific apps that focus on one aspect of control, or you can get suites that provide a wider selection of applications. Competition can help make parental control tools more affordable and accessible to a wider variety of families. The availability of free versions and starter plans permits some degree of parental control without necessarily spending money, so that families can get basic features and upgrade them, as needs and income change. This tiered approach creates the best route for parents in making their access much easier for their families, as well as creating pressure on companies as the average price point and clear value proposition per family. There is no silver bullet when it comes to completely securing a child's digital experience; a combination of market-driven solutions and engaged parenting is key to managing the challenges posed by the digital world. Ultimately, creating an environment of trust and open dialogue about digital use is crucial for helping children navigate online spaces safely and responsibly. As digital technologies continue to evolve, we must also evolve our strategies for managing and protecting our children's online engagement with these tools.

Congress is currently debating many important issues as part of the “Big Beautiful Bill” (BBB). One very concerning proposal that may be flying under the radar compared to the other provisions is a section in the House version of the BBB that would impose a 600% tax increase on charitable foundations. Thankfully, this massive tax increase is not included in the Senate version. As explained by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation : “Federal law requires grantmaking foundations to pay out 5% of their assets each year, to pay full income tax on unrelated business income (UBI), and to pay a 1.39% federal tax on investment income. OBBBA adds some well-crafted reforms (a floor to corporate charitable contributions, and closing some loopholes on UBI) but it would convert this flat tax to a progressive one based on asset size, where larger foundations pay a higher tax rate up to 10%. This tax increase will have unintended consequences, sweeping thousands of community and faith-based foundations into its scope. Large and bad are not the same thing (particularly when it comes to charitable endeavors). The Senate should avoid setting a precedent for wealth taxes and remove this tax increase.” Idaho State Senator Julie VanOrden recently wrote an op-ed  warning of the possible consequences of this tax increase on the Gem State. She said: “Idaho’s broader charitable ecosystem is equally essential. The Idaho Community Foundation has distributed more than $177 million in grants across all 44 counties. This year’s Idaho Gives campaign alone raised over $5 million for local nonprofits. These organizations thrive not because they have to, but because they choose to give. They are on a mission to serve our communities and the most vulnerable among us. Taxing that generosity is not only shortsighted; it’s self-defeating.” Mountain States Policy Center agrees that this tax increase is the wrong approach. That is why we joined a coalition letter on June 23 to House leadership,  encouraging them to remove this massive tax increase on charitable foundations from the BBB as the Senate wisely did. That coalition letter says (in part): "The draft Senate bill rightly eliminates the private foundation tax increases included in the House version of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). The House-passed bill would raise taxes on charities by more than 600%, allowing the IRS to take nearly $16 billion from private charitable foundations that would otherwise help improve the lives of many Americans. Countless programs and services that provide for the needs of people in every state are funded by the generosity of private citizens. Without them, we would see more Americans reliant on government, which ultimately costs us all more for what is often an inefficient bureaucratic solution." The letter continues: " Charitable giving helps form the bedrock of a resilient America by supporting organizations committed to creating a stronger, healthier society where every person has the opportunity to thrive. We support our nation’s long history of encouraging private initiative and generosity that benefits the common good, and we will work to advance conservative and free market policies that continue this legacy. "   Congressional leaders plan to vote on the final version of the BBB before the 4th of July. There is nothing beautiful about imposing a big 600% tax increase on charitable foundations. Let’s hope we’re also celebrating the defeat of this misguided tax increase when the fireworks go off on Independence Day.

The Wyoming Education Association’s (WEA) lawsuit  against school-choice legislation reveals its hostility to children, families and education freedom. The timing of it is particularly egregious, coming two weeks before money from the expanded Education Savings Account (ESA) program was to be distributed by the state to parents and used for tuition, homeschooling, curriculum and other expenses for the upcoming school year. Schools, in particular, will be hit hard by the suit. Those that are expecting payments from parents receiving the $7,000 ESA now won’t have money to hire teachers and prepare classrooms at a pivotal time. As Superintendent of Public Instruction Megan Degenfelder told Cowboy State Daily recently , “ Left wing lawfare is what they do… But what deeply troubles me is the timing. The Education Savings Account program became law last year, with some changes made this year. To wait until two weeks before the funds are to begin distribution to ask for an injunction is devastating to the nearly 4,000 Wyoming families that have signed up for the program and the many service providers that are counting on those families. This is reckless and our Wyoming children are the collateral damage." Thankfully, there is a vast body of legal precedent that supports an ultimate victory for the ESA legislation and the nearly 4,000 families seeking to help their children reach their highest potential outside of traditional public schools. The WEA claims the legislation violates the Wyoming Constitution’s requirement to provide a “complete and uniform education,” and argues that it means the state should only fund public schools and nothing else. But as research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows, “Uniformity Clauses, however, were never intended to be a ceiling or limitation on creativity. Instead, they were simply meant to ensure there was a floor.” Plus, the U.S. Supreme Court has weighed in on this issue. For example, in 2002, the Supreme Court ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris  that governments may fund any school, including religious ones, as long as it was on a voluntary basis. In 2021, it ruled in Carson v Makin  that Maine couldn’t stop religious schools from receiving tuition assistance as it violated parents’ right to Free Exercise under the First Amendment. State court decisions across the country have also bolstered school choice programs. In 2022, in a similar case dealing with ESAs in West Virginia, that state’s Supreme Court found, “the West Virginia Constitution does not prohibit the Legislature from enacting the Hope Scholarship Act in addition to providing for a thorough and efficient system of free schools. The Constitution allows the Legislature to do both of those things.” Like the WEA, opponents of ESAs in West Virginia argued that public schools would be hurt by students exiting to private schools and homeschooling. But as evidence in Arizona shows, the academic success of public school students improved even as thousands left public school systems for other options. The state has even saved  money in the process. In providing ESAs, Wyoming is not funding religious schools. It is instead allowing parents to use the money already set aside for their child or children’s education to choose how to best allocate it. In essence, ESAs place parents on the same footing as the WEA as arbiters of what constitutes a good education. They do not create a new system. Instead, they simply redistribute power from the union alone to parents throughout the state. Interest in the case is so strong that on June 20, the Partnership for Educational Choice , a collaboration between nonprofits EdChoice and the Institute for Justice, filed a motion to intervene  in the WEA’s case against the state. It represents two Wyoming families, one in Casper and one in Cody, that have applied for the ESA program and want to be included as defendants in the case, given how essential they find the funding to the educational success of their children.  Realizing the individual needs and different learning styles of children, including those with special needs, learning disabilities and other issues, it is not only unfair of the WEA to sue, but cruel. Just as other judges have done across the country, the court should quickly decide in favor of the thousands of families eager to pursue an education option that best suits their children.