Wyoming residents are speaking loudly in support of school choice. In the first two weeks that residents could apply to receive $7,000 allotment per student under the Steamboat Legacy Scholarship Act--signed into law March 4 -- the Wyoming Department of Education received 3,484 applications, which includes 164 for Pre-K. Wyoming is one of multiple states this year, including Tennessee and Texas,  that enacted education savings accounts to give parents more choice about where and how to educate their children. Other school choice options were also adopted nationally this year like Idaho’s new education choice tax credit. Under Wyoming’s law, parents can use the money for tuition and fees at a private school, costs for college admission tests and AP exams, tutoring services, textbooks and curriculum for homeschooling and other expenses. As part of the program, children must take core subjects and take annual state or nationally recognized assessments. The state is one of 35 nationally plus Washington, D.C., that have some form of educational choice. If the Republicans’ “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” passes the Senate in Congress, state residents will have more opportunities to apply for scholarships. The tax and spending legislation would create a nationwide scholarship program to provide money to families in all 50 states. Similar to the state program, it allows parents to use scholarships for private or parochial school tuition, books, tutoring, online classes and other expenses. If passed, it would create $5 billion annually in tax credits for those who donate to scholarship programs. This should encourage those interested in starting alternative schools to prepare to launch. The Wyoming Department of Education is crafting a certification process and will publish it here  when complete. It should also encourage parents who have wanted to home school but didn’t think they could afford it to reevaluate their budgets and priorities. And hopefully it will also spur more people and businesses in Wyoming to consider giving to nonprofit scholarship organizations on principle and for the potential tax benefit. The goal should be to create alternatives where students thrive regardless of their skin color or economic background. The inaptly named Wyoming Education Association, which advocates for greater public school funding – not educational achievement, has criticized the legislation and says it will “ disproportionately harm rural students and communities ” by taking money away from local public schools, as if they are the only appropriate way to educate children. As the number of people applying for scholarships shows, parents don’t think so. Neither do scores from the National Assessment of School Progress, which show that the majority of 4th and 8th graders in Wyoming are not proficient in math and reading. The on-time high school graduation rate has remained about 80 percent, as it has since the 2015-2016 school year. That is lower than the nation’s average of 87 percent, but the bigger question is what do those students who graduate actually know? Nationally, 18 percent of students entering four-year institutions after high school need to take remedial classes. The percentage soars to 48 percent at two-year institutions, according to The National Center for Education Statistics . Remedial courses don’t count toward graduation. According to the 2022 Post-Secondary Education College Readiness Research report  on Wyoming students, “Researchers found that 45.8% of (all) the degree seeking students were enrolled in developmental coursework. Furthermore, we determined that these students were less likely to successfully complete degree programs and coursework and more likely to drop out.” When broken down by institution, the study found that 20.5% of University of Wyoming students were not college ready and 51.7% of students enrolled at Wyoming community colleges were not college ready. Those statistics make it imperative to improve K-12 outcomes in Wyoming. And as research  from Mountain States Policy Center shows, education-freedom opportunities like the Steamboat Scholarships boost both student achievement and public school performance. May this new era of education choice in Wyoming and throughout the United States renew our commitment as a nation to put students, not systems, first.

Montana Governor Greg Gianforte recently signed America’s first law that protects the right to use computing power , such as blockchain nodes, distributed storage, and AI modeling on private property unimpeded by government overreach. This is great news for innovation, property rights, and economic freedom. "Montana is standing up for freedom and innovation," said Governor Gianforte . "With this law, we're protecting Montanans' right to build, compute, and innovate on their own property without unnecessary interference." At its heart, the Right to Compute Act protects everyone from excessive local ordinances and regulations aimed at curbing how anyone, individual or business, uses their personal computers, servers, or other hardware on their own property. There is a clear and bright line: as long as you’re not harming others or abusing the public infrastructure, the government has no business in how you utilize your computing power. The act specifies that any restrictions on the use of computational resources must be "demonstrably necessary and narrowly tailored to fulfill a compelling state interest in public health or safety." “The Right to Compute Act ensures that Montanans’ rights to free expression and property are protected regardless of whether they are exercised with traditional means or modern computational tools,”  said Tanner Avery, Policy Director of the Frontier Institute.  “This bill will help position Montana as a world-class destination for AI and Data Center investment.” By limiting governmental restrictions, the act prevents excessive local ordinances that could hinder the use of personal computational resources. Additionally, the act protects against regulations that might target specific computing activities, such as cryptocurrency mining, under the “mask” of environmental or zoning concerns. As stated by RightToCompute.ai , “A computer, like the slide rule and abacus before it, is a technological extension of the human capacity to think, a fundamental human right.” It’s a baseline principle that should be obvious, though regulators in states like New York  and California have already started to target certain kinds of computing  (such as crypto mining) on the grounds of environmental or zoning concerns. Montana is taking the opposite track and opting to guard technological freedom rather than crushing it. AI, blockchains, and decentralized networks are more than just tech fads, they’re the basis of the incoming technological revolution. By enshrining a right to compute in law, Montana is making sure it won’t be left behind in that future. Viewed up close, there is a clear opening for Montana’s neighbors in the Mountain States, Idaho and Wyoming among them, to follow Montana’s lead. Including a broader swath of people in the tech economy, with the opportunity to benefit from their own work, is a principle worth protecting. States that advertise support for innovation, property rights, and economic freedom should act on those values. Picture technology developers being able to build without obtaining permission, when operating a data center in one’s garage isn’t a political act, and where the marketplace, not a bureaucrat, decides which technologies succeed and which ones fail. That’s not science fiction. It’s just smart policy. The Right to Compute Act in Montana is an example of how states can look toward the future without sacrificing freedom. It protects property rights, encourages innovation, and sends the message that the Treasure State considers the free market, not government gatekeepers, the most potent motivator of progress.

President Trump recently used his executive pen to advance AI education across the country. Signed on April 23, the “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth,”  Executive Order implements a federal AI education framework for all K-12 schools and more. The President checks nearly every box that proponents of AI education are advocating for. The EO is creating a federal task force, holding student competitions, fostering industry collaboration, and fast-tracking grant programs. According to the AI education EO: "To ensure the United States remains a global leader in this technological revolution, we must provide our Nation’s youth with opportunities to cultivate the skills and understanding necessary to use and create the next generation of AI technology. By fostering AI competency, we will equip our students with the foundational knowledge and skills necessary to adapt to and thrive in an increasingly digital society." A high-level White House Task Force on AI Education will be led by Michael Kratsios, director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy. The task force also consists of cabinet members and agency heads from the Departments of Education, Labor, Energy, Agriculture, and the National Science Foundation. Its role is to organize national AI education efforts. The order specifies that federal agencies will work with industry, academic researchers, and nonprofits to create online materials that will help teach K–12 students the basics of AI literacy and critical thinking. A national contest will be used to promote and showcase student and educator AI successes, advancing technology and spurring cross-sector collaboration. Idaho, Washington, Montana, and Wyoming all have something different to offer to the national conversation about AI education, and all have something to gain from the federal executive order. Each state has its challenges, but the opportunity is the same: Equip students to go from being tech consumers to tech creators in the AI-driven economy. By matching the national strategy, states throughout our region can make the most of this federal push in some very specific and important ways. Idaho can take advantage of federal dollars to boost its already strong STEM programs and give more rural educators AI teaching tools. Washington has an opportunity to turn its tech-sector supremacy into in-classroom success, establishing more effective collaboration between industry and public education through partnership, apprenticeship, and early career pipelines. Montana, with AI integration, can empower its distance learning architecture and level the playing field so rural students have access to the same advanced tools that urban students do. Wyoming has the opportunity to integrate AI literacy throughout its expanding career and technical education pathways, which have the potential to not only prepare students for college but also high-skill, high-wage jobs in an ever-changing workforce. The Executive Order on AI education acknowledges the need to get the next generation ready for a future where AI is central. The Mountain States region could extract great value by supporting the effort and ensuring that its youth are not only technology consumers, but also technology creators and leaders in the AI-fueled world.

Like an aggressive hog in the show ring, U.S. trade policy is attacking every other participant for existing near its space. For anyone who has ever watched a hog show with an aggressive hog, there are no winners or losers in the fights, just a bunch of bruised and annoyed animals. Since January, U.S. trade policy has been fixated on tariff tax increases, compelling consumers and trade partners to leave the ring bruised and annoyed.   These tax increases are not a strategic tool but simply fuel volatility. In the short term, this policy is not beneficial to America, especially American farmers. Though we may say, “To the victor go the spoils,” the only thing agriculture wins from a trade war of this scale and strategy is spoilage, as perishable products wait for an end destination. Just look at Idaho’s experience with reciprocal tariffs during the first Trump administration. There were a couple of short-term brags, but the failures are still accumulating costs.   In 2018, the threat of tariffs leveraged small improvements in trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, Japan, and China and motivated partners to the negotiating table for a few Idaho products, like potatoes. But most commodities, including potatoes, paid the million-dollar price tag of retaliatory tariffs. The dairy industry faced significant price cuts, resulting in direct payments to dairies. Wheat also became less competitive on the global market due to retaliatory tariffs, losing market share to competitors, which takes years to regain.   Though the president claimed that China paid the tariff bill on products like steel, aluminum, washing machines, solar panels, and other goods, it was retailers and consumers  who absorbed the tax on goods. But despite millions of Americans paying this tax increase, it wasn’t consumers who saw rebates. A few farmers with political leverage snagged 92% of the tariff revenue into relief payments, providing another revenue stream to fuel the unprecedented farm aid, but the relief wasn’t consistent or enough to make up for the trade war damage. This history is likely to be repeated with the President’s new, larger Trade War.     But here’s the frustration: it wasn’t only farmers who were hurt during the trade wars. Main Street USA was damaged significantly as businesses using tariffed goods lost sales, and the entire agricultural supply chain saw economic impacts, including job losses and costs to the average household of at least $300 .   A 2024 study  concluded that despite claims to help the American heartland, the 2018-2019 tariffs failed to provide relief. Import tariffs had “neither a sizable nor significant effect on US employment in regions with newly-protected sectors [and] by contrast had clear negative employment impacts, particularly in agriculture.”   With Idaho’s cash crop receipts down 6 percent  year-over-year in 2024 and the state’s growing export markets ( 14% increase YOY ), market instability from the trade war will be damaging. Idaho haystacks from 2024 are still unsold, while export-focused hay presses turn off machines and lay off workers . Wheat piles sit waiting for movement to ports as the new crop approaches harvest, because planting decisions were made last fall. Most Idaho commodities , like dairy, meat, and potatoes are feeling the effects of instability.   Though the current economic instability will hurt Idahoans, Idaho farmers should have no expectation that any relief packages targeted at agriculture will overpower the economic losses from another trade war. Idaho received 1.4 percent of total government payments to agriculture in 2020, and what was received was pennies on the dollar for industries facing losses.   Farming’s annual production cycle leaves little room for market responsiveness, especially when tariff announcements change weekly. Economist Brett Wilder of the University of Idaho said , “ We’re in this window where people are deciding what crops they’re going to plant. People have to make that decision right now and live with that decision through the rest of the year, even if something changes next week.” With the recently announced 90-day pause, Idaho agricultural producers can only wait and see, hoping the glut of products moves enough in the next three months to prevent spoilage of the new crop.   Admittedly, the aggressive hog has reason to be annoyed at some participants, but the current trade tactic is failing American businesses, farmers, and most importantly citizens. Yes, improvements in the trade deficit, protection of environmental concerns and labor reform, and boosting manufacturing and critical industries  are all concerns of many Americans that need addressing. But, as history has repeatedly shown, tariff tax increases will only cause products and work to spoil as America watches trading partners leave our show ring.

In our 2024 Idaho Poll, a plurality of Idahoans said the property tax was the one tax that impacted their family the most. In fact, complaints about high property taxes have led the Idaho Legislature to offer relief - even though the state itself doesn't have a property tax. The vast majority of the property tax burden comes from school districts and local governments, and that's true whether you are in Idaho, Washington or most any other state. If you want to know who is responsible for the increased burden, you may want to look in the mirror. On the one hand, citizens complain about the ballooning rates, on the other, they vote to increase the rate with remarkable efficiency. Consider this week's elections throughout Idaho. More than $75 million in levies from 24 school districts were on the ballot. All but two passed. School bonds were a different story. Three Idaho districts were asking for a combined $150 million in bonds, and all three failed. Whether the levies and bonds are justified isn't the issue. Each community will make its own decisions based on the information it is provided by the school district, local government or taxing entity. Idaho’s property tax burden is budget-driven at the local level. There is no statewide property tax for lawmakers to reduce. With this in mind, the next step for property tax relief should be a focus on spending increases at the local level. One idea to help with this is Truth in Taxation. To bring more transparency to property tax increases, Utah was the first to adopt Truth in Taxation in 1985 . Along with Utah, Truth in Taxation currently exists in Iowa, Kansas, Nebraska, and Tennessee. Here is how the Utah Legislature describes the property tax transparency process: “The basic concept of the system is that taxing entities may only budget the same amount of property tax each year, unless they have ‘new growth’ (not just change in value on existing properties) or go through a very public process of notifying the public and holding a public hearing on the proposed revenue increase. To achieve this, as taxable values change, the tax rate automatically adjusts to provide a constant amount of revenue. When values increase, the tax rate adjusts down to provide the taxing entity the same amount of revenue as it received in the prior year. When values decrease, the tax rate adjusts up to provide the same amount of revenue.” Utah’s Property Tax Division further explains : “Property Tax increases require a Truth in Taxation process of public disclosure. Taxing entities are required to follow a series of date specific steps, including notification to the county, newspaper advertisements, parcel specific notices, and a public hearing, before adopting a property tax rate above a calculated certified tax rate. The timeline is different for a fiscal year taxing entity (budget cycle July 1 to June 30) and a calendar year entity (budget cycle Jan 1 to Dec 31).” Before moving forward with property tax increases, government officials in Utah need to first fill out a “ Tax Increase Checklist ” and comply with the “ Tax Increase Requirements ” details under Truth in Taxation. The challenge in Idaho is how to move forward with future property tax relief that doesn’t rely on state taxpayers subsiding local spending increases. Truth in Taxation could be just what the doctor ordered for Idaho to keep the property tax burden in check.

Nobel-winning economist, F. A. Hayek warned us what happens when we trade process for power. In moments of crisis or uncertainty, free societies are tempted to hand their problems to a "strong man"—someone who promises swift, decisive action when the slow machinery of constitutional delegation feels too unwieldy. Economist F.A. Hayek warned, "The principle that the end justifies the means...becomes necessarily the supreme rule...It is the general demand for quick and determined government action that is the dominating element in the situation." We are watching that impulse unfold in real time, as the executive branch imposes, retracts, and reimposes tariffs with the flick of a tweet. One day, they’re aimed at China’s trade practices; the next, they’re a tool to fight fentanyl, fund tax cuts, or create jobs. The justification shifts—but the power flows in one direction: unchecked. Whether tariffs are the right policy tool is a different question from whether the executive is the right branch to decide when and how to use them. A tariff is simply a tax on imports, inescapably passed on to consumers. Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution says Congress “shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises” and “to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations.” The question is, what are the limits of the authority Congress delegated to the executive, and should emergency powers be used to implement tax policy?   President Trump is hardly the first to flex executive power. President Biden tried to forgive hundreds of billions in student debt by executive fiat—authority the Supreme Court said he didn’t have. President Obama bypassed Congress entirely, reshaping immigration policy through sweeping executive action. For more than two centuries, presidents have tested the limits of their power. Andrew Jackson, faced with a Supreme Court ruling he didn’t like, refused to enforce it. Even Franklin Roosevelt—whose central planning prompted Hayek’s warning—used “emergency” powers to remake the economy from the top down. The pattern is clear: the more we cheer power when it suits us, the harder it becomes to resist when it doesn’t. A free society must  ask: Should one person hold the power to restructure the global economic order unilaterally?  President Trump’s April 2 executive order  declared that U.S. trade deficits “ constitute an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and economy of the United States.” The order chronicles U.S. trade policy since 1934 and argues the international post-war system was built on flawed assumptions.   The result is a sweeping justification for tariff authority—and an unprecedented use of the word “emergency” that has already sparked legal challenges .   In response, the president argued  that judges have no authority to review his emergency declaration.   Tariffs are now portrayed as an economic panacea, but when power is concentrated in one person, there is no one to challenge those conclusions. As Proverbs warns, “ The first to plead his case seems right, until another comes and examines him.”   The executive order conflates correlation with causation, relying on flawed premises to justify a predetermined conclusion. There was no argument, no competing analysis, no hearing—just a decision handed down from the top. In effect, the executive branch launched a trade war against allies and adversaries with no vote, no debate, and no public process. Even worse, proximity to power invites the kind of abject groveling that produces arbitrary carve-outs, exemptions, waivers, and favors. Yes, the legislative branch is messy— but its committees, fiscal notes, and public testimony provide at least some transparency and safeguards against favoritism and corruption. That’s a world apart from one person’s gut instinct  driving tax policy. In response to this chaos, members of Congress have introduced the Trade Review Act of 2025 , which would require the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of imposing tariffs. Without congressional approval, those tariffs would automatically expire after 60 days. Other proposals to put Congress back in the driver's seat on tax policy and limit emergency powers have also been introduced. Mountain States Policy Center recently joined a letter to Congress encouraging action on these constitutional safeguards. These proposals are a necessary reminder: policymaking belongs to the legislative branch. Those applauding the president’s actions because they prefer the results should ask themselves: What happens when the next president uses the same authority for goals they oppose? Imagine a future president declares housing costs a national emergency and imposes a 2% rent cap nationwide. Is that an acceptable use of executive power, or does it depend on whose hand is on the lever?   The glacial pace of our government is a feature of the system, not a bug. Deliberation, debate, and limits aren’t flaws—they’re the point. In fear or frustration, humans prefer to trade freedom for order, process for speed, and law for force. But barriers around power protect us from ourselves.   Separation of powers isn’t a bureaucratic inconvenience—it’s a wall between liberty and coercion. When we bypass the measured legislative process for the rapid decisiveness of the “strong man,” we invite authoritarian rule. Under central planning, economic damage builds, frustration grows, and the public demands even more power in fewer hands—a vicious cycle Hayek warned against. As he wrote, “We shall never prevent the abuse of power if we are not prepared to limit power in a way which occasionally may prevent its use for desirable purposes.” We cannot defend freedom with the tools of central planning or by becoming what we once resisted. A free and virtuous society is not steered by the wisdom of one, but by the knowledge of many. If we fail to limit power when we like the outcome, we’ll have no defense when we don’t.

Congress is currently debating Medicaid reform as part of the 2025 budget package. The stated Republican goal is a continuation of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of this year and need offsetting savings somewhere else in the budget. The original proposal was a $880 billion reduction in the projected increase to the Medicaid entitlement over the next ten years, along with other line-item savings in federal spending. Medicaid began in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society legislation. It originally was a safety-net health insurance entitlement for lower-income patients, the disabled, and pregnant women. Costs were shared on a 50/50 basis between state taxpayers and federal taxpayers. In 2010, Obamacare expanded Medicaid to any low-income, able-bodied adult ages 18 to 64 and enticed states to participate by changing the financial match to 90 percent federal money and 10 percent state taxpayer money. Forty states elected to expand the entitlement, with Wyoming, Texas, and Kansas as the only states west of the Mississippi River that declined the expansion. Total spending for Medicaid was $5 billion in inflation-adjusted dollars in 1970. Last year, spending had skyrocketed to $870 billion and enrollment has exploded to 20 percent of Americans. Medicaid is one of the largest non-discretionary budget items for the federal government and is one of the top three budget spending programs for every state. It is beyond time for Medicaid reform. Spending on the able-bodied adults in the program is crowding out the spending on the truly needy and disabled. This point cannot be emphasized enough. To begin with, Medicaid should return to a true safety-net health insurance plan. Opponents of reform loudly broadcast that over eight million people would lose their health insurance if the able-bodied were removed from the entitlement. This number is absolutely false. The number of people leaving Medicaid is not the same as the number who would go without health insurance. These individuals would still potentially have access to the private insurance market or the employer-paid market. The budget debate has also raised the issue of a work requirement for those enrollees who are able to work. However, even some supporters of the requirement are seeking political cover by delaying the requirement until 2029, when another administration and another Congress could simply overturn the requirement. Also included in the debate are more frequent eligibility checks. The current proposal is twice a year, which should be a very minimum since many enrollees move, enter the workforce, or find other health insurance such as Medicare. One other issue that has been raised in the debate is the nearly ubiquitous Medicaid hospital tax. Many states tax their hospitals, which increases the amount of state spending on Medicaid. Because of the 50/50 match, the federal government then gives states more money, which the states use to give back to the hospitals in higher Medicaid payments. This is basically legalized Medicaid fraud. There seems to be little enthusiasm in Congress to eliminate the hospital tax game. Unfortunately, meaningful Medicaid reform is not being debated in the budget proceedings. Welfare reform in the late 1990s was very successful because it placed limits on how many years people could expect support. Likewise, Medicaid should be viewed as a temporary program and, for most recipients, should be a transition health insurance plan. Medicaid enrollees should have a copay requirement based on income. It is not unreasonable to require recipients to pay a small amount to receive otherwise free health care provided by taxpayers. It is condescending to believe poor families cannot manage their own health care. Allowing them to control their own health care dollars through subsidized health savings accounts or a voucher system would financially reward enrollees for leading a healthy lifestyle and making smart personal choices. Local control of the management and financing of entitlement programs works best. States, rather than the federal government, should be placed in charge of Medicaid. Block grants and waivers from the federal government would allow states to experiment with program design and to budget for Medicaid more efficiently. Now is the time to reform Medicaid and place it on a sustainable trajectory. The current budget proceedings would be a great place to start.

There was a lot of intrigue in Washington state as citizens and businesses waited to see what Governor Ferguson would do with the record tax increases lawmakers sent to his desk this year. Despite speculation that the new Governor may veto these massive tax increases, in the end, he signed them into law on May 20. Though supporters of this nearly $10 billion tax increase package (over four years) will point to many things it's supposed to pay for, the reality is that a significant portion of these taxpayer funds will be redistributed to government pay raises. As reported by the Washington Research Council : “In both budgets, compensation increases for state employees and collective bargaining agreements with non-state employees make up the largest share of the total increases—$1.882 billion (40.2%) in the Senate and $1.899 billion (46.0%) in the House.” While neighboring states like Idaho and Montana spent the year adopting record tax relief , Washington has instead decided to follow the questionable strategy of trying to tax its way to economic growth. Here are the nearly $10 billion in tax increases  Washingtonians will now face (over four years): Business tax increases – $5.7 billion Excise and sales tax increases - $2.6 billion Capital gains income and death tax increases - $655 million Repeal of targeted tax breaks - $385 million Tesla tax increase - $281 million. Expect to see taxpayers vote with their feet in response to these massive tax increases. As warned by the Association of Washington Business (AWB) last month : " It’s difficult to comprehend how state lawmakers could think this is a good time to enact $12 billion in new taxes that we know will hurt businesses, make it harder to retain employees, and raise prices for everyone. It’s alarming, tone-deaf and short-sighted.” An AWB survey of Washington businesses found : "And more businesses say they want to relocate out of state (12% now versus 9% in the winter). Idaho is the most-listed destination for businesses planning to move out of the state. Nearly two-thirds (61%) of those planning to move cite taxes as the main reason they want to leave Washington." Along with the operating budget tax increases, Washingtonians will also be subject to billions in new tax and fee increases for the enacted transportation budget, including a gas tax increase. To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, in this world, nothing can be said to be certain, except death and Washington state endlessly raising taxes.

Note: This is a joint Mountain States Policy Center op-ed with Abundance Institute. For states like Washington, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana, the 10-year regulatory moratorium on artificial intelligence recently passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee represents a once-in-a-generation opportunity. The committee's decision to advance this pause on state-level AI regulations marks a crucial step toward creating the regulatory certainty needed to attract substantial tech investment to our region, diversifying our economies and creating high-paying jobs across the American West. The Western states stand at a pivotal moment. While Washington has established itself as a tech powerhouse, Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana offer untapped potential with their lower costs of living, abundant renewable energy resources, and high quality of life that increasingly attracts talented workers seeking alternatives to coastal tech hubs. What these states need now is 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. The scale of the emerging regulatory challenge is staggering. More than 1,000 AI-related bills—roughly eight every day—have been introduced across state legislatures in just the first four months of 2025. This uncoordinated flood creates precisely the kind of regulatory uncertainty that drives investment away from emerging tech ecosystems like those developing in Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana. Measures like New York's proposed RAISE Act would require qualifying AI labs to hire third-party inspectors under ambiguous rules. If Western states feel compelled to create their own competing requirements, companies would face the burden of navigating different auditors in different states evaluating them on different metrics—directly undermining our region's attractiveness for new facilities and jobs. Even basic definitions aren't consistent across proposed legislation. Terms like "developer," "high-risk," and "consequential decision" vary widely from bill to bill. This definitional chaos creates legal uncertainty that deters the very investments our Western states need to diversify beyond traditional resource-based economies. The moratorium provision passed by the House Energy and Commerce Committee would create a 10-year window of opportunity for states like Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana to develop their tech ecosystems under stable, predictable conditions. This breathing room would allow our states to focus on what really matters for attracting tech investment: workforce development, infrastructure improvements, and business-friendly environments. Importantly, the moratorium doesn't block state efforts that remove barriers to innovation, streamline permits, or apply tech-neutral rules equally to AI and non-AI systems. Our states can and should continue creating favorable business environments while maintaining appropriate consumer protections through existing laws. The pause would also prevent a harmful race among Western states to create competing regulatory regimes, which would fragment our regional market and undermine the collaborative interstate approach needed to compete with established tech hubs. Critics have spread several misconceptions about the moratorium. First, it wouldn't leave AI unregulated in our states. Existing laws covering privacy, consumer protection, civil rights, product liability, anti-fraud statutes, and tech-neutral sector rules all continue to apply. The moratorium simply prevents a maze of new, conflicting AI-specific rules. Second, rather than primarily benefiting Big Tech, the moratorium levels the playing field for emerging tech ecosystems like ours. Without it, established companies gain an insurmountable advantage, while the smaller innovators most likely to consider our states are disadvantaged. Finally, this isn't about undermining states' rights. Our states retain their traditional police powers and can enforce all their generally applicable laws—they just won't be forced into a counterproductive regulatory arms race that fragments the regional market while Congress works on a coherent national framework. The AI revolution presents a historic opportunity for economic diversification throughout the American West. Washington can strengthen its position as a tech leader, while Wyoming, Idaho, and Montana can establish themselves as attractive alternatives to traditional coastal tech hubs. With the committee's approval of the moratorium provision, we're one step closer to the regulatory certainty that will allow our Western states to focus on building the infrastructure, workforce, and business environment needed to attract AI investment. While the moratorium still needs to pass additional legislative hurdles, the committee's approval signals growing recognition that a patchwork of conflicting state regulations would harm American innovation and competitiveness. For Western states looking to build tech economies, this progress toward regulatory certainty couldn't come at a better time. If the moratorium becomes law, our Western states will have a decade to develop coordinated regional approaches that showcase our unique advantages—abundant clean energy, affordable living costs, outdoor lifestyle amenities, and a growing tech talent pool. With regulatory certainty as a foundation, we could market the Western states as a unified, innovation-friendly region. The potential of AI to transform our regional economies is enormous. But that potential can only be realized if companies have the confidence to invest here. The committee-approved moratorium takes us one step closer to providing exactly the stable, predictable environment needed to make the American West a new frontier in artificial intelligence. Taylor Barkley is Director of Public Policy at Abundance Institute. Sebastian Griffin is the lead researcher for the Junkermier Center for Technology and Innovation at Mountain States Policy Center.

President Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) recently that will effectively place price controls on drugs that are purchased by patients in the United States. The EO allows the Secretary of Health and Human Services to negotiate with pharmaceutical manufacturers to obtain the same or better prices on drugs that other nations have. Although the federal government controls the Medicare, Medicaid, and Obamacare health insurance programs, the EO simply describes the recipients of the lower-cost drugs as “American patients.” The EO states, “this abuse of Americans’ generosity, who deserve low-cost pharmaceuticals on the same terms as other developed nations, must end. Americans will no longer be forced to pay almost three times more for the exact same medicines, often made in the exact same factories. As the largest purchaser of pharmaceuticals, Americans should get the best deal.” In other words, the EO has two goals – decrease costs for Americans and make a deal. The penalty for non-compliance is that the federal government would “take additional aggressive action” against the drug companies. Let’s start with some background. The Medicare and Medicaid programs began in 1965 as part of President Johnson’s Great Society legislation. By 1990, Medicare was nine times over the original budget. With costs exploding, the federal government placed payment controls on hospitals and providers and also increased regulations on patient benefits. The Medicaid program began as a safety-net health insurance plan for the poor, the disabled, and low-income women with children. The entitlement has exploded in both enrollment and cost, especially with the passage of Obamacare. It is now one of the largest budget items for every state and the federal government. Rather than enacting meaningful reform to these programs, as well as to our overall health care delivery system, the Trump Administration has targeted drug manufacturers to decrease health care costs. Also as background, the costs associated with pharmaceutical manufacturing are heavily weighted toward the research and development of new drugs. The cost of actually producing the drug is essentially pennies on the dollar. To recoup R and D costs, drug companies charge American patients prices that the manufacturers determine to be reasonable. Once R and D costs are covered, the companies then charge other countries, with their socialized health care systems, basically whatever that particular country will pay. Any money from these other “most-favored-nation” countries is almost pure profit since manufacturing costs are so low. It seems logical that drug manufacturers should charge other countries the same prices as Americans pay. Historically, these other countries have been unwilling to pay higher prices and instead, simply deny their citizens access to those new drugs that bureaucrats determine to be too expensive. With these socialized health care systems, the government controls medical access and benefits, including pharmaceuticals. Of course, at the end of the day, Medicare and Medicaid are socialized health care programs in the United States where government bureaucrats, not enrollees, determine benefits. Hence, the Trump Administration feels justified in its attempt to dictate prices for drug manufacturers If Americans want to continue to have access to new life-saving and life-extending medications, someone will need to pay for drug research and development. History strongly suggests that other countries will not be willing to increase their drug budgets and that relying on them to pay more would not be a successful deal. From a fundamental economic standpoint, the consequence of price controls is to have less of that product or service. Rather than heavy-handed price controls on pharmaceuticals, elected officials should look for meaningful ways to reform our existing health care delivery system to decrease costs.

Ever-expanding bureaucracy has become the accepted norm of the United States government. The administrative state’s expansive entrenchment into the traditional operations of government has led to an unofficial anointing as the fourth branch, with erroneous beliefs such as ‘ they make our lives better’  justifying continued growth. But the Constitution’s guidance only recognizes three branches of governance: legislative, judicial, and executive. Life-changing policies should only come from these three institutions.   In failing to respect this constitutional framework, the administrative state must be reminded of its subjugated status to the executive branch and end the regime of governance-by-regulator. Recent executive orders from the Trump Administration are addressing this lapse in civic education, bridling excessive regulations on the energy sector, and advancing bureaucratic restraint.   This bureaucratic minimalism focuses on the essential processes of government, aligns strongly with legislative intent, and minimizes unnecessary complexity in order to grow economic opportunities. On April 9, President Trump signed two executive orders and one memorandum curtailing gluttonous bureaucratic growth. These three efforts mandate zero-based regulatory reform , overturn unlawful regulations  to align with recent Supreme Court decisions, and eliminate anti-competitive regulations.   The executive branch’s adoption of zero-based regulation  will require 10 agencies and subagencies to cyclically justify regulations from scratch  by inserting sunset provisions into energy codes. Modeled after Idaho’s zero-based regulatory practices, the federal government will benefit from a continual review and update of regulations to keep up with changing needs and technology. As the executive order reads, “Zero-based regulation uses the bureaucracy against itself. If bureaucrats move slowly, the default is deregulation and free markets—not the sclerotic status quo.” Agency resistance and slow response times lead to heavy costs on individuals and businesses. This executive order will force agencies to re-evaluate every regulation, justify its existence, and allow citizens a say in holding agencies accountable to the people.   Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) Senior Fellow James Broughel said , “The executive order echoes successful reforms implemented at the state level, most notably in Idaho, where a zero-based regulation system with a sunset review process enabled the state to eliminate tens of thousands of unnecessary regulatory restrictions and earn recognition as the least regulated state in the nation.”   The second declaration was a memorandum rescinding unlawful regulations under 10 recent landmark Supreme Court decisions. The recent flood of Supreme Court decisions siding with the American people over the administrative state is a result of decades of regulatory overreach. As agencies stretched the enforceable interpretations of the law and moved away from legislative intent, legality came into question. Recent Supreme Court decisions, like Loper Bright, determined the unlawfulness of many agency practices and mandated that agency enforcement align strictly and clearly with legislative intent.   The memorandum directs agencies to revoke any unlawful regulations expeditiously under the Administrative Procedure Act’s “good cause” exception. CEI’s Fred L. Smith said, “This new initiative goes beyond previous orders invoking typical platitudes about efficiency, cost-benefit and ‘outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective’ by specifically invoking ‘deconstruction’ of an administrative state now largely regarded as unconstitutional and irredeemable."   The final component of the April 9 efforts addresses the need for maintaining American competitiveness by eliminating anti-competitive regulations . The EO states, “Federal regulations should not predetermine economic winners and losers. Yet some regulations operate to exclude new market entrants. Regulations that reduce competition, entrepreneurship, and innovation — as well as the benefits they create for American consumers — should be eliminated.”    Recognizing that the American people are more adept than bureaucrats at identifying regulations stifling entrepreneurship and opportunity, public input will be solicited.   Congress is also getting involved in this important regulatory reset. U.S. Senator Jim Risch  (R-Idaho) introduced the "Zero-Based Regulations Act" to cut red tape and improve the opportunity for hardworking Americans. Risch said, “Idahoans are fed up with heavy-handed federal regulations stifling our freedoms.” Detractors of bureaucratic restraint are already fear-mongering, claiming public health and other essential protections are under attack, but British Columbia’s  experience justifies the need for regulatory minimalism. From 1994 to 2001, British Columbia’s lackluster economic growth of 2.6 percent per year (lagging behind Canada at 3.9 percent) motivated the new provincial government to launch the Red Tape Reduction Action Program. Within 3 years of enactment, the province reduced regulatory requirements by 36 percent, resulting in economic growth surpassing national rates by an average of 1.1% per year.     If the poorly corralled fourth branch of government continues unhindered, the result will be economic minimalism, an undesirable alternative. The efforts of the Trump Administration to enact zero-based regulation, remove unlawful rules, and end anti-competitive regulation will work at reining in the overgrown fourth branch of g overnment. As Idaho has already demonstrated at the state level, bureaucratic restraint is the best path forward to decreasing regulatory creep and increasing entrepreneurship and opportunity.

One glaring omission from the state legislature’s recently released final list of topics it will consider before the next session is hospital price transparency. It’s a reform that could save millions, improve the health of Wyoming residents and give consumers power to choose the best health care for themselves and their families. The Hospital Price Transparency Act  (HB 121) passed the state House in the most recent session, but it failed in the Senate. It should be revived next year. Consumers on all sides  of the political aisle strongly support price transparency because it allows them to make informed choices and fight overbilling. Can you imagine shopping at a grocery store with no prices? Or a clothing store, or any business, for that matter? As Rep. Daniel Singh – the sponsor of HB 121 – told the Wyoming Tribune-Eagle, “If you go to the grocery store, you’re not going to check out eggs and not know directly how much you’re paying for the eggs, right? There may be variance in prices, right? But everyone has to be upfront about how much the eggs cost.” A study by the nonprofit Patients Rights Advocate found that hospital transparency saved the State of Montana Health Plan $121 million in 18 months, because it exposed out-of-control overcharging and prompted it to renegotiate prices with hospitals at fair rates. Price transparency will also improve human lives. As the study notes, “Because of the effects incentives have on behavior, price discovery will improve health outcomes and life expectancy. Consumers will know what they’re going to get at what price and act accordingly. Hospitals and health insurers will compete on price, quality, outcomes, and access. When consumers can receive care at market prices and hold hospitals and health insurers accountable, they will stop delaying treatment and get the care they need when they need it.”  Why should Wyoming wait? Who doesn’t support price transparency? Hospital executives and their lobbyists at the Wyoming Hospital Association , because they don’t want people to know how much they charge for procedures or the fact that hospitals around the nation frequently charge wildly different rates for the same procedure depending on the type of insurance a patient carries or whether he or she is paying cash. A 2019 study found that the price for a C-section in Oakland, CA, was 4.5 times as much as one performed in Knoxville, TN; that a common blood test was 25 times more expensive in Beaumont, TX, than in Toledo, OH; and that even in the same region, prices for births, mammograms and other procedures could vary extensively. Subsequent investigations have shown nothing has changed since. A federal rule does require hospitals to post their prices, but few comply. As another Patient Rights Advocate Study found, only 34.5%  of hospitals nationally are fully compliant. The organization analyzed five hospitals in Wyoming – none met all of the criteria required by the rule. Price transparency is especially critical now, at a time when over 100 million Americans are being crushed by medical debt, health insurance premiums are skyrocketing and life expectancy is declining. Wyoming residents in particular are suffering, as the state has the third-highest healthcare costs  in the nation. Legislators should not keep forcing Wyoming residents to make some of the most important decisions of their lives without the information necessary to make the best choice. The Wyoming Hospital Association could also change course and begin advocating for its patients without legislative action. Either way, the Hospital Price Transparency Act should be added to the next legislative agenda to improve the health, well-being and finances of Wyoming residents and the state’s budget.

Idaho was among 17 states that successfully sought a repeal of California’s harmful electric truck mandates, called the “Advanced Clean Fleet.” The original rule from the California Air Resources Board (CARB) would have placed onerous burdens on trucking companies to “phase out” internal combustion engines in favor of electric vehicles – introducing higher costs and uncertainty into the supply chain. Because California’s rule would have applied to out-of-state companies, its effect would have extended far beyond California’s borders. The California Globe reports that 30% of vehicle imports come through California, meaning that the mandates “would be imposed on the entire country as well.” As a result of the Idaho-backed legal challenge, California recently agreed to repeal its costly mandates . Idaho Attorney General Raúl Labrador praised the settlement, as his office played a key part in getting these rules eliminated instead of just letting them take effect. Labrador said the settlement “is a major win for state sovereignty, economic freedom, and the constitutional limits on unilateral regulation.” He also noted in his weekly newsletter update : “California is free to pursue its own environmental goals within its own borders. What it cannot do is transform the nation’s trucking standards by threatening exclusion from its markets. Idaho joined this litigation to defend the principle that policy decisions with nationwide consequences must be made through constitutional processes—not dictated by a single state’s regulatory agency.” Electric vehicles, along with electric trucks, will continue to be a growing share of the vehicle fleet, but mandating a transition while the technology is still in its relative infancy is problematic. Range continues to plague electric trucks  as they carry heavy payloads, and a lack of electrification infrastructure requires massive upgrades from power and utility companies to supply vehicles. Finally, those incorporating electric trucks today cite costly infrastructure, like “behind-the-fence charging,” as the main hurdle to feasibility. State officials and lawmakers should avoid mandating costly and burdensome EV requirements. As prices fall via competition and innovation, freight movers will adopt these technologies voluntarily. Mandating trucks to be EVs may work against the intended purpose and make matters worse. Thankfully, this successful legal challenge provides more time for market solutions to work. The full settlement can be found here .

The State of Idaho and the Trump Administration have taken another step towards advancing nuclear energy research. The two parties agreed to waive the previously established mandate that put restrictions on Idaho’s role in storing spent nuclear fuel. Energy demands are rapidly rising nationwide, and studies have shown that the popular renewable sources of wind and solar can’t reliably bear the load. Idaho and the federal government understand just how important clean nuclear advancement is to American energy independence and dominance.   The original 1995 settlement agreement was initially due to rapid nuclear research around the Cold War. There were lots of advancements happening within Idaho, but after the Cold War ended, there was a national discussion on what should happen with the toxic waste and spent fuel. This agreement set some ground rules for nuclear activity in Idaho and originally aimed to make sure Idaho didn’t become a dumping ground. The agreement made between Idaho, the U.S. Navy, and the federal government prevented the Idaho National Laboratory (INL) from being a permanent storage place for spent nuclear fuel. Stakeholders thought that this struck a good balance between nuclear advancements and environmental stewardship.   This initial agreement was not made with the possibilities of the future of the energy sector in mind. Now, there is a push to transition away from coal and fossil fuels to more “green” forms of energy, but wind and solar are far too intermittent and not reliable. A recent example of this was the massive power outage in Spain  a couple of weeks ago. That country transitioned over the last 15 years from powering 31% of the grid with renewable sources to 57% in 2025. The result left a huge strain on the intermittent "green” sources, and eventually, a collapse of the grid. Multiple regions have also found that during extreme weather events such as hail and wind, solar and wind power simply can’t hold up. Not only does the initial production decrease, but studies have shown  that it has lasting impacts. This leaves nuclear and hydro as possible alternatives to boost baseload power.   This new agreement specifically allows North Anna Power Plant, a Virginia-based operation, to send its spent nuclear fuel to INL for further research. INL is the leading lab in the country when it comes to nuclear research. Its 6,400 employees work in Twin Falls to diligently perform groundbreaking research in fission power. The INL will look at the nuclear fuel cycle, electrochemistry, and fueling options to better serve the 93 plants around the country that produce roughly 50% of the nation’s carbon-free electricity.   Idaho Governor Brad Little celebrated the waiver saying,  “ The collaborative effort between the State of Idaho, the U.S. Department of Energy, and the Idaho National Laboratory showcases our commitment to advancing nuclear energy research while upholding the goals of the 1995 Settlement Agreement. We are proud to support innovation in nuclear energy that will support national security and energy independence into the future.”    Chris Wright, the U.S. Secretary of Energy said,   “Idaho National Laboratory is DOE’s lead lab for nuclear energy research and development, and it is critical that we continue to grow this research capacity and maintain American competitiveness. This agreement between the State of Idaho and DOE ensures the lab can continue its cutting-edge research to advance nuclear technology, helping to meet President Trump’s commitment to unleash American energy dominance.”   The director for the INL, John Wagner, commented ,   “As the nation’s center for nuclear energy research and development, we look forward to utilizing our unique facilities and expertise to support this critical national need. We are thankful to the Department of Energy and the state of Idaho for entrusting us with the safe and secure execution of our vital mission.”    This waiver comes right after Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming teamed up to collaborate in advancing nuclear energy infrastructure in late April. The recent memorandum of understanding between the states takes multiple angles at progressing nuclear energy. It links up all of the states’ universities, labs, and industry partners together, along with the INL, to advance this baseload clean power source of the future. It also focuses on working on advocating for private investment and innovation, successfully navigating the regulatory system, and ensuring that the environment stays protected.   Utah Governor Spencer Cox said,   “The West will lead the next chapter of energy abundance and American prosperity. Today, we brought together industry leaders, investors, and policymakers to chart the course for nuclear energy. Our new compact strengthens our shared commitment to aggressively pursue more affordable, reliable energy across state lines.”   In Kuna, Idaho alone, Meta is building a nearly 1 million square foot data center , and Diode Ventures is expected to invest at least $1 billion in their data center complex . Idaho has proven to be a fantastic location for these centers. The Gem State has affordable energy and wants to make sure these new companies don’t run into problems straining the local energy grid. A prudent way to accommodate this new business is by investing in nuclear advancements, which is exactly what this new waiver agreement does.   This research will help support the existing U.S. nuclear reactors, which make up nearly 20% of the nation’s overall electricity base. Idaho’s collaboration with neighboring states and the federal government should prove to be effective. The country is searching for power sources to meet the energy and environmental demands of the future. Idaho and the federal government believe that they have found the answer and will continue to invest in nuclear energy.

Idaho’s housing policy is getting a much-needed renovation, and some of the first demo days occurred during the session. With the approval of Senate Bill 1164  requiring a 10-day notice of completed applications, the Idaho legislature made it clear it is focused on removing unwanted obstacles to increasing the housing supply. The legislature is also working on a building plan to increase the housing supply with the Senate’s Concurrent Resolution 103 , which formed a committee focused on housing policies.   Senate Bill 1164 delivered the first demolition to unwanted bureaucratic features of the construction industry. All housing plans must go through a permitting process to ensure the work meets minimum safety standards for construction. Unfortunately, in many localities across the nation, the permitting times are slow and expensive, leading to work delays and increased housing costs. SB 1164 requires local governments processing residential building permits to increase transparency of the permitting process and provide notice if an application is incomplete in a timely 10-day manner.   Removing some of the construction-industry-related red tape is a noteworthy effort and SB 1164  takes some initial steps in removing this unwanted façade. However, more steps should be taken to completely demolish the unhelpful and encumber some bureaucratic maze facing builders. Florida is an excellent example of the next steps Idaho could take to ensure that local governments have an interest in being held accountable to these laws. Florida enacted a fiscal consequence on local jurisdictions not processing permits in a timely manner, and the permitting delays were resolved in some counties within months of enactment.   This is a possible solution that the legislature’s interim committee  can look at as part of Concurrent Resolution 103. The charge of the committee is to undertake and complete a study of state and local land use regulations and their impact on housing supply. The members of the 2025 Land Use and Housing Study Committee include: Sen James W. Woodward (Co-Chair), Sen. Todd M. Lakey, Sen. Alison Rabe (bill sponsor), Rep. Jordan Redman (Co-Chair), Rep. Kyle Harris, and Rep. Theodore B. Achilles.   The committee’s initiative is apparent with the first scheduled meeting announced for Wednesday, May 14, 2025. This urgency is needed because the committee has a lot to accomplish if they are to model the Montana working group that addressed similar housing affordability and regulatory concerns, as stated by bill sponsor Senator Rabe during the committee hearing.   The Montana Governor’s Housing Task Force  was a multi-year effort initiated by Governor Gianforte’s executive orders No. 5-2022 and 3-2023. The final report was presented in June 2024. The taskforce was formed on July 14, 2022 and consisted of members appointed by the governor, including state and local elected officials, state agencies, state boards, councils, and commissions, housing-related professional associations, advisory groups, and researchers, among others.   The first report was submitted in October 2022 and focused on actions the legislature could consider and the governor could sign into law (Phase 1). The second report in December was focused on regulatory changes that could be adopted by state agencies and local governments (Phase 2). The executive order was extended in 2023 in order to “have the Task Force expand upon its work” and was referred to as Phase 3.   As part of Phase 3, committee members distributed various “projects” and determined what was working and what was not working. The evidence was asked to include specific case studies of successful and challenging projects. Through it all, the public was encouraged to attend and participate in the meetings. The task force met 10 times between October 2023 and June 2024, as part of phase 3. The final report consisted of 23 final recommendations.   Any remodeling will start with a plan and a demo day, and that is exactly what the Idaho legislature accomplished this year by addressing this rising concern among Idahoans (now the fourth most concerning issue). Idaho needs changes offering solutions to the ongoing housing affordability crisis by increasing supply and thereby decreasing cost. SB 1164 began the much-needed demolition and hopefully the interim committee will be able to add a solution-based plan for the rest of the process.

When Lander resident Tina Clifford sent a public records request in August 2024 to Fremont County seeking more detailed election information than that had been reported publicly, she wasn’t sure to whom she should send it, what it would cost or how long it would take. Nothing on the Fremont County website even mentions public records requests. Ms. Clifford decided to send it to County Clerk Julie Freese. For over three weeks she didn’t hear anything and emailed her again seeking an update. County Attorney Nathan Maxon returned her email and told her that two employees had thus far spent eighteen hours on her request. That time would not cost Ms. Clifford, he wrote, but the remaining work would be billed to her at $70 per hour with an estimated cost of $560. He requested that she let him know if she wanted the remaining work done. Clifford’s experience is just one of many examples of the arbitrary response times, lack of transparency and clear instructions on how or where to send a public records request in Wyoming. It’s also why the Public Records Act should be overhauled during next year’s legislative session. The current Public Records Act  does require the government to respond promptly showing receipt of the request and to release requested records no later than 30 days after sending the receipt unless good cause exists to extend the time frame. But a court ruling found that government entities may charge a “reasonable fee” for reproducing records – leaving open the possibility that different people could be charged different amounts and that counties within the state could set vastly different fees for the same type of request. That’s why Rep. Pepper Ottman (R-Riverton) would like to see consistency across the state with specifics on how to submit requests, what can be released and fees that are consistent across the state. She’d also like the law to clearly state who is responsible for handling public records requests. Ottman is hopeful reform will be debated in next year’s shortened budget legislative session. Here are some of Mountain States Policy Center’s ideas to strengthen the Public Records Act: Don’t distinguish between requesters. Bad actors exist everywhere and there should be equal treatment for everyone. Have a set fee schedule detailed in statute for everyone. Process large record requests in installments, and cancel requests if the fee is not paid for the first installment. Allow requestors to narrow or refine requests if the time estimate is too long and/or fees are too large. Use the federal definition from the National Freedom of Information Coalition research for burdensome requests. The state’s Public Records Ombudsman could then be empowered to hear concerns from a government entity if that definition has been met. Provide Wyoming’s Public Records Ombudsman with more authority to assist and mediate disputes. Some requests can’t be fulfilled by statute, including an individual’s income tax forms, school and medical records and government personnel files, among others. And some requests require a large amount of time to complete and may not be able to be finished within a 30-day time frame. But both government employees and those requesting information should have a clear understanding of their obligations, fees, timing and how the process is supposed to work.   Having easily understood regulations is no guarantee that the government will comply as the thousands of lawsuits against the federal government for not fulfilling public records requests can attest to. But passing an enhanced Public Records Act would build trust in state and local government. In addition, state and local government agencies would do themselves a big favor by proactively posting as much information online as possible so that they can avoid public records requests through transparency.   Strengthening the Public Records Act should not be a partisan issue. Every resident deserves a government accountable to the people it serves. Legislators should prioritize it in 2026.

President Trump joined with miners, legislators, and stakeholders to announce his Executive Orders on April 18th aimed at revitalizing the coal industry and unleashing the American energy sector. Trump’s action will direct the National Energy Dominance Council to designate coal as a mineral and require agencies to lift all anti-coal policies that add unnecessary restrictions. Additionally, it streamlines the leasing and permitting processes to promote an environment of efficiency and dominance around the mineral arena. Among the reopened leasing programs is Powder River Basin in Montana and Wyoming. Montana Governor Greg Gianforte and Wyoming Governor Mark Gordon were present for the signing of these energy orders. Both of these governors are major supporters of getting the government out of the private sector’s way and letting the free market pave the way in the energy industry.   The President noted , “Already under our leadership, the Department of Interior has already approved the expansion of the Spring Creek Mine in Montana, supporting 280 coal mining jobs, unlocking over 40 million tons of coal. There is more to come.”    Governor Gianforte said,  “I’ll continue to work with the President and his administration to ensure Montanans have access to affordable and reliable energy for their homes, schools, and small businesses.”   Montana has a wealth of energy operations, including coal, wind, solar, and small hydroelectric plants. Its production of coal is the 6th highest  in the country, and accounts for roughly 30% of recoverable coal reserves in the country. Exporting this energy source to other states and Western Canada makes the local economy dependent upon coal mining and production. Governor Gianforte has balanced both lowering emissions and being environmentally conscious, with growing and supporting the local energy economy. He’s launching the “Unleashing Energy Task Force,” focused on continuing to develop a long-term vision and action points for Montana to generationally provide quality energy for states and nearby countries, in turn, ensuring the economy sustainably grows and offers a great way of life to miners and other industry workers. Governor Gordon commented  at the signing ceremony, “This is a great day for Wyoming coal. We produce more coal than any other state in the nation. These Executive Orders will be impactful for our state’s coal industry and will help ensure Wyoming coal is available to help meet our nation’s growing energy demand. I thank President Trump for his work in freeing our country from the unnecessarily burdensome regulations imposed on the coal industry by the Biden Administration.” Wyoming has been the leader of coal mining  in the country since 1986. It supplies approximately 40% of U.S. energy through its top 10 coal plants. The 15 operational coal mines in Wyoming provide employment and compensation to over 5,000 workers and their families. Wyoming also funds its K-12 education through royalties on mineral extraction and power production. As these Biden-era restrictions are lifted on emission standards, Wyoming can take a sigh of relief as its education funding model won’t immediately need to be redrawn. Biden’s orders over his presidency continually added more regulations and restrictions to the coal industry that left many wondering if their way of life was going to become extinct. This batch of Executive Orders also encourages the University of Wyoming’s School of Energy Resources (SER) to continue its endeavors to develop new technologies that focus on carbon capture and conversion. As the government lets academic and free market entrepreneurs lead, innovations will reduce the environmental and carbon impact of coal production. While some have a false assumption that less red tape equals outrageous CO2 emissions, it’s becoming apparent that it isn’t the case. Governor Gordon supports less regulation but is also the Chair of the “Decarbonizing the West”  initiative within the Western Governors’ Association. He puts his energy into carbon capture, utilization, and storage technologies as well as natural sequestration processes to reduce the effects of carbon emissions. Governmental officials, consumers and producers are increasingly paying more attention to the effects of carbonization, and the best path to work on this issue is to let leading experts and businesspeople free to innovate without massive governmental interference.   Coal numbers have been consistently trending downwards  in the U.S. In 2000, coal plants made up almost 50% of U.S energy, while today the statistic is much closer to 20%. The recent measures taken by Trump are incredibly timely because U.S. energy demand is rising  due to data centers that are hungry for cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence. The “Unleashing American Energy” agenda aims to meet these increasing energy demands, improve the local economy, and allow the government to generate revenue through these sectors if necessary.   Numerous coal plants around the country that were uncertain due to previous executive action will now have an opportunity to expand and renew their lease thanks to President Trump’s Executive Orders. State leaders such as Governor Gordon and Gianforte are demonstrating how officials can promote their state-specific legislation, work with the mining community, and partner with the federal government to unleash American energy.

The 2025 Legislative Session is officially over in Montana. Lawmakers in the Treasure State focused on several priorities during their time in Helena, including record income tax relief, reducing business costs with unemployment insurance reform, and clarifying environmental laws in response to court rulings. There were a couple of missed opportunities as well, and although property tax relief bills were approved, more work needs to be done to avoid further cost shifting and to bring greater transparency to why property taxes are increasing. Although not as large as originally proposed by Governor Gianforte , record income tax relief was adopted  with the approval of HB 337 . The various income tax changes are expected to save taxpayers more than $750 million over the next four years. Even with this record tax cut, there is more work to be done in Montana. As noted by the Governor: “The reality is, even after our historic tax cuts in 2021 and 2023, we still have the highest income tax rate in the region and one of the highest in the nation.” Continuing the tax cut theme, lawmakers also adopted HB 210  to reduce the state’s unemployment insurance burden for businesses. These changes are expected to save employers approximately $250 million over the next decade. Secretary of State Jacobsen said: “We’ve had record business growth in the state of Montana under Republican leadership in the last four years. In 2024, we had over 64,000 new businesses in the state. This is just a continued move to have historic tax cuts for Montana businesses and getting government out of the way so Montana businesses can thrive.” Property tax reform was a big focus of the 2025 Legislative Session, but structural changes may need to wait for the next time lawmakers meet in 2027. SB 542  essentially freezes property tax values for the next two years, while HB 231  did reduce property taxes, but did it by shifting the burden to other taxpayers. Not acted on was the proposal for Truth in Taxation  to bring greater transparency to what drives the property tax burden – spending. As noted by  Senate Taxation Committee Chair Greg Hertz: “Unfortunately, all we did was just rearrange who is paying property taxes in Montana.” Along with reforming taxes, lawmakers spent time addressing the state Supreme Court’s controversial environmental rulings . Discussing these bills, Governor Gianforte said: “Last year, the Montana Supreme Court issued a series of rulings that if left unchecked would have impacted Montana’s energy sector at time when Americans have seen electricity costs soar nearly 30 percent in the last four years. This package of legislation reduces red tape and provides certainty to small and large businesses across our state.” According to the Governor’s press release , the five reform bills are: HB 285  - Reaffirms that the purpose of environmental reviews is procedural in nature and is to share information with policymakers and the public. HB 270  - Clarifies that courts may not vacate permits without properly considering a number of factors in law, including impacts to Montana’s economy and the public interest. HB 291  - Makes it clear that the State of Montana cannot adopt air quality standards that are stricter than the federal government’s, except in specific circumstances. HB 466  - Outlines that projects that are exempt from National Environmental Policy Act are also exempt from MEPA, reducing burdensome red tape and potentially duplicative processes. SB 221  - Clearly states what impacts are required to be included in MEPA assessments and directs DEQ to develop guidance for use by state agencies. While Montana's 2025 Legislative Session saw mostly positive outcomes for supporters of the free market and limited government policies, there were a couple of curious decisions. One was the approval of HB 477 to ban Styrofoam products . Another was the failure to advance SB 94 to end taxpayer subsidies of government union activities . When all was said and done during the 85 days of session, Montana lawmakers debated a record 1,759 bills , sending 803 of those to the Governor’s desk. Realizing these are part-time lawmakers who have sacrificed time away from their families and regular jobs, Mountain States Policy Center sends our thanks for their service and commitment to the people of the Treasure State.

School district budgets are a maze of numbers and jargon that most citizens cannot understand. Even some lawmakers have difficulty concluding if a school district is spending money properly. Idaho’s largest school district, the West Ada School District, has a budget that can be found online, but it is hundreds of pages long and includes six different funds and 36 different programs. In Montana, the Billings Public School district is the state’s largest. Finding its budget on the district’s website is nearly impossible. That's why Mountain States Policy Center is proud to release the nation's first Public School Transparency Index . This tool - available online, via download or even print on Amazon - will allow citizens, taxpayers, elected officials and more the opportunity to compare and contrast key data from school districts in the state of Idaho. Other versions featuring data from school districts in Montana, Wyoming and Washington will also be released. "Transparency doesn’t mean much if it’s not understandable," MSPC President Chris Cargill said. "Parents and taxpayers may see this data and conclude their school districts need more resources. Others may see it and believe that not enough is being done to spend money in the classroom. Regardless, the community will have a broader sense of the results being achieved, and what – if any – changes need to be made." One of Mountain States Policy Center's key recommendations is for lawmakers to adopt a Public School Transparency Act - a law that would require all public school districts, both on the first page of their budget and also on the front page of the district’s main website, report key financial data, including: Amount of total dollars (all funds – local, state and federal) spent by the district that year Amount of total dollars spent per student, per year Amount and percentage of total dollars allocated to average classroom Average administrator salary and benefits Average teacher salary and benefits Ratio of administrators to teachers to students Education leaders including Idaho Superintendent of Public Instruction Debbie Critchfield have told MSPC they support the concept of a Public School Transparency Act. “It’s a positive for our schools if the communities they serve understand how tax dollars are being spent," Critchfield said. "Let’s face it, school budgets tend to be complex and this is a step that helps simplify the way they’re communicated publicly.” MSPC's Public School Transparency Index can be found online here.

Washington state lawmakers this year increased the cost to both buy a vehicle and fill the gas tank, adding an additional 0.2% sales tax to car purchases and a $0.06 per gallon tax increase on fuel. They argue the new taxes are needed to maintain highway and ferry infrastructure, yet politicians furthered their efforts to tax drivers and divert a large share of those taxes to other purposes. While an attempt was also made again to tax drivers by the mile to divert money, lawmakers “[waved] the white flag”  on the issue this legislative session. This mileage tax will likely resurface again. The transportation tax bill currently sits on Governor Ferguson's desk for signature. The new transportation spending can be found in Senate Bill 5161 , a nearly $16 billion tax package based on increases in the fuel tax, license fees, and other taxes. The most notable, and controversial, project is funding the Columbia River Crossing, an estimated $5.4 billion bridge connecting Vancouver, WA to Portland, OR. Light rail has been a controversy on the proposal, comprising nearly 40% of the project cost, yet it is estimated to carry just 2.4% of trip demand across the bridge . The Seattle area is facing a similar position, as many officials there support an expensive West Seattle connection that would only increase transit mode share across the bridge by one percent . At a time when DOGE (the Department of Government Efficiency) is in full swing at the federal level, state and local lawmakers are still eyeing big projects that promise to do little. Should the Governor sign the bill, Washington state will continue to be less business and family-friendly than its Mountain States neighbors. Since 1980, Washington state has raised the gas tax in 13 of 44 years, and the state tax on gasoline will now reach 55.4 cents per gallon, keeping it among the highest in the country, even without the added cap and trade tax. This higher gas tax will also be indexed to inflation, ensuring year-over-year increases in taxes are built into the price of gas. For comparison, Idaho's gas tax is 32 cents and Montana's is 33 cents per gallon. Lawmakers also raised the sales tax on cars and recreational vehicles. Even though the state sales tax is currently 6.5% on retail sales, the state also imposes a special 0.3% sales tax rate on car sales for non-highway purposes. Lawmakers increased that special sales tax to 0.5%. Heavier vehicles will also see increases in annual registration fees – for cars 4,000-6,000 pounds, for example, annual fees will increase 36%, from $55 per year to $75. Even if you don’t own a vehicle and use ridesharing services or rent a car, expect your trip to get more expensive. Lawmakers increased the rideshare tax to 11.9%. Other fees, like tire disposal fees, driver’s license fees, title and registration fees, and filing fees, also increased. In sum, expect driving to cost even more time and money in the Evergreen State. While Washington does have immense transportation needs, diverting driver fees to other modes or to subsidize light rail across the Columbia River opens the opportunity for road projects to continue to languish. A recent Reason Foundation report showed Washington state highways ranked 47th  in cost-effectiveness and performance in the country, receiving poor ranks in spending per mile and pavement condition in urban and rural areas. Traffic congestion also continues to build across the state, with Seattle ranking 10th  in the country in time lost due to traffic in 2024.