Idaho lawmakers struggle to pass immigration enforcement measures

In 2024, President Trump won Idaho with more than two-thirds of the vote. Only Wyoming and West Virginia recorded higher Republican margins. Despite these results and Republican control of both legislative chambers, several immigration enforcement proposals did not advance to the governor.

Over the last two years, lawmakers introduced measures requiring sheriffs to enter 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, mandating use of E-Verify by employers, and requiring state agencies to track costs associated with illegal immigration across criminal justice, health care, and public school systems.

None of the bills reached the governor's desk.

Legislative process and industry role Legislative leaders used committee assignments and procedural steps that prevented hearings or votes on the proposals. The state's dairy industry, which has stated it relies on low-cost labor, opposed the E-Verify requirement and warned of workforce disruptions.

A lobbyist for the Idaho Dairymen's Association previously told legislators that as much as 70 percent of the industry's workforce might be working illegally. One state senator who supported enforcement measures received a letter stating that dairies would stop using her husband's business as a motor oil supplier.

That senator lost a primary election after opponents spent $150,000 in independent expenditures, more than four times the amount spent in support of her campaign. Another senator who blocked hearings on enforcement bills received $300,000 in independent expenditures and narrowly won his primary.

Media coverage and legal challenges Local media outlets focused on hardship faced by individuals detained during an immigration enforcement action involving an illegal gambling operation. In a separate incident, a local broadcaster described those who highlighted the immigration status of a driver who struck and killed a young girl in Boise as racist; the driver was later deported to Honduras.

A 2025 state law restricting taxpayer-funded benefits for illegal immigrants was partially blocked by a federal judge, who ruled the state must continue passing federal grant money to a health-care organization serving HIV-positive illegal immigrants.

The article states that immigration enforcement faces resistance from special-interest groups, local officials, and some conservatives who cite limited-government concerns.