In 2024, President Trump won Idaho with more than two-thirds of the vote, making it one of the three reddest states in the nation. Yet achieving tough immigration enforcement remains an elusive goal even in the Gem State, where Republicans hold six-sevenths majorities in both legislative chambers and control every statewide office.
Conservative lawmakers have introduced several immigration enforcement measures over the past two years: requirements for sheriffs to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement through 287(g) agreements, mandates to track illegal immigrant use of public services, and employer E-Verify requirements. None reached the governor's desk.
What the Right Is Saying
Conservative Republicans argue that the failure to enforce immigration laws represents a fundamental breakdown in the rule of law. They contend that taxpayers bear the burden of providing public services to undocumented immigrants while businesses benefit from cheaper labor costs. Sen. Glenneda Zuiderfeld (R), who was defeated in a recent primary, had been outspoken about illegal immigration enforcement and became a target of economic retaliation by dairy interests after advocating for stricter measures.
Other Republicans argue that states have legitimate authority to address immigration impacts within their borders and that federal inaction requires state-level solutions. They point to polling showing strong Republican support for enforcement measures as evidence that voters want action, not excuses about economic disruptions.
What the Left Is Saying
Progressive critics argue that Idaho's experience demonstrates why enforcement-first approaches fail. They note that immigrants contribute to local economies, fill essential workforce gaps in industries like agriculture, and pay taxes despite their legal status. Immigration rights advocates contend that harsh enforcement measures would devastate rural communities and agricultural sectors that depend on immigrant labor.
Some Democrats and immigration advocates point to the economic contributions of undocumented workers, arguing that comprehensive reform rather than enforcement-only approaches serves both employers and workers. They also note that focusing on enforcement ignores the practical reality that many industries have no domestic labor alternatives for certain positions.
What the Numbers Show
Trump won Idaho with approximately 67% of the vote in November 2024, trailing only Wyoming and West Virginia among reddest states. Republicans hold a 28-7 majority in the state Senate and a 58-12 majority in the state House. Democrats have not won a statewide race in 24 years.
A lobbyist for the Idaho Dairymen's Association told legislators several years ago that as much as 70% of the dairy industry's workforce might be working illegally, according to reporting on the legislative session. Idaho's agricultural sector generates billions in annual revenue and remains one of the state's largest industries.
Sen. Jim Guthrie (R), who used his committee position to block immigration enforcement bills from receiving hearings or votes, survived his primary by fewer than 200 votes after benefiting from $300,000 in independent expenditures. In contrast, Sen. Zuiderfeld was overwhelmed by $150,000 in independent expenditures against her campaign — more than four times what supporting groups spent.
The Bottom Line
Idaho's experience illustrates a broader tension between electoral mandates and policy outcomes. Despite overwhelming Republican control and clear voter preferences for immigration enforcement, powerful agricultural interests have successfully blocked conservative legislation through economic pressure and lobbying.
A 2025 Idaho 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 undocumented immigrants. This represents another layer of institutional resistance to enforcement measures.
The Idaho example suggests that immigration policy is shaped not just by ideology or party control, but by competing economic interests and institutional incentives. Businesses benefit from current labor arrangements, nonprofits depend on immigrant populations for funding, while taxpayers bear service costs. Translating popular support for enforcement into actual legislation faces nearly insurmountable obstacles even in the most favorable political environments.