Idaho lawmakers partner with conservative think-tank on immigration bills

(IDAHO, UNITED STATES) Idaho lawmakers are partnering with a national conservative think tank to write and push a new wave of immigration bills in the 2025 legislative session, stepping up state cooperation with federal enforcement and curbing access to public benefits for people without legal status. The Idaho Freedom Foundation, described as advancing “limited government, free markets and self-reliance,” is working closely with Republican legislators in Boise on proposals that align with national conservative priorities, while civil rights groups prepare fresh legal challenges over what they call sweeping attacks on immigrant families.

The renewed push comes after Governor Brad Little signed the Immigration Cooperation and Enforcement Act, known as House Bill 83, into law on March 27, 2025, and backed a series of executive and budget actions to support federal operations in Idaho jails.

“The State of Idaho proudly and unequivocally supports the efforts of President Donald Trump both to increase border security and to ensure the immigration laws on the books are followed. No other state has completed more missions to border states than Idaho, and we have expressed our support for the administration’s decisive action in cracking down on illegal immigrants who pose the greatest danger to our citizens,” said Governor Brad Little.
The law and related policies have already tightened coordination with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and narrowed who can get state-funded services.

Supporters say Idaho’s strategy is simple: use state authority and budgets to complement federal enforcement, and close off public benefits that they argue act as a draw. That agenda is being shaped in part by collaboration with the Idaho Freedom Foundation and by looking to national playbooks from groups such as the Heritage Foundation. Conservative policy organs have encouraged states to adopt tougher rules, and supporters in Boise point to Heritage’s “Project 2025” and related blueprints as models for state-level legislation that they say restores the rule of law. Idaho’s Republican supermajority and the governor’s office have moved quickly, positioning the state as an early adopter of policies once confined to think-tank reports.

House Bill 83 expands state cooperation with federal immigration authorities and curtails access to public benefits for undocumented immigrants, according to legislative summaries and statements from officials. In practical terms, this has meant more assistance to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, including state resources for transport operations, and parallel bills that redefine eligibility for programs long used by mixed‑status families. The Idaho State Police has taken on roles under new transport agreements with ICE, moving detainees from local jails for federal processing. State officials allocated up to $300,000 from the Governor’s emergency fund to support ICE in transporting hundreds of inmates identified by federal authorities for removal, a step supporters argue frees up space in county facilities and keeps communities safe.

The financial and health implications for immigrant households have been immediate. In March 2025, legislators reduced the income ceiling for the Refugee Medical Assistance program from 150% to 133% of the federal poverty level, narrowing medical coverage for newly arrived refugees who have not yet qualified for Medicaid. Then, in April 2025, lawmakers enacted further restrictions barring undocumented immigrants from a slate of services that had remained open even during previous crackdowns. Those now off limits include vaccinations, disease testing, prenatal and postnatal care, crisis counseling, and food assistance for children. Public health workers in Boise and across the state have warned in recent years that closing off preventive services raises risks for entire communities, but supporters of the new laws say the state should not spend scarce funds on people without legal status.

The ACLU of Idaho says the 2025 session produced a turning point.

“Lawmakers launched unprecedented attacks on Idaho’s immigrant community in 2025—leading the ACLU to launch two lawsuits against new unconstitutional, anti-immigrant laws. This isn’t just about policy anymore—it’s about an intentional and cruel attack on immigrant communities in Idaho,” the ACLU of Idaho said in a statement.
Attorneys working with families say clients are skipping doctor visits, avoiding schools and public offices, and moving within the state out of fear that ordinary contact could lead to arrest. Parents of U.S.-born children, they say, are now unsure which services remain safe to access.

Republican champions of the measures argue that state action fills gaps left by federal gridlock and rising concerns over border arrivals. Governor Little has touted the number of times Idaho has sent personnel and resources to assist other states, casting the state as a partner in broader national enforcement efforts. His statement praising former President Donald Trump’s approach mirrors a wider alignment among Idaho Republicans with the national conservative agenda, including policies promoted by the Heritage Foundation and echoed by the Idaho Freedom Foundation. Supporters of these efforts say the goal is to ensure state agencies do not extend benefits that, in their view, undercut federal immigration law.

Inside the Statehouse, the next round of immigration bills is being drafted with input from the Idaho Freedom Foundation, which has spent years promoting conservative governance across budgets, education, and regulation. The group’s influence has grown as it collaborates on bill language and strategy, while Republican lawmakers forecast more proposals to tighten eligibility rules and deepen state‑federal cooperation. Nationally, conservative think tanks have encouraged states to replicate each other’s approaches, and legislators in Boise have acknowledged looking to Heritage’s “Project 2025” and related policy packages for sample language and enforcement models. That cross‑pollination has helped Idaho move quickly from concept to statute this year.

Democrats in Idaho remain a small minority, and advocacy groups have taken their objections to court instead of relying on votes. The lawsuits filed by the ACLU of Idaho challenge the constitutionality of the new laws, arguing that the state has overstepped by intruding into federal authority and violating equal protection guarantees. Lawyers say cases will focus on the breadth of benefit bans and the practical effects on citizens in mixed‑status families, including U.S.-born children who lose access when their parents are barred. Early affidavits, according to the civil rights group, describe families delaying prenatal care and children missing immunizations amid confusion over who qualifies and fear of being flagged to immigration agents.

The legal and political fight has played out against a backdrop of stepped‑up coordination with federal agencies. Idaho officials have highlighted their work with ICE to identify noncitizens in local custody and move them swiftly into the federal system. County sheriffs and the Idaho State Police have been involved in transport and hand‑offs under the new agreements. The allocation of up to $300,000 from the Governor’s emergency fund helped underwrite these operations, which state officials say have moved hundreds of detainees out of Idaho jails. Supporters describe those efforts as a public safety measure; critics argue they encourage profiling and cast a chill over entire neighborhoods.

While House Bill 83 has dominated attention, smaller changes have rippled through clinics and classrooms. The decision in March 2025 to lower the Refugee Medical Assistance threshold from 150% to 133% of the federal poverty line tightened eligibility for newly arrived families who often work entry‑level jobs while resettlement agencies help them find stability. Health providers say even small shifts in eligibility can push families to drop coverage. The April 2025 legislation affecting vaccinations, disease testing, prenatal and postnatal care, crisis counseling, and food aid for children has raised alarms among pediatricians and maternal health advocates who say prevention is less costly than delayed care.

The central political calculation for Republicans is that voters will back tough rules and visible cooperation with federal enforcement, especially given national headlines. Idaho’s recent legislative record places it among the states most closely aligned with the conservative agenda on immigration. The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s role in shaping this path has been prominent, and legislators in Boise openly acknowledge the group’s input as they write new immigration bills for the next session. The Heritage Foundation’s frameworks have also provided language and structure that lawmakers can adapt quickly, bringing think‑tank concepts from paper to statute without a lengthy drafting process.

For families living through the shift, the daily calculus has changed. Community organizers say people who once went to free clinics for vaccinations or prenatal care now ask pastors and neighbors for advice before seeking help. Advocates report increased anxiety, with parents skipping work to avoid checkpoints and postponing school events out of fear. County officials say they are fielding more questions from residents unsure where state authority ends and federal enforcement begins. In Boise, attorneys have organized “know your rights” sessions in church basements, while the ACLU lines up plaintiffs to test the new laws in court.

State leaders, for their part, point to the law’s text and the governor’s message as proof that Idaho will continue down this path. Governor Little’s office has emphasized that Idaho “proudly and unequivocally supports” federal efforts and that no other state has sent more missions to border states. Lawmakers backing the changes say the statutes simply ensure that the immigration laws “on the books are followed,” echoing the governor’s framing. With the Idaho State Police and local sheriffs now deeply embedded in transport and coordination with ICE, supporters say the system is working as intended.

The next legislative session is expected to bring more proposals, with Republicans signaling a focus on closing any remaining benefit pathways, standardizing data sharing with federal agencies, and reinforcing jail‑to‑ICE handoffs. The Idaho Freedom Foundation’s collaboration with sympathetic lawmakers suggests more bills will arrive in ready‑to‑vote form, following patterns seen in other states aligned with Heritage Foundation policy plans. In Boise, committee chairs are already lining up hearings, and the governor’s allies say they expect quick passage on measures that mirror House Bill 83’s approach.

Opponents say they will continue to fight in court and in communities. The ACLU of Idaho’s lawsuits argue that the new benefit bans and enforcement measures sweep too broadly and punish entire families, not just those targeted by federal law. Organizers warn that cutting access to basic care and counseling will have long‑term effects on public health and child development, costs that will reappear in emergency rooms and schools. They also contend that Idaho’s alignment with national conservative networks has left little space for local input from health providers, educators, and immigrant communities themselves.

Idaho’s trajectory reflects a broader national trend in which statehouses take the lead on immigration policy when Congress stalls. With House Bill 83 now law, budget support for jail transports in place, and new limits on health and food assistance enacted this spring, the state has moved decisively. The partnerships with the Idaho Freedom Foundation and the Heritage Foundation have given lawmakers a ready menu of policies to choose from, while Governor Little’s public backing has provided political cover for rapid action. As fresh immigration bills arrive in the next session, the debate in Boise is no longer about whether Idaho will intensify enforcement and restrict benefits, but how far it will go—and how the courts will respond.