In Eastern Idaho, we believe a person's character should be measured by how they live, work and treat their neighbors — not by which political candidate they support. We may disagree around the dinner table, at the workplace or at the county fair, but we understand that disagreement is part of living in a free country.
That is why recent comments by U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan deserve our attention. Speaking at the University of Chicago, Slotkin discussed pursuing high-profile cases against people associated with President Donald Trump. She said she wanted young people considering jobs in his administration to think twice because serving there might bring them “a ton of problems.” She described that intended effect as a “deterrence message.”
Slotkin has since argued that her comments concerned unlawful conduct, not ordinary political disagreement. Certainly, anyone who breaks the law or abuses public office should be held accountable. That principle is not in dispute. The concern is the chilling effect of describing prosecutions as a means of discouraging people from entering public service under a particular president.
When the threat of legal trouble becomes a tool for discouraging lawful political participation, we should all be concerned — regardless of party.
Here in Eastern Idaho, this is not some distant Washington debate. Our communities depend on people willing to serve in government, law enforcement, education, public safety, and national security. At Idaho National Laboratory, military installations throughout the region, our local governments and our schools, people devote their careers to work that serves the public.
Imagine a young Idahoan graduating from college who wants to work in Washington. Perhaps that person supports a Republican president and hopes to contribute to national security, energy policy or economic development. Should that graduate worry that accepting a lawful position could someday invite politically motivated investigations simply because the opposing party regains power?
Now reverse the situation. Would we accept a Republican senator telling young Democrats to avoid working for a Democratic administration because they might face investigations when Republicans return to power?
We should reject both scenarios.
Eastern Idaho knows something about the importance of public service. Our region's economy and national security contributions depend on people with technical expertise, integrity, and a willingness to take responsibility. We want our best and brightest to pursue meaningful careers, not abandon opportunities because politics has become a game of retaliation.
Our children should be taught that serving their country is honorable. They should never be taught that the safest career choice is to avoid serving under a president they support because political opponents might someday come after them.
There is an important distinction between accountability and intimidation. Investigating credible allegations of criminal conduct is a legitimate responsibility of government. Targeting people because of their political associations is something entirely different. The evidence must determine whether a case is pursued — not the desire to send a political message.
This is where history offers a warning.
In 82 BC, the dictator of Rome ordered an 18-year-old to divorce his wife. Her father was on the wrong side of a civil war — the losing side.
He refused and said no to the most powerful and dangerous man in Rome, a man who could have his head displayed in the Forum on command.
He lost everything and went into hiding, sick with a fever, sleeping somewhere new almost every night. Powerless.
His name was Julius Caesar.
His family begged for his life, and the dictator, a man named Sulla, finally gave in. But he warned them the boy would be the ruin of them.
Sulla was right. That boy grew up to end the Roman Republic.
Caesar got lucky. Thousands of others didn't.
Sulla posted lists of names in the Forum. If your name was on it, anyone could kill you and collect a reward by bringing your head to the dictator. Your property was sold off, your sons were banned from public office for life and your family was left destitute.
The point was to scare anyone from ever choosing the wrong side again.
Of course, a United States senator is not a Roman dictator. She doesn't want heads. She only wants prosecutions. Slotkin and Sulla share the same objective that extended beyond punishing individuals. It was to frighten others into submission.
America is not ancient Rome, and today's political disputes are not equivalent to Roman executions. But the underlying lesson remains relevant: Governments become dangerous when punishment is used to intimidate people into abandoning lawful political beliefs or associations.
We should not wait until such behavior becomes routine before speaking out.
For Eastern Idaho Republicans, this is also an opportunity to demonstrate that our principles are stronger than our partisan loyalties. We cannot condemn political intimidation when it targets conservatives and then applaud it when it targets liberals. Constitutional protections mean little if we defend them only for people who vote like we do.
The same standard must apply to every administration. No president is above the law. No public official should receive immunity from legitimate investigation simply because of party affiliation. And no American should be treated as a criminal merely because they served an administration that the other party despises.
Here in Idaho, we value individual liberty, limited government and the principle that power must be restrained by law. Those values should guide us when our party holds office and when it does not.
We should expect better from our elected leaders. We should demand that investigations be grounded in evidence, prosecutions follow the law, and public service remain open to qualified Americans regardless of political affiliation.
Our republic cannot survive if every change in political power brings a new round of retaliation. That road leads to a government in which people serve out of fear rather than conviction, and where political survival matters more than the public good.
Eastern Idaho's answer should be straightforward: debate policies vigorously, expose wrongdoing wherever it exists and hold people accountable through fair legal processes. But never use the machinery of government to frighten Americans away from exercising their constitutional rights.
We can disagree without becoming enemies. We can demand accountability without embracing revenge. And we can defend the Constitution even when doing so is politically inconvenient.
That is the kind of country we should leave our children — and the kind of example Eastern Idaho should continue to set.