‘Didn’t hear me last year’: Ada County sheriff criticizes Legislature again
Ada County Sheriff Matt Clifford stood and walked to the front of a legislative committee room in early March. He put his glasses on, then launched into his presentation: opposing a bill to prohibit the concealing, harboring or sheltering of immigrants. It was his second year standing against the legislation.
“I ask that it be held in committee or sent for amendment,” Clifford said.
He got what he wanted. The bill was shelved, effectively killing it for the season. So was a second bill that would have required that he and other Idaho law enforcement apply to cooperate with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement through what are known as 287(g) agreements.
But his opposition drew criticism that Clifford said was off base. Now Clifford is back seeking to set the record straight.
In particular, he is taking aim at suggestions that his opposition to such bills mean he’s resisting ICE. On Tuesday evening, his office put out a frustrated statement in response to the 287(g) bill explaining that he already works with immigration officials and urging those who believe that law enforcement doesn’t want to fight illegal immigration to “get educated.”
His opposition to the harboring bill was rooted in the need for law enforcement to help or talk to people who are crime victims or witnesses.
“The notion that Sheriffs and Chiefs who have stood up against being forced into 287(g) agreements are not interested in fighting illegal immigration is misleading, disingenuous, and flat out false,” Clifford said in a statement Tuesday. “If you are a citizen of the State of Idaho and believe that, I would encourage you to get educated and ask questions of those who actually do this work every day — not those who think they know what we do.”
“The 287(g) program itself is not the devil, nor is it a savior,” Clifford wrote, over a week after the bill went down. “I find it difficult to come to grips with the idea that our Republican, conservative state would seek to force Idaho Sheriffs into participating in a voluntary federal program.”
One of the bill’s sponsors, Rep. Dale Hawkins, R-Fernwood, told the Statesman he did not think what the sheriff said was accurate. The other, Lewiston Republican Rep. Kyle Harris, said “the sheriffs want to criticize everything. That’s their opinion.”
Immigration has become a blazing hot topic in the U.S. as President Donald Trump rode a wave of mass deportation promises to the White House.
In Idaho, enforcement ticked up and ICE agents changed their tactics, including smashing car windows. But in the year since Trump took office, a growing number have come to view ICE tactics as going too far, particularly after two 37-year-old U.S. citizens were killed by federal agents during an immigration crackdown in Minnesota.
Still, Idaho immigration hardliners have doubled down in the 2026 legislative session, introducing a raft of bills in 2026 that aim to do everything from collecting the immigration status of patients in hospitals to requiring every employer to verify the status of their employees. Many, however, have failed or been shelved.
One law enforcement official said officers weren’t consulted on the 287(g) bill. On another bill which police and sheriffs opposed, that would require finding the immigration status and nationality of people they arrest, the sponsor said he didn’t reach out to law enforcement.
In Clifford’s view, the backlash from these “poorly written” bills could be lessened if legislators had worked with and listened to law enforcement on them, he said in a Wednesday phone interview. He recalled a meeting with a lawmaker where he, along with Canyon County Sheriff Kieran Donahue, relayed their concerns. But the legislator told them they’d just argue it out in committee, which Clifford said was a bad look.
“It whips people into a frenzy,” Clifford said.
Hawkins told the Statesman that he met with Donahue and Clifford, who expressed that they did not like the bill. But he said the conversation ended differently, with him telling the sheriffs that he respected their jobs but he would be moving forward because the bill is what the people want.
It’s the second year in a row that Clifford has criticized the Legislature for its work. In 2025, lawmakers passed a bill banning state and local governments from flying most flags, including, notably, the Pride flag. But legislators did not include an enforcement mechanism in the bill, and Boise kept its rainbow banner flying, prompting inquiries to the Sheriff’s Office. The sheriff couldn’t do anything because of how the law was written.
“This situation highlights the importance of thoughtful collaboration in the legislative process,” Clifford said in a statement at the time. “I strongly urge Idaho legislators to work closely with subject matter experts when drafting legislation to ensure that future statutes are clearly enforceable and contain the necessary legal structure to support their implementation.”
Asked about that Wednesday, Clifford told the Statesman: “Well, I think probably they didn’t hear me last year.”
This story was originally published March 25, 2026 at 6:13 PM.
